Over the last 15 years, federal and California laws have aided older foster care adolescents in completing high school and accessing higher education. Education is crucial for these youths, often lacking family support. Attainment significantly influences stable employment and self-sufficiency. Despite investments, few studies focus on educational impact for foster care teens. Research in three Midwest states showed small differences in employment and earnings between those with no credential and a GED. High school diploma completion offered a substantial advantage, while some college yielded further benefits, and the highest outcomes were seen in college graduates. On average, former foster care youths earned half of their general population counterparts and faced a 22-point employment gap. However, similar education levels narrowed these gaps, with education impacting foster care youths more than their peers. GED completion didn't significantly alter outcomes, emphasizing the importance of high school diplomas. Legislation emphasizing high school completion and college entry aligns with findings. Yet, to ensure sustained support during degree completion, laws might require reevaluation or expanded partnerships. The California Fostering Connections Act extension to 21 might boost college participation, but higher earnings suggest the need for ongoing support through degree completion.

Over decades, rural areas consistently lose younger residents, especially in economically challenged regions offering unstable work. This outmigration leads to imbalanced demographics, with better-educated individuals leaving and those remaining having lower education and incomes. This shift creates uncertainty about education's significance linked to leaving. Retaining youth becomes vital for rural areas. Recent studies suggest schools inadvertently encourage departure by prioritizing high achievers, yet research involving 9,000 rural students counters this. While high-achieving rural students tend to leave, they share strong community ties and similar desires to depart as their peers. Schools aren't actively pushing students away; instead, students' views on local economies shape their aspirations, irrespective of academic status. This emphasizes rural youths' connections and potential retention if opportunities arise. It underscores the need for national/regional policies supporting rural sustainability, addressing the wider lack of opportunities in rural America. It might not merely be local underinvestment but rather a systemic absence of regional/national investment in rural areas.

Year-round school calendars, widely adopted in California due to school crowding, aim to evenly distribute school days. Multi-track calendars, seen as cost-saving, accommodate larger student bodies. There is a belief that redistributing summer breaks could counteract summer learning loss, particularly for disadvantaged students. Research highlights caution regarding year-round schooling. While cost savings are clear, academic gains haven't materialized, impacting high-risk student groups negatively. California showed notably negative effects compared to neutral outcomes in Wake County, North Carolina, where multi-track calendars were used widely. This disparity emphasizes considering demographics; schools with substantial minority or low-income populations may face different challenges. The findings caution policymakers against risking student achievement solely for minor savings. Tailored approaches for schools based on their demographics are suggested. The academic benefits of year-round schooling remain scarce, except for addressing severe overcrowding. Yet, amid tightening budgets, year-round schools are cautiously endorsed as a financial reform, urging further examination and context-specific considerations in policymaking.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) ensures a free and appropriate education for students with disabilities in the US, necessitating services tailored to their needs. However, these specialized services come at a higher cost. To manage these expenses, some states like California use the census funding model, allotting aid based mainly on total district enrollment and a fixed amount per student, independent of specific program characteristics. A new policy brief delves into the pros and cons of this method and discusses ways to address its drawbacks. Advantages include simplicity, legal compliance, adaptability, potential cost-effective placements, and preventing over-identification of disabilities. Yet, there are concerns about inequitable funding, potential inadequacy over time, disincentivizing quality services, and jeopardizing legal protections if students aren't identified. The authors suggest considering adjustments based on regional factors, poverty, disability rates, and monitoring changes to achieve fairness. They also advocate for exploring cost-effective program delivery and weighing alternatives for special education funding structures to better support students while managing costs.

In recent years, budget cuts led to increased class sizes across the US. California notably saw a 20% rise, adding over 4 students per class between 2009–2010. This sparks debate on allocating limited resources, with class size at its core due to its impact on educational costs. Studies on class size effects show inconsistent, modest benefits. Although reducing class size incurred substantial costs in the past, raising it could mitigate harm amid budget cuts. California's prior investment in smaller classes yielded limited effects due to swift implementation. Rising class sizes’ impact depends on implementation; layoffs based on teacher effectiveness might counteract negative effects on student achievement. The debate centers on balancing budgets without compromising student learning, especially crucial amid fiscal challenges in education.

This commentary, part of a broader PACE series exploring school finance, speaks to challenges faced by California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The two biggest problems with the California financial system are inequitable revenue allocations and inefficiencies caused by categorical restrictions. Governor Brown's proposal addresses these issues, but critics argue that the system still has other problems. One major criticism is that there are winners and losers in the system. Under Brown's proposal, the allocations for some districts will look drastically different, with some receiving less than others. This is because current allocations have little connection to the costs of educating students and the characteristics of students and schools. Another alternative is to raise the base so everybody "wins," which would provide more flexibility and a more correlated revenue with costs. However, this system still creates winners and losers because allocations would not be as tightly connected to costs as under the current system. Governor Brown's proposal nevertheless helps solve the two biggest problems with California's school finance system and offers a better alternative to the current financial system.

Governor Brown’s proposed Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) introduces weightage for student poverty and English Learners (ELs). While some categorical programs persist, the formula consolidates other funding streams into the core. An ongoing debate surrounds the inclusion of additional cost factors. States commonly allocate extra funds for special student needs like disabilities, poverty, and limited English skills. Brown’s plan addresses this by providing a 35% weight for low-income students or ELs, with increments for high concentrations in districts. However, there's uncertainty regarding how costs change with increasing concentrations of disadvantaged students. Variations in funding models across states revolve around student needs, grade levels, and demographic factors. Research indicates the necessity of investing in early grades, though consensus on which levels require more resources is lacking. Moreover, adjustments for school size, district size, and teacher labor costs vary widely. While teacher cost adjustments align with mobility and attrition concerns, their direct impact on retaining teachers is unclear. Finally, separate funding for transportation and sparsity considerations are prevalent, but maintaining existing allocations might perpetuate irrational variations across districts. Brown's plan could rationalize transportation funding but may need adjustments for equitable distribution, especially for programs like gifted education and career training currently under categorical funding.

The adjustment for student needs in school funding formulas commonly incorporates categories like special education, at-risk students (often encompassing low-income or those needing remedial education), and English Learners (ELs). Many states determine additional funds for these students through pupil weights, usually a percentage of the base allocation. California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) assigns a 35% weight for low-income students or ELs, with increased weight for higher concentrations in a district. Research suggests poor and EL students require added resources to match peers' academic levels. Studies vary but estimate pupil weights for poverty between 0.30 to 1.22 and 0.24 to 1.01 for ELs. Few states consider concentration factors in funding, though research on peer effects shows the importance of the school's poverty concentration. Handling students in both categories remains debated; some argue they need only the poverty weight. Concerns about funding incentives for ELs' reclassification or abandoning needy students without categorical restrictions persist, but research shows the shift to unrestricted weights coupled with strong accountability might lead districts to find more effective ways to assist these students. Brown's proposed weights, while high individually, might result in allocations similar to states funding these categories separately due to overlapping populations.

In the realm of education funding reform, the debate revolves around how to fairly distribute financial resources among districts. While base revenue per student usually remains consistent across districts, additional funding aims to offset the varying costs of education. California's approach, through Brown's LCFF, uses student weights to consider poverty, language learning, and grade levels. States explore various methods to include cost factors: categorical programs, block grants, pupil weights, and direct adjustments to the foundation amount. Each method has its merits and downsides, reflecting the challenge policymakers face in deciding the most effective route for equitable allocation. The discussion focuses on shifting from categorical programs to weighted students or adjusted foundation levels, emphasizing that such changes could yield better outcomes. However, concerns persist about removing categorical restrictions, fearing a potential loss of funding for vital programs like adult education or arts. The tension lies between local district autonomy and statewide priorities, raising questions about governance and whether setting educational priorities should be centralized or decentralized. Policymakers aim to strike a balance between offering district flexibility while ensuring effective resource utilization, with growing advocacy for an accountability-driven approach over categorical funding enforcement.

The primary aim of state finance systems across the U.S. is to achieve equalization, especially in states with local school funding under legal scrutiny. California’s current revenue limit and Governor Brown’s proposed formula both follow the traditional foundation state-aid model. In this structure, state aid per pupil is calculated as the foundation amount minus the required tax rate multiplied by assessed property wealth per pupil. Determining the foundation amount involves historical, political, and cost-based considerations. California’s current system heavily relies on historical expenditure levels from the 1970s, adjusted for inflation and equalization. Brown's proposal seems influenced by state average revenue limits after budget-induced cuts. Setting the foundation amount based on the actual cost of education remains a point of contention. California’s approach, compared to other states, tends to lag in per-pupil spending despite achieving equalization post-Serrano. States often adopt foundation formulas, aiming to increase spending in poorer districts ('leveling up'), yet California's spending remains lower on average. The ongoing debate emphasizes balancing actual educational costs, political feasibility, and historical context. Brown’s proposed base amounts, while lower than past estimates for California's educational needs, are not significantly different from those in other states using the foundation formula. However, comparing base amounts across states requires understanding that these figures represent the minimum cost to educate students without additional needs or district-specific characteristics.

In the discourse surrounding Governor Brown’s proposed “Local Control Funding Formula” (LCFF), the "School Finance" series aims to dissect long-debated issues prevalent in school finance, exploring known and unknown facets. While delving into specifics of the funding formula in future posts, the series initiates with a retrospective perspective on California’s educational funding evolution. It outlines the simplicity but inherent complexity of the current system, rooted in district revenue limits and categorical aids. Historic milestones like Serrano v. Priest and Prop 13 reshaped the state's funding landscape, emphasizing equity but excluding targeted funds from equalization discussions. Notably, the series emphasizes the evolution towards equitable distribution through foundation state-aid formulas, similar to Brown’s proposed model. It highlights the trade-offs between centralized funding, equal distribution, and local control, presenting Brown’s formula as offering enhanced spending flexibility by replacing categorical programs with cost-specific weights. The series underscores that while California’s move aligns with existing models, empirical insights should guide policy decisions for the welfare of its students.

In examining the state of gifted and talented education (GATE), the impact of financial strains on these programs in California becomes apparent. During budget constraints, districts often slash funding for GATE, leading to drastic program reductions. Despite the belief that gifted students can excel without additional resources, international assessments, like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), reveal American gifted students underperform globally, notably in math and science. This underperformance might stem from the inequitable funding landscape where the average district receives minimal state support ($3.38 per pupil), leaving only a minority with additional funding. Advocating for increased GATE funding seeks to rectify disparities rather than create inequality. The present funding discrepancies result in a form of horizontal inequity, suggesting that access to resources shouldn't hinge on a district's wealth. Encouraging uniform opportunities for gifted students, regardless of district economic status, aligns more with equitable education principles.

California's education funding system, laden with layered regulations akin to geological strata, restricts innovation and flexibility. Governor Jerry Brown's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) proposes a significant overhaul, consolidating scattered funds into a flexible per-pupil grant. This reform aims to empower educators by freeing them from rigid spending rules, shifting focus from compliance to achieving student goals. Additionally, the plan directs extra resources to schools supporting disadvantaged students, offering supplementary aid based on the level of need. Notably, the proposal doesn't reduce funding but allocates more to districts facing greater challenges. The reformation aspires to create a fairer, more efficient, and innovative education finance system, paving the way for a more promising educational landscape in California.

In the post-World War II era, community colleges expanded significantly, initially tasked with providing higher education access to broader populations. However, from the 1970s, fiscal constraints led to reduced state funding, creating competition with other priorities like criminal justice. This shift resulted in declining support for community colleges, contrasting sharply with increased investment in incarceration. The repercussions of this budgetary shift are evident. Recent studies show that while community colleges significantly boosted local employment during periods reliant on state funding, more recent years marked by rising tuition fees and decreased appropriations saw a decline in their employment impact. Ironically, where community colleges maintained low tuition rates, an unexpected inverse relationship between their presence and local employment growth emerged. Despite the soaring demand for community colleges, they face constraints and are compelled to operate with limited resources, compromising both educational opportunities and their contributions to local employment. A recent study advocates for a reprioritization towards community colleges and other postsecondary educational opportunities, urging states to reconsider their allocation of resources to bolster educational access and promote rural employment growth.

In response to overcrowding, LAUSD invested $20 billion in 130+ new schools, effectively easing overcrowding and modernizing infrastructure. Researchers investigate if these new facilities affected student achievement. Elementary students who switched schools experienced increased annual growth in standardized test scores, particularly in language arts and math, regardless of ethnicity or meal assistance. However, this benefit wasn't observed for high schoolers. Those from severely overcrowded schools saw more significant improvements after switching, suggesting relief from overcrowding was the primary factor. Interestingly, nearby students in existing schools also benefited, despite not switching schools, indicating broader positive effects. Surprisingly, construction costs and physical amenities didn't consistently correlate with achievement gains. Moreover, teacher qualifications within new facilities showed minimal influence. The study delves into LAUSD District 6, revealing the intricate changes in student migration and school diversity spurred by this massive construction project.

The educational landscape in the U.S. features a significant number of English Language Learners (ELLs), yet their funding and educational needs remain understudied. Laws mandate providing resources for ELLs, but research on funding for this group is limited. Costing out studies, used to determine educational costs, lack focus on ELLs, despite their exponential growth. Four primary methodologies assess these costs, but they inconsistently include ELLs. Current research suggests states allocate insufficient funds for K–12 education, and ELLs are not adequately addressed in costing out studies. The literature emphasizes the need for adapted methodologies that account for the complex and diverse needs of ELL students. In California, a hub for ELL education, the discussion around a weighted funding formula prompts consideration of how to incorporate ELL needs. Though there's no definitive funding model for ELLs, existing research offers insights for policymakers, stressing the necessity of considering these students' multifaceted backgrounds and educational requirements. Achieving equity in ELL education necessitates refining costing out methodologies to better understand and cater to their diverse needs. Addressing these complexities is essential to ensure ELLs receive equitable resources for an adequate education.