The process of applying and enrolling in college is increasingly expensive and time-consuming, yet students often make less-than-ideal decisions during this crucial phase. Recent studies have shown that students tend to apply to too few colleges, and high-achieving, low-income students often miss out on better-suited options. A new research paper, "Screening Mechanisms and Student Responses in the College Market," explores how seemingly minor factors—such as college application essays and fees—impact student behavior. Analyzing data from 885 four-year colleges between 2003 and 2011, a new study reveals that the requirement of application essays increased to around 57%, while approximately half of colleges raised their application fees by an average of 30% (around $10). The research shows that colleges introducing essays experienced a 6.5% decrease in applications, while a 10% fee increase correlated with a 1% reduction in applications. This highlights that even small changes significantly influence student decisions in the college application process, emphasizing the importance of these procedures for students, colleges, and policymakers.

Education policies often focus on evaluating the effectiveness of interventions without considering their costs. This oversight limits policymakers’ ability to make informed decisions about resource allocation. Understanding intervention costs in relation to their effectiveness is crucial for efficient policymaking. For instance, reducing high school dropout rates, a national priority, could alleviate substantial economic burdens, yet education budgets are limited. Researchers conducted cost-effectiveness analyses on five dropout prevention programs, finding considerable variations in costs and effectiveness. Remedial programs aimed at dropouts were notably more expensive per additional graduate compared to preventative programs, which targeted at-risk students still in school. These findings emphasize the need for cost-effectiveness assessments in educational program evaluations to guide policymaking effectively. Without such analyses, research evidence alone may not provide policymakers with a comprehensive view for decision-making, potentially leading to inefficient resource allocation.

A new study assessed the effectiveness of after-school tutoring programs, specifically the Supplemental Educational Services (SES) under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), within Chicago Public Schools. Evaluating these SES providers from 2009 onwards, the research aimed to fairly measure their impact on student achievement by considering student characteristics and school settings. The findings indicated that participating in SES positively influenced student achievement, notably with over 40 hours of tutoring, contributing significantly to annual student gains. Interestingly, there was a decline in hourly rates among providers over time, which correlated with the district's program, and a clear link between provider effectiveness and the number of students served. Successful program attributes, such as effective oversight, coordination, and cost reduction, were identified and could be beneficial for other districts. The strategies developed could be adopted by districts to assess provider effectiveness and provide crucial information to parents, aiding informed decisions. This valuable data could guide California districts granted NCLB waivers in program development and accountability system design. Similar analyses are underway in the Los Angeles Unified School District, highlighting the broader potential application of these findings.

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.

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.

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 faces declining enrollment in public colleges amid budget cuts, while demanding more graduates. For-profit colleges (for-profits) offer a viable solution. Despite past demonization, for-profits were significant in 2009, enrolling around 400,000 and issuing 1 in 5 long-term certificates or degrees in California. Partnering with for-profits could bridge educational gaps. However, California’s fragmented higher education system needs a unified state-level body to set objectives, assess needs, and regulate institutions. Creating such an entity could streamline education goals and methods. Additionally, revising the federal 90/10 financial aid policy for for-profits could foster quality. Implementing a modified 90/10 rule in California would require at least 10% of students to pay tuition from non-federal sources, ensuring market-driven quality standards. While this wouldn't solve larger strategic issues, it offers an initial step to ensure educational standards while protecting student and taxpayer investments.

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.

Assemblywoman Julia Brownley has persistently advocated for substantial changes in California's school finance system. Previous bills aimed at reform, such as AB 2159 and AB 8, focused on a weighted student formula but faced setbacks due to concerns about effectiveness and the Governor's veto. Her current proposal, AB 18, consolidates school funding into three categories: base, targeted equity, and quality instruction. While considered a step towards a weighted student formula, AB 18 maintains existing funding levels for each district rather than establishing uniform base and weight amounts across districts. The bill lacks provisions for equity adjustments, perpetuating irrational disparities in funding allocation among districts. Brownley acknowledges this flaw but understands the immense challenge in altering the amounts of funds distributed to districts. AB 18 presents improvements in simplicity and flexibility for districts but fails to rectify existing allocation disparities. While proposing a structural overhaul, it overlooks the fundamental issue of irrational variations in funding distribution across districts, which remains unaddressed in the current proposal.