A new study examines charter school closures due to financial struggles and explores funding patterns impacting their viability. Analyzing nine years of finance data from California, it compares spending between charter and traditional public schools. Charter schools, receiving 10% less per pupil in revenue, spend 23% less on instruction and 50% less on pupil support services. They allocate less to administrative costs but invest more in consulting services and operations. This suggests cost-saving strategies such as hiring less experienced teachers and employing part-time consultants. While this fiscal flexibility aids financial stability, it raises concerns. Lower spending on essential areas like instruction and support might affect school quality and academic performance. This challenges assumptions about charter schools' autonomy leading to higher spending on instruction. The findings imply a delicate balance between fiscal flexibility and educational quality in charter schools, highlighting potential sustainability concerns if lower spending compromises student outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

The San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) adopted Vision 2020, focusing on central office support for schools. This plan aims to guide district work through a Community-Based School Reform Model, allowing flexibility in instructional strategies while providing central office support and maintaining accountability. This emphasizes the district office's role in aiding schools' improvement but lacks specific details. Reforming the central office goes beyond restructuring; it demands a fundamental shift toward direct support for learning. To achieve this, a shared theory of action around learning must guide resource allocation. Additionally, enhancing data literacy in both the central office and schools is crucial for informed decision-making. Moreover, differentiating support and building capacities across schools is necessary, acknowledging that capacity-building isn't just one-way. This requires a targeted approach and access to expertise both within and outside the district office. For genuine reform, collaborative learning partnerships between the central office and schools are pivotal, beyond regulatory relationships. Examining the district's improvement vision through a broader lens that values the role of the district office is essential. The success of SDUSD’s Vision 2020 hinges on understanding the larger frame beyond focusing solely on individual schools.

The focus on John Deasy's role as a "reformer" and political alliances obscures the deep-seated challenges facing the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Despite Gov. Jerry Brown's budget showing no severe cuts for education, the district confronts fiscal and demographic pressures that could lead to its collapse. LAUSD grapples with declining enrollment due to shifting demographics, losing over 135,000 students in the past decade, leading to a drastic reduction in revenue. Simultaneously, expenses for special education and healthcare have surged significantly, adding financial strain. Special education demands more costly services, while health care costs have risen by 71% since 2002. While potential state revenue decreases may slightly mitigate the impact, the district's survival hinges on Governor Brown's budget approval and voter support for tax extensions. Historical research shows that past reform efforts in the district faced fiscal challenges, indicating that political maneuvers won't alter this reality. Effective changes in education will rely on hard-working individuals navigating these tough financial constraints, echoing the ongoing struggle amid financial limitations for innovative educational initiatives.

A new PPIC report highlights the challenge of directing resources to needy schools in California. It suggests a weighted-student funding formula for fairer resource allocation, emphasizing equal base funding per student with additional support for diverse needs. Yet, the short-term hurdle lies in the political demand to maintain current district funding levels, hindering policy changes. Proposals ensure no district loses funds during reforms, aiming to minimize resistance. However, with statewide financial setbacks, debates arise over defining "hold harmless"—maintaining reduced funding or restoring previous levels. Governor-elect Jerry Brown's backing for this model improves the likelihood of reform, but achieving equitable support for vulnerable students faces political negotiation, making the realization of improved education funding for those in need a distant objective.

In education polling, people often rate their local schools highly but give lower scores to the overall public school system. This gap in trust between citizens and the broader system poses a significant issue in California due to its vastness and reliance on state resources. Rebuilding trust in the public school system is crucial for garnering necessary political and financial support. PACE’s recent seminar showcased Strategic School Funding for Results (SSFR), a project in districts like Twin Rivers, Pasadena, and Los Angeles Unified. It aims to grant more autonomy over budgets to individual schools while increasing accountability for resource use and student performance. This shift might enhance transparency in fund allocation but doesn’t solve the broader issue. While boosting confidence in local leadership, concerns about resource usage elsewhere in the system persist. California’s real challenge lies in reconnecting schools with their communities beyond merely enhancing resource efficiency.

he recent conference, co-hosted by PACE and Pivot Learning Partners in Southern California, aimed to revamp teacher evaluations. Current evaluations lack substance, often offering superficial, pre-announced assessments that don't aid improvement. This approach doesn't align with enhancing schools or student performance. Challenges abound: effective evaluations require a broader educational strategy involving recruitment, support systems, and professional development, all currently lacking depth in California. Moreover, there's a lack of consensus on fair evaluation systems due to the state's low administrator-to-student ratio and inadequate assessment criteria. Despite these hurdles, the conference showcased a shared acknowledgment of flaws and a collective drive among districts to seek alternative solutions. This unity sparks hope for a more informative evaluation system supporting teachers and school effectiveness. Yet, achieving this demands comprehensive reforms that intertwine evaluation with broader educational enhancement strategies.

A recent LA Times article indicates positive views among Californians on immigrants, with 48% seeing them as beneficial and 59% supporting residency for long-employed undocumented workers. It urges a reevaluation of laws like AB540 and the California DREAM Act, emphasizing their economic advantages. Despite debates about costs, recent reports suggest that the actual enrollment of undocumented students in California's higher education may be as low as 0.23%. This challenges assumptions about financial burdens. Given California's immigration impact, the incoming governor must advocate actively for comprehensive immigration reform and the DREAM Act.

For nearly three decades, PACE has facilitated discussions on California's education policies by integrating academic research into key policy challenges. Traditionally, this involved publishing policy briefs, organizing seminars, and producing the annual 'Conditions of Education in California' report, offering comprehensive data and analysis on the state's education system. The launch of "Conditions of Education in California" as a blog marks a shift to engage a wider audience and enable ongoing updates. This platform, authored by PACE-affiliated researchers across California, aims to share new data, compelling research findings, and insights on current legislation and policies. The objective remains fostering informed discussions on education policy challenges in California, now extending the conversation to policymakers, educators, and citizens. This inclusive dialogue is crucial to drive the necessary policy understanding and momentum for improving the state's education system.

The Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court case in 1982 established that undocumented children have the right to a public education, protecting around 1.5 million children. However, the educational rights of about 65,000 undocumented high school graduates expire annually, posing challenges for their access to higher education. Texas passed HB1403 in 2001, allowing undocumented graduates to pay in-state tuition, citing economic benefits. Following suit, California passed AB540, providing in-state tuition but facing challenges in enrollment. California Senate Bill 1460, the California DREAM Act, aims to grant access to state financial aid for undocumented students who qualify for in-state tuition. Despite state investments in their education, Governor Schwarzenegger has vetoed the California DREAM Act three times. With federal immigration reform expected, there are questions whether California will seize the opportunity to tap into the potential talent pool of educated undocumented students by passing the California DREAM Act in 2010. The article highlights the resilience, academic achievement, and community contributions of undocumented students, urging recognition of their potential as an asset for the state.