The 2021-22 academic year in California was challenging for public education due to eight issues that threaten student learning, schools, and public education itself, including gun violence, declining enrollment, and long-term funding inadequacy. These issues also have a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities and highlight long-standing systemic inequities. In July 2022, PACE and USC Rossier School of Education conducted a poll of California voters to determine their views and priorities on public education.

This report examines California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) after eight years and suggests refinements to improve equitable funding, opportunities, and outcomes. Based on interviews, research, and data analysis, the report identifies four areas for improvement: revisiting and refining the funding formula, modernizing funding for students with disabilities, equitably distributing effective teachers, and strengthening transparency, engagement, and accountability. LCFF has been viewed as an improvement over the previous system yet gaps between equity goals and local outcomes remain.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all students; however, its impact has been particularly devastating for students of color, students from low-income families, English learners, and other marginalized children and youth. As transmission rates decline and vaccination rates increase in California, many are eager to return to normalcy, but we must all recognize that even the prepandemic normal was not working for all students. The 2021–22 school year, therefore, constitutes a critical opportunity for schools to offer students, families, and educators a restorative restart.

A report on the importance of economic analysis in decision-making in CA's school system. Economic evaluations can help identify the most effective policies and interventions while reducing waste and ultimately improving outcomes for students. Studied here is the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) method, its benefits, and its broad applicability. To be more influential, economic analysts should focus on policies and programs that require significant funding, investigate how results are relevant to decision-makers, and consider how resources can be allocated towards cost-effective programs.

California is the wealthiest state in the US, yet its school funding is insufficient to meet educational goals due to the high cost of living. A series of 12 charts provide an explanation of what is happening, with solutions outlined in the final section of an accompanying report.

California schools' funding had improved, but still fell short of what is necessary to meet the state's goals. Now, schools face three major challenges: declines in student achievement and social-emotional well-being due to COVID-19, increased costs associated with distance learning and school reconfiguration, and the need to tighten budgets. Securing necessary funding will require an enormous and sustained effort from many stakeholders to improve schools and student outcomes and strengthen the economic and social outlook for future generations.

In the run-up to 2020 elections, where do California voters stand on key education policy issues? This report examines findings and trends from the 2020 PACE/USC Rossier poll. Key findings include rising pessimism about California education and elected officials, continued concern about gun violence in schools and college affordability, and negative opinions about higher education. However, there is substantial support for increased spending, especially on teacher salaries.

The 2018 Getting Down to Facts II research project drew attention to California’s continued need to focus on the achievement gap, strengthen the capacity of educators in support of continuous improvement, and attend to both the adequacy and stability of funding for schools. Based on the nature of the issues and the progress made in 2019, some clear next steps deserve attention as 2020 unfolds.

This paper examines how the growth of charter schools affects traditional public schools' financial health in California. The study finds that higher charter enrollment is associated with lower per-pupil spending and fiscal health in traditional public schools, but the effects are smaller than in other states. However, the proportion of expenditures allocated to different activities, goods, or services does not differ. The paper provides lessons for policymakers and suggests that California's economic and policy context may explain the differences from similar analyses in other states.

Governor Newsom’s first Budget Proposal increases funding for education in California. There are areas of substantive overlap in the Budget Proposal and research findings from the Getting Down to Facts II (GDTFII) research project, released in September 2018, which built an evidence base on the current status of California education and implications for paths forward. As the Budget moves from proposal to reality, it is critical that the evidence from GDTFII continues to inform the policy process.

With a new governor, state superintendent and legislators in Sacramento and a diminished federal role in education, there is an opportunity for California’s leaders to take stock of recent educational reforms and make necessary improvements. There are also a host of new and looming issues in K-12 and higher education. As California’s leaders confront these and other issues, where do California voters, including parents, stand on education and education policy? The newest edition of the USC Rossier/PACE Poll shares voter perspectives on a wide range of education issues.

This article uses case studies to explore how district administrators' conceptions of equity relate to finance reform implementation. The authors identify two conceptions of equity: greater resources for students with greater needs, and equal distribution of resources for all students. These beliefs were reflected in resource allocation decisions and were informed by districts' student demographics, organizational identities, and perceptions of adequacy.

California's Local Control Funding Formula highlights low performance of special education students. Many districts allocate more base funding for all students into special education. A study found state funding growth has not kept pace with district costs, and the current formula inadequately funds preschool programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities. The study suggests better alignment between special education and the LCFF, and improved governance and accountability structures.

California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) has increased per-pupil revenues, especially for low-income districts, and provided more flexibility in expenditures, leading to improvements in student outcomes. The funding was distributed based on the proportion of disadvantaged students, and expenditure increases were primarily allocated to teachers, pensions, and special education. The policy was implemented during a time of increased K-12 funding after the Great Recession and existing revenue distribution patterns.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) shifts control of education dollars to local districts, enhancing resource allocation practices. However, inadequate base funds may constrain progress. Stakeholder engagement is evolving yet remains challenging, and school board involvement is typically modest. LCFF communication and accountability mechanisms receive mixed reviews. County offices of education have expanded their role but will need to increase their capacity. Public awareness of the LCFF lags, but it enjoys substantial support.

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) is a consortium of researchers, policymakers, and practitioners from USC Rossier, Stanford, and UC Davis Schools of Education working to improve education policy in California. PACE's focus has been the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which changed the state's K-12 budget allocation. The consortium's strength is in its ability to get research into the hands of decision makers, especially in Southern California, where over a quarter of the state's K-12 students reside.

American schools have long suffered from inequitable distribution of funding, resources, and effective teachers. The LCFF reform in California is a promising solution to address achievement gaps for high-need students, but successful implementation is critical. Research has found that stakeholder engagement, explicit equity frameworks, and evidence-based programs are crucial to ensure positive impact. Studies have also revealed challenges such as underspending funds and insufficient stakeholder engagement, highlighting the need for continuous improvement.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) replaced categorical funding for schools in California in 2013, providing flexibility, targeted student funding, and local accountability. Two years in, research shows optimism and concern. The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) faces challenges, stakeholders need more engagement, and implementation requires capacity and overcoming the emerging teacher shortage. Public awareness of LCFF lags at 65%.

California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) represents a major shift in the state's education system by empowering school districts to allocate funding based on the needs of their students, with added funds for disadvantaged students. The LCFF eliminates categorical funding streams and promotes local democracy by requiring stakeholder engagement. The implementation of the LCFF is still in its early stages, and this study examines how school districts are using their newfound budget flexibility and engaging stakeholders, as well as identifying opportunities and challenges.

The passage describes the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in California, which is expected to bring new revenues to school districts. The report suggests that strategic decision-making and goal-setting based on research-based strategies are crucial to realizing the potential benefits of the LCFF. Recommendations include an investment in four key areas that can produce real gains in school and student performance.

The LAUSD invested over $19B to build 130 new facilities to relieve overcrowded schools. A PACE policy brief analyzed its effects on student achievement and found robust gains for many elementary-school pupils who switched from old to new facilities. However, significant gains were limited to elementary school students and new high school facilities produced weak and inconsistent achievement gains. The report also tracked thousands of students who moved from overcrowded to new facilities over the 2002-2008 period.

This report commemorates the fifth anniversary of the Getting Down to Facts project, which sought to provide a thorough and reliable analysis of the critical challenges facing California’s education system as the necessary basis for an informed discussion of policy changes aimed at improving the performance of California schools and students. The report focuses on the four key issues that received emphasis in the Getting Down to Facts studies: governance, finance, personnel, and data systems.

This report explores how 10 California school districts responded to the deregulation of $4.5 billion in education funding, which became entirely flexible in 2009. The study investigates how district leaders made budget decisions and what local factors influenced their responses. The research was conducted by a team of scholars from the RAND Corporation, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, and San Diego State University.

This report discusses the effects of California's partial release of categorical funds to local school boards in 2009. The increased flexibility has provided an opportunity to observe how districts respond to the policy change, but the impact is difficult to isolate as most districts have been struggling to maintain core services during a severe budget crisis. The report includes preliminary results from an ongoing study of district responses to the increased categorical flexibility.

This working paper examines the use of Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) funds, which allocated $2.6B over seven years to California's lowest-performing schools. The authors conducted a study of four Los Angeles high schools to investigate how QEIA dollars were spent in the first year, who made the decisions, and how funds were used to improve teaching and the instructional program. The study found that district officials and principals had discretion in allocating funds, consistent with recent efforts to deregulate categorical-aid programs and give local educators fiscal discretion.