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.

This article explores the reasons why education has become a central focus of modern societies and the largest public expenditure around the world. The state has built and expanded national education systems, made attending school mandatory, and linked adult success to academic performance. The article delves into the economic factors behind state financing and provision of schools.

In 1987, the Superintendent of Public Instruction released a document detailing the average costs of California schools for 1985-86, providing a brief summary of school expenditures. However, this report lacks in detail, and this report aims to provide more comprehensive and realistic data on school expenditure patterns. The report serves as an analytical base for exploring issues surrounding school expenditures in California, and the data was provided by the state Department of Education staff.

The California Staff Development Policy Study was initiated to assess the possibilities and limitations of staff development in improving classroom teaching and learning. The study aims to answer four questions related to California's investment in staff development, how staff development activities are administered, and how teachers and administrators judge their effectiveness. The study yields eight main conclusions, presented in terms of investment and focusing on improving the capacities and commitments of California's educators.

PACE, a university-based research center, provides "nonpartisan, objective, independent" information on K-12 schooling in CA. Its analyses have been invaluable to lawmakers and educators during the state's active education-reform period. PACE has played a growing role in debates on school issues, exemplified by a heated debate in the CA legislature over the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. PACE offers a model for providing data for education policies when many states are seeking broader information bases. It has helped provide a better understanding of what is happening in education.

Before the 1970s, public school finance issues were mainly related to spending inequalities. However, since then, the focus has shifted towards financing education to improve its quality. This article suggests new research directions for school finance that address this policy interest, including topics related to state education reforms, traditional school finance issues, and education policy issues beyond current reforms.

Public school policy mak­ing is embedded in a complex societal matrix. It is not possi­ble to consider the future of U.S. schools without examining the size and distribution of future populations; the future state of the economy and its ef­fect on funds available for the schools; and the political context within which decisions will be made. The public school system is a "dependent variable" of larger social and economic forces.

Several state legislatures have acted on recommendations to improve U.S. public schools, resulting in a swift and broad education reform movement. States have expanded school improvement programs, increased high school graduation and college admission requirements, deepened course offerings, and strengthened the teaching profession. Indicators of progress include longer school attendance, tougher academic courses, better counseling, higher achievement test scores, and increased teacher pay. This swift and broad movement gives reason for optimism about its success.

California's waiver authority provides school districts relief from Education Code, allowing them to seek alternatives to state requirements subject to local and state review. Waivers are automatically approved unless denied by the State Board of Education, which rarely happens over local objections. Program waivers are rare despite clamor for needed flexibility, possibly due to districts being unaware of the process, viewing it as time-consuming, or using suboptimal local procedures. Oversight hearings are recommended to explore the potential of the waiver process.