Marin County's schools face rising costs, particularly for pensions and declining enrollment, which is not sustainable. Teacher salaries and recruitment are affected, with limited public awareness of district flexibility to respond to rising pension costs. Parcel taxes have faced opposition, and a statewide funding solution is necessary to support student success and stop financial distress. Building awareness of pension costs' impact is essential, and benefits and salaries are necessary to retain teachers.

This case study examines the looming deficit faced by Sacramento City Unified School District and the challenges it poses for students, including declining enrollment, increasing special education and pension costs. It also highlights the impact of SCUSD's budget practices and labor-management relations on its current budget situation. The report offers considerations for policymakers, including addressing unaffordable teacher benefits and increasing funding. Although the district's fiscal crisis cannot be solved overnight, stabilizing the situation and restoring public confidence are crucial.

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.

This report highlights the challenges that California’s school districts face due to increasing employee health benefit costs, including retiree benefits. Such costs strain district budgets, making it harder to address other priorities, like increasing teacher salaries or supporting disadvantaged students. The brief suggests that districts must navigate these costs more effectively, with potential help from state policymakers, to ensure they are sustainable and not left as unfunded liabilities.

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 education system aims to provide all public school students with a broad course of study consistent with state standards. However, many educators feel that the state's funding system does not provide adequate resources to meet these expectations. While funding levels have improved, they remain below those of many other states. An adequacy study estimated that providing an adequate education would have required California to spend $25.6B more in 2016-17. The study also found that larger gaps between actual spending and adequate costs were associated with lower student performance.

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 California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) has amassed a $107 billion "debt" due to the accrual of pension liabilities. CalSTRS contributions are legislated to nearly double by 2021. The higher rates are required through 2046, requiring significant contributions from teachers, school districts, and the state government. Solutions involve reducing benefits, increasing contribution rates, or modifying the underlying benefit structure. California could consider reforms from other states to develop its own policy response.

California's public school system has a vast inventory of buildings and properties, but many are in poor condition. The state's current school facilities funding system is criticized for not targeting aid towards districts with the greatest facility needs, resulting in a relatively regressive finance system. Local sources of funding greatly outstrip state support, and charter school facility funding continues to expand.

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.

The Local Control Funding Formula gives local education leaders more power to allocate resources, but requires strategic budgeting practices to prioritize goals and make necessary tradeoffs. Three recommendations include integrating budgeting with strategic planning, focusing on critical questions, and developing internal structures to sustain strategic budgeting. These practices improve district policies and performance of local schools and students.

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 policy brief examines the impact of QTEA on teacher recruitment, retention, and overall teacher quality in the San Francisco Unified School District. It provides evidence of the effectiveness of salary increases in attracting and hiring higher-quality teachers, and the importance of strategic hiring and retention efforts. The brief also highlights the need for teacher confidence in the longevity of such policies, and suggests the Local Control Funding Formula as a means to ensure sufficient funds for competitive teacher salaries.

California’s school finance system has been criticized for being irrational, inequitable, and inefficient. The proposed Local Control Funding Formula aims to simplify funding and give local leaders more control, but raises questions about balancing transparency with improved outcomes, providing meaningful incentives, and effectively allocating funds.

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.

CA's school finance is highly regulated, with state funding allocated through categorical programs. In 2008-09, 40 Tier 3 programs were given fiscal freedom, leading to concerns that districts with more Tier 3 funding were disproportionately affected by the state's budget crisis. However, data show that all districts lost a similar share of their budget, with no large-scale changes in spending. Districts with more Tier 3 funding spent relatively more on alternative education, adult education, and non-instructional goals, and more of their budget on pupil services and special education.

California's system of school finance is highly regulated and prescriptive. A large share of state funding is allocated through categorical programs, that is, programs whose funding is contingent upon districts using the money in a particular way or for a particular purpose. In 2008–09, the strings were taken off 40 of those programs, collectively known as the "Tier 3" programs, as part of a budget deal that also reduced the funding for those programs.

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.