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.

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.

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.

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 (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.

This brief analyzes the relationship between teacher employment, collective bargaining laws, and school district policies in California. The authors examine the extent to which California's legal structure constrains or facilitates district-level discretion over teacher employment policies and practices. They classify various aspects of the teacher-school district employment relationship into four categories, and conclude that California statutory law is somewhat more constraining of administrative decision-making in teacher employment matters than in four other large and diverse states.

This policy brief examines the recent development and approval of Proposition A in the San Francisco Unified School District, which included a parcel tax for increasing teacher salaries, introducing flexibility to the salary schedule, and strengthening accountability for teacher performance. The author describes how the district and union worked together to increase compensation and align school district goals with teacher salaries.

This policy brief proposes a more rational and equitable school finance system for California that links district revenue to student needs and regional costs. The proposal aims to ensure that all districts are held harmless at current funding levels while providing essential backdrop for broader reform issues. The brief discusses the problems with the current finance system, the principles and concepts that guide the reform, and simulations of how it might work in practice. The report shows that significant improvement in the finance system can be achieved with modest new investment.

This policy brief discusses state initiatives in the US aimed at retaining and improving the quality of preschool and childcare staff, with a focus on California's $21 million annual investment. While K-12 reforms have been underway longer and are usually better-funded, early childhood education policymakers and educators will find valuable information about experimental efforts and lessons on systemwide reform.

The rise in the number of working mothers has led to a greater need for childcare, and investments have been made to support early education. California's childcare programs have seen a surge in funding, including a tax credit program. The policy brief aims to explore if the increased funding has improved access to quality childcare centers and preschools for California families.

Many low-income families struggle to afford childcare, even with financial supports. Less than one-fourth of eligible families sign up for subsidies in many communities, leading to disparities in access. The What Works series examines effective programs and policy strategies to increase participation in childcare subsidy programs. The report draws from the Growing Up in Poverty Project, which found highly variable rates of eligible parents using childcare subsidies across CA, CT, and FL. Possible reasons for low utilization and present novel strategies to increase participation are discussed.

The Californians will vote on Proposition 174 which will amend the state constitution to establish "scholarships" for kindergarten to 12th-grade schooling. These new schools will be publicly funded but may have privately selected governing boards and religious orientation. It is unclear whether they will be public or private schools. The paper attempts to reduce uncertainty regarding the financial consequences of the proposed voucher plan and address questions about public costs and possible cost savings.

PACE has analyzed the financial, legal, and social ramifications of Proposition 174, the school choice initiative, so as to provide Californians and policymakers with accurate, unbiased information. This packet contains important questions and answers about the initiative, summaries of PACE's financial analysis and polling report, and background information on PACE and its directors.

The "Parental Choice in Education Initiative" or Proposition 174, will be voted on by Californians on November 2, 1993. PACE has conducted an analysis of the initiative's provisions to provide objective information to policymakers, parents, educators, and the public. PACE is not taking a stance on the initiative but has produced additional materials related to the initiative and the issue of school choice. These materials are listed in the attached report on school choice.

California's education system has suffered from a lack of cohesive reform strategy since 1983 due to political and fiscal gridlock, and initiatives like Proposition 13 have limited state and local leaders' ability to fund schools adequately. To improve the system, California needs to overhaul its fiscal structure and formulate a new comprehensive reform agenda with the support of both political and educational leadership.