Post on 05-Apr-2018
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
1/42
GETTING
DOWN TO
FACTS:FIVE YEARS LATER
MAY 2012
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
2/42
i
GETTING
DOWN TO
FACTS:FIVE YEARS LATER
MAY 2012
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
3/42
ii
Acknowledgments
Founded in 1983, PACE:
n Publishes policy bries, research reports, and working papers that address key policy issues in
Caliornias education system.
n Convenes seminars and briengs that make current research accessible to policy audiences throughout
Caliornia.
n Provides expert testimony on educational issues to legislative committees and other policy audiences.
n Works with local school districts and proessional associations on projects aimed at supporting policy
innovation, data use, and rigorous evaluation.
his report commemorates the h anniversary o the Getting Down to Facts project, whichsought to provide a thorough and reliable analysis o the critical challenges acing Caliornias
education system as the necessary basis or an inormed discussion o policy changes aimed at
improving the perormance o Caliornia schools and students. Te report ocuses on the our
key issues that received emphasis in the Getting Down to Facts studies: governance, nance,
personnel, and data systems. Te authors review what has changed and what has not in the ve years since
the original studies were completed, and rearm the importance o a long-term agenda or reorm in
Caliornias education system that is guided by solid evidence and rigorous analysis.
Te report was produced with support rom PACEs core unders, including the Caliornia Education
Policy Fund (a project o Rockeeller Philanthropy Advisors), the Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation,
the James Irvine Foundation, and the Stuart Foundation, and we would like to express our gratitude to them.
We would also like to thank Chris Reimann, who provided excellent editorial support; and Melinda Nichols,PACEs Administrator, who cheerully and eciently managed the publication and production process rom
beginning to end.
Te views expressed in the report are those o the authors, and not necessarily those o PACE or our
unders.
Policy Analysis or Caliornia Education (PACE) is an independent, non-partisan research center based
at Stanord University, the University o Caliornia Berkeley, and the University o Southern Caliornia.
PACE seeks to dene and sustain a long-term strategy or comprehensive policy reorm and continuous
improvement in perormance at all levels o Caliornias education system, rom early childhood to
postsecondary education and training. o accomplish this goal, PACE bridges the gap between research and
policy, working with scholars rom Caliornias leading universities and with state and local policy-makers to
increase the impact o academic research on educational policy in Caliornia.
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
4/42
1
Table of Contents
I. Getting Down to Facts - Five Years Later 2
II. Recent Developments in CaliorniasEducational Governance: 2007-2011 6
III. Financing Caliornias Public Schools:oward a Weighted Student Formula 16
IV. eachers and Leaders or Caliornia Schools 25
V. Data, Policy Learning, and Continuous Improvement 32
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
5/42
2
I. Getting Down to Facts
Five Years Later
Over an 18-month period rom
September 2005 to March 2007,
the Getting Down to Facts Project
brought together scholars rom 32institutions with diverse expertise
and policy orientations. Our goal was to synthesize
what we knew about eective school nance and
governance in general, and about Caliornias school
nance and governance systems in particular. We
hoped that this inormation would serve as a base
or productive public conversations about what we
should do to improve K-12 education in Caliornia.
Te project was commissioned at the request o a
bipartisan group o Caliornia leaders, including
the governors Advisory Committee on Educational
Excellence, the President Pro em o the Caliornia
Senate, the Speaker o the Caliornia Assembly,
the Superintendent o Public Instruction, and the
Governors Secretary o Education. We produced
23 reports on topics ranging rom the costs o
achieving student outcome goals to governance
complexity to data availability and use.
Overall, the reports documented that good
things were happening in some districts, schools,
and classrooms, but that the aws in Californias
school nance and governance systems were
likely hindering the quality of education availableto many students in the State. Most importantly,
education governance in California was unusually
complex and restrictive which kept schools and
districts from responding effectively to state
standards and accountability. Similarly, the nance
system was overly complex, restrictive, and
irrational. Differences in spending across districts
had little to do with differences in costs, needs or
interests, but were instead historical artifacts with
no current rationale. California stood out from
other states in a number of areas including the low
number of educators (fewer teachers per student,
administrators per student, and professionalsupport staff per student) and the poor quality of
information available on student learning and the
effectiveness of programs in the state. While the
project did not draw direct links between these
policies and student achievement, the policies were
likely at least part of the reason that Californias
students did (and continue to do) so poorly on
national achievement tests relative to students in
other states.
We hoped that the Getting Down to Facts
reports would help with the development of
policies to streamline governance and to simplify
and rationalize school nance, in addition to
improving information and ensuring that schools
had sufcient and excellent staff. Our initial
optimism was clearly unwarranted. As discussed
in greater detail in the chapters that follow, the
past ve years have seen only small improvements
on the problems identied in Getting Down to
Facts, though the issues raised in the reports
have penetrated policy discussions and there are
indications that greater improvements may come.
Economic challenges, not structural reforms ofnance and governance, have dominated education
policy in California during the past ve years. The
economic crisis has altered the context of schooling
in California. Nonetheless, many of the conclusions
from the earlier reports continue to have relevance
today. This report seeks to provide an update on
the nance and governance of California schools,
noting progress towards reaching the goals set out
in the original reports and highlighting areas for
2
Susanna Loeb,
Stanford University
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
6/42
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
7/42
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
8/42
5
Data
In order to improve schools, district leaders
and other policy-makers need to learn from their
experiences and the experiences of other educators.The original Getting Down to Facts reports
found that California lagged other states in the
development of a longitudinal student and teacher
data system, and that the State had not developed
sufcient analytical capacity to make good use
of educational data, both of which hindered
cycles of improvement. Instead, California had
many unconnected data collections within the
Department of Education, while other important
data, particularly concerning teachers, were
collected by agencies other than the Department.
The lack of a comprehensive educational data
system made it difcult to link key data elements,
preventing systematic analysis of what was
working and wasnt working in classrooms,
schools, and school districts.
David Planks chapter, Data, Policy Learning,
and Continuous Improvement, provides a new
assessment of information use for California
schools. He nds some progress on this front,
most notably that Californias longitudinal student
data system (CALPADS) has been running for
two years, and will soon be fully operational.
CALPADS allows for detailed analyses of student
learning as well as simple descriptions that werent
available before such asaccurate measures of
drop-out and graduation rates. These data are a
step forward but they could be even more useful
if linked to information on teachers, the most
important resource in schools. Governor Brown
vetoed state funding for the state-wide database on
teachers, and chose not to apply for federal funding
to link K-12, higher education and workforce data,
thus limiting the development of a useful data
system for California schools.
Five Years Later
The economic downturn and the consequent
reductions in funding have dominated school
policy during the ve years since the release of the
Getting Down to Facts reports. In spite of these
challenges, however, at least in our optimistic
eyes, there are signs of progress towards the goals
laid out in the initial reports. In particular, the
weighted student formula for funding schools
currently under discussion would increase the
simplicity, transparency, exibility, equity, and
ultimately the level of educational funding. Thenew CALPADS system provides information
on student learning and educational attainment,
previously unavailable, which allows policy-
makers, educators and the public to see what
students are learning and, potentially, which
programs are working. On the other hand, many
of the issues identied in Getting Down to Facts
that were hindering education then, still apply
today. The system is heavy on compliance and
complexity and light on information and related
opportunities for improvement. A number of
districts are breaking this mold, creating their ownsystems for improving education quality; State
policies, however, often hinder rather than help
their progress. It is our hope as part of the original
Getting Down to Facts project and this update
that the next ve years will see fruitful changes
to state policy so that California can provide the
educational opportunities that its students deserve.
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
9/42
6
Governance reers to the institutions,
organizations and individuals
involved in the educational
decision making and deliverysystems. Five years ago the Getting
Down to Facts (GDF) research project examined
Caliornias governance system in an attempt to
help rame the education policy conversation.
Te key ndings addressed the manner in which
Caliornias governance system works and how the
system is perceived by key stakeholders.
GDF highlighted the complexities o
Caliornias multidimensional educational
governance structure. Te system is characterized
by many organizational entities -- schools, districts,
and county, state and ederal agencies -- that have
overlapping responsibilities across executive,
legislative, and judicial jurisdictions (Brewer and
Smith, 2006). (See Figure 1.) Te GDF analysis
concluded that Caliornias governance system
oers multiple opportunities to impede change,
but ew opportunities to lead and implement
change (Brewer, Pelayo and Ahn, 2008). Tough
more money is needed to improve education in
Caliornia, increased unding without a sustained
eort to improve governance is unlikely to lead to
substantial improvement in student learning.
II. Recent Developments in Californias
Educational Governance: 2007-2011
Richard O. Welsh
University of Southern California
6
Dominic J. Brewer
University of Southern California
FIGURE 1. Major Institutions in Caliornias Educational Governance
Legislature
County Boardof Education
CountySuperintendent
County Oceof Education
State Boardof Education
Superintendent ofPublic Instruction
California Departmentof Education
Local District Boardof Education
Local DistrictSuperintendent
DistrictCentral Oce
Schools
School Site Councils
Teachers
Students and Parents
Governor
Secretaryof Education
Oce ofSecretary
Other State Agencies
Unions and OtherInterest Groups
Other County andCity Agencies
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
10/42
7
Brewer and Smith (2008) developed an analytic
ramework o governance eectiveness with ve
specic indicators:
n Stability; n Accountability;
n Innovation, Flexibility and Responsiveness;
n Openness and ransparency;
n Simplicity and Eciency.
Tese indicators are dened in able 1. Based
on a comprehensive review o the research literature
and historical documents, as well as on interviews
with leading academics and key stakeholders,
Brewer and Smith ound the system in Caliornia
lacking on each o the ve indicators o eective
governance. For example, interviewees noted that
revenue fuctuations and sta turnover at all levels
are common. Increased use o categorical unding
over recent decades coupled with requent and
prescriptive policy changes has led to rustration atthe local level. Many o those interviewed elt that
compliance took precedence over creativity, state
regulations were overly burdensome, and special
interests were overly infuential. Te structure was
highly ragmented; stakeholders agreed that there
was a need to clariy the role o institutions in the
system, especially at the state level. Tere was also
a strong desire to give districts greater autonomy
over decisions. GDF recommended relaxing
state regulation, allowing more local control and
increasing capacity to evaluate policies.
TABLE 1. Five Characteristics o Good Governance
Characteristic Denition and Rationale
Stable A stable governance structure is one in which policy is planned, made and implemented
as ar in advance as possible. Revenue is known in advance or planning. Policies are given
an opportunity to work, with ew major changes o direction or new initiatives introducedsuddenly. Leaders have tenures that allow or knowledge development and on-the-job
learning.
Accountable A governance structure with strong accountability has clear lines o authority between the
various parts o the system, with limited duplication o unctions. There are consequencesor good or bad behavior and outcomes. Accountability gives the right incentives or actors
within the system to accomplish their goals. There is alignment between revenue andspending.
An innovative, exible, and responsive governance structure can adapt to changing context
and is able to respond appropriately to new short- and long-term external demands. New
approaches are encouraged; many ideas are generated and spread throughout the system.
In a transparent and open governance system, it is clear to the public and all stakeholdershow decisions are made and who makes them; participation is encouraged at every level.
Transparency allows or the exchange o inormation between the dierent levels o the
system. An open and transparent system is less likely to be captured by special interests orhave corruption and bribery, and most likely to encourage public engagement and support
o schools. There is an open ow o inormation, including monitoring and evaluation odata and mechanisms to communicate perormance to citizens.
In a simple and ecient governance structure, decisions are made in a timely manner
with minimal overlap or conusion among entities. Decision making is located where
knowledge is greatest. Policy is coherent and decisions across multiple domains and levelsare coordinated so that there is minimal duplication and waste. The decision making and
implementation structure is not burdensome to stakeholders in the system. Costs are
minimized.
Innovative,
Flexible and
Responsive
Transparent
and Open
Simple and
Efcient
Source: Updated rom Brewer and Smith (2008)
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
11/42
8
Recent Developments in Californias
Educational Governance: 2007-2011
Data rom a new round o interviews
conducted in November 2011 with state-level policyleaders in education are summarized in able 2.
Most interviewees continue to rate the state as weak
8
on every indicator. Tese ndings bring to light
our overarching trends over the past ve years:
scal instability; some simplication in educational
governance in Sacramento; a changing ederal role;and the local dynamic, including parental activism.
TABLE 2. Governance Findings or Caliornia in 2011 Compared to GDTF Findings rom 2008
Characteristic Findings rom Interviews Then (2008) and Now (2011)
Stable PolicyThen:
Policyuctuatesfrequently. Frequentadjustmentsintheareasofstudentassessmentandcurriculumleadto
premature changes in requirements and implementation.
Now: Policyuctuationsarelessfrequent. ADemocraticlegislatureandDemocraticGovernorprovideafoundationfor
consensus, but their agendas remain somewhat unclear.
FundingThen:
Fundsuctuateaccordingtoeconomictrends. Lowerlevelsofoverallfunding,increasedrelianceoncategoricalfunding, latenessof
budget, and inability to raise unding locally lead to unpredictable fnancial planning.
Now Levelsofoverallfundingarelower,budgetsarelate(exceptin2010-11),andrevenue
projections uctuate widely.
State-level decision makingThen:
Reductionofstainstate-levelagenciesandshortertermlimitsreducelong-termknowledge and expertise.
Multipleagenciesservingdierentbosseshindercoherentdecisionmaking. Lackofstudentdatasystemhinderseectivedecisionmaking.
Now: TheOceofSecretaryofEducationunderGovernorBrownhasbeeneliminated. Studentdatasystem(CALPADS)launchedbutfundingforCALTIDESwascut.
LeadershipThen:
Turnoverofstateocials,schoolboards,andsuperintendentsishigh. Highturnoverleadstolackofcontinuityandstabilityofprograms.
Now: Seven new SBE members were appointed in 2011.
Accountable Lines o authorityThen:
Fewintervieweesknewwhowas inchargeofdierentaspectsofthesystemandwhowas responsible or what tasks.
Now: Nochange.
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
12/42
9
Clarity o responsibilities
Then: Numerouslocal,regional,andstate-levelentitieshaveoverlappingresponsibilities. Theresponsibilitiesofeachstakeholderinthesystemareunclear.
Now: Nochange.
Then:Innovation
Charterschoolsareoneexampleofarelativelysuccessfulattemptatlocalautonomyandinnovation.
Flexibility Stakeholderssensethatthesystemishighlybureaucraticandmoreconcernedabout
compliance with regulations than about innovation. Localentitiesdonothaveautonomytomakedecisionsorattemptinnovativestrategies. Responsiveness
Statedecision-makershavepreferredone-size-ts-allsolutions,suchasclasssizereduction.Now:
Localauthoritieshavemoreexibilityoverresourcesduetoreductionincategoricalunding streams.
BolderreformsareunderwayinmajordistrictslikeLAUSD.
TransparencyThen:
Littleconcernabouttransparencywasfoundamonginterviewees;nowidespreadevidence o unethical actions or corruption was evident.
NoevidencewasoeredthatCaliforniaisanyworsethanotherstatesinpublicparticipation and voter turnout.
Now: Nochange.
Special interestsThen:
Intervieweesshowedgreatconcernovertheroleofspecialinterestsinstate-leveldecisions.
Particularconcernwasdirectedtowardemployeeunionsandtheirinuenceonsystemdecisions.
Now: Nochange.
SimplicityThen:
Instability,confusinglinesofauthorityandunclearresponsibilitiesleadtoanoverlycomplex system.
Now: Nochange.
EfciencyThen:
Rigid,prescriptivestatelegislationleadstowastedeorttocomplywithamultitudeofmandates.
Intervieweesexpressedaneedformorelocalauthorityandexibilityinresourceallocation.
Now: Changesincategoricalfundinghaveledtomorelocalauthorityandexibilityinresource
allocation.
Innovative,Flexible andResponsive
TABLE 2. Governance Findings or Caliornia in 2011 Compared to GDTF Findings rom 2008 (Continued)
Transparentand Open
Simple andEfcient
Sources: Brewer and Smith (2008); Authors
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
13/42
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
14/42
1111
state, wondering whether unding reductions will
continue. Tough districts have increased fexibility,
there are still variations and disparities in unding
across school districts that raise equity concerns.Additionally, policy-makers and district ocials
have expressed concern about unds being used
to increase teacher salaries and benets. Tere are
unintended consequences o the fexible use o
categorical spending, such as reductions in adult
education unding. Te fexibility in categorical
dollars may have drastic eects on dropout
recovery programs and other eorts to increase the
capacity o the labor market. Overall, fexibility has
challenged districts to seek eciency and reassess
spending priorities while remaining committed to
programs (Fuller et al., 2011).One o the rst steps Governor Brown
took upon entering oce was to choose not
to appoint a Secretary o Education. Whether
this change is permanent is unknowable, but it
refects a simplication o the state level landscape
although some interviewees also noted the
unintended consequence o the Governor not
necessarily having enough sta capacity. Governor
Brown also signaled his intent to make the State
Board o Education (SBE) a stronger policymaking
entity. He appointed as president o the SBE his
major education policy advisor, Michael Kirst,
who served on the state board during Browns
earlier time as governor (1975-1983). Due to the
legislatures ailure to conrm some o Governor
Schwarzeneggers SBE appointees, Governor
Brown took advantage o an unusual opportunity
to appoint seven members in January 2011. In
one o his rst ocial acts, the governor replaced
several vocal proponents o charter schools, parent
empowerment and teacher accountability (Mehta,
2011). His new appointees have transormed
the state board to one more closely aligned withtraditional educational interests. As o early 2012,
there are still three state board openings that
Governor Brown has yet to ll on the 11-member
board, and the term o the current student board
member is set to expire in July 2012. Te two-
thirds vote in the Senate required to approve a
SBE nominee, coupled with the upcoming ballot
initiative, may partly explain the Governors
cautious approach. Although the new appointments
may make it easier to build consensus, the board
still aces several challenges with an increasingly
overburdened sta.
An Expanded Federal Role
Te Honeymoon is over with
the Obama administration.
Interviewees agreed that there has been
an increase in ederal infuence in educational
governance over the past ve years, but they
disagreed on whether it will have lasting impact.
Te ederal role in education policy has been
increasing since the enactment o No Child Le
Behind (NCLB). Te American Recovery andReinvestment Act, which provided approximately
$1000 per pupil rom 2008-09 through 2010-11,
increased ederal support to Caliornia schools by
nearly 45 percent in 2009-10 compared to 2007-
08. Additionally, the aggressive reorm agenda
pursued by the Obama administration through the
competitive Race to the op (R) initiative has
had a signicant impact on ederal-state relations
(see, or example, Hess and Kelly, 2012). R is
a ederal system o incentives used by the Obama
Administration to induce states to make particular
educational reorms. Caliornias R application
resulted in a furry o legislative activity as the state
sought to improve its prospects o winning R
unds. In January 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger
signed an R legislative package that included
standards and assessments that embrace the
national common core standards; the use o data in
instruction and teacher evaluation; and the parent
trigger, a school-turnaround law that allows
parents to petition or the conversion o ailing
schools into charter schools (Oce o Assembly
Speaker Karen Bass, 2010).Although Caliornia lost its bid or R
unding, the legislative package committed the state
to linking teacher evaluation to student test scores;
student achievement would now account or at
least 30 percent o a teachers evaluation. However,
Caliornias R application was not signed by
any o the big districts, such as Los Angeles Unied
or Long Beach Unied, or by the major state
unions (Blume, 2010). Tough R did result
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
15/42
12
in new laws regarding education reorm, there is
little money to implement many o the proposed
changes, and it is not clear whether there is much
appetite to do so.In early 2012, Caliornia was mulling whether
to apply or an NCLB waiver or greater fexibility
and dierent conditions than those stipulated
by the Obama administration (Cavanagh, 2012).
One o the major points o contention in NCLB
is a ederal provision requiring states to include
standardized test scores in the perormance
evaluations o teachers, a policy option repeatedly
opposed by teachers unions in Caliornia. Te
state also wants the ederal government to relax
several o NCLBs biggest sanctions, as well as
the waiver eligibility requirement o establishinga new accountability system. Te active ederal-
state dynamic is a signicant new development in
educational governance and is likely to persist or
some time. Indeed, ederal initiatives combined
with parent activism may be the external catalysts
that initiate educational reorms at the local level.
The Local Dynamic, Parental Activism and the
Role of Special Interests
One interesting, i subtle, change in
perceptions o governance over the 2007-
2011 period has been the growing visibility o
local activism around some important policy
developments. Several o our interviewees noted
this phenomenon, which was absent rom the data
collected during the original GDF interviews.
Interviewees generally believed that local activism
was having an impact; some believed that it might
even be a game changer. In particular, upheavals
in the Los Angeles education landscape have
reverberated in Sacramento. In 2009, Los Angeles
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa supported parents,
reorm groups and school board vice presidentYolie Flores in an attempt to open more o the
LAUSDs new and reopened schools to competition
rom charter groups. In response, United eachers
Los Angeles (ULA) mounted a campaign to put
many o those schools in the hands o teacher
groups backed by the union. Since then, several
changes have been made to the Public School
Choice initiative. It will be interesting to see how
the reorm eorts in Los Angeles unold, and how
they impact educational governance in Caliornia.
Additionally, in 2010 the Los Angeles imes
published perormance measures or existing
teachers based on value-added estimates thathighlighted perormance at the classroom level.
Tis public airing sparked union outrage and added
uel to the debate over teacher accountability.
Interviewees also mentioned the shiing nature
o special interest politics in the states educational
governance. Tere is at once more division within
the education coalition, more players and active
advocacy, and a greater eort to collaborate
and align interests. As one interviewee put it,
the CA (Caliornia eachers Association) is
the gorilla, but there are other special interests
that are coalescing around particular issues andshaping the ormulation and implementation o
education reorms. Some stakeholders believe that
special interests eel pretty urious, as i they are
ghting over a smaller pie. In the current unding
climate, everything seems like a zero-sum game as
the winners win what the losers lose and interest
groups battle over shrinking resources.
Parent Revolution, a reorm- minded
community organization launched in January 2009
to help implement the parent trigger policy in
Caliornia, played a prominent role in organizing
the parent petition to takeover McKinley
Elementary School in Compton. In December 2010,
the parent trigger was invoked or the rst time at
McKinley. Te parents were eventually deeated
on a petition technicality in a contentious battle
that saw the intended charter school opening a ew
blocks away but being lled with ew students rom
McKinley. In early 2012, Desert rails Elementary
School in Adelanto was the site o a second
attempt at a parent takeover. A group o parents
backed by Parent Revolution is hoping to enact
the parent trigger on low- perorming schools, butit aces opposition rom another group o parents
supported by state and local teachers unions.
Although the staying power and uture nature o
parent activism is unclear, the interactions between
local districts, parents and the legislature will play a
substantial role in the states educational reorms.
Prospects for the Future
Most stakeholders participating in this study
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
16/42
13
believe relatively little has changed in Caliornias
educational governance; one described the past
ve years as being in a holding pattern; another
asserted that the budget situation hijacked any realconversation about policy reorm. Te extent and
uncertainty o revenue cuts presents numerous
challenges at all levels. In general the mood among
many in Sacramento has been that until there
is more money, no real reorm (e.g., more local
fexibility, changes to accountability systems) can
happen.
Amid the chaos that pervades Caliornias
school nance and governance systems, there is
some hope. Education remains a top priority on
the state policy agenda and local concerns have
a growing impact in Sacramento. Moreover, thebudget crisis has provided some opportunity or
progress notably changes in categorical unding
that have led to more local fexibility. Tere will
likely be one or more ballot propositions in
November 2012 to increase unding or public
schools by raising taxes. Te USC Dornsie/Los
Angeles imes poll suggests that the majority o
Caliornians are in avor o increased unding or
public schools even i it means a tax increase. Tere
is an ongoing attempt to cra a single measure, but
competing propositions are quite possible.
Competing initiatives would each raise extra
revenue but would likely dier on important issues
such as who bears the burden o the tax increase,
whether all o the money goes into the states
general und, the degree o structural changes
required as well as the level o unding or schools
and whether it is temporary or permanent. Te
governor has called or $6.9 billion in temporary
new taxes, but the Legislative Analysts Oce
(LAO) has questioned some o the assumption
in the governors proposal (Yamamura, 2012).
More important, $6 billion o the revenues in thegovernors initiative will go to balancing the budget,
with only about $1 billion devoted to increasing
unding or schools. Alternative proposals may
result in a more permanent and greater increase
in unding or schools. A measure proposed
by Molly Munger (Our Children, Our Future)
suggests a 12-year initiative splitting $10 billion in
the rst our years between state bond repayment
($3 billion) and K-12 schools ($7 billion); in the
nal eight years the proposal would add $10
billion a year toward K-12 and pre-kindergarten
programs. Overall, a crowded and dynamic ballot
initiative landscape is emerging; there may be moreconsolidation o coalitions as the election date
draws nearer.
Until recently the governor has given relatively
ew clear signals o an education policy agenda.
Tis has begun to change. In his 2012 State o the
State speech, Governor Brown declared, we should
set broad goals and have a good accountability
system, leaving the real work to those closest to
the students, and I embrace both reorm and
traditionnot complacency. Te governor proposes
to replace categorical programs with a new
weighted student ormula with additional undingor disadvantaged students and struggling English
learners that simplies unding streams and reduces
bureaucracy. (See the chapter on school nance.)
Additionally, the governor stressed the importance
o timely data and called or a reduction in the
number o tests, with results returned more quickly
to teachers, principals and superintendents. He
also signaled his intention to work with the SBE
to develop a proposal or a qualitative system
o teacher assessments that includes school and
classroom visitations. Changes to accountability,
more local authority and increased transparency
are in line with the GDF recommendations, but it
is not clear what the path to implementation may
be. Finally, the governor has indicated a desire to
attack a looming public employee pension shortall.
Te Caliornia State eachers Retirement System
(CalSRS) and the CA want the legislature to
approve $4.1 billion a year that CalSRS needs to
level up its pension plan. Resolving this shortall
may oer an opportunity or other state level
reorms.
We reiterate the two policy changes that mayhelp acilitate improved educational governance in
Caliornia: the development o a comprehensive
statewide data system and changes to the system o
state nancing. Action on both recommendations
is necessary to build local capacity. CALPADS,
the student element o state data system, is
operational but restoring unding or CALIDES
will enhance Caliornias long term data capacity.
Some interviewees noted that schools need local
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
17/42
14
Sources:LegislativeAnalystsOce,SacramentoBee,LATimes,EdSource.
Timeline o Major Events in Caliornia Governance and Finance, 2007-2011
K-12 PPF = $8,235
School Year 2007-08
2008
K-12 PPF = $8,415
School Year 2008-09
2009
K-12 PPF = $7,933
School Year 2009-10
2010
K-12 PPF = $7,830
School Year 2010-11
2011
K-12 PPF = $7,713
Budget Decit $21B Budget Decit $19BBudget Decit $16B Budget Decit $25B Budget Decit $9B
School Year 2011-12
2012
February 2009
Budget Act relaxedspending restrictions
on over 40 categoricalprograms through
2014-2015
Federal stimulusfunding oset budget
reductions by $6B($3.2B from SFSF, $2.8B
from ARRA)
July 2009
Payments towardsQEIA adjusted to
save $450M
January 2010
Special RTTT inspiredlegislative packageincluding parenttrigger provisionembracing commoncore standards andusing student testscores and teacherevaluation is passed
August 2010
California lostbid for RTTT
December 2010
First use of parenttrigger at McKinleyElementary Schoolin Compton
June 2011
AB 114passed that
limits districtsoption to
respond tobudget cuts
October 2011
State $654M shortin revenue
Governor Brownvetoed SteinbergsAccountability Billwith neweducation index
January 2012
Governor BrownState of the Statespeech called forlocal authority andincreasedtransparency inpublic education
October 2009
GovernorSchwarzenegger
calls special sessionof legislature to
address obstaclesto competitive
RTTT application
November 2010
Jerry Brownelected CA
Governor
Voters passedballot measure that
now allows
budgets to bepassed with the
simple majority asopposed to
two-thirds
June 2011
Budget triggerprovision enactedwith automaticspending cuts tiedto revenueprojections
December 2011
Triggers pulled atlower than expectedamount $1B inadditional cuts
sources o revenue and believed that long term
solutions or state nancing lie in removing local
revenue generation constraints. Tese changes
can help solidiy the oundation or continuousimprovement in the perormance o Caliornias
public schools and ensure that all Caliornia
students have the opportunity to succeed.
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
18/42
15
References
n Blume, H. (2010, August 24). Caliornia loses
bid or ederal Race to the op education grant.Los Angeles imes. Retrieved on December 15,
2011 rom http://www.latimes.com/
n Brewer, D.J., & Smith, J. (2006). Evaluating
the Crazy Quilt: Educational Governance
in Caliornia. Los Angeles, CA: University o
Southern Caliornia.
n Brewer, D.J., & Smith, J. (2008). A ramework
or understanding educational governance.
Education Finance and Policy, 3(1), 20-40.
n Brewer, D.J., Pelayo, I., & Ahn, J. (2008).
Revisiting the Crazy Quilt: Recent
Developments in Caliornias EducationalGovernance. PACE.
n Cavanagh, S. (2012, February 29). Caliornia
asks or NCLB waiver, but without strings.
Education Week. Retrieved rom http://blogs.
edweek.org
n EdSource. (2011, May). Caliornias Fiscal
Crisis: What does it mean or schools?
Retrieved rom http://edsource.org
n Fensterwald, J. (2012, March 1). Cutting
it close to a quorum: Brown has three
State Board openings. Toughts on Public
Education. Retrieved on March 10, 2012 rom
http://toped.sveoundation.org
n Fuller, B., Marsh, J., Stecher, B., & imar,.
(2011). Deregulating School Aid in Caliornia:
How 10 Districts Responded to Fiscal
Flexibility, 2009-10. RAND and PACE
Research Network.
n Governor Brown State o the State speech 2012:
Caliornia on the Mend.
n Hess, F., & Kelly, A. (2012). Carrots, Sticks and
the Bully Pulpit. Harvard Education Press.
n
Institute or Research on Education Policy andPractice. (2007). Getting Down to Facts: A
research project examining Caliornias school
governance and nance systems. Retrieved on
June 12, 2008 rom http://irepp.stanord.edu/
projects/canance-studies.htm
n Mehta, S. (2011, January 8). Many see infuence
o teachers union in Gov. Jerry Browns
shakeup o Caliornia board o education. Los
Angeles imes. Retrieved on January 15, 2012rom http://www.latimes.com/
n Oce o Assembly Speaker Karen Bass. (2010,
January 6). Assembly passes Race to the op
Legislation.
n University o Southern Caliornia Dornsie
College o Letters, Arts and Sciences
and the Los Angeles imes Poll. (2011,
November).
n Yamamura, K. (2012, January 11). LAO:
Browns budget restores balance, but estimates
questionable. Te Sacramento Bee. Retrieved
on January 12, 2012 rom http://www.sacbee.com
n Yamamura, K. (2011, December 23). Molly
Munger changes tax initiative to address
budget decit. Te Sacramento Bee. Retrieved
on January 1, 2012 rom http://www.sacbee.
com
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
19/42
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
20/42
17
resource levels. Consistently over the last decade,
Caliornia has had ewer sta per pupil than other
states only three-quarters as many teachers
per pupil and only hal as many counselors perpupil compared with other states.8 Tis resource
deciency motivated a strand o the GDF research
that attempted to estimate how much revenue
schools would need or students to achieve the
states academic goals. Tese studies suggest that
the relationship between resources and outcomes
is unclear there is no magic dollar amount that
would ensure that students succeed academically.
And, although more unding may help students,
without systematic reorms to several aspects o
education in Caliornia additional revenue alone is
unlikely to improve student achievement.Not only the research community has been
critical o Caliornias current school nance
system. Te system is under attack through
legislative, public initiative, and legal avenues. wo
current lawsuits, Robles-Wong v. State o Caliornia
(2010) and the Campaign or Quality Education v.
Caliornia (2010), claim that the current nance
system is unconstitutional and demand that the
state develop a new system that is better aligned
with the States academic goals. In November 2011,
the Advancement Project led a ballot initiative or
2012. Te measure, titled Our Children, Our Future:
Local Schools and Early Education Investment Act,
would increase the state income tax to create the
Caliornia Education rust Fund, raising additional
unding sooner rather than later or Caliornias
education system. Finally, the legislature and
governor are developing alternatives to the current
system.
Te GDF research and subsequent work by
Rose, Sonstelie, and Weston (2010) have identied
ve key principles that Caliornias school nance
system should embody:
n Adequacy: Provide students with enough
resources to the meet the state standards.
n Cost dierentiation: Recognize that costs vary
depending on student need and other specic
district actors. A district, however, should not
be able to manipulate those cost actors.
n ransparency: Design unding ormulas thatare straightorward and transparent. Formulas
should adjust or key cost dierences without
trying to adjust or every slight dierence
between districts.
n Equity: Allocate the same per-pupil revenue to
all districts with the same cost actors.
n Local fexibility: Provide more local authority
in how revenue is used, so districts can address
their local needs given their mix o available
personnel and other resources.
Te current system ails to some extent in each
o these areas, and any reorm proposals should be
judged against these criteria. Tis paper provides
an overview o the steps Caliornia has made in
the last ve years that adhere to these elements
o school nance reorm. Most o the concrete
reorm discussions have ocused on the structure
o the system, rather than the level o unding.
Nonetheless, the economic conditions o the state
certainly act as an important backdrop to thesediscussions.
A New Approach: Weighted Student Formulas
Soon aer the release o the GDF studies, two
groups proposed alternative systems embodying
many o the ve principles and crystallizing how
a new system could look. Bersin, Kirst, and Liu
(2007) and the Governors Committee on Education
Excellence (2007) both proposed consolidating the
current array o unding programs into just three
simple programs and using a ormula to distribute
those unds equitably.9 Te base program wouldconstitute the majority o unding, which would be
disbursed on an equal per-pupil basis and would
be unrestricted in its use. Both the Bersin, Kirst,
and Liu and GCEE proposals allow or dierent
base unding rates by grade level, although the
8 For example, see Rose et al. (2003), Loeb, Grissom, and Strunk(2007), and EdSource (2010).
9 Rose, Sengupta, Sonstelie, and Reinhard (2008) and Reinhard,Rose, Sengupta, and Sonstelie (2008) analyze the eect o thesetwo proposals on the distribution o resources across schools.
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
21/42
18
Governors Committee makes it a more explicit
part o its proposal. An additional program would
provide unding or Special Education. Tis
revenue would also be allocated on an equal per-pupil basis, but would be restricted or the use
o special education programs. Te last program
would target additional unds to economically
disadvantaged students and English learners.
Both proposals incorporated a targeted program
because economically disadvantaged students
disproportionally ail to achieve prociency on the
state standards, and many experts believe they may
need additional resources to meet the states goals
(Figure 1).10 Te Legislative Analysts Oce (2008)
proposed a similar restructuring approach, with
one additional program that distributes unds on anequal per-pupil basis but restricts that money to be
spent on sta proessional development.
FIGURE 1: English-Language Arts Profciencyon the Caliornia Standards Test and the PercentEconomically Disadvantaged, Elementary
Schools, 2007.
ormulas are simple and transparent, adjusting
or only a ew key dierences in cost. Tey supply
similar students with similar unding amounts,
and they provide much more local discretion inhow unds are spent by removing the categorical
program restrictions. Trough their targeted
programs, these proposals take a big step toward
linking revenue to student need.
Te Bersin, Kirst, and Liu proposal also adjusts
unding in the three programs or the dierential
costs o labor around the state. About 85 percent o
school district expenditures go toward personnel
compensation, and the geographic variation in
that compensation is highly correlated with the
geographic variation in the salaries o college-
educated non-teachers, in large part because school
districts must compete with other employers or
their stang needs. Bersin, Kirst, and Liu suggest
augmenting revenue in regions with high non-
teacher wages so that schools can hire the same
number o sta per pupil as schools in areas with
lower non-teacher wages.11
Although these proposals all take important
steps toward meeting the principle o cost
dierentiation, their ormulas violate one
aspect o that principle. Tey provide additional
unding or students who are classied as EnglishLearners. Because schools districts use their own
criteria to classiy students as English Learners,
basing unding on this classication creates scal
incentives or districts to prevent students rom
being reclassied as procient in English. Providing
a more standardized measure o English Learner
status or the purpose o unding could still direct
resources to these students who have additional
needs while keeping this cost adjustment more in
line with the principles o reorm.
All three proposals ocus extensively on the
structure o the school nance system, providing
an improved ramework or the distribution o
additional school unding as it becomes available.
Te Governors Committee on Education
Excellence takes their proposal one step urther,
10 Chambers, Levin, and DeLancey (2006), Imazeki (2006), Rose,Sonstelie, and Richardson (2004), and Sonstelie (2007).
Source: Public Policy Institute o Caliornia (Rose et al., 2008).
Note: Every dot represents an elementary school. The line
represents the average relationship between the two actors,
profciency and economic disadvantage.
Tese unding ormulas all into the class called
weighted student ormulas, because they essentially
provide all students with the same base level o
per-pupil revenue while weighting certain student
groups more heavily with additional revenue. Te
PercentPro
cient
200 40 60
Percent Economically Disadvantaged
80 100
100
80
60
40
20
0
11 Rose and Sengupta (2007) develop the regional wage indexused by Bersin, Kirst, and Liu (2007) and Reinhard, Rose,Sengupta, and Sonstelie (2008) show how districts in regionswith higher non-teacher wages end up with lower stang ratios.
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
22/42
19
suggesting that that the state would need to spend
an additional $5 billion to achieve its education
goals.
Moving Toward Reform Amidst Californias
Budget Crisis
The California Budget Crisis
Te Getting Down to Facts research,
subsequent policy proposals, and analysis rom the
research community created potential momentum
or school nance reorm. Unortunately, these
ideals collided with a severe budget crisis in
Caliornia. In 2008-09, the Caliornia government
cut state general und spending a dramatic 12
percent. Spending continued to decline the nextyear, ending the decade 15 percent lower than its
2007-08 peak. Given that Caliornia public schools
receive most o their unding rom the states
general unds, it is not surprising that total state
contributions to school unding also ell.12 Tis state
revenue to schools ell 12 percent during the last
three years o the decade.
Despite the reduced state unding, an inusion
o ederal unds helped temporarily insulate total
school district revenue. Te American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act o 2009 (ARRA) providednearly $1,000 per pupil, spread out over the three
years rom 2008-09 through 2010-11.13 Te bars
in Figure 2 show total school district general
und revenue by source. Federal unding, the top
segment o each bar, was about 50 percent higher
in 2008-09 and 2009-10 than it was in 2007-08.
Te ederal support meant that total school district
general und revenue ell only 7 percent, rather than
12 percent, between 2007-08 and 2009-10.
Te school district revenue in Figure 2 comes
rom the SACS accounting data that districts report
to the state. Although these data nicely track total
school district revenue rom state, ederal, and
local sources, they are not available aer 2009-10.
Te Legislative Analysts Oce (2012) reports
that the portion o revenue rom state school
unding rebounded slightly in 2010-11 but was
still 8 percent below the 2007-08 peak, where it
FIGURE 2: State General Fund Expenditures and K-12 School District General Fund Revenue
Sources:ThestatesgeneralfundexpenditurescomefromtheCaliforniaDepartmentofFinancesChartJ,HistoricalData,Growth
in Revenues, Transers and Expenditures, General Fund. The data on school district revenue come rom the states standardizedaccounting data (SACS) as reported in Ed-Data Statewide Financial Reports o school district general und revenue. Enrollmentcomes rom the department o education and is used to compute per-pupil unding levels. Revenue to county oces is excluded.
12 Proposition 98 earmarks about 40% o the states generalund or K-14 education, with about 90% o that going to K-12education and about 10% going to community colleges.
RevenuePerPupil($)
$Millions
2003
-04
2004
-05
2005
-06
2006
-07
2007
-08
2008
-09
2009
-10
2010
-11
2011
-12
Federal Categorical
Local
State Categorical
Revenue Limit
Total School District
Revenue from State
Sources
State General FundExpenditures (Right Axis)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
13 In addition, the Federal Education Jobs program providedabout $200 per pupil spread over the years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
23/42
20
is expected to hover this year (the dashed gray
line refects these data).14 Although this slight
recovery o state unds is welcome, it is somewhat
counterbalanced by a reduction in ederal supportas ARRA and the Education Jobs program wind
down.
Te revenue data rom the SACS and LAO in
Figure 2 obscure another important issue acing
schools. Tey include revenue deerrals, essentially
IOUs rom the state to school districts. In 2011-12,
the state issued $350 per pupil in new deerrals.15
In the uture, the state will need either to increase
the unding it provides schools to cover this annual
decit or acknowledge this deerral as a cut which
would translate into another 5 percent decline
in state unding o schools. Te short-term pathCaliornia takes will surely depend on the states
economy, but also on whether Governor Jerry
Browns proposed tax hikes are approved at the
ballot box in November 2012. I voters approve
Browns tax increases, state support o schools
will remain relatively fat in 2012-13. I the ballot
measure is not approved, the LAO estimates state
unding per pupil will drop 4.4 percent that year.
Te states unding crisis initially caused many
in the education community to ocus immediate
eorts on maintaining current educational
programs and unding levels. Although this ocus
on unding preservation may naturally divert
some attention away rom long-run school nance
reorm, the crisis has actually caused the legislature
to adopt changes in line with some key principles
or structural reorm.
The Flex Item: Reform in the Absence of
Revenue
In February 2009, the legislature eliminated the
restrictions on about 40 state categorical unding
programs, essentially consolidating them into one
unding stream and allowing the revenue to be used
or any legitimate education expense.16 Te state
granted this unding fexibility to help districts dealwith the severe budget cuts. Tis new aggregate set
o programs, commonly reerred to as thefex item,
represented about 40 percent o the categorical
unding (LAO, 2011).
Although the fex item simplies the nance
system and grants districts more local control, it
violates other important reorm principles. It is
neither equally distributed nor highly related to
student need.17 On average, elementary districts
tend to have the lowest per-pupil fex-item unding
rates while high school districts tend to have the
highest, although this discrepancy would changei K-3 Class Size Reduction unds were included
in the fex item. Even within each type o district,
per-pupil unding varies substantially. Although
fex item unding increases slightly as the level o
student need increases, the relationship is loose.
Finally, the share o fex item unds that a district
receives is primarily based on the share it received
near the time the unds were originally fexed; a
districts allocation is not explicitly related to the
number o pupils it serves. Tis allocation method
does not account or enrollment growth or declines,
and so has the potential to urther exacerbate per-
pupil unding dierences in the long run.
Te fex item was a reactive rather than
proactive policy. Although this temporary
program is set to expire in 2014-15, it has already
been extended once; the LAO suggests there is
no clear exit strategy,18 and interviews with
Caliornia policy-makers suggest it may be
dicult to backtrack rom this fexibility.19 With a
more strategic design o programs included (e.g.,
including K-3 class size reduction and excluding
adult education) and a mechanism to equalize per-pupil unding rates over time, the fex item could
represent a much bigger step toward school nance
reorm.20
14 Te LAO school revenue data include the portion o stateunding required by Proposition 98, which is about 88% ogeneral state aid, property taxes, and state categorical programs(CDE, 2011). Examples o non-Proposition 98 unding includeexcess taxes above the revenue limit, state lottery unds, and insome years, pupil transportation unding (Weston, 2011). Teannual changes in LAOs state unding are very similar to thosein the SACS data. Figure 2 applies the LAO changes to the SACSlevels to extrapolate state revenue.15 LAO (2012). Tese accounting maneuvers highlight yet onemore aspect o the states complex nance system that makes itdicult to track money rom the state to school districts.
16 SBX3 4 and ABX4 2 established these new rules and extendedthem to 2014-15.17 Weston (2011), Figure 5.18 LAO, 2011, pp. 19.19 Fuller, Marsh, Stecher, and imar (2011), pp. 2720 LAO (2009, 2010, 2011) and Weston (2011) proposealternative program groupings and analyze these.
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
24/42
21
Education Finance Reform Act
(Assembly Bill 18)
A more proactive legislative approach to school
nance reorm is Assembly Bill 18, the EducationFinance Reorm Act, which would consolidate about
36 categorical programs into just three streams
o unding. Tis proposal meets several o the
principles o good nance reorm. It simplies the
current system and allows or more local fexibility
in how unds are used. Te bill also ocuses a
stream o resources on disadvantaged students,
recognizing that their educational cost may be
higher. However, the bill ails to address all o the
principles o nance reorm. Its argeted Pupil
Equity program to help low income and English
Learners is susceptible to nancial manipulation
by school districts because districts dene which
students are English Learners. Although this bill
represents a more thoughtul approach to reorm,
the unds to be aggregated represent only about
$1,000 per pupil in 2010-11. Furthermore, the bill
does not currently provide a mechanism to equalize
the per-pupil amount districts get in each stream.
Te current disparity in unding across districts in
the categorical programs to be aggregated would
still exist in the aggregate program. Tis bill is a
work in progress, and uture iterations certainlycould include an equalizing mechanism.
From Program Consolidation to Equal Per-
Pupil Funding Rates
All these eorts have laid the groundwork
or Governor Browns recent education nance
proposal, which puts many o these pieces together
to create a weighted student ormula.21 In the
Governors plan, each student would generate
a base unding amount or example $5,000.22
Disadvantaged students (dened as students
either eligible or the ree or reduced price lunch
program or classied as English Learners) would
each generate an additional 37 percent o that base,
or $1,850 in the example. Once a districts share
o disadvantaged students reaches 50 percent or
higher, disadvantaged students generate even more
revenue. Te additional amount is proportionalto the percentage o disadvantaged students in the
district. Figure 3 shows the relationship between
the percentage o disadvantaged students and the
districts total revenue per pupil, when all revenue is
spread out across all students.
FIGURE 3: Revenue per Pupil under Governor
Browns School Finance Proposal
21 See the Weighted Student Formula [422, 424]railer BillLanguage or the Education area o the 2012-13 Governorsproposed budget, accessed 2/15/12 rom http://www.do.ca.gov/budgeting/trailer_bill_language/education/documents/22 Te bill does not include an actual base amount. Te basewould be set so that the programs cost would not exceed what isavailable through Proposition 98 unding levels.
Revenue
perPupil($)
0.20 0.4 0.6
% Disadvantaged Students
0.8 1.0
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
Tis sweeping reorm attempts to adhere to the
ve key principles. I enacted, it would substantially
simpliy Caliornias school nance system. Aside
rom a handul o categorical programs (such
as special education and programs beyond the
control o the legislature), all state unding would
be distributed through this ormula with very ew
strings attached. Schools would be monitored
based on what they achieve, not how they spend
their money. Te plan improves transparency and
local fexibility, and the weights target substantial
additional resources to districts with needy
students. Furthermore, the ormula equalizes per-pupil unding across districts with the same cost
actors within a six-year time span, so that similar
students are treated similarly sooner rather than
later.
Tis reorm proposal is a dramatic opening bid
rom the Brown Administration to move Caliornia
toward a weighted student ormula. Representatives
rom the administration have indicated they would
consider adjusting some technical aspects o this
Source: Authors calculation based on hypothetical baseunding o $5,000 per pupil.
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
25/42
22
ormula. Tis bold new proposal has already
attracted close scrutiny o its technical details as
well as its broader policy changes.
During a recent Caliornia Senate Budgetand Fiscal Review Committee hearing, Senators
generally avored the concept o a weighted student
ormula but questioned some elements o the
plan.23At the oreront o their concerns was the
lack o cost adjustments or regional dierences
in labor cost, or student grade level, and or the
potentially higher transportation costs acing some
districts. Te LAO (2012) has pointed out that
although districts receive additional unds based on
their population o disadvantaged students, districts
are not required to spend those supplementary
unds on those students. Te Caliornia State
Senate Republican Caucus is concerned about
classiying English Learners as disadvantaged
students and would like to see cost adjustments
based solely on actors outside the control o
schools districts.24 (Te Governors proposal does
not double count English Learners i they are also
poor, so this concern pertains to the 15 - 25 percent
o English Learners who do not participate in the
ree and reduced price lunch program.) Tere
are related issues about how exactly to measure
whether a student is classied as low income andwhether the weights or disadvantaged students are
appropriate.25
Tese technical concerns can all be addressed
while maintaining the integrity o the proposal.
A more undamental issue, however, is that the
Governors proposal would drastically change
how revenue is distributed, producing winners
and losers.26 Tis issue is particularly salient in the
short run. Te six-year timeline or phasing in the
new unding system means that, i additional state
unding is not orthcoming or schools, revenue
will be redistributed rom some districts to others.Although the Department o Finance projects
ample revenue growth to insure that six years rom
now almost all districts will have higher revenue
under the new ormula than they currently have,
Caliornias recent recession has certainly madesome observers wary o optimistic budget orecasts
and particularly attuned to the possibility o even
more budget cuts.
Despite these immediate nancial concerns,
the state economy is cyclical, and state coers
will eventually rebound and grow. Demographic
projections suggest the student population will
grow at a slower rate than the adult population. I
taxpayers continue to spend the same share o their
income on public schools, these concurrent trends
suggest per-pupil spending could rise by about 30
percent in the next twenty years.27 Yet, even i the
new ormula is phased in over a longer horizon,
some districts will receive substantially less o the
additional revenue than others, a eature that will
likely cause some o them to challenge the proposal.
Tese challenges, however, stem rom the
inequities and irrationality inherent in Caliornias
current school nance system a system that
has consistently been assaulted on all ronts by
researchers, legislators, the judiciary and the
public. Te Governors proposal is to date the most
comprehensive attempt to x this system.Tis momentum toward developing a
weighted student ormula or Caliornia is
consistent with what the original GDF research
envisioned. Eventually, any nance system will
need to come to terms with uncertainty about how
resources actually translate into higher academic
achievement. But one message is clear: without
a stronger nance system, reaching Caliornias
academic goals will be an uphill battle. Pouring
more money into the current system is akin to
pouring a concrete oundation without putting
the orm boards in place. It consumes substantial
resources, makes a mess, and doesnt improve the
stability o your house. Te groundwork has been23 Caliornia Senate Standing Committee on Budget and FiscalReview Budget Overview Hearing (February 16, 2012), availableat http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/3330.24 Caliornia State Senate Republican Caucus (2012).25 For more inormation on these cost actors, see Reinhard,Rose, Sengupta, and Sonstelie (2008) and Rose, Sengupta,Sonstelie, and Reinhard (2008).26 Rose, Sonstelie, and Weston (orthcoming 2012) analyze thesechanges.
27 Rose, Sonstelie, and Weston (2010) provide the assumptionsbehind this growth rate and model pathways the state couldtake to transition rom the current nance system to a moreequitable system over the next two decades. In the scenariosthey model, the equalization mechanism unnels new growth inschool unding to districts that are currently below their targetedunding rates under the new ormula.
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
26/42
23
laid or reorm, and it is time to continue working
in that direction. A strong nance oundation is the
rst step in a stronger education system. But even
with a rational mechanism or allocating moneyto school districts, those districts need to use their
revenue wisely to improve academic results. Only
then can Caliornia schools resume their place
among the best in the nation.
References
n Bersin, A., Kirst, M., & Liu, G. (2007). Getting
Beyond the Facts: Reorming Caliornia School
Finance, Chie Justice Earl Warren Institute
on Race, Ethnicity, and Diversity, University o
Caliornia, Berkeley. n Caliornia Department o Education. (2011).
2010-11 Budget ables. Retrieved on February
29, 2012 rom http://www.cde.ca.gov/g/r/eb/
budtables2010.asp
n Caliornia State Senate Republican Caucus.
(2012, February 15). Brieng Report: Weighted
Student Formula. Retrieved on February 29,
2012 rom http://www.cssrc.us/publications.
aspx?id=11860
n Chambers, J., Levin, J., & DeLancey, D. (2006).
Eciency and Adequacy in Caliornia School
Finance: A Proessional Judgment Approach.
Getting Down to Facts Project: Stanord
University.
n EdSource. (2010, September). How Caliornia
Ranks. Retrieved on February 14, 2012 rom
http://www.edsource.org/pub10-how-ca-ranks.
html
n Fensterwald, J. (2012, January 9). How
weighted unding would work. Educated
Guess. Retrieved on January 10, 2012 rom
http://toped.sveoundation.org/2012/01/09/
how-weighted-unding-would-work/ n Fuller, B., Marsh, J., Stecher, B., & imar,
. (2011). Deregulating School Aid in
Caliornia: How 10 Districts Responded to
Fiscal Flexibility, 2009-2010. RAND and PACE
Research Network.
n Governors Committee on Education
Excellence. (2007). Students First: Renewing
Hope or Caliornias Future.
n Imazeki, J. (2006). Assessing the Costs o
K-12 Education in Caliornia Public Schools.
Getting Down to Facts Project: Stanord
University.
n
Legislative Analysts Oce. (2008). Analysis othe 2008-09 Budget Bill.
n Legislative Analysts Oce. (2009). Analysis
o the 2008-09 Budget Bill: Proposition 98
Education Programs.
n Legislative Analysts Oce. (2010). Year-One
Survey: Update on School District Finance and
Flexibility.
n Legislative Analysts Oce. (2011, February).
Te 2011-12 Budget: Year-wo Survey. Update
on School District Finance in Caliornia.
n Legislative Analysts Oce. (2012, February).
Te 2012-13 Budget: Proposition 98 EducationAnalysis.
n Loeb, S., Bryk, A., & Hanushek, E. (2007).
Getting Down to Facts: Getting Down to
Facts: School Finance and Governance in
Caliornia. Getting Down to Facts Project:
Stanord University.
n Loeb, S., Grissom, J., & Strunk, K. (2007).
District Dollars: Painting a Picture o Revenues
and Expenditures in Caliornias School
Districts. Getting Down to Facts Project:
Stanord University.
n Reinhard, R., Rose, H., Sengupta, R., &
Sonstelie, J. (2008). Funding Formulas or
Caliornia Schools II: An Analysis o a Proposal
by the Governors Committee on Education
Excellence. Public Policy Institute o Caliornia.
n Rose, H., Sonstelie, J., Reinhard, R., & Heng, S.
(2003). High Expectations, Modest Means: Te
Challenge Facing Caliornias Public Schools.
Public Policy Institute o Caliornia.
n Rose, H., Sonstelie, J., & Weston, M. (2010).
Pathways or School Finance in Caliornia.
Public Policy Institute o Caliornia. n Rose, H., Sonstelie, J., & Weston, M.
(orthcoming 2012). Funding Formulas or
Caliornia Schools III: An Analysis o Governor
Browns Weighted Pupil Funding Formula.
Public Policy Institute o Caliornia.
n Rose, H., Sonstelie, J., & Richardson, P. (2004).
School Budgets and Student Achievement in
Caliornia: Te Principals Perspective. Public
Policy Institute o Caliornia.
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
27/42
24
n Rose, H., & Sengupta, R. (2007). eacher
Compensation and Local Labor Market
Conditions in Caliornia: Implications or
School Funding. Public Policy Institute oCaliornia.
n Rose, H., Sengupta, R., Sonstelie, J., &
Reinhard, R. (2008). Funding Formulas
or Caliornia Schools: Simulations and
Supporting Data. Public Policy Institute o
Caliornia.
n Sonstelie, J. (2008). Financing Caliornias
Public Schools. Conditions o Education in
Caliornia. PACE, Stanord, CA.
n Sonstelie, J., Brunner, E., & Ardon, K. (1999).
For Better or For Worse? School Finance
Reorm in Caliornia. Public Policy Institute oCaliornia.
n Weston, M. (2011). Funding Caliornia
Schools: Te Revenue Limit System. Public
Policy Institute o Caliornia.
n Weston, M. (2011). Caliornias New Funding
Flexibility. Public Policy Institute o Caliornia.
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
28/42
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
29/42
26
educational credits and experience are not
well-correlated with teacher quality, almost all
districts used these measures as the primary
determinant o salary. A closely relatedproblem was inequity in the distribution
o eective teachers across schools, with
high-need schools acing greater challenges
attracting and retaining high-quality teachers.
n Reorms inhibited by state policies. Several
o the concerns pertaining to the evaluation,
assignment and retention o teachers were
strongly infuenced by district-specic
collective bargaining agreements, but these
contracts were constrained by state policies
that determined what districts can and cannotdo.
n Lack o program evaluation. Finally, the
GDF investigators noted that even when
innovative programs were in place, there was
little attempt to assess or evaluate them. Tus,
although many o the problems were well-
documented, and prior research could suggest
avenues or reorm, little direct evidence as to
whether a particular policy actually works was
collected or analyzed.
What has changed since 2007
and what hasnt
Many o the problems identied ve years
ago continue to pose challenges or Caliornia.
Schools still have low levels o adults per student,
and there has been little progress at the state level
in policies related to administrator training or to
the hiring, evaluation, compensation or retention o
teachers. However, recent initiatives at the ederal
level have changed the national conversation about
measuring and rewarding teacher eectiveness.Within Caliornia, a number o individual districts
may provide important examples o new ways to
evaluate and compensate teachers.
A shrinking state budget has forced layoffs
and professional development cuts
Caliornia still ranks close to last among
all states in the number o teachers, sta and
administrators per pupil. (See Figure 1.) As
highlighted in the 2007 GDF studies, thatlower adult-student ratio means larger classes
and ewer services, such as instructional coaches
or counseling or students. Tat low ratio also
means school principals have to spend more time
on issues that in other states assistant principals
or district administrators might handle. As a
result, principals are less engaged in working on
curriculum and teacher development. For example,
in one survey Caliornia principals were much
less likely than principals in other states to report
that they work with teachers to change teaching
methods where students were not succeeding
or work with aculty to develop goals or their
practice and proessional development (Darling-
Hammond, 2007). In another survey (Fuller et al,
2007), Caliornia principals reported spending as
much time on compliance paperwork as they spent
on teacher evaluation and support. Furthermore,
Caliornia principals were less likely to have had an
internship as part o their training, to have received
mentoring or coaching rom more experienced
administrators, or to engage in proessional
development with teachers (Darling-Hammond,2007). In 2007, Caliornia had ew programs or
leadership development.
Five years later, little has changed. Some o the
lack o progress can be blamed on the budget crisis.
Certainly the budget situation has contributed to
layos across the state, and many districts have
cut back on non-core services such as proessional
development and training in order to protect core
classroom instruction (Fuller et al, 2010). In this
FIGURE 1: Adults in Caliornia Schools, 2004-2011
Source: Caliornia Department o Education
Personnelper1,0
00
students
2004-05
Teachers (10s)
Administrators
Pupil Services
2005-062006-07
2007-082 00 8-09 201 0-1 1
2009-10
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
30/42
27
1 For example, among the programs that were fexed werethe Proessional Development Block Grant, the eacherCredentialing Block Grant and AB 430 Administrator raining,the only dedicated state training or principals still le.
scal environment, statewide reorms to improve
hiring practices or provide training or new
personnel are moot.
Several targeted categorical programs related toteacher distribution and proessional development
were included in the group o programs granted
budgetary fexibility in the 2008 budget package,1
but unding or these programs was reduced by
30 percent. A survey o district nancial ocers
(Fuller et al, 2012) suggests that in many districts
these proessional development unds were swept
into district general unds to help oset overall
cuts and maintain stang levels and instructional
activities.
Teacher education gets a closer look
Although there has been little progress
in proessional development or teachers and
administrators once they are on the job, there is
some reason or optimism that teachers may soon
get better training beore they enter the classroom.
In 2010, a scathing report rom the state auditor
prompted a shake-up o the Caliornia Commission
on eacher Credentialing (CC). Since then, the
CC has ocused on improving oversight o the
states teacher education programs, particularly
through better assessments o the specic skillsgraduates are supposed to acquire. At the same
time, the U.S. Department o Education has
been pushing or reorms in teacher education,
including stronger institutional reporting and state
accountability. However, all o these eorts were
hindered by the Governors decision not to und
the Caliornia Longitudinal eacher Integrated
Data Education System (CALIDES). Te statewide
longitudinal teacher database would have been
invaluable or determining which teacher education
programs produce eective teachers, as well as
where those eective teachers are placed.
Teacher effectiveness moves into the national
spotlight
At the time o the GDF studies, ew districts
had eective processes or evaluating either
prospective or current teachers. Most relied upon
easily observable characteristics that are not
necessarily correlated with teacher eectiveness.Furthermore, although research has established
that generic requirements like educational credits
and experience are not well-correlated with teacher
quality, almost all districts used these measures
as the primary determinant o salary. Tere was
thereore no nancial incentive or teachers to
engage in activities that have been ound to improve
teacher quality, such as targeted proessional
development (Loeb and Miller, 2007).
ARRA and RTTT. In the last ew years,
teacher evaluation and compensation have
become key issues in education policy across thecountry, largely driven by initiatives o the Obama
administration. One o the our ocus areas or
the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
(ARRA) and the accompanying Race to the op
(R) competition was recruiting, developing,
rewarding, and retaining eective teachers and
principals, especially where they are needed most.
More specically, state applications needed to
address several related reorm eorts, including
attracting and keeping great teachers and leaders
in Americas classrooms, by expanding eective
support to teachers and principals; reorming and
improving teacher preparation; revising teacher
evaluation, compensation, and retention policies to
encourage and reward eectiveness; and working
to ensure that our most talented teachers are placed
in the schools and subjects where they are needed
the most (White House R Fact Sheet). A
related ocus area was the development o statewide
longitudinal data systems, which the Obama
administration has emphasized are necessary or
providing the type o data that will allow standards-
based teacher evaluation.o qualiy or ARRA unds, states had to
provide assurances that they are advancing the
our reorms described in the statute and complying
with maintenance o eort requirements. States
also needed to provide baseline data on their
current status in each o these areas and basic
inormation on how the unds will be used. In
addition, to compete or R unds, states needed
to adopt systems that tie educator evaluations to
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
31/42
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
32/42
29
Action at the state level may become even more
important in the wake o a lawsuit aimed at holding
districts accountable or existing requirements or
teacher evaluation. Te Stull Act, originally passedin 1971, is the primary state law governing teacher
evaluation. It specically requires that schools
evaluate teachers based, at least in part, on student
perormance on state tests. According to EdVoice,
an education advocacy group, ew districts are in
ull compliance and a lawsuit (Doe v. Deasy) is now
pending against LAUSD to orce compliance. Te
success o such a suit would have ramications or
other districts as well. It will be important or the
state legislature to provide clarication o exactly
what is, and is not, required o districts.
One concern that has been raised in Caliorniaabout value-added measures is that the tests being
used to calculate them were never intended to be
used in this way. Te Caliornia Standards ests
were not designed to compare student perormance
rom one grade to the next, a very real problem
in using them or value-added models. However,
Caliornia is now part o the SMARER Balanced
Assessment Consortium, a group o states working
on assessment systems aligned with the Common
Core. Tese eorts may eventually lead to more
accurate measures o the value added by teachers.
Teacher distribution is still inequitable
Critics o the traditional step-and-column
teacher salary schedule point out that not only
does the system base compensation on actors that
have no proven correlation with teacher quality, it
also contributes to inequities in the distribution o
eective teachers across schools within districts.
When teachers with identical education and
experience earn the same pay across a district,
there are likely to be shortages in some elds and at
schools with more challenging working conditions.Although this is oen blamed on the transer and
seniority rules in collectively-bargained contracts,
Koski and Horng (2007) ound no evidence that
those rules aected the within-district distribution
o teachers. Teir ndings suggest that policy-
makers need to look elsewhere or ways to address
the diculties that some schools ace in hiring and
retaining eective teachers.
Although layos due to budget cutbacks
have prompted renewed concern about the role
o seniority in teacher retention and transer
decisions, Caliornia has done little in this area
either. In 2010, parents at three Los Angeles schoolsbrought a suit against the state and LAUSD, arguing
that their schools suered disproportionately rom
layos (Reed v. State o Caliornia and LAUSD).
Te plaintis schools served large numbers
o minority and low-income children and had
many novice teachers who were rst in line or
layos. Ultimately, an agreement was reached in
which the district agreed to exempt teachers at
45 schools rom the last hired, rst red layo
rules. SB1285 (Steinberg) attempted to address this
problem statewide by requiring districts to balance
distribution o new teachers so that the percentageo teachers laid o at a districts lowest-perorming
schools would be no higher than the average or all
schools in the district. However, aer an intense
battle the bill was deeated.
Te one state-level policy change aimed at
improving the distribution o teachers within
districts took place in 2006. SB 1655 (Scott) allows
principals o schools in the lowest 30 percent to
reuse voluntary transers and does not allow
seniority to be the dominant priority over other
qualied applicants or transers aer April 15.
Pockets of Progress: Districts are taking the
lead in innovation
Although Sacramento has done relatively little
on issues o training, evaluation and distribution
o personnel, several individual districts have been
developing programs on their own. For example,
Los Angeles Unied Superintendent John Deasy
has made teacher and administrator evaluation
a top priority; LAUSD is currently piloting an
evaluation system that incorporates multiple
measures. One component o the evaluation isacademic growth over time, a orm o a value-
added test score measure. Te evaluations also
include direct observations, stakeholder eedback
rom parents and students, and contributions to
community, although the district is still working
out how exactly to capture each o those actors
and how much weight to give to each. Te district
is starting with a small voluntary pilot and plans to
scale up over time. Any change to the evaluation
8/2/2019 PACE Facts Brochure Final[1]
33/42
30
process district-wide will need to be negotiated
with the local teachers union, and such a radical
change will likely be contentious.
San Francisco Unied School District (SFUSD)is taking a very dierent approach. In 2008, San
Francisco voters passed Proposition A, the Quality
eacher and Education Act. Proposition A is a
parcel tax largely dedicated to increasing teacher
salaries, including bonuses or hard-to-sta schools
and subjects. It also supports other reorms to