Search

At their best, K-12 public school systems can be engines of social and economic mobility. Unfortunately, schools in lower-income districts -- whose students have the greatest academic needs -- often receive less funding than their counterparts in more affluent districts. Discussions about closing these funding gaps usually zoom all the way out to the state level or all the way down to the district level. But a big part of the problem lies in how funding is distributed across districts in the same metro area -- and in state policies that allow wealthy communities to raise and keep large amounts of local revenue exclusively for their own schools. "Leveling the Landscape: An Analysis of K-12 Funding Inequities Within Metro Areas" takes a closer look at the scale and sources of education funding within 123 large metro areas in 38 states, focusing on funding disparities among districts serving the same region. Key takeaways include: (1) a majority of public school students (62%) live in large metro areas with more than five districts -- a level of fragmentation that makes funding disparities more likely; (2) within fragmented metro areas, wealthy districts often generate much more local funding per student than less affluent districts; (3) state policies, despite their progressive tilt, rarely bridge this gap -- and often don't even come close; (4) in 49 of the 123 large metro areas we examined, school districts in affluent areas receive the most funding per pupil; (5) closing the state and local funding gap between districts within the metro areas we examined would cost $26 billion in additional state funding per year; and (6) more ambitious policies can greatly reduce or even eliminate funding disparities. The report also explores policy tools state leaders can use to ensure all districts within the same metro area at the very least receive similar funding per student and ideally, set the stage for even greater levels of per-pupil funding to flow to higher-needs districts.

Most Americans today need some education beyond high school to secure a well-paying job, and higher education is a key factor in social and economic mobility. But higher education is not accessible to all students. To further equalize opportunity, states must understand options for improving the way they fund higher education. America's public K-12 system has been grappling with similar funding disparities for decades -- challenges that offer important lessons for postsecondary funding. Bellwether's analysis, "Strengthening State Higher Education Funding: Lessons Learned From K-12," identifies insights and lessons from K-12 finance policy that may be instructive as states rework how they fund higher education. This report explores four topics and associated questions that are also relevant across K-12 education: (1) Equity: How can states distribute funding to students and public IHEs with the greatest needs?; (2) Adequacy: How much funding is enough to achieve the desired outcomes?; (3) Cost Sharing: How can local governments and states share the cost of public higher education?; and (4) Stability: How can public IHEs secure consistent and predictable funding?

A 50-cent-per-pack tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products has been endorsed by California voters to fund early childhood services under Proposition 10, California Children and Families First Act of 1998. In compliance with the legislative requirement of Result-Based Accountability (RBA) on revenue spending, this report delineates evaluation findings from 39 programs that received over $7.7 million of the annual state investment in Kern County, the third largest county in California by land area. Following the RBA model, this report incorporates qualitative and quantitative analyses of the program's effectiveness and service integration. A five-chapter structure is adopted to support the dissemination of the multilevel findings in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 -- Built on the description of the Commission leadership in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 contains assessment findings to address the program impact on Child Health, Family Functioning, and Child Development. Chapter 3 clarifies service partnership building in Systems of Care. Improvement of child well-being and family functioning is summarized in Chapter 4 to document the turning-the-curve process on important indicators of child well-being and parent support. The report concludes in Chapter 5 with a review of past recommendations and an introduction to new recommendations for next year. Netdraw, Quanteda in R, SAS and SPSS packages are employed to support data visualization, text analytics, and statistical computing. [For "First 5 Kern Annual Report 2021-2022," see ED626036.]

In 2013, California implemented an ambitious school funding reform, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which allocates state funding by the proportion of unduplicated "high-need" students in the district: those from low-income families, English learners, and those in foster care. Using student-level longitudinal data for all California schoolchildren, the study is the first comprehensive investigation of LCFF's impacts on student outcomes, including math and reading achievement, grade repetition, school disciplinary incidents, high school graduation, and college readiness. The analyses show that LCFF-induced funding increases significantly improved academic achievement for every grade and subject assessed, reduced grade repetition, enabled lower suspension rates, and increased the likelihood of students graduating from high school and being college-ready. The impact on student achievement grew with years of exposure to increased funding and with the amount of the funding increase. District investments in instructional inputs, including reduced class size, increased teacher salaries, and teacher retention, were associated with improved student outcomes. [Additional funding from the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) Population Center pilot grant.]

The pandemic created daunting challenges for higher education. The federal government provided California Community Colleges billions of dollars in aid for students and institutions. How did they use these funds? How well did their pandemic recovery activities and investments help reengage students? What will institutions do when the money runs out? Responses from 71 out of 114 colleges PPIC surveyed reveal that most colleges perceived their use of aid to be successful in achieving key outcomes both for students and the institutions. Instead of providing equal awards to all students, many colleges targeted those with the greatest needs--prioritizing equity over equality. Investments that made college more affordable were perceived to be the most successful for supporting student equity, enrollment, and success. Although both faculty and students benefited, much of the funding went directly to students, even that earmarked for institutional support. Funding facilitated the transition of courses, supports, and services to an online format. Over half of the colleges intend to offer more than 40 percent of courses online in the near future. Colleges intend to continue aid for food insecurity and mental health at the same or an expanded level, and emergency aid at a reduced level.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95), is the primary source of federal aid to support elementary and secondary education. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and was funded at $17.5 billion for FY2022. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families. Under current law, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A allocations to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). State grants are the total of the allocations for all LEAs in the state under all four formulas. The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of LEAs and states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others. This report provides FY2022 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California received the largest FY2022 Title I-A grant amount ($2.1 billion, or 11.98% of total Title I-A grants to states). Vermont received the smallest FY2022 Title I-A grant amount ($40.1 million, or 0.23% of total Title I-A grants to states).

In response to the significant and still growing number of college students experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity in California, the State Legislature appropriated $9 million in the 2019-2020 State Budget for ongoing funding to provide housing services to students. Per section 9795 of the statute, colleges, in partnership with local housing service agencies, must provide housing navigation and placement services, academic support, and case management services to homeless students or those at risk of becoming homeless. As an additional requirement of the legislation, funds were allocated to colleges that demonstrated the greatest need. In February 2020, the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office ("Chancellor's Office") evaluated the need and capacity data submitted by interested colleges, including campus- and county-based data such as financial aid uptake rates, low-income housing availability, and poverty rates, and distributed funds to 14 California community colleges as part of the California Community Colleges Homeless and Housing Insecurity Pilot (CCC HHIP) Program. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has caused some delay in the implementation of the CCC HHIP Program, participating colleges have made significant strides in operationalizing their programs locally. Upon receipt of funding, participating colleges immediately began developing the necessary infrastructure to implement the program, including hiring staff, developing outreach and retention strategies, and engaging key internal partners such as campus financial aid and facilities staff. This report provides an outline of the progress that the 14 colleges have made in supporting homeless and housing-insecure students. Despite facing several unexpected COVID-19 related challenges in the first year of the program, the 14 colleges developed the required infrastructure and provided support services to over 500 homeless or housing insecure students. This report describes the challenges, steps and successes that occurred along the way.

New research finds that increased spending on public education improves student achievement, thereby debunking the notion that "money doesn't matter" and making the case for greater investment in preschool-12 public education. How money is spent matters, but funding must also be adequate, equitable, and stable from year to year so that districts can be strategic in their spending and not have to cut one school resource to target funding towards another. This was the focus of discussion during a November 30 webinar co-sponsored by Education Law Center, ETS, and the Learning Policy Institute (LPI), featuring leading school finance experts Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond (LPI), Dr. Rucker Johnson (University of California, Berkeley) and Dr. Jesse Rothstein (University of California, Berkeley), with a welcome address by ETS President and CEO Amit Sevak and moderated by ELC's Executive Director David Sciarra. The research distilled within this report was discussed during the webinar and provides policymakers, stakeholders, and advocates with clear and tangible evidence to argue for greater investments in the public schools in their states.

California voters decided to collect a 50 cent-per-pack tax on cigarette and other tobacco products and use the money to fund early childhood services under Proposition 10, California Children and Families First Act of 1998. In compliance to the legislative requirement of Result-Based Accountability (RBA) on the revenue spending, this report delineates evaluation findings from 39 programs that received over $8.8 million of the annual state investment in Kern County, the third largest county in California by land area. Following the RBA model, this report incorporates qualitative and quantitative analyses to present in-depth success stories and statistical results from extensive assessments of program effectiveness and service integration. A five-chapter structure is adopted to support dissemination of the multilevel findings in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 -- Built on description of the Commission leadership in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 contains assessment findings to address the results-based accountability across programs in Child Health, Family Functioning, and Child Development. Chapter 3 clarifies service partnership building in Systems of Care. Improvement of child wellbeing and family functioning is summarized in Chapter 4 to document the turning the curve process on important indicators of child wellbeing and parent support. The report concludes in Chapter 5 with a review of past recommendations and an introduction to new recommendations for next year. Netdraw, Quanteda in R, SAS and SPSS packages are employed to support data visualization, text analytics, and statistical computing. The report includes two appendices, 33 figures, 77 tables, and 151 reference items. [For "First 5 Kern Annual Report 2020-2021," see ED618879.]

In 2013, California implemented an ambitious school funding reform, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which allocates state funding by the proportion of unduplicated "high-need" students in the district: those from low-income families, English learners, and those in foster care. The goal of LCFF was to reduce academic achievement gaps between socioeconomically disadvantaged children and their more advantaged counterparts by committing $18 billion in increased state support, allocated based on pupil needs, to be incrementally distributed over 8 years. This reform was distinctive in two ways. First, its multiyear design pre-committed funds, so districts were assured this would not be a temporary, reversible change. This commitment enabled districts to plan long-term, transformative initiatives rather than one-off expenditures. Second, the funding came with minimal restrictions on how schools could use it, giving fiscal sovereignty to districts. This study investigates the impacts of LCFF-induced increases in per-pupil spending on student achievement and behavioral and attainment outcomes. To examine the impact of increased funding on student outcomes, the study links district- and school-level information on school resources and per-pupil spending with longitudinal student data for the full universe of public school students in California who were first observed in kindergarten and followed as they progressed through the K-12 school system. This student-level data included 6.2 million K-12 students in each year studied. The analyses span the school years 1995-96 through 2018-19 across the 10,000 schools and 1,000 districts in the state but focus particular attention on the rollout period of LCFF implementation from 2013 through 2019. [Additional funding from the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) Population Center pilot grant.]

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95), is the primary source of federal aid to support elementary and secondary education. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and was funded at $16.5 billion for FY2021. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from lowincome families. Under current law, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). State grants are the total of the allocations for all LEAs in the state under all four formulas. The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of LEAs and states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others. This report provides FY2021 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California received the largest FY2021 Title I-A grant amount ($2.0 billion, or 12.48% of total Title I-A grants). Vermont received the smallest FY2021 Title I-A grant amount ($37.5 million, or 0.23% of total Title I-A grants).

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95), is the primary source of federal aid to support elementary and secondary education. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and was funded at $16.3 billion for FY2020. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families. Under current law, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). State grants are the total of the allocations for all LEAs in the state under all four formulas. The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of LEAs and states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others. This report provides FY2020 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California received the largest FY2020 Title I-A grant amount ($2.0 billion, or 12.39% of total Title I-A grants). Vermont received the smallest FY2020 Title I-A grant amount ($37.7 million, or 0.23% of total Title I-A grants). [Emma C. Nyhof contributed to this report.]

For more than two decades, California has been charging a 50 cent-per-pack tax on cigarette and other tobacco products and using the money to fund early childhood services under Proposition 10, California Children and Families First Act of 1998. In response to the legislative requirement of Result-Based Accountability (RBA), this report delineates evaluation findings from 39 programs that received $9.2 million of the annual state investment in Kern County, the third largest county in California by land area. Following the RBA model, this report incorporates qualitative and quantitative analyses to present in-depth success stories and statistical results from extensive assessments of program effectiveness and service integration. A five-chapter structure is adopted to support dissemination of the multilevel findings in Fiscal Year 2020-2021. More specifically, built on description of the Commission leadership in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 contains assessment findings to address the results-based accountability across programs in Child Health, Family Functioning, and Child Development. Chapter 3 clarifies service partnership building in Systems of Care. Improvement of child wellbeing and family functioning is summarized in Chapter 4 to document the turning the curve process on important indicators of child wellbeing and parent support. Despite the extensive impact of COVID-19 on young children and their families, positive results are summarized in Chapter 5 to conclude the report with a review of past recommendations and an introduction to new recommendations for next year. Netdraw, Quanteda in R, SAS and SPSS packages are employed to support data visualization, text analytics, and statistical computing. The report includes two appendices, 35 figures, 73 tables, and 141 reference items. [For "First 5 Kern Annual Report 2019-2020," see ED610410.]

Counties, districts, and schools have had to respond to ever-shifting issues related to COVID-19. This brief describes the complex challenges that district superintendents faced, which often required expertise in areas beyond traditional expectations for the role, particularly in public health. The brief gives examples of crisis management structures from one county office of education (COE)--Kern County Superintendent of Schools (KCSOS)--that helped to mitigate these challenges for local education agencies (LEAs) in its county. The strategies detailed in this brief provide a replicable model for how the state and COEs can better support districts and schools during times of crisis and improve preparedness of the education system as a whole.

California Senate Bill 74, Budget Act of 2020, required the California Department of Education (CDE) to conduct a study to examine the state's current governance and accountability structures that support California students with an individualized education program (IEP). The study was intended to focus on the end goals of improving outcomes for students with an IEP and increasing special education services provided in the least restrictive environment. For this study, governance is defined as education decision-making authority, along with the structures, policies, and tools through which an entity communicates its decisions and assigns authority and responsibility to other levels of the education system. Accountability is defined as education oversight -- including structures, policies, and tools -- created and implemented at federal, state, and local levels to evaluate and ensure compliance with legal requirements and to encourage implementation of recommended actions and best practices for improvement, all for the purpose of meeting established goals. The key study results include: (1) California's Governance and Accountability Structures; (2) Factors that Most Affected Outcomes for Students with an IEP; (3) Challenges and Opportunities for Improving California's Special Education Governance and Accountability Structures. Profiles of high-performing local educational agencies and recommendations to improve special education governance and accountability are also included. [Funded by the California Department of Education, Special Education Division.]

Each year, funds from federal, state, and local sources are directed to provide special education and related services to nearly 725,000 students with disabilities in California. To increase equitable outcomes for these students, who comprise nearly 12 percent of California's K-12 population, state-decision-makers agree that more research and evidence-based policy recommendations are needed to improve California's system for special education funding. To help inform state-level decision-making regarding the allocation, distribution, and spending expectations for state special education dollars, WestEd conducted a comprehensive descriptive review of the current funding system (Part 1) (ED616102). Part 2, detailed in this report, examines comprehensive amounts of statewide student-level data from the 2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19 school years. The independent, objective study leverages proven research methods in school finance that surface findings with implications for improving the state's special education funding system to respond to the needs of the state's growing population of students with disabilities. This multi-stage, quantitative study of California's state special education funding system culminates with findings and considerations for improvement that are presented according to the following priority areas: (1) Ensuring funds reach students with the greatest need; (2) Prioritizing appropriate early intervention and identification; and (3) Promoting inclusive planning, coordination, and practice.

A growing body of research shows that having access to teachers of color benefits all students--and can be particularly transformative for students of color. Yet, only 20% of teachers in the U.S. are teachers of color. Moreover, the lack of diversity of the teacher workforce relative to the student population is one of the key drivers of inequity in education, even as states and districts continue to invest in strategies to increase the racial diversity of their workforces. One underutilized strategy for increasing the racial diversity of the teacher workforce is to recruit and prepare those who have experience working in afterschool or out-of-school time (OST) programs to enter the teaching profession. The afterschool/OST staff population is racially and ethnically diverse and has the meaningful experiences, e.g., leading groups of young people, and the commitment to support students and families in local communities across the country. This report examines the experiences of current and former teacher candidates of color with afterschool or OST experience to provide insights into how teacher preparation programs and state policymakers can create the right programmatic experiences and conditions to recruit after-school/OST staff into the teaching profession and prepare them for success. The report specifically focuses on the experiences of candidates in what are considered non-traditional preparation pathways, such as teacher residencies and Grow Your Own programs. These programs tend to attract and retain a more diverse pool of teachers, with deeper connections to local school communities than traditional teacher education pathways.

To address lingering pressures in the aftermath of the pandemic, California public schools received record funding, largely bolstered by nearly $60 billion in federal and state one-time stimulus funds. This report takes a comprehensive look at the allocation and uses of these federal and state educational recovery funds in California.

As California policymakers start to chart a path forward beyond COVID-19, it is important to first understand and reckon with the pandemic's impact on child care programs and individual educators. This research paper presents findings from a survey of 953 California ECE programs and providers in June-July 2020. The results provide an in-depth view of the past year's devastation and highlight the unseen costs of operating a child care program throughout the pandemic with little-to-no support. Survey responses paint a grim picture of early educators fearing for their own health and the health of their families, of providers taking on personal credit card debt to cover program expenses, and a constant scramble to both find and afford essential cleaning supplies in order to meet new health and safety regulations. The key findings from this study should inform the strategic, equitable, and urgent allocation of American Rescue Plan Act stabilization funds in California over the coming months.

Poverty directly impacts the mental, social, and physical health of students which, without a strong education system, can create a downward spiral in the lives of students. Schools in low-income neighborhoods, where property values are low, do not have the same resources and support as wealthier parts of society. High-poverty school districts in California receive two percent less funding per student than more affluent districts when adjusted for student needs. Poorly funded schools often cannot offer the same choices of curriculum as schools from higher-income areas. These schools cannot provide basic supplies like books and computers. Many affluent schools provide elective classes not available in low-funded schools such as music, theater, STEM, and sports. To close the gap, these schools need equal funding if not extra funding to help students' needs. In low-income neighborhoods, students have a greater need for academic and mental support and yet our education system lags behind in providing them where it is most needed. Students in low-funded schools often are in greater need of academic help due to difficulty in comprehension, focus, concentration, and memory, but these schools do not have the resources to provide the much-needed extra help. Counselors are available in wealthier schools but are less likely to be in low-funded schools due to low funding. Students from low-funded schools often experience more social and emotional challenges, chronic stress, behavior problems, and mental health issues. Counselors can help students establish coping skills, and promote mental health. The availability of modern technology at home and school allows students to socialize with their peers, facilitate learning, and find enjoyment in learning. High-quality education should not be limited to students from well-off schools and neighborhoods, it should be available to everybody as a basic human right. There are many ways society can help students who live in poverty. Government can allocate more education funds for low-income districts, schools can partner with organizations and communities to provide support, and state and local governments can create financial policies to help low-income families.

California ranks on top of the nation for supporting health and wellbeing of young children with statewide comprehensive programs. As part of the backbone support, voters passed Proposition 10 in 1998 to fund early childhood services with a 50 cent-per-pack tax on cigarette and other tobacco products. This report delineates evaluation findings from 39 programs that received over $10 million of state investment through Proposition 10 in Kern County, California during Fiscal Year 2019-2020. To address results-based accountability of the state funding, this report incorporates qualitative and quantitative analyses to present in-depth success stories and statistical results from extensive assessments of program effectiveness and service integration. A five-chapter structure is adopted to support dissemination of the multilevel findings. More specifically, built on description of the Commission leadership in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 contains assessment findings to address the results-based accountability across programs in Child Health, Family Functioning, and Child Development. Chapter 3 clarifies service partnership building in Systems of Care. Improvement of child wellbeing and family functioning is summarized in Chapter 4 to document the turning the curve process on 26 indicators. Chapter 5 includes the result aggregation to conclude the report with a review of past recommendations and an introduction to new recommendations for next year. Netdraw, Quanteda in R, SAS and SPSS packages are employed to support data visualization, text analytics, and statistical computing. The report includes two appendices, 33 figures, 82 tables, and 157 reference items. [For "First 5 Kern Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2018-2019," see ED602896.]

This Policy Snapshot provides examples of legislation in 13 states that have proposed or enacted legislation addressing the following principles of K-12 funding models: attendance and enrollment, revenue, and equity-based initiatives. All 50 states allocate K-12 funding in different ways. Refer to this two-page reference guide, which defines and illustrates common models and terms, and this 50-State Comparison, which captures how all states approach funding generally and for specific student populations.

Hold-harmless provisions in state aid formulas are meant to restrict declines in revenues for school districts. They may take several forms, including limits on the changes in state aid from year to year, supplemental funding for districts with declining enrollment, alternatives for calculating the state aid amount, or use of past enrollments in grant calculations (Toutkoushian & Michael, 2008). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, school districts across the country are experiencing a decrease in student enrollments, while states face reduced revenues and budget deficits in education. Therefore, hold-harmless provisions become an option for policymakers to meet the financial challenges created by the pandemic. This research brief analyzes multiple online sources (e.g., state governments, state departments of education, state school boards associations, local news). It found that nearly three in five states have implemented hold-harmless provisions or are likely to implement hold-harmless provisions in the 2020-2021 school year. In 11 states, there are some types of hold-harmless provisions embedded in basic grants for schools. In 10 states, it is unclear whether hold-harmless provisions will be implemented

While funding cuts are often necessary during economic downturns, reducing state investments in higher education will hamper recovery. If cuts are inevitable, a one-size-fits-all approach will undermine states' ability to meet future talent needs and ensure equitable opportunity. State leaders should evaluate funding decisions based on their impact on low-income students and students of color, preserving and improving affordability and protecting institutions that serve those learners. This report provides: an overview of state policy priorities; policy questions that state leaders can leverage to understand challenges and examine whether current and potential new policies meet student needs; examples of states' efforts that can serve as valuable guidance for policymakers as they navigate ongoing changes; and data and sources that may be helpful for state policymakers as they continue to monitor state and institutional data to assess progress and consider programs' equity implications.

With significant state investment, teacher residencies are spreading throughout California. To sustain these efforts after the initial state investment, programs are using creative funding strategies. To learn about how teacher residencies across the state are funding their work, the Learning Policy Institute and "Prepared To Teach" at Bank Street College of Education partnered to examine the current state of practice around residency sustainability. The report highlights California teacher residencies with known financial sustainability efforts in which partners are leveraging local resources to support residents and mentor teachers. This report shares examples from California of partners working together to bring local resources to their residencies to make them more sustainable. The authors begin by setting the California context and briefly describing how finding funding for residencies can help to address teacher shortages while increasing the diversity of the teaching workforce. Then the authors present some concrete strategies that programs can use to move toward long-term sustainable funding for residency programs, with examples of how specific programs in California have successfully implemented select strategies. These strategies could be useful to districts, teacher preparation programs, community leaders, and state policymakers to help inform teacher residency design and supports. [This report was prepared by Bank Street College of Education Prepared To Teach and Educator Preparation Laboratory (EdPrepLab). For a related research brief, "How California's Teacher Residencies Are Helping to Solve Teacher Shortages and Strengthen Schools," see ED610884.]

More than 725,000, nearly 12 percent, of California's public school students receive special education and related services. Although more than half of those students spend 80 percent or more of the school day in a general education classroom, California's special education funding system may not be as inclusive as California's classrooms. This report provides a history and detailed description of California's special education funding system, setting the foundation for refinement of the current system through exploration of other funding systems and examination of California's special education population and funding structure. This study focuses on how current levels of funding can be used most effectively, including through better coordination and by differentiating special education funding to match the wide variety in student need and cost of implementing IEPs for students with disabilities. This study will be followed with a report on potential options to refine the system, supported by research, and the potential benefits and drawbacks of each option. [For Part 2, see ED616106.]

Funding for California schools had improved rapidly in recent years but is still insufficient to meet educational goals and address the needs of students. Now, schools and districts face three major challenges: precipitous declines in student academic achievement and social-emotional wellbeing; increased costs associated with distance learning and school reconfiguration to comply with public health orders; and the need to tighten budgets. State leaders have temporarily shielded school districts from budget cuts by spending state reserves and promising but deferring payments to schools. That debt will eventually have to be repaid but could be reduced if California receives more federal stimulus dollars. Districts can also weather the deferrals by borrowing from banks and utilizing their local reserves. Longer term, the picture is more bleak as the state economy remains severely depressed. Even if upcoming state ballot measures to increase revenues pass, the new taxes may not be enough to prevent reductions to schools, much less to fully fund them. Nonetheless, investments in education and other children's services will be critical to strengthening the economic and social future of the state and its citizens. This report examines how California might secure and protect revenues for schools in sustainable and responsible ways. Drawing from interviews with 23 education stakeholders and an extensive literature review, the authors outline how education is currently funded and discuss the ways in which California could increase revenue, including: (1) making full and better use of available funds by reexamining state spending priorities and braiding funding across education and children's services areas; (2) raising new revenues from broader and more stable sources, including property and services taxes, and making it easier for local governments to levy taxes so long as equity is safeguarded; and (3) reducing tax expenditures by eliminating tax breaks and incentives. [For the summary brief, see ED609212.]

Funding for California schools has improved rapidly in recent years but remains insufficient to meet educational goals and address the needs of students, particularly given California's high cost of living. Now, school districts face flat or declining revenues and rapidly growing student academic and social-emotional needs due to COVID-19. Securing the funding necessary to address these needs and meet state goals will require an enormous, sustained effort. This brief examines how California could generate and protect education revenues. It concludes that the solutions are bigger than what can be achieved through a single tax reform or federal stimulus. It suggests that California's leaders and education stakeholders act now to address urgent, short-term fiscal needs while also creating a long-term master funding plan for education. [For the full report, see ED609211.]

Many students face unique and significant obstacles as they pursue postsecondary degrees, including the navigation of two complex systems: higher education and financial aid. Given the importance and complexity of the issues, multiple stakeholders, including philanthropists and researchers, have dedicated resources to understanding and improving college attainment for first generation, low-income students. College Futures Foundation's Community Philanthropy for Student Success Initiative brings key stakeholders together. Through the Initiative, the Gardner Center couples research and capacity building. We work in partnership with multiple community foundations who are engaged in improving college attainment. This brief describes lessons learned from the Initiative, with an emphasis on understanding capacity building through contextual knowledge and collective inquiry.

When then-Governor Jerry Brown signed the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) into law in 2013, California's leaders were hopeful that this legislation would set high expectations for flexibility, transparency, and equity within school districts. A key component of the legislation was to allow districts more flexibility to make spending decisions as they saw fit to serve their students. This report investigates how two districts--Los Banos Unified School District in the Central Valley and Chino Valley Unified School District in the Inland Empire--have been able to use the flexibility of the LCFF to serve students who are classified as English Language Learners (ELLs). Examined data include the districts' Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs), local ELL policies, and interview data on how local actors have undertaken their budgeting charge with regards to ELLs. The report finds that in Los Banos Unified School District, the LCFF has allowed for the creation of dialogue and advocacy spaces that did not exist before. In Chino Valley Unified School District, the plasticity of governance structures has allowed for the development of internal coherence. Therefore, while their work is still in flux, both districts showcase instances in which ELLs are benefitting from locally devised mechanisms and structures aimed at improving their education. Looking ahead, the report notes the following: (1) LCAP stakeholder engagement is critical for delivering the promise of the LCFF; (2) Re-envisioning the LCAP instrument is necessary for meaningful stakeholder engagement; (3) LCAPs promote equity initiatives but can take a pace slower than that of educational reformers; (4) Equity and meaningful stakeholder engagement call for explicit connections between LCAP funds and ELLs; and (5) Advocates on the ground are key. In both districts, the appointment of leaders in charge of ELL services has had a direct impact on the quantity and quality of services provided to ELLs and their families through LCFF funds.

This brief examines California's Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), which is a framework designed to identify and assist students performing below grade level. MTSS involves at least three tiers of support; Tier 2 includes personalized assistance. Unfortunately, Tier 2 services are not adequately resourced so it is not surprising that California students rank only 38th in the nation in reading and math. To move higher, it is important that the state provide categorical funding for Tier 2 services. California teachers already have a full-time job. To successfully implement MTSS, they need additional Tier 2 personnel (e.g., paraprofessional instructional aides and trained clerical staff to manage student progress monitoring) to assist them.

The California Community Colleges served 2,116,293 students in 2017-18 and 2,089,209 students in 2018-19. It is the largest system of higher education in the nation. One hundred and fourteen of the 115 California community colleges use state funding allocated for Disabled Student Programs and Services (DSPS) to assist in providing support services and educational accommodations to students with disabilities so they can have full and equitable access to community college classes. DSPS served 121,748 students during the 2017-18 academic year and 121,100 students during the 2018-19 academic year. This report reflects the 2017-18 and 2018-19 academic years and is written in response to Education Code section 67312(b). This section requires the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to report every two years to the governor and the education policy committees of the Legislature on its system for evaluating "state-funded programs and services for disabled students on each campus at least every five years." The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office (Chancellor's Office) is pleased to report on the four elements mandated by legislation: (1) staff and student perception of program effectiveness; (2) data on the implementation of the program; (3) physical accessibility requirements; and (4) outcome data. The report also includes a statewide review of the enrollment, retention, transition and graduation rates of community college students receiving services through DSPS compared to non-DSPS students. This data was collected from 114 colleges and has been analyzed in this report. The review of 2017-18 and 2018-19 Chancellor's Office data shows that in comparison to non DSPS students, DSPS students: (1) make up nearly 5% of the community college student population; (2) continue to take educational assistance courses at a higher rate than non-DSPS students; (3) have higher rates of persistence from year to year; (4) drop out of college courses at the same rate as non-DSPS students; (5) are lower in the completion of basic skills courses; (6) are making progress towards being prepared to transfer to a four-year college; and (7) perform similarly in both workforce preparation courses and short-term vocational courses when compared to their non-disabled peers. [For the previous report, "Disabled Student Programs and Services, 2018 Report," see ED592983.]

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted higher education in California, forcing students and institutions to adapt rapidly to the public health and economic crisis. Institutions' revenue streams were predicted to decline just as new and increased costs for health, safety, and online education burdened budgets. The federal government provided over $10 billion directly to help campuses and their students weather the crisis. This report is an analysis of these pandemic-related allocation and expenditure patterns across California's higher education landscape. It addresses three key questions: (1) How was federal emergency relief funding allocated to campuses? (2) How did campuses distribute funds intended to support students? and (3) How did campuses prioritize and spend the funding intended to address institutional costs? The report provides an overview of how the government allocated funding to higher education across three pandemic relief acts. It discusses how campuses distributed emergency aid to their students. It also presents how they used the funding allocated for institutional needs. It concludes with a brief review and recommendations.

California's schools are facing increasing complexity when it comes to educating their student populations: the next generation of children is more diverse, more likely to live in low-income families, and are majority dual language learners. Research shows that providing supportive, enriching environments for children to connect with caring adults in the first years of life helps ensure the fundamental architecture of the brain is formed in healthy ways that impact a child throughout their life. Additionally, emerging research is showing that parents also experience significant brain growth from the act of caregiving; ensuring positive relationships between the child and parent enables them to better support their child, even under difficult circumstances, helping them both to build resilience to better navigate future challenges. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) allows school districts the flexibility to use resources to augment early childhood investments in service of improving outcomes for LCFF priority populations. Innovative leaders have further leveraged their investments by forming partnerships with local county agencies and community organizations that already offer services that benefit the school district's community of young children and families. These partnerships help bridge the gap between California families who have access to high-quality resources and opportunities for their children from the very start,and those who don't. Bridging this gap is essential to eliminating the well-documented structural barriers that, without intervention, mean children in LCFF priority populations are behind--before they enter school. This brief spotlights school districts that have developed such partnerships and leveraged resources in their neighborhoods to better support young children and their families so they have every opportunity to thrive. [Partnership and funding from FIRST 5 Santa Clara.]

Financial aid plays an essential role not only in allowing many students to enroll in college but also in supporting them in attaining completion and success. Often, however, the total amount of aid does not come close to covering the cost of attendance for full-time students. As a result, the majority of students enrolled at two-year public institutions report feeling financial stress related to paying for school. Students often work while attending college to cover the full cost of attendance, but time spent working can have a negative impact on their academic success. MDRC launched Aid Like A Paycheck to test whether changes to the timing of student aid disbursement could help students stretch their financial aid to cover their expenses throughout the term, and whether such a policy could improve students' academic and financial outcomes. Most colleges distribute financial aid refunds to students in one or two lump sums during the term. Aid Like A Paycheck tested an alternate approach, in which financial aid refunds were disbursed biweekly, with the goal of helping students better budget their existing financial aid. MDRC conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of incremental financial aid disbursements at two community college systems in and around Houston, Texas, and at a third system in California's rural Central Valley. At the two institutions in Texas, the study included a randomized controlled trial that gathered data from nearly 9,000 students and tracked them for up to two years. The final findings from the study indicate that biweekly disbursements do not result in substantial impacts on student outcomes: (1) Students assigned to receive biweekly disbursements and those assigned to receive their aid in the standard way received the same total amount of financial aid; (2) Biweekly disbursements reduced students' debt to the college in the first semester, but this reduction in debt was no longer evident at the end of the fourth semester; (3) On average, there is no evidence of biweekly disbursements improving students' key academic outcomes; and (4) There is little evidence that the participating colleges or the government saved money by implementing biweekly disbursements; and (5) Implementation of the policy was costlier than -- and not as simple as -- expected, even when implemented without the constraints of the randomized controlled trial design. Overall, the study suggests that incremental disbursements neither hurt students nor substantially improve their academic or financial outcomes. [To read the provisional findings of this study, "Aligning Aid with Enrollment: Interim Findings on Aid Like a Paycheck," see ED574751.]

Financial aid plays an essential role not only in allowing many students to enroll in college but also in supporting them in attaining completion and success. Often, however, the total amount of aid does not come close to covering the cost of attendance for full-time students. As a result, the majority of students enrolled at two-year public institutions report feeling financial stress related to paying for school. MDRC launched Aid Like A Paycheck to test whether changes to the timing of student aid disbursement could help students stretch their financial aid to cover their expenses throughout the term, and whether such a policy could improve students' academic and financial outcomes. Most colleges distribute financial aid refunds to students in one or two lump sums during the term. Aid Like A Paycheck tested an alternate approach, in which financial aid refunds were disbursed biweekly, with the goal of helping students better budget their existing financial aid. MDRC conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of incremental financial aid disbursements at two community college systems in and around Houston, Texas, and at a third system in California's rural Central Valley. At the two institutions in Texas, the study included a randomized controlled trial that gathered data from nearly 9,000 students and tracked them for up to two years. The final findings from the study indicate that biweekly disbursements do not result in substantial impacts on student outcomes. Overall, the study suggests that incremental disbursements neither hurt students nor substantially improve their academic or financial outcomes. Among the findings highlighted in this executive summary are: (1) Students assigned to receive biweekly disbursements and those assigned to receive their aid in the standard way received the same total amount of financial aid; (2) Biweekly disbursements reduced students' debt to the college in the first semester, but this reduction was no longer evident by the end of their fourth semester; (3) On average, there is no evidence of biweekly disbursements improving students' key academic outcomes; and (4) There is little evidence that the participating colleges or the government saved money by implementing biweekly disbursements. [For the main report, see ED595310. For "Incremental Disbursements of Student Financial Aid: Final Report on Aid Like a Paycheck. Supplemental Tables," see ED596623.]

The Aid Like A Paycheck student survey was designed to shed light on students' academic and financial attitudes, behaviors, and circumstances over the course of a semester. This supplement to MDRC's final report on Aid Like A Paycheck describes the survey, response rates, and responses to each survey item at three community college systems: two in and around Houston, Texas (San Jacinto College and the Houston Community College System), which participated in a randomized controlled trial, and one in California (the West Hills Community College District), which scaled up the intervention to implement biweekly payments for all eligible students. [For the main report, see ED595310. For "Incremental Disbursements of Student Financial Aid: Final Report on Aid Like a Paycheck. Executive Summary," see ED596622.]

Tight budgets are a reality for many school districts across California, leading some to believe that a growing charter sector is squeezing the finances of traditional school districts. One common criticism of charter schools centers on special education: charter schools directly serve fewer students with disabilities, and thereby drive disproportionate costs to traditional school districts. While it is true that charter schools in California enroll fewer students with disabilities, though only at a marginally lower rate than traditional public schools, this argument is too simplistic. In reality, the way special education finance works in California affects schools of all types, and underinvestment in special education services from federal and state levels shifts costs to the local level. This argument also overlooks the ways charters, and other schools, contribute to the education of students with disabilities, including students they do not enroll. "California's Special Education Funding System Creates Challenges and Opportunities for District and Charter Schools" looks at several features of California's special education funding system which make it difficult for districts to serve students with disabilities and limit the ability of some charter schools to make decisions about the programs and services they offer for students with disabilities. For example, state special education funding is distributed to the local level according to total student enrollment rather than according to the services provided to students with disabilities or by specific disabilities. This approach is designed to remove financial incentives to over-identify students for special education services, but unlike several other states that use this approach, California lacks sufficient supplemental funding to support students who require very high-cost services. Additionally, the structures through which California allocates funding to the local level complicate the way schools receive funds, how they contribute to the broader provision of services across districts and regions, and how charter schools fit into the picture. Instead of pitting school types against each other, this brief explains California's special education finance system and analyzes how it affects both traditional and charter schools. The document also identifies financial and structural challenges facing traditional and charter schools and outlines potential solutions that focus on improving opportunities for all students with disabilities in the state. Understanding how special education funding works is important to solving the very real fiscal problems facing traditional and charter schools. [This report was supported by the California Charter Schools Association.]

Seventy-seven California community colleges offer nursing programs with a total enrollment of 12,960 full-time equivalent students in 2017-18, a decrease of 7.4% from the previous fiscal year. Seventy-two colleges received grants to expand or maintain enrollment by 1,439 students. The colleges are using these funds to provide support for nursing program enrollment and equipment needs. The equipment purchased is only intended to be used for increasing the number of nursing students served. Colleges with nursing programs receive funding through general apportionment. This apportionment funding is based upon the number of full-time equivalent students in each program at each college. This report presents information on categorical funding beyond this apportionment funding awarded through an application process to the Chancellor's Office for nursing programs in fiscal year 2017-18. Also included in this report is a summary on Nursing Program Support provided in the Budget Act of 2017 to expand or maintain community college nursing enrollments and improve student retention [required by Provision (23) of Item 6870-101-0001 of the Budget Act of 2017. For the 2018 report, see ED596543.]

Sixty-seven school finance reforms (SFRs) in 26 states have taken place since 1990; however, there is little empirical evidence on the heterogeneity of SFR effects. We provide a comprehensive description of how individual reforms affected resource allocation to low- and high-income districts within states, including both financial and non-financial outcomes. After summarizing the heterogeneity of individual SFR impacts, we then examine its correlates, identifying both policy and legislative/political factors. Taken together, this research aims to provide a rich description of variation in states' responses to SFRs, as well as explanation of this heterogeneity as it relates to contextual factors.

The Career and Technical Education (CTE) playbook series has explored strategies and processes states can use to strengthen CTE program quality and provide students with pathways to postsecondary credentialing and middle- and higher wage career opportunities. In the first three CTE Playbooks, ExcelinEd provided a high-level view of how states can undertake the critical role of strengthening state CTE programs, illustrated the vital role that cross-sector partnerships play in developing CTE pathways and set forth a framework for auditing state CTE programs for quality. This fourth playbook presents various funding models state policymakers can consider as they prioritize their state CTE program offerings and desired outcomes. With CTE program audit results and priorities in hand, policymakers are ready to create their specific CTE funding approach to enact a high-quality CTE program and maximize long-term student success. Each state takes a unique, and often complex, approach to funding education, and these variations are often compounded with CTE funding. There is a wide range of possible funding sources and stakeholders involved in providing aligned workforce education. This fourth playbook offers three sections of information and guidance for state policymakers ready to create their CTE funding approach: (1) A look at the various ways states currently structure their CTE funding; (2) Five steps states can take to seize the opportunity of Perkins V and maximize the impact of their CTE funding; and (3) Four state profiles on CTE funding for a deeper examination of what states are doing. [For the first three CTE playbooks, see ED609912, ED609958, ED609960, respectively.]