Search

This report summarizes the perspectives and attitudes of a selected set of district and school site administrators whom the authors interviewed in Twin Rivers Unified School District (TRUSD) during the fall of 2009. The authors carried out interviews and focus groups with these individuals to gain an understanding of how the current budgeting system operates, and to obtain some information on the attitudes and perspectives of various administrative staff on the strengths and challenges of the current budgeting system and how this system measures up against some of the policy goals of SSFR, such as equity, transparency, accountability, innovation, and efficiency. TRUSD uses a traditional staffing model to allocate general fund resources to the schools, but does provide some limited flexibility to the schools in selecting the quantities of staff employed under categorical funding programs. With regard to equity, the perception of those interviewed suggests that substantial inequity exists in the district as a result of the policies that existed prior to the merger of the four districts into the new Twin Rivers Unified School District (TRUSD). Regarding transparency, the impression from the interviews is that despite the notion that the information was technically accessible to everyone, it was unclear whether principals really "use" or fully "understand" that information. The principals interviewed indicated that accountability exists primarily in the form of compliance regarding how money is spent, but also indicated that their school site councils or leadership teams tended to hold them accountable. Interview respondents suggested that the budget crisis has limited opportunities for innovation. There was a common perception that money was sometimes spent to avoid losing it, which did not always result in the best use of funds. Some additional comments that emerged from the interviews suggested both positive and challenging themes for the future of improving resource allocation. First, while respondents embraced the notion of flexibility, they also expressed the belief that specific parameters must be in place to ensure responsible behavior on the part of school leaders. Second, there was the sense that resource allocation decisions were very much controlled by the central office, and that multiple levels of approval for staffing decisions resulted in a very slow process for filling new positions. (Contains 5 footnotes.) [For technical appendix, "Perspectives of Key Central Office Staff and School Principals Regarding Resource Allocation Policies and Procedures--Technical Appendix. A Report Prepared for Twin Rivers Unified School District. SSFR Research Report #02 (TRUSD)," see ED532361.]

As part of the evaluation of the Strategic School Funding for Results (SSFR) project (called Budgeting for Student Success, or BSA, in Los Angeles Unified School District), the American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted surveys of principals, teachers, and members of School Site Councils (SSCs) to gather information on their attitudes and perspectives regarding key components of the BSA model. AIR also conducted interviews with central office staff and Pivot Learning Partners (PLP) staff involved in BSA implementation to gain insights into the successes and challenges they experienced in 2010-11. Based on the authors' surveys of principals, teachers, and SSCs, a substantial percentage of principals and teachers perceive resources to be inequitably distributed across schools. Their findings indicate that principals in BSA pilot schools may have been more aware of the inequities than principals in non-pilot schools. Across pilot and non-pilot schools, both principals and teachers reported understanding how resources were allocated to their schools. The survey findings highlight several positives about BSA implementation. The vast majority of principals and teachers felt they had discretion over how school funds were spent and had the autonomy to meet the instructional needs of their students. Pilot principals reported greater autonomy over their school budget and instructional program than their non-pilot peers, and they reported that they have district support for developing their school budget. With respect to transparency about budgeting and resource allocation, teachers and SSC members reported understanding how resources are allocated to schools and reported that they had an opportunity to provide input into developing school budgets. Based on their interviews, there were several successes in implementation of the BSA initiative during 2010-11, including the following: (1) an expansion in the number of pilot schools; (2) an increase in flexibility at the school site over the use of categorical resources; (3) an increase in budget transparency; (4) progress towards changing the district's planning and budgeting calendar; and (5) providing initial planning and budget-related trainings to BSA pilot principals. There were also several implementation challenges and lessons learned in 2010-11: (1) Leadership and staffing are critical; (2) It is imperative to have a clear message and consistent communication with the central office staff and outside the central office to principals, teachers, SSCs, and community stakeholders about the BSA reform to facilitate understanding and buy-in; (3) Adequate support and training of both central office and school staff are needed to build capacity and buy-in for BSA implementation and ownership over the BSA approach; and (4) Well-developed tools are critical to facilitate budgeting and planning in the BSA model, and shifting from the old system to a new, pupil-based budget system is more complicated than district officials had anticipated. Appended are: (1) BSA SSC Survey; (2) 2011 BSA Interview Protocol for Central Office and PLP Staff; and (3) Graphics of Survey Findings. (Contains 1 table, 15 figures and 10 footnotes.)

As part of the evaluation of the Strategic School Funding for Results (SSFR) project, American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted surveys of principals, teachers, and members of School Site Councils (SSCs) to gather information on the attitudes and perspectives regarding the implementation of key components of the SSFR model in Twin Rivers Unified School District (TRUSD). AIR also conducted interviews with TRUSD central office staff and the staff of Pivot Learning Partners (PLP), the organization responsible for supporting the implementation of SSFR, to gain insights into implementation successes and challenges in 2010-11. Based on their TRUSD surveys, the authors found the following: (1) Fewer than half of principals and teachers felt that funds are allocated equitably to schools, but a higher proportion of principals in pilot schools felt this way; (2) Members of the school site councils (SSCs) expressed strong agreement that they understood budget documents and resource allocation; (3) All pilot principal respondents reported having discretion over their school budget, compared with 81 percent of non-pilot principals; (4) Fewer than half of principals (about 40%) and even fewer teacher respondents (33%) reported having autonomy over their instructional program; (5) SSC members expressed high levels of agreement that principals support and value their contributions; (6) Approximately one third (35%) of teachers agreed that they have the opportunity to provide input into developing the budget at their school; and (7) Principals generally agreed that teachers are accountable to them (the principal) for student success, while almost all (96%) teachers reported feeling at least somewhat accountable to the principal for student success. Based on their interviews with central office and PLP staff, they found several successes in SSFR implementation in TRUSD in 2010-11. These successes included the following: (1) expanding the number of pilot schools in 2010-11; (2) gaining buy-in and engagement from pilot principals and district staff; (3) gathering the necessary data and using the Targeted Revenue Model (TRM) tool to determine allocations for pilot schools; (4) increasing flexibility over existing categorical resources; and (5) making strides towards changing the site planning process, increasing budget transparency, and creating a customer service culture. There were several implementation challenges and lessons learned in 2010-11: (1) There needs to be executive-level definition of roles and responsibilities for SSFR implementation to facilitate staff buy-in, and accountability measures put into place for implementation; (2) Communication across a wide range of stakeholders is critical; and (3) Increasing budget flexibility and autonomy must be paired with information and support. The 19 TRUSD pilot schools in 2010-11 demonstrated that SSFR could be successfully implemented, establishing the foundation for district-wide implementation of SSFR in 2011-12. By the end of 2010-11, pilot principals and key district staff were engaged in SSFR implementation, the TRM had been used to determine district allocations for 2011-12, the district had increased the flexibility of selected categorical resources, and principals had responded creatively to their increased budget autonomy. However, as TRUSD scales up to implement SSFR district-wide in 2011-12, moving from 19 pilot schools to all 52 schools, several major challenges remain. The tools must be fully functional as SSFR moves from a pilot to full implementation, and it will be critical for the district to provide information, training, supports, and systems to build principal knowledge and capacity for dealing with increased flexibility and autonomy over their school's budget. Appended are: (1) SSFR Principal Survey; (2) SSFR Teacher Survey; (3) Twin Rivers Unified School District School Site Council Survey; (4) SSFR Interview Protocol for Central Office and PLP Staff; and (5) Graphics of Survey Findings. (Contains 20 figures and 10 footnotes.)

This report summarizes the perspectives and attitudes of a selected set of district and school site administrators whom the authors interviewed in Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) during the fall and winter of the 2009-2010 school year. The authors carried out interviews with selected district administrators and a series of focus groups with school principals to gain an understanding of how the current budgeting system operates, and to obtain some information on the attitudes and perspectives of various administrative staff on the strengths and challenges of the current budgeting system and how this system measures up against some of the policy goals of SSFR, such as equity, transparency, accountability, innovation, and efficiency. With assistance from several graduate students from the UCLA Anderson Graduate School of Management, the authors completed a series of principal interviews in seven of the eight sub-districts within LAUSD (with one district electing not to participate). Some themes that emerged from the principal interviews and focus groups include the following: (1) School leaders believe they need greater control over their budgets and how the resources are allocated. They also believe that their budgets should remain stable so that they can continue to provide programs effectively. School leaders believe that the schools and students would benefit from greater control; (2) School leaders do not feel that they currently have the capacity (human resources or technology) to handle potential increased budget control; (3) Many school leaders do not feel that they are adequately supported by the central office. They do not feel that they receive the support they need to manage their budget; (4) Not all school leaders fully understand current budgeting system nor the benefits of moving to a more transparent budgeting processes; and (5) Principals feel that they spend a lot of time planning the budget and meeting budgetary requirements rather than implementing programs outlined in the budget. (Contains 3 footnotes.) [This paper was written with the assistance of Alejandro Tinajero, Adam Mendler, Gary Marshall, Will Snyder, Saurabh Mathur, and Rachel Stark.]

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.]

This paper formulates a comprehensive model of resource allocation in a local public school district. The theoretical framework specified could be applied equally well to any number of local public social service agencies. Section 1 develops the theoretical model describing the process of resource allocation. This involves the determination of the demand for school inputs, the salaries of school personnel, and the level of local educational expenditures. Section 2 is a presentation of the empirical results of estimating these sets of equations on a sample of California public school districts. Some of the issues investigated in the empirical analysis include the price and income elasticity of the demand for teachers, the effects of tenure on the demand for certain teacher quality characteristics, the determinants of the equilibrium salaries of teachers and public school administrators, the differences between the effects of changes in community income and federal and state grants-in-aid on local school spending, and the compensatory effects of grants-in-aid on school spending, the demand for school inputs, and salaries of school personnel in high and low income school districts. (Author)

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.]

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.

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.

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 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.]

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.]

Adopted in 2013, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) provides all districts with base funding plus supplemental and concentration grants for low-income students, English learners, and foster youth. The law eliminated most categorical programs, giving local school systems resource allocation authority and requiring Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) be developed with input from parents, community members, students, and educators. The policy intends to promote more equitable and coherent resource allocation decisions and to lead to improved and more equitable student outcomes. This report, the next in a series by the Local Control Funding Formula Research Collaborative (LCFFRC), presents survey responses from a statewide representative sample of California superintendents. The survey complements the LCFFRC's four years of in-depth case study work examining the implementation of the LCFF and provides a broad picture of superintendents' views of and experiences with the law. As with previous LCFF research, this survey is designed to help policymakers and others better understand ways in which the LCFF is affecting resource allocation and governance in California's K-12 education system. Results also indicate areas in which changes may be needed. [Partial funding from the California Consortium for Educational Excellence (CCEE). To view the companion piece, "Principals' Perceptions: Implementing the Local Control Funding Formula," see ED594775.]

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.

In fall 2018, the Local Control Funding Formula Research Collaborative (LCFFRC) conducted surveys of stratified random samples of California superintendents and principals. Superintendent results were published in June 2018 in "Superintendents Speak: Implementing the Local Control Funding Formula." This report, "Principals' Perceptions: Implementing the Local Control Funding Formula," is the companion account of principal survey results. Highlights of this survey include: (1) A strong majority of principals (86%) agree the LCFF is leading to greater alignment among school goals, strategies, and resource allocation decisions; (2) A substantial majority of principals (72%) report the LCFF has increased their school budget flexibility; (3) A strong majority of principals (82%) agree the LCFF has enabled their school to improve services for low-income students, English learners, and foster youth; (4) Principals report their school has received guidance from their district on strategies to support student success, including ensuring students have access to fully credentialed teachers (82%), implementing state standards (75%), and improving school climate and safety (72%); (5) A substantial majority of principals (77%) report they have received guidance from their district to support two of the three LCFF target groups--low-income students and English learners--but guidance on supporting foster youth has lagged; and (6) Three-quarters of principals (75%) agree the LCFF is leading to improvement in student academic outcomes at their school. [This report was written with the assistance of Ashley Campbell, Kyra Capary, and Laura Tobben. For the companion report, "Superintendents Speak: Implementing the Local Control Funding Formula," see ED594774.]

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 Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on July 1, 2013, represents the first comprehensive change in California's education funding system in 40 years. The LCFF eliminates nearly all categorical funding streams, shifts control of most education dollars from the state to local school districts, and empowers districts, through a process of stakeholder engagement, to shape resource allocation goals and priorities to meet local needs. This brief summarizes four "Getting Down to Facts II" technical reports that describe research conducted during the LCFF's first four years of implementation: (1) "The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): What Have We Learned after Four Years of Implementation? Technical Report. Getting Down to Facts II" (ED594756); (2) "Taking Stock of Stakeholder Engagement in California's Local Control Funding Formula: What Can We Learn from the Past Four Years to Guide Next Steps? Technical Report. Getting Down to Facts II" (ED594799); (3) "In the Era of the Local Control Funding Formula: The Shifting Role of California's Chief Business Officers. Technical Report. Getting Down to Facts II" (ED594680); and (4) "In Need of Improvement? Assessing the California Dashboard after One Year. Technical Report. Getting Down to Facts II" (ED594705). Research thus far shows strong support for the principles on which the LCFF is based and some areas of encouraging progress. Although it is clear much more work is needed to realize the LCFF's ambitious goals, California has made substantial progress on which it now can build.