Category: K-12 Education

Funding Special Education

California’s special education system serves almost 12% of public school students with yearly allocations of more than $12 billion from local, state, and federal funding sources. Despite changes in the numbers of students served and the nature of their disabilities, its finance system has not been addressed in a comprehensive way for more than two decades.

PPIC recently released Special Education Finance in California, a report examining the system in light of the principles that underlie the Local Control Funding Formula. These principles—which determine how K–12 funds are allocated—are local control and accountability, transparency, and equity. The PPIC report also draws on the 2015 Statewide Special Education Task Force, which envisioned a seamless program of student services that is part of a unified system of general and special education. The PPIC authors recommend changes that can help achieve this vision.

At a well-attended Sacramento event held in conjunction with the release of the PPIC report, coauthor Paul Warren summarized the way the special education finance system works now and outlined PPIC’s recommendations to change it. A panel of education experts then took up the issue. They concurred that it is time for a change.

“The kids can’t wait,” said Kim Conner, whose experience includes being the parent of a child with special needs. “We’ve waited a long time. It’s easy for us to say from a fiscal standpoint, we don’t have money, we don’t know enough . . . But we know so much. We can do this.”

Michael Kirst, president of the California State Board of Education, said the PPIC report is helpful in understanding the current system, which “has some underlying rationales but no overall rationale. It is an accretion of different things.”

“It is very hard to understand, how the money flows, who makes decisions, he said. “It is not adjusted sufficiently for student needs . . . It is inequitable.” Calling the PPIC report “bold and provocative,” he said it “should certainly should kick off a really deep discussion on change.”

Mary Samples, assistant superintendent of the Special Education Local Plan Area in Ventura County, said a key topic in the discussion of change needs whether enough funding is allocated for special education. Samples, who served as chair of the finance subcommittee of the Statewide Special Education Task Force, said, “I don’t think that moving the money from one bucket to another solves the problem. The problem is adequacy of funding.”

Improving Math Placement Decisions

A new state law is intended to help ensure that all students—particularly those underrepresented in higher education—have access to rigorous math courses in high school. This is a key step to improving college readiness and closing achievement gaps. The centerpiece of the California Mathematics Placement Act is the requirement that districts create and implement a fair, objective, and transparent math placement policy. The law leaves many aspects of implementation up to the districts.

PPIC surveyed the state’s school districts during the 2015–16 school year to examine their placement policies and identify district needs right before the law took effect in 2016–17. In a new report, Math Placement in California’s Public Schools, research fellow Niu Gao and research associate Sara Adan found that districts face a number of challenges in implementing the law. Gao presented the report at a recent Sacramento briefing.

One issue is particularly complex: teacher recommendations. The new law calls for limiting their use due to concerns that they may be systematically biased against economically disadvantaged or Latino and African American students.

The PPIC report shows that teacher recommendations are among the most widely used measures in determining placement—and the way they are used now is complicated. Recommendations typically address both academic and “soft” skills, such as student maturity, persistence, and motivation, which are predictors of student success. The PPIC authors found cases in which teacher recommendations are biased against high-achieving minority students, but they also found cases in which teacher recommendations are advancing minority students who do not perform well on standardized tests. In other words, eliminating recommendations altogether may help some students but at the expense of others.

Gao said the critical issue is not whether teacher recommendations should be used but how they can be designed to complement objective measures, such as tests.

Three Bills Signal State of Education Policy

In this year’s busy legislative session, Governor Brown signed 316 of the nearly 800 education-related bills sent to his desk. The bills made relatively small changes on a range of issues from local parcel taxes to school disciplinary policy.

In recent years, a series of reforms—including passage of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), adoption of the Common Core State Standards, and the shift to the new computer-based Smarter Balanced tests—have constituted a significant transition for the state’s 6.2 million public school students. These changes were designed to target K–12 funding for students with the greatest needs and focus teaching on the development of critical-thinking skills. Rather than signing off on legislative changes to these reforms, the governor has opted to continue their implementation while shifting some attention to challenges on the horizon.

A review of the fates of three bills, the state budget, and recent administrative actions helps illustrate the current state of education policy in California:

  • Aligning state and federal accountability rules. Earlier this year, the State Board of Education adopted a new accountability system for evaluating the progress of schools and districts in the eight priority areas—including parental involvement, school climate, and student achievement—laid out in the LCFF. The governor vetoed Assembly Bill (AB) 2548, which would have compelled the state board to align the accountability system with new federal regulations requiring the state to intervene in the lowest-performing 5% of schools. By using multiple measures, the state’s system takes a more holistic view of student achievement. But this approach makes it difficult to assign a number to each school in order to identify those that need the most help—putting it at odds with the federal government. The governor resisted changing course with his veto, but the state may need a waiver to meet the federal requirement.

  • Addressing the teacher shortage. The budget included several teacher workforce initiatives to address the state’s looming shortage, including financial assistance for classified employees interested in teaching and grants to universities encouraging four-year teacher credential programs. The governor signed AB 2248, allowing those with out-of-state credentials to teach English Learners in California. This relatively small change—which addresses one of the subject areas with an acute teacher shortage—stood out in contrast to related legislative efforts that failed, like a bill that would have provided student loan forgiveness for teachers who serve in schools with the most needs.

  • Preparing California’s students for the future. The governor also signed AB 2329, creating a 23-member advisory panel tasked with developing a strategic implementation plan to expand access to courses in computer science—a critical field for the 21st century economy. The plan would lay out the standards for a computer science curriculum and increase the number of computer science teachers, with the goal of ensuring access for all students.

These examples show that as the implementation of major education reforms continues, the governor has focused on making small tweaks to the state’s system and laying the groundwork for the coming years. As California’s leaders look toward the future, it is vital that they build a robust educational system that will be able to address both near- and long-term challenges.

Computer Science in California’s K–12 Schools

Assembly Bill 2329—just signed by the governor—requires the state superintendent of public instruction to convene an advisory panel to develop computer science standards for California’s public schools. A look at the current state of computer science education reveals that this effort will entail a number of challenges and opportunities.

More Students Than Ever Are Taking AP Computer Science Exams

In 2015, a record-high 7,254 students from California’s public schools took the AP computer science exam, an eightfold increase from 2004. Test participation has grown across major demographic groups. After adjusting for fluctuations in student enrollment, particularly in grades 11 and 12 when students typically take the exam, white and Asian students made the most progress, with participation rate up by 800% or more. Growth has been slower among African American (690%) and Latino students (550%).

Test Performance Has Improved for Most Racial/Ethnic Groups

Although increasing numbers of Latino students are taking the exam, passage rates for this group have declined. In May 2004, 44% of Latino exam takers passed, compared to 34% percent in 2015. Performance has improved modestly among Asian and white students. The trend for African American students is less meaningful, because very few of them took the exam (fewer than 50 African Americans took the test before 2013).

More Girls Are Taking Computer Science Exams

In 2015, 26% of AP Computer Science exam takers were female, up from 19% in 2004. Over time both girls and boys have seen an improvement in performance. The gender gap, after some fluctuations, has largely remained unchanged.

Few Schools Offer Computer Science Courses, and Quality Varies

Few schools statewide are offering computer science courses and many of the courses that are offered—popular classes such as computer literacy and computer lab—are not rigorous enough to prepare students for college and beyond. In addition, finding teachers, especially for rigorous computer science courses, remains a challenge. For instance, out of 1,601 high and K–12 schools in California, only 142 offered computer programming courses, half of which are not meeting UC/CSU entrance requirements (author calculation using 2014–15 data from the California Department of Education).

California’s new law is an important first step to expand computer science education across the state. A recently introduced K–12 computer science framework developed by a national coalition of states, districts, and computer science organizations may be helpful as California develops its own standards. At the same time, continuing gaps in performance and variation in course access and quality represent an ongoing challenge.

Learn more

Read the report Upgrading Technology Infrastructure in California’s Schools and the fact sheet “Digital Learning in California’s K–12 Schools”

Video: John Chiang Looks to the Future

What are the top three issues that will make a difference to California’s future? That is the first question John Chiang—state treasurer and candidate for governor—was asked by PPIC’s president and CEO, Mark Baldassare.

Chiang’s response: education, economic security and opportunity, and the environment. He elaborated on these themes in the conversation before a San Francisco audience last week.

As treasurer, Chiang is the state’s banker, whose responsibilities include selling California’s bonds, investing its money, and managing its cash. He served two terms as state controller and was also on the Board of Equalization.

Baldassare said that he would sum up Governor Brown’s philosophy about taxes and spending as “fiscal restraint” and asked Chiang to sum up his own fiscal philosophy.

“Smart financial investment,” Chiang said.

“If you have the money, you invest it in education, you invest it in safety, you invest in infrastructure, make sure that you do the core issues correctly,” he elaborated.

PPIC invited Chiang as part of PPIC’s Speaker Series on the Future, which brings thought leaders from across the political and geographic spectrum to California audiences for conversations about the state’s pressing challenges. PPIC does not endorse, support, or oppose candidates for public office.

Video: Upgrading Technology in California Schools

When it comes to providing 21st century technology to all California public school students, the challenges loom large. Money and training are the two most prominent. A new PPIC report estimates that it would cost $3.8 billion over three years to provide bandwidth for digital learning, issue one device to every middle- and high-school student, and have one IT staffer for every 300 computing devices.

But leadership and collaboration are also powerful tools, and they can help the state, districts, and schools make progress. That is a key takeaway from a panel discussion on education technology sponsored by PPIC last week.

Geoff Belleau, an education program consultant to the California Department of Education, and Ling Ling Chang, Southern California assemblymember, each mentioned public-private partnerships—with Internet providers and other businesses—as ways to fund and deliver technology to California students.

Darryl Adams, superintendent of the Coachella Unified School District, showed how far leadership and collaboration has taken his district, which has plenty of challenges. In his district, 100% of students are eligible for free or reduced-price meals and 60% are English Learners. Thousands of students are the children of farm workers, and many are undocumented. Many lack high-speed Internet access.

Adams turned to the voters, who approved a local bond measure to fund technology upgrades, and uses federal and state funds for training and implementation. The district provides a tablet to every student from preschool through high school. School buses in the 1,250-square-mile district are equipped with WiFi routers and solar panels to connect students to the Internet. After the buses have made their rounds, they are parked near trailer parks or other areas where homes lack connectivity, effectively serving as mobile hot spots. The district has also developed its own program to train teachers to integrate digital learning in the curriculum.

There are still problems, he acknowledges, but his community has demonstrated the will to solve them. And failure is not an option.

“I’ll put a router on a pigeon and fly him around the neighborhood if I have to,” he said. “Kids have to be connected.”

Anne Neville, director of the California Research Bureau summed up, “It doesn’t all have to be perfect. And it all doesn’t have to be done everywhere for things to start happening.”

Patrick Murphy, PPIC research director, moderated the panel.

Before the discussion, Niu Gao, research fellow at PPIC, and author of the new report on technology provided an overview of her findings.

Learn more

Read the report Upgrading Technology Infrastructure in California Schools

Video: 3 Cities Address Economic Challenges

When Uber officials announced the company was moving to Oakland, there was a wave of fear and anger that well-paid tech workers would push longtime residents out of the city. Fresno, with its high concentration of poverty, struggles to attract the kind of private investment that caused angst in Oakland. In South Gate, housing is relatively affordable, which should be good news. But there are few homes for residents to buy because most are rentals owned by outside investors.

These stories, told by leaders of these communities at a recent PPIC event, were different. But common across the agendas of all three leaders was an emphasis on education as a key part of the solutions they are working on to address income inequality and poverty.

Jorge Morales, councilmember and former mayor of South Gate, said business owners told him that city residents didn’t have the education needed to get jobs beyond the entry level. Now, thanks to a partnership with the Los Angeles Community College District, a new campus will open in South Gate. The focus will be on jobs that become careers, Morales said.

“One of the mistakes we made as policy makers is that when manufacturing jobs started to leave, we all got excited about the revenue—about the sales taxes size—and we started building shopping centers everywhere.””What did that do? That provided the jobs that didn’t provide a living for folks.”

Ashley Swearingen, mayor of Fresno, said that missing the dot com boom of the late 1990s was a wake-up call for her city.

“We were not as a city and a region prepared to ride that wave of expansion,” she said. “That tidal wave of prosperity hit the state, but not a drop hit the ground in the places I was living and working.” The city partnered with Fresno State University to “undo and redo everything about our community” from its public systems to its civic environment, and entrepreneurship education is woven through school curriculums beginning in elementary school.

Libby Schaaf, mayor of Oakland, said she is most passionate about a program she is raising money to start, the Oakland Promise. She said that among this year’s ninth-graders, only 10% will have a college degree by the time they are 23 years old. The Oakland Promise is a “cradle-to-career strategy to triple that number in 10 years.” Each baby born into poverty will get a $500 college savings account, and parents will get another $500 in direct support for home visits and literacy training. Every kindergartener will receive a $100 college savings account. Students will be connected with internships, mentors, peer support groups, and help with financing college.

“You have got to intervene at every moment, from birth until college completion,” she said.

Schaaf says she has raised $23 million for the program and needs $15 million more.

Learn more

Read the PPIC report Income Inequality and the Safety Net in California

Public School Parents See Education Differently

In our annual PPIC Statewide Survey on Californians and education, 40% of adults say that the quality of K–12 public education in the state is a big problem. Notably, the parents of public school children are more likely than others to have favorable opinions about public education in California: just 27% say quality is a big problem. Adults without children, those with children in private schools, and those with children too young to attend school are the ones who tend to hold a more negative view of the state’s public education system. This pattern is consistent with our findings in previous surveys.

Parents who don’t have children in public schools are twice as likely as those who do to say the quality of K–12 public education is a big problem. They are also twice as likely to give their neighborhood public schools a grade of D or F. (Adults without children age 18 or younger fall in between the two parent groups on these questions.)

In addition, when asked how their elected officials are handling K–12 education, public school parents are much more likely than others to approve of Governor Brown and the California Legislature in this area.

Regardless of whether they have children in public schools, many parents agree that school funding is inadequate. Two-thirds of both parent groups say that the level of funding for their local public schools is inadequate, while 58% of other adults say the same.

Most adults support K–12 funding proposals, and support among public school parents is particularly strong. At least two-thirds of adults say they would vote for either a local or state bond measure to pay for school construction projects, with over 80% of public school parents supporting these measures. Asked how they would vote on a local parcel tax for schools, 70% of public school parents would vote yes—exceeding the two-thirds majority needed to pass such a tax. Among other adults, about 60% would vote yes.

Certainly, it’s not surprising that parents who decided to send their children to private schools might have different opinions about educational quality compared to those with children in public schools. The differences that we find, though, extend beyond a difference between public school parents and private school parents. On several measures, parents with children in public schools stand apart from all other California adults in their assessment of the state’s K-12 public education system.

Learn more

Read the PPIC Survey: Californians and Education
Visit the PPIC Statewide Survey pages

Early Results from Education Reforms

California’s K–12 system is implementing an unprecedented number of reforms. The state’s school funding system and curriculum standards are new, as are all statewide tests. A new school accountability system is being developed. A number of large urban districts are changing their high school graduation requirements. These reforms are designed to equalize opportunities for students and close achievement gaps among demographic groups.

It will be some time before we know what all of these changes add up to, but PPIC researchers who examined the early results of two reforms presented their findings at a PPIC event in Sacramento last week.

California’s New Standardized Tests

PPIC senior fellow Laura Hill summarized the results of California’s new standardized tests, the focus of a PPIC report she coauthored. The scores show that English Learners and economically disadvantaged students are far behind other student groups—possibly farther behind than initially thought. As the accountability system evolves in the state, the test results are an important call to action for districts and schools struggling to help high-need students, Hill said. High-need students did well in some schools and districts, and the first-year results provide an opportunity to learn from their experiences.

College Prep for All?

Julian Betts, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, and PPIC adjunct fellow, examined a high school graduation requirement that makes college preparatory courses mandatory for all students. Major urban school districts—including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland—recently implemented this requirement, making it mandatory for students to complete the a–g sequence of classes required for admission to the University of California or California State University. Based on a PPIC analysis of the San Diego Unified School Districts’ Class of 2016, Betts and his coauthors concluded that this requirement is likely to help many students but damage the prospects of others. He suggested steps that San Diego and other districts can take to help lower-achieving students meet the new graduation goals.

Learn more

Visit PPIC’s K–12 education pages
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Video: Californians’ Views of K–12 Education

Despite increases in state spending on K–12 education, most Californians say state funding for their local public schools is inadequate. And most support an extension of the Proposition 30 tax increase on higher incomes, as well as state and local school bonds. These are among the key findings in PPIC’s 12th annual survey on Californians and education that were presented in Sacramento last week by Lunna Lopes, survey research associate.

Lopes said that concerns about the quality of education are at a record-low 40 percent, and less than a third of Californians say that teacher quality is a big problem. Concern about a teacher shortage is higher, with a majority calling it a big problem.

Among the other findings discussed:

  • There are partisan divisions on Common Core, but public school parents are confident that it will help students be college ready and develop critical thinking skills.
  • Few Californians have heard about Local Control Funding Formula, but when presented with a short description of the policy, most are supportive.
  • Californians see preschool as important for K–12 success and most prefer to spend some of the state budget surplus on early childhood education programs.