Tag: common core

Video: Californians and K-12 Education

The annual PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Education comes at a time when there are major policy changes underway in the state’s K–12 system. They include implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula, Common Core standards, and the Smarter Balanced standardized tests. The survey was released last week and presented at a briefing in Sacramento by research associate Lunna Lopes.

The survey offers a good look at public reaction to the changes and attitudes toward education more broadly. About three-quarters of adults said they knew nothing about the Local Control Funding Formula, which gives districts more flexibility in spending state funds and gives additional money to districts with more English language learners and lower-income students. When survey respondents were read a description of the funding formula, most favored the idea.

About 58% said they had heard about Common Core, the new set of English and math standards. But only 47% favored the idea and 31% opposed it. The poll also found a high level concern more generally about the quality of K–12 education and funding.

Video: Online Testing and Learning in California Schools

California is rolling out a new online testing system in K–12 schools this year in conjunction with the new Common Core curriculum standards. Are schools prepared?

At a recent briefing in Sacramento, PPIC researcher Niu Gao answered the question with findings from her new study. She found that there is a wide variation in readiness across the state. Many district technology officers express confidence in the quantity and quality of their hardware and network capabilities. But they are much less confident of their ability to handle software issues, such as the installation of secure browsers, distribution of IDs, and quick log-ins for students. Most districts also report that they do not have enough staff to provide technical support or do not provide sufficient training for teachers and IT staff.

Gao concludes that in the longer term, virtually all schools will need to upgrade their technology to adopt and fully benefit from digital learning—video conferencing, virtual field trips, and personalized audio-visual instruction.

Gao’s report is titled Are California’s Schools Ready for Online Testing and Learning?

The Road Ahead for Superintendent Torlakson

In what was thought to be one of the most closely contested statewide races, incumbent Tom Torlakson defeated challenger Marshall Tuck to retain the job of state schools chief. In the post mortems, much will be made of the money that was spent on perhaps the most expensive race in this cycle. The conversation, undoubtedly, will focus in part on the significance that national groups attached to this race, which pitted the powerful teachers’ union against the “reformers.” Though there is some value to attempting to unpack the past, it is more important to look forward to the impact Torlakson could have on education in California in his second term.

Leading up to election day, commentators routinely described the state superintendent position as “powerless” or even “obscure.” And it is true that when it comes to making policy the state education chief plays a limited role. A great deal of policy has already been made, and what lies ahead is the difficult job of implementation. The superintendent could play a major part in deciding how these policies roll out. The California Department of Education (CDE) that Torlakson heads has more than 1,500 employees and a budget of $250 million dollars. How he chooses to allocate those resources could make a real contribution to supporting schools and districts as they grapple with major changes.

California has made more significant changes to K–12 education policy in the past four years than it made in the previous two decades:

  • In 2010, the state adopted the Common Core State Standards, a decision that affects nearly every element of what happens in the classroom.

  • In 2013, California scrapped its old system of distributing funds to schools and opted for a formula that directs additional dollars to districts with higher numbers of needy students. One consequence of this change was to put much more power in the hands of local decisionmakers.

  • Accompanying the new funding strategy is a new approach to holding districts accountable for the performance of their schools.

  • And if that isn’t enough, California has begun a new statewide testing regime that has, as yet, only been piloted. The first real round of tests will begin this spring, with results due out in the summer.

As my colleague Paul Warren and I recently observed, CDE has played a minimal role in guiding implementation of the new standards but there are several things it could do to ease the transition. There are also challenges ahead for the state when it comes to the new accountability requirements. Because the new rules were written broadly, they have probably raised more questions than they answered about what accountability looks like going forward. Finally, somebody needs to help students and parents prepare for the new test results. On average, scores are likely to be lower. That doesn’t mean that California’s children somehow became less smart over the past two years; it means that the tests are harder. This is an important distinction that will need to be communicated.

Policy implementation isn’t sexy. It is hard, roll up-your-sleeves work. If the superintendent embraces his role, he could have an impact on California education that goes far beyond symbolism.

PPIC’s Role in a Changing State

California is changing quickly and in ways that touch the lives of all of its residents. The state has enrolled millions of people in health insurance under the federal Affordable Care Act. It is moving ahead to expand the cap-and-trade program that is a cornerstone of AB 32, the landmark law mandating a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

In K–12 education, California is implementing two sweeping policy changes at the same time. New English and math standards, called the Common Core, require big changes in what is taught in the classroom. A new school funding formula, the Local Control Funding Formula, gives districts increased flexibility over spending and provides extra money for disadvantaged students.

Historic changes are playing out in the corrections system as well. Realignment, which shifted responsibilities for many offenders from the state to the local level, has had a significant impact on the state, counties, and communities.

Amid these policy shifts, California is coping with a major drought that has focused attention on the state’s need to improve its water management.

These changes are also taking place in an election year—and California’s elections have also undergone major changes. This is the first election in which state constitutional officers, such as governor and controller, will be elected under the top-two primary system.

At PPIC we are focused on monitoring and analyzing the impact of these changes—both short and long term—and examining other steps the state can take to meet its critical challenges. In recent months, we have delivered objective, nonpartisan research on all of these topics. We plan to release many more publications in the months ahead. Our PPIC Statewide Survey will continue to give California residents a voice in the policy changes that affect them, as it has since 1998. The PPIC blog provides regular updates on the impact of the drought, as well as news and analysis on a range of policy topics from our experts.

Through our extensive outreach, we have hosted discussions on these important topics and more. We invited California’s two top legislative leaders to share their priorities for the upcoming session. At another recent event, the two secretary of state candidates talked about how they would improve elections and increase voter participation, if elected. Both of these events were webcast live to engage Californians from all over the state.

We encourage you to sign up for our announcements to learn about future events. We hope you’ll stay up to date with our publications and videos by signing up for our monthly e-bulletin, following us on social media, and subscribing to the PPIC blog.

As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions.

The High School Exit Exam: What’s Next?

The California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) is likely to be a topic of discussion in the next legislative session. Enacted in 1999, the CAHSEE involves tests in English and mathematics that high school students must pass in order to graduate. Testing started in 2001, but the graduation requirement was held up for several years by legal challenges that resulted in an exemption for special education students.

The immediate issue for the legislature has to do with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, which take effect this school year. The state overhauled its testing program in 2013, eliminating most testing in high school except grade 11 English and math tests in that are aligned to the new standards. Because CAHSEE is based on the previous standards, the question is whether to update it so that it aligns better with Common Core, find an alternative measure, or eliminate the requirement altogether. For now, passing the CAHSEE continues to be a requirement for graduation.

The question of the CAHSEE’s impact on students and schools is also an important discussion item. The proportion of 10th graders who pass the test has increased significantly, suggesting that students are better prepared in math and English. The chart below shows that 10th grade pass rates on the math test by students in the four largest racial/ethnic groups has increased each year since 2004. Gains made by Latino and black students are especially significant—their passage rates have increased 18 percent and 20 percent, respectively.

Despite these gains, recent research suggests that exit examinations do little to boost student achievement but create costs in the form of lower graduation rates. In total, 95.5 percent of 12th graders in California passed both the English and math sections of the test, meaning that 4.5 percent of students did not graduate on time at least in part because they did not pass the test. This has a bigger impact on black and Latino students, whose 12th grade pass rates remain about 5 percent below those of white and Asian students. Moreover, because these rates do not include students who dropped out of school, they may understate the impact of the CAHSEE requirement on lower-performing students.

In a 2013 report, state education superintendent Tom Torlakson recommended a number of alternatives to the CAHSEE, including successful completion of specific high school courses, new tests that would be given at the conclusion of specific English and math courses, or the new Common Core tests given in 11th grade. Any discussion of updating the requirement would raise the question of the skills students should be expected to demonstrate. The current exam tests students at an 8th or 9th grade level; making the test more difficult would put more students at risk of finishing high school without a diploma. Thus, instead of focusing on aligning the exit exam to the new standards, the legislative discussion may revolve around the benefits and costs of minimum graduation standards to schools, students, and society.

Governor Proposes Minor Changes to K-12 Funding Levels

The governor released the May revision of his 2014-15 budget yesterday. All told, the news was good. Revenues were modestly better than forecast in January—up about $850 million in the coming fiscal year. But due to the complexities of Proposition 98—the constitutional funding guarantee for schools and community colleges—the amount proposed for K-12 education fell slightly.

The governor’s plan for schools is mostly unchanged, however. The chart below illustrates per-pupil funding levels proposed in the May revision. Schools would receive about $8,800 for each student—an increase of $780 from 2013–14. The current estimate of per-pupil funding in 2013-14 is up slightly from the level estimated in January, providing a healthy $430 per student more than in 2012–13.

Most of the new funding in 2014–15 goes to pay for the new Local Control Funding Formula. As in the January budget proposal, the budget includes $4.5 billion, or about $750 per student, for the new funding formula. The three-part formula distributes funding using a base grant (that differs by grade span), a supplemental grant for disadvantaged students (low-income, English Learner, and foster care students), and a concentration grant for districts that serve above-average proportions of disadvantaged students.

The budget also provides $27 million to help districts administer new state tests. With the transition to the Common Core State Standards, new computer-based assessments are currently being field tested in California. Students take the new tests on computers linked to the internet, and the additional funding would help schools develop higher speed internet connections.

One final note: Governor Brown proposes to establish a Proposition 98 reserve in the future to protect against volatility in General Fund revenues. His proposed constitutional amendment creates a rainy day fund that would help buffer schools from the extreme boom and bust cycle of state revenues.

In addition, the governor appears to have established an approach to K-12 budgeting that helps protect state and school district finances from uncertainties in the estimating process. Because revenues—and school funding levels—are estimated a year in advance, the amount of resources available to schools changes throughout the year as the revenue picture becomes clear. To reduce risks to state and district budgets, the administration: ·

  • Makes relatively conservative revenue forecasts. Moderating the administration’s revenue estimates helps prevent the state from spending more than Proposition 98 requires. If actual revenues are higher than assumed, it makes the additional Proposition 98 funds available on a one-time basis to retire debts or pay for other one-time costs. ·
  • Builds more flexibility into annual K-12 budgets. The administration, for instance, proposes to spend about $1.5 billion in ongoing 2014–15 funds to retire one-time K–12 debts that were created during the recession. These one-time expenditures help protect district budgets, because debt repayment can be downsized if Proposition 98 funding does not reach its expected level, while district base budgets are left intact.

This approach requires restraint on the part of state policymakers and local educators. But the dividends—repaid debts and one-time funding for things like computer infrastructure—are also becoming more evident.

Trouble Ahead for Local School Ballot Measures?

This commentary first appeared on EdSource.org on April 30, 2014.

The elections this year offer the first statewide look at Californians’ willingness to raise revenue for their local schools since passage of Proposition 30, the tax initiative to benefit education that voters passed in November 2012. While it’s too early to know how many local school districts will test the waters by placing a construction bond or parcel tax on the ballot, there are undercurrents in our new survey that spell trouble ahead for local school ballot measures. In short, the public’s sense that schools are in crisis has diminished.

Our annual PPIC Statewide Survey on Californians and Education shows that likely voters view fiscal conditions in education as generally improving. The proportion who say that the state budget situation is a “big problem” for California’s K–12 public education has dropped by 10 points—from 72 percent to 62 percent—between April 2012 and today. More importantly, the proportion of likely voters saying that the level of current state funding for their local public schools is “not enough” has also dropped by 10 points between April 2012 and today—from 59 percent to 49 percent. In other words, the likely voters who currently view state funding of their local schools as problematic now make up less than a majority.

In our recent poll, 55 percent of likely voters would vote yes if there was a local school bond on the ballot—just barely meeting the minimum passage level. By contrast, 48 percent of likely voters would vote yes on a local school parcel tax—falling far short of the two thirds needed to pass.

It is important to note that likely voters who are public school parents are bucking these statewide trends: a majority of them view state funding for their local public school as inadequate, and over 60 percent say they would support a local school bond and a local school parcel tax this year. But our poll finds that public school parents make up less than 30 percent of the likely voters who will determine the ballot outcomes.

Since 2001, the statewide passage rate for local school bonds has been 81 percent and for local school parcel taxes, 60 percent, as noted by CaliforniaCityFinance.com and EdSource. This year, those rates may fall. Alternatively, there may be fewer local school ballot measures this year as funding proponents focus on a smaller set of school districts with voter profiles that offer favorable odds for passing these measures. For instance, our poll finds majority support for local school bonds and local school parcel taxes among Democratic, Latino, lower-income, and Bay Area likely voters.

Meanwhile, some legislators have proposed lowering the vote threshold needed to pass these taxes from two-thirds to 55 percent, which requires changing Proposition 13. But since the Democrats lost their supermajority when three of their senators were suspended, the legislature is much less likely to send this change to the voters for approval. Californians are not inclined to make this change anyway. The proportion of likely voters who say that this change to Proposition 13 is a good idea has declined—from 46 percent in April 2011 to just 39 percent today.

It is possible that voter concern about school funding needs will surface later this year, as school districts implement two dramatic changes: the Common Core Standards in the classroom and the Local Control Funding Formula, which provides more money for districts with higher proportions of English Learners and lower-income students. These changes could offer two new avenues to engage voters about the need for local school funding. For now, though, we will be watching for signs that Proposition 30’s passage will make it harder for local school ballot measures to succeed in 2014.

Survey Focuses on Historic Changes in California Schools

PPIC’s 10th annual survey on K–12 education focused on two historic changes in California schools: the transition to the Common Core math and English standards and the Local Control Funding Formula.

Sonja Petek, project manager for the survey, talked about the key findings last week at a lunchtime briefing at the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament in Sacramento.

As our recent report, Implementing the Common Core State Standards in California shows, Common Core is off to a challenging start so far in the state. However, the PPIC survey found that most Californians and public school parents support the standards—which have sparked controversy in other states. But most are also concerned that teachers are unprepared to implement the new standards.

While most Californians had heard at least a little about the Common Core standards, awareness of the new funding formula was much lower. After they were read a description, most Californians said they supported the Local Control Funding Formula, which gives school districts increased flexibility over spending and provides extra money for disadvantaged students.

The survey also asked whether the state should fund voluntary preschool for all 4-year-olds (73% said yes) and whether likely voters would support a local bond measure to benefit school construction bonds (55% would) or a local school parcel tax for schools (48% would).

Education Experts Focus on Common Core

The Common Core Standards are fundamentally altering the way students learn and have generated broad debate nationally. Their implementation in California was the focus of a panel discussion in Sacramento yesterday. PPIC sponsored the event in conjunction with the release of two reports, Implementing the Common Core State Standards in California and California’s Transition to the Common Core State Standards: The State’s Role in Local Capacity Building.

The reports show that California’s shift to the Common Core—which emphasizes conceptual understanding and problem solving—is off to a slow start. They also note that California has treated the transition as a district-level issue, with the state Department of Education reviewing instructional materials and providing a professional library of resources that can be downloaded by teachers. Speakers at yesterday’s event saw both points as positive.

Patricia Rucker, a member of the state Department of Education, said taking a thoughtful approach was more important than being out in front. California can learn from states like New York and, ultimately, lead by incorporating the lessons from others, she said. She also noted that California’s careful approach has helped avoid the backlash over the new standards that other states are experiencing.

David Gordon, superintendent of the Sacramento Office of Education, said the state’s decentralized approach to implementation offers opportunities. “A lot of our districts have great talent,” he said. “A lot of the counties have great talent. A lot of the private vendor providers have great talent. I think we need to use all of that to advantage.”

Patrick Murphy, PPIC’s research director and a co-author of the reports, said California has an opportunity to be “strategic late adopters.” Echoing a theme of the reports, he said the state is uniquely situated to take a different role in education. It could, for example, set up a site—similar to Yelp—to encourage educators on the ground to exchange information about teaching the Common Core.

The speakers noted two important lessons learned so far:

  • The experience of other states shows that California’s future test scores will drop—a development that educators and parents need to be prepared for.
  • The requirement to administer tests electronically has highlighted the need for updated technology in the state’s public schools and has sparked action to do so.

Moving English Learners to English Fluency

English learners (ELs) who have been reclassified as fluent English speakers perform very well, sometimes even surpassing the achievements of native English speakers. Moving ELs to English fluency is a high priority for educators and policymakers. As we describe in a commentary for EdSource, school districts across the state have different standards for reclassifying these students. This means that students with the same skills may be reclassified as fluent in one district, but not in another.

PPIC surveyed school districts about their reclassification policies and found that almost all districts use at least one reclassification criterion that is more rigorous than the State Board of Education’s guidelines. We also found that districts using more rigorous reclassification policies generally had lower reclassification rates. In many cases, setting the bar higher is linked to improved student outcomes for reclassified English learners, such as higher test scores. But these outcomes are not improved by much, and in some cases, outcomes are worse.

We concluded that the benefits to reclassified students of being held to higher standards are minimal—especially in light of the high performance of reclassified students in districts using the state guidelines.

Further, standardizing district reclassification policies into one uniform policy—for now, using the State Board of Education guidelines—would ease another concern: that districts have a fiscal incentive to set standards that maintain the supplemental funding they get for each EL student. Most important, standardizing reclassification policies would speed the transition of highly able English learners.

Changes to California’s school finance, testing, and accountability systems all have the potential to change outcomes for ELs over the coming months and years. New research on setting the state’s reclassification standards should wait until the new assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards are fully implemented.