Featured Item
To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
January 6, 2009 - California’s economically disadvantaged (ED) students are failing to meet federal and state academic standards and generally perform below their non-economically disadvantaged peers. This trend appears in all grade levels, with nearly two-thirds of second grade ED students and nearly three-fourths of eighth grade ED students performing at low levels. Given these shortcomings, we believe the state needs to be both more strategic and more flexible in its approach to supporting ED students. Specifically, we recommend: redefining the conversation to focus on the barriers impeding academic success; simplifying the system for all involved; refining funding formulas to reflect the pervasiveness and severity of students’ academic challenges; strengthening overall accountability by measuring year-to-year growth in student achievement; and, identifying and facilitating the sharing of best practices.
December 11, 2008 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
December 1, 2008 - The role of the Legislative Analyst's Office is to review state programs and make recommendations to the Legislature as to how the state can operate more effectively and efficiently. This report summarizes various changes to law that we have recommended in recent years. Recommendations in this report include, among many others: (a) Simplify and Consolidate K-12 General Purpose Funding, (b) Promote the Adoption of Health Information Technology in California, (c) Fund Inmate Education Programs Based on Actual Attendance, and (d) Increase and Index the State Gas Tax.
November 21, 2008 - Powerpoint presentation to the California Association of School Business Officials which examines the LAO's Fiscal Forecast, An Overview of the Governor's (November) K-12 Special Session Proposals and an LAO Assessment of the proposals.
June 17, 2008 - Presented to Conference Committee
June 17, 2008 - Agenda Pages 344, 348, and 358, Items 6110-195-0890, 6110-144-0001, and 6440-001-0001 LAO Compromise: Title II Carryover Funds
June 17, 2008 - Agenda Pages 341 and 342—Issues 566, 567, 411, and 441 Items 6110-134-0890, 6110-125-0890, 6110-001-0001, and 6110-001-0890, LAO Compromise: K-12 School Improvement Proposals
June 17, 2008 - Agenda Pages 338 and 339,Item 6110-001-0001—CDE State Operations, LAO Compromise
June 17, 2008 - Agenda Page 370, Issue 050, Item 7980-001-0001, Language Only Authority for Student Aid Commission to Act as Lender-of-Last Resort (LLR)
June 17, 2008 - Agenda Page 371, Issue 066 Trailer Bill Language for EdFund Sale
June 16, 2008 - Most students who enter California Community Colleges (CCC) lack sufficient reading, writing, and mathematics skills to undertake college–level work. Thus, one of the CCC system’s core missions is to provide precollegiate “basic skills” instruction to these students. In this report, we find that a large percentage of students do not overcome their basic skills deficiencies during their time at CCC. We identify a number of state policies that we believe stand in the way of student success, and recommend several structural and systemwide changes designed to help increase preparedness and achievement among community college students.
June 13, 2008 - LAO Compromise: California Postsecondary Education Commission. Agenda page 357. Item 6420-001-0001.
June 12, 2008 - LAO Compromise: Agenda Page 362—Item 6440-001-0001—University of California Provisional Language Regarding Future Appropriations
June 12, 2008 - LAO Compromise: Agenda Page 366—Item 6610-001-0001—California State University Provisional Language Regarding Future Appropriations
June 10, 2008 - California currently operates two systems designed to turn around low–performing schools—one for state purposes and one for federal purposes. The two systems are uncoordinated and often duplicative, in addition to being poorly structured. We recommend replacing the two systems with an integrated system that serves both state and federal purposes. Under the new system, the state would support district reform efforts. Districts would receive different levels of support depending on the severity of their underlying performance problem and be given short–term funding linked to specific short–term district reform activities. By virtue of being integrated and district–centered, the new system would cost substantially less than the existing system and could be supported entirely with federal funding.