Legislative Analyst's Office Analysis of the 2001-02 Budget Bill

Professional Development For K-12 Teachers

The Governor's budget proposes two new programs and expands two existing programs in a significant effort to provide more professional development opportunities for teachers and administrators. In total, the budget provides $378.5 million in new General Fund spending for these four initiatives. Of this amount, the budget provides:

• $335 million (Proposition 98) for professional development in standards-based instruction of reading and mathematics.
• $18.5 million (non-Proposition 98) to expand the Education Technology Professional Development Program (ETPDP).
• $15 million (Proposition 98) to provide professional development for 5,000 principals and vice principals.
• $10 million (non-Proposition 98) to pay the stipends for 10,000 additional teachers to participate in the California Professional Development Institutes (CPDIs).

Standards-Based Reading and Mathematics Instruction

The Governor's budget proposes a three-year $830 million initiative to train more than 250,000 K-12 teachers and 22,000 aides in mathematics and reading instruction based on the state's recently adopted academic content standards. Over the three-year period, the Governor proposes to train every K-6 teacher (140,000), special education teacher (28,000), single-subject English teacher (26,000), mathematics teacher (21,000), social science teacher (22,000), and science teacher (15,000). In year one of the initiative (2001-02), the Governor proposes $335 million to train all multiple-subject K-6 teachers (one-half in reading and one-half in mathematics), one-half of all single-subject mathematics and English teachers, and approximately 7,000 instructional aides. This funding level is based on the assumption that the University of California's (UC) CPDI program—the standards-based professional development program that serves as the model for the administration's initiative—will train some of these teachers with existing resources. The administration expects to spend $335 million in year two and $160 million in year three. The program would terminate at the end of 2003-04.

Intensive Training in Academic Content Standards. The primary purpose of this initiative is to provide every core-subject public K-12 teacher with an intensive professional development experience. This training would consist of at least 40 hours of initial training and 80 hours of follow-up training and in-school support—all of which would be focused on how to teach reading and mathematics based on the state's academic content standards. (The State Board of Education [SBE] adopted academic content standards in reading/language arts and mathematics for K-12 in 1997.)

Participating Districts Must Buy Content-Aligned Instructional Materials. School districts participating in the proposed program would be required to have content-aligned instructional materials in all classrooms within seven months of the SBE's approval of those materials. In January 2001, SBE approved a list of content-aligned K-8 instructional materials in mathematics. The SBE plans to adopt a list of content-aligned K-8 instructional materials in reading/language arts in January 2002. Participating districts, therefore, would have until August 2001 to purchase aligned materials in mathematics and until August 2002 to purchase aligned materials in reading/language.

Funds Go to School Districts. Compared to the administration's recent university-centered approach to K-12 professional development, the budget-year proposal offers districts greater flexibility in choosing professional development providers. Under the 2001-02 proposal, districts could either develop their own professional development program, rely on a private provider or a local consortia of providers, or send their teachers to a CPDI or a California Subject Matter Project (CSMP). The budget-year approach, therefore, allows districts to respond more directly to their local needs and to choose providers that best meet those needs.

Administrative Process Still Being Developed. At the time of this analysis, the administration had not provided detailed information regarding implementation of the program. The following issues remain unclear.

• Which agency(s) would develop the regulations stipulating the essential elements each district plan must include.
• When the regulations would be established.
• Which agency(s) would review districts' plans to determine if they adhered to the regulations.
• The deadline for districts submitting their plans.
• The deadline for approving districts' plans.
• The administrative cost associated with these activities.

Cost Overestimated

We are concerned with three aspects of the administration's proposal: the proposed cost per teacher, the scale of the program in year one, and the estimated total cost of the program. By keeping the per-teacher cost reasonable, phasing in the program on a more realistic timetable, and more reliably calculating the number of teachers receiving instruction through existing programs, the Legislature could save $235 million in year one and more than $500 million over the course of the three-year program—yet still provide the same number of teachers with high-quality professional development over the three-year time frame. We discuss each of these factors below.

Proposal Costs $2,500 Per Teacher. Under the Governor's proposal, the State Department of Education (SDE) would reimburse districts $2,500 for each teacher who participated in an approved reading, language arts, or mathematics professional development program. The $2,500 per-teacher proposal is based on the following three factors:

• $1,000 Institute Cost. This is the estimated total cost per teacher associated with the existing CPDIs. Of this cost, UC designates $700 for instructional costs (including both faculty and materials). The UC designates the remainder for program development, administration, and evaluation.
• $1,000 Teacher Stipend. This is the amount the state currently provides to each teacher participating in a CPDI.
• $500 Incentive Funding. The Governor's budget provides an additional $500 per participant to districts to encourage them to enroll their teachers in this program.

The state currently spends $2,000 per teacher participating in a CPDI. The $2,000 covers the entire cost associated with program development, instruction, administration, and evaluation as well as a $1,000 stipend meant to cover a teacher's costs and serve as an incentive to participate. The administration has not justified spending $500 more per teacher than under existing intensive professional development programs such as the CPDIs. Indeed, the funding discrepancy generates undue administrative complexity because SDE would have to determine which CPDI participants are funded through existing channels (at the $2,000 rate) and which are funded through the new district reimbursement process (at the $2,500 rate).

Scale of Program in Year One Unrealistic. By summer 2001, the administration expects:

• The UC and/or SBE to devise regulations.
• All participating districts to develop a professional development training plan and submit this plan for state review.
• The state to review all districts' training plans.
• All participating districts to begin intensive 40-hour training sessions in July or August for more than 100,000 teachers statewide (except for year-round schools, which could implement this first session during a fall intersession).

Districts are extremely unlikely to be able to complete this process and serve so many teachers in so little time. Indeed, in the current year, CPDIs served only about 34,500, or 60 percent, of the 59,000 teachers they were expected to serve, and the CPDIs required neither state regulations nor a review of district plans.

Calculation of Cost Flawed. To derive its estimate of the budget-year cost of the initiative, the administration multiplied the total number of teachers to be served (163,500) by $2,500 (the proposed expenditure per teacher) and the total number of instructional aides to be served (6,950) by $1,000. This total cost is $415.7 million. From this total, the administration then subtracted $80.7 million—attempting to account for those teachers (59,000) the state proposes to serve with budgeted CPDI resources—to arrive at a total estimated cost of $335 million. This estimate, however, does not reflect the total amount the state currently provides for the CPDI program (which is $110.9 million) nor accounts for funding the state currently provides for other comparable standards-based professional development programs. The administration, therefore, overestimates the amount of additional funds needed.

Program Goal Can Be Achieved at Far Less Cost

For the first year, we recommend the Legislature refine the scope of the Governor's proposal by providing $100 million for standards-based professional development for the approximately 50,000 teachers that currently teach in year-round schools. For each of the next two years, we recommend the Legislature provide $115 million to train 52,000 teachers and 11,000 aides, thereby serving the same total number of individuals as the Governor proposes. This would save $235 million in the budget year and $500 million in total General Fund expenditures during the three-year period. (Reduce Item 6110-137-001 by $235 million.)

A more appropriate method for calculating the cost of the Governor's proposal is to determine first the number of teachers that could be served in the upcoming academic year by existing programs. Figure 1 shows how many teachers the state funds through existing intensive standards-based reading, writing, and mathematics professional development programs—including the CPDIs and other programs of similar design and substance. Of the 163,500 teachers the Governor proposes to serve in year one, we estimate that 98,700 teachers could be served by existing programs at budgeted funding levels. The Governor's proposal, therefore, means an expansion of effort of almost 65,000 additional teachers, a 66 percent expansion.

Provide Funding First for Teachers in Year-Round Schools. Given the regulatory and review process, accommodating 65,000 additional teachers in an intensive 120-hour standards-based professional development program by summer 2001 is probably unrealistic. Teachers in year-round schools, however, might be able to participate in such a program in the budget year because they would have more time than other schools to develop a professional development plan, obtain state approval for their plan, and receive the initial 40 hours of intensive training. This is because they could provide the initial 40 hours of training for all their teachers during a 60-day to 120-day period (depending on the number of tracks and length of sessions) beginning in late summer and extending throughout the fall. In 1999-00, approximately 50,000 teachers worked in year-round schools (including both single-track and multitrack schools) and taught English, math, or multiple-subjects (K-6 teachers). For $100 million, the Legislature could provide these year-round teachers with intensive, standards-aligned professional development in reading and mathematics in 2001-02. (Our estimate of the number of year-round teachers requiring standards-based professional development is generous because some of these teachers have either recently completed a state-accredited teacher preparation program or have recently participated in the CPDI program or CSMP program.)

Many of Neediest Schools Would Receive Training in Year One. If the Legislature provided funding for teachers in year-round schools in the first year of the initiative, it would be helping many of the schools most in need of academic improvement. The state's 965 multitrack year-round schools with Academic Performance Index (API) scores have scores averaging 3.5. (Scores range from 1 to 10, with 10 being best.) More than half of the students in multitrack year-round schools attend schools with API scores of 1 or 2.

Out-Year Effects—Same Number of Professional Development Opportunities. For the three years of the initiative, Figure 2 compares the number of teacher training opportunities provided in the Governor's proposal with the number provided in our recommendation. (The figure shows the number of training sessions rather than the number of teachers because K-6 teachers and special education teachers would receive training in both reading and mathematics. Thus, the number of training sessions is greater than the number of teachers.) In the budget year, the Governor proposes to serve 163,500 teachers (including the 59,000 teachers being served by the CPDIs). By comparison, we recommend serving 138,700 teachers. This includes the 50,000 year-round teachers as well as the 88,700 teachers the state currently funds through existing UC-administered and federally funded programs. (This number is 10,000 less than the total shown in Figure 1, as we have adjusted the total based on funding available to SDE for stipend payments. This issue is discussed further below.) In years two and three, we recommend providing 52,000 new training opportunities. Over the three years, the Legislature would provide just as many training opportunities in total under our recommendation as under the Governor's proposal.

Three-Year Period Effects—Approximately Half the Cost. For the three years of the initiative, Figure 3 compares the cost of the Governor's proposal (above base-spending levels) with our recommendation. In year one, the Governor's proposal requires $335 million in new General Fund monies whereas our recommendation requires $100 million. Across the three fiscal years our proposal requires less than the Governor's proposal requires in year one alone, yet still serves the same number of teachers.

Fund Aides in Years Two and Three. Our recommendation includes the cost of training 11,000 aides in year two and an additional 11,000 aides in year three—just as many aides as the administration proposes to serve. We recommend the Legislature not provide funding for aides until years two and three—after districts have had the time to develop their teacher training programs. Many districts, as well as the state agency that must review districts' plans, are likely to be overwhelmed by developing teacher training and instructional aide training programs simultaneously. In our view, the teacher programs should take priority.

In sum, we recommend the Legislature appropriate $100 million to provide intensive professional development in reading and mathematics for the approximately 50,000 teachers currently teaching in year-round schools. Because these schools have a fall intersession, they would have more time than other schools to develop and implement professional development programs. Among these schools are also many of the state's lowest performing—schools the Legislature might want to fund first for education policy reasons. Over the next three years, under our recommendation, the Legislature could still serve as many teachers as the Governor proposes, but it could do so for about 60 percent less than the proposed General Fund cost. (Reduce Item 6110-137-001 by $235 million.)

Expansion of California Professional Development Institutes

The Governor's budget requests $10 million from the General Fund (non-Proposition 98) to provide $1,000 stipends for 10,000 additional teachers to participate in the CPDI program (Item 6110-136-0001). The CPDIs are professional development institutes designed to help teachers throughout the state become more familiar with the state's newly adopted academic content standards. The UC administers the CPDI program.

In this analysis, we:

• Provide background information on the CPDI program.
• Provide a progress report on UC's recent efforts to expand the CPDI program.
• Recommend the Legislature reduce UC's budget by $10 million, thereby realigning it with SDE's current funding level for the CPDI program.

Background

Figure 4 shows the funding the state has provided to the CPDI program since 1998-99. In that year, the state provided $500,000 to establish the first CPDI—the California Reading Professional Development Institute (PDI). The Reading PDI provided K-3 teachers with an intensive professional development experience consisting of a 40-hour intensive summer seminar and 80 hours of continued training and support throughout the school year. All subsequently established CPDIs have been based on this model. In 1999-00, the state provided $5.5 million to expand the Reading PDI and an additional $5 million to establish an English Language Development (ELD) PDI, providing training for teachers who instruct a large proportion of English language learners but do not hold a cross-cultural or bilingual cross-cultural teaching certificate.

The UC's Role in K-12 Professional Development Greatly Expanded. In the current year, the state provided a $50.9 million augmentation to expand the CPDI program. Of this amount, the state provided $14 million to expand the Reading PDI, $5.2 million to expand the English Language Development PDI, and $31.7 million to establish five new types of institutes—High School English, Elementary Mathematics, High School Mathematics, Algebra, and Algebra Academies (which couple professional development for pre-algebra and algebra teachers with summer school opportunities for middle school students).

The SDE's and UC's Funding Currently Misaligned. The 2000-01 Budget Act provided UC with a total of $61.9 million for the CPDI program, which was to provide professional development for 59,000 teachers. Although the budget act provided UC with funds to serve 59,000 teachers, it provided SDE with stipend funds to serve only 49,000 of these teachers. (The SDE received $49 million to provide $1,000 stipends for 49,000 teachers attending CPDIs.) Below, we recommend the Legislature realign the two budgets by reducing UC's funding (rather than increasing SDE's funding as proposed by the Governor's budget).

A CPDI Progress Report

Legislature Required Supplemental Report on CPDI Program. Given the rapid expansion of the CPDI program proposed by the Governor in 2000-01, the Legislature adopted supplemental report language directing UC to provide basic information on the program's implementation by December 1, 2000. Specifically, the Legislature requested UC to provide information on the number of teachers participating in the program, a list of institute sites, expenditure detail, and the geographic profile of the teachers served. (The Legislature expressed its intent that the program serve teachers throughout the entire state rather than only teachers residing near a university.) By the end of January, UC had provided much of the required information but had not yet provided information on the geographic profile of the teachers benefitting from the program.

The UC Funded for Many More Teachers Than It Has Served. Figure 5 compares the number of teachers for which UC was funded with the number of teachers it is committed to serve in the current year. In the Reading PDI, UC expects to serve (based on institute agreements) more teachers than budgeted. (To cover the additional expense, UC redirected $4 million from the underutilized High School English PDI to the "oversubscribed" Reading PDI.) In all the other institutes, UC expects to serve considerably fewer teachers than budgeted. It currently serves only 60 percent of ELD teachers, 29 percent of high school English teachers, and 19 percent of the mathematics teachers for which it was funded. (The UC staff state that they cannot separate the data on the number of participants attending each of the four different types of mathematics institutes.) In total, UC is serving fewer than 60 percent of the teachers for which it was funded in 2000-01.

Unclear What UC Will Do With Unexpended Funds. At the time of the analysis, UC had committed $45.7 million of the total $61.9 million appropriated for the CPDI program in the current year. Of the $45.7 million, Figure 6 shows the amount UC has committed to spend on instruction, support, and program management. The university has committed $25.6 million, or 56 percent, for instruction-related purposes and $20.1 million, or 44 percent, for administrative support and program management. Whether UC can commit the remaining unexpended funds ($16.2 million) in the current year is unclear.

Reduce UC's Budget—Allow Districts to Choose Professional Development Providers

We recommend the Legislature reduce the University of California's (UC) budget by $10 million (Item 6440-001-0001) and not approve the $10 million augmentation requested for the State Department of Education (SDE) (Item 6110-136-0001), thereby realigning UC's funding for the California Professional Development Institutes with the funding the state currently provides SDE for stipends. (Reduce Items 6110-136-0001 and 6440-001-0001 by $10 million each.)

As mentioned above, the 2000-01 Budget Act provided UC with funds to serve more teachers than SDE can provide stipends. The 2001-02 Governor's Budget proposes to correct this "misalignment" by increasing SDE's funding level. We believe reducing UC's funding level is a better way of aligning the two agency budgets and increasing the effectiveness of professional development programs for the following reasons:

• The CPDI Program Underutilized in Current Year. Although the state provided UC with sufficient funding to serve 59,000 teachers in the current year, UC is currently serving fewer than 35,000. Thus, the university faces a significant challenge to serve the number of teachers outlined in the budget plan—an increase of 70 percent.
• The UC Overfunded in Current Year. The UC could end the current year with as much as $16 million, or 26 percent, of its current-year appropriation unspent. These unexpended funds would not revert to the General Fund at the end of the fiscal year—as is the case with other state agencies—but would be retained by UC for redirection as it decides.
• High Administrative Costs. The UC has spent 44 percent of its CPDI funding on support costs and program management. These costs are unusually high and occurred despite the Legislature's explicit direction given in the Supplemental Report of the 2000-01 Budget Act for UC "to use funds for the institutes for direct services to the maximum extent possible, holding administrative costs and institutional overhead to a minimum."
• Program Unlikely to Serve All Teachers Equally. Given UC still has not responded to the Legislature's request for data on the geographic profile of the teachers it is serving, the Legislature cannot determine if teachers throughout the state are benefitting equally from the program. Indeed, many teachers who do not reside within a convenient distance of a university campus are unlikely to benefit from the program.

Administration's Modified Approach Toward K-12 Professional Development Offers Districts More Choices, Fewer Restrictions. As discussed earlier, the administration's latest proposal for standards-based K-12 professional development is more decentralized and less university centered. Under the administration's new approach, districts have the option of choosing UC as a professional development provider, but they also have the option of selecting other providers. Augmenting the university-based CPDIs would run counter to this more flexible, needs-based approach to K-12 professional development.

In conclusion, we recommend the Legislature reduce UC's budget by $10 million and not approve the Governor's request for an additional $10 million for SDE. We compensate for this reduction in our earlier recommendation on the Governor's standards-based professional development initiative (see Figure 2). Specifically, for years two and three of that program, our previous recommendation would provide additional funding to serve these 10,000 teachers through district-funded programs (which might rely on CPDIs) rather than through UC-funded programs. We recommend the Legislature provide districts with as many options as possible in choosing high-quality professional development providers. Once the state establishes criteria characterizing high-quality professional development, districts then could choose to send their teachers to a CPDI, but they would also have the option of relying on other approved providers. We recommend the Legislature adopt this approach—emphasizing school-centered rather than university-centered K-12 professional development programs. (Reduce Items 6110-137-0001 and 6440-001-0001 by $10 million each.)

Expansion of Education Technology Professional Development Program

The Governor's budget requests an $18.5 million augmentation from the General Fund for the California State University (CSU) to expand the ETPDP bringing the total ETPDP budget to $25 million. This is an almost threefold increase over funding in the current year ($6.5 million).

Established in 2000. Chapter 78, Statutes of 2000 (AB 2882, Reyes), established the ETPDP program to provide teachers with training on how to use technology more effectively within their classrooms. In the current year, CSU has spent $8.5 million for the ETPDP program. Of this amount, the 2000-01 Budget Act appropriated $6.5 million for the program and CSU redirected $2 million from within its budget. Of the $8.5 million, CSU designated $5 million to pay $1,000 stipends for each of the 5,000 teachers participating in the program. It provided $3.5 million in grants to
28 consortia (consisting of an Institution of Higher Education [IHE], at least one K-12 school district or county office of education, and the California Technology Assistance Project [CTAP]) to cover a $700 per teacher training cost for all 5,000 participants.

Shift Funding From CSU to SDE—Allow Districts to Choose Providers

We recommend the Legislature approve the requested funding for professional development in education technology but shift the funding from the California State University to the State Department of Education and allow districts to choose the professional development provider that best meets their needs. (Reduce Item 6610-001-0001 by $18.5 million [non-Proposition 98] and augment Item 6110-181-0001 by $18.5 million [Proposition 98].)

Consistent with the Governor's budget-year approach to standards-based reading and mathematics professional development, we recommend the Legislature provide the additional funding for standards-based education technology professional development but provide it directly to districts so they can select providers that best meet their training needs. We recommend the Legislature adopt this district-centered approach because the current CSU-centered approach:

• Restricts District Choice. For districts to receive ETPDP funding, they currently must partner with at least one public or private four-year IHE. Moreover, the IHE must serve as the fiscal agent of the partnership. The current approach, therefore, restricts the professional development opportunities of many districts. Under a district-centered approach, many districts might continue to use IHE providers, but others might find partnering with an IHE less convenient or more costly than other providers. Some of these districts might choose, for example, to form a consortium with neighboring schools, a county office of education, and/or CTAP.
• Lacks Competition. Currently, CSU determines which IHEs and partnerships should receive funds, yet it is also considered a primary provider. It, therefore, faces a conflict of interest. Although CSU is unlikely to use its authority unfairly, having districts choose providers would allow for greater competition, which in turn would generate incentives for providers to be more directly accountable for providing teachers with high-quality professional development.

In sum, we recommend the Legislature shift the $18.5 million the budget requests to expand the ETPDP program from CSU to SDE (which results in a need to accommodate $18.5 million within the state's Proposition 98 total). This recommendation is consistent with the district-centered approach the administration has adopted in its new initiative on standards-based professional development in reading and mathematics.

Leveraging Existing Professional Development Resources Maximizes Districts' Opportunities

Earlier in this section, we discuss the Governor's new standards-based professional development initiative and the major university-administered professional development programs. In addition to these programs, the state already funds several locally and regionally administered staff development programs in reading, mathematics, and technology for K-12 teachers. Figure 7  lists many of these programs. Even without counting the Governor's $378.5 million in new professional development proposals, the 2001-02 budget still includes more than $450 million for locally and regionally administered K-12 professional development programs. (Figure 7 does not include state funding for the major support programs for new and noncredentialed teachers—such as the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment program, the District Internship program, the Pre-Internship program, and CalState TEACH—which totals approximately $150 million.)

Pooling Existing Resources Could Enhance Program Quality

We recommend the Legislature enact legislation and add a control section to the budget bill to allow districts to redirect resources from outdated, nonstandards-aligned, and lower-priority professional development programs to professional development programs that are both aligned to the state's new academic content standards and of adequate training length to be effective.

Although the state currently spends a considerable amount on K-12 professional development, many of the funds are linked to categorical programs or programs that are not aligned to state content standards. Some of the funding also supports training activities of short duration—such as one-day workshops—that are likely to be ineffective.

Flexible Professional Development Block Grant. The Legislature could achieve better results with existing resources if it combined the funds associated with these older, nonstandards-aligned programs into a more flexible professional development block grant. One major statewide program the Legislature might include in such a block grant is the Instructional Time and Staff Development Reform program, which provides a total of $259 million to districts for a variety of short-term professional development activities. The Legislature might also include in the block grant funds from older programs—such as the Miller-Unruh Basic Reading Program ($28.4 million)—whose purposes should be realigned with teachers' current training needs.

Encourage Districts to Combine State and Federal Funds. The Legislature also could encourage districts to combine state funds with federal funds. Indeed, many federal programs—such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I, Part A and the Class-Size Reduction program—either require or strongly encourage local education agencies to pool local, state, and federal resources and use a proportion for standards-aligned professional development.

In sum, we recommend the Legislature allow districts to pool some existing professional development resources and use them for new professional development programs that focus on the state's academic content standards and are of sufficient training length to be effective. By providing districts with a flexible professional development block grant, the Legislature not only would help districts streamline existing staff development programs, it also would encourage districts to realign older professional development programs with the state's academic content standards. Through this streamlining and realigning process, the Legislature could maximize the number of high-quality professional development opportunities available to teachers throughout the state.