Staff
- Sara Cortez
-
(916) 319-8348
Special Education, Preschool, Child Nutrition, and Facilities - Kenneth Kapphahn
-
(916) 319-8339
Proposition 98, School District Budgets, School Transportation - Lisa Qing
-
(916) 319-8306
California Community Colleges - Michael Alferes
-
(916) 319-8338
Local Control Funding Formula, Charter Schools, Alternative Schools, High School Career Technical Education - Natalie Gonzalez
-
(916) 319-8320
California State University, Student Financial Aid - Dylan Hawksworth-Lutzow
-
(916) 319-8308
Child Care, Expanded Learning, Teachers, and Education Technology - Edgar Cabral
-
(916) 319-8343
Deputy Legislative Analyst: K-12 Education - Jennifer Pacella
-
(916) 319-8332
Deputy Legislative Analyst: Higher Education
Publications
Education
To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
K-12 Education Issues In the 2006-07 Budget
- Format:
February 23, 2006 - We highlight the major K-12 recommendations in our Analysis of the 2006-07 Budget Bill.
K-12 Facilities Emergency Repair Program
February 23, 2006 - The current structure of the Emergency Repair Program (ERP) makes it difficult for districts to apply for funds and provides incentives for districts to avoid addressing facility problems until they become real emergencies. We recommend the Legislature enact legislation to grant the ERP funds directly to districts with low performing schools to address facility needs identified by their facilities needs assessments, and maintain $50 million at the state level to provide districts with loans for pressing emergency repair needs.
After School Programs and Proposition 49
February 23, 2006 - As approved by voters in 2002, Proposition 49 requires the state to increase funding for the After School Education and Safety (ASES) program beginning in 2006-07. We continue to recommend the Legislature enact legislation placing before the voters a repeal of Proposition 49 because (1) it triggers an autopilot augmentation even though the state is facing a structural budget gap of billions of dollars, (2) the additional spending on after school programs is a lower budget priority than protecting districts’ base education program, and (3) existing state and federal after school funds are going unused.
K-12 and Community College Mandates
February 23, 2006 - The Governor’s budget proposes $133.6 million from the General Fund to pay for the costs of state-mandated local programs in K-12 education and community colleges in 2006-07. We find that the amount proposed in the budget bill for mandates falls short of fully funding ongoing mandate costs; the mandates claims process could be streamlined and simplified by reimbursing districts on a per-pupil basis for all K-12 mandates; recent action by the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) on the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) mandate raises issues about how the state should address local implementation costs of this program; and funding for state truancy mandates could be used more effectively by transforming these programs into a categorical program aimed at reducing truancy and dropouts.
School District Financial Condition
February 23, 2006 - In our Analysis of the 2005-06 Budget Bill, we discussed the range of fiscal issues facing school districts. These included low general purpose reserves, internal borrowing from self-insurance funds, and falling state revenues due to declining enrollment. We also discussed the long-term challenge created by new accounting requirements on retiree health benefits. The financial health of districts has not improved significantly, and may have even worsened somewhat, over the past year. Here we deepen our discussion of the impact of the new accounting requirements on K-12 school districts and reiterate our recommendations for ensuring that districts address retiree health liabilities. We also provide the Legislature with an option to help improve district financial conditions through a fiscal solvency block grant, which would give districts flexible funds to address the broad range of fiscal problems encountered locally.
New K-12 Categorical Programs
February 23, 2006 - The Governor’s budget contains almost $400 million in new ongoing funding for seven categorical programs. We recommend rejecting these seven proposals because they: (1) do not address the major fiscal issues facing the state or school districts; (2) take a step backwards for categorical reform; (3) have basic policy flaws; and (4) contain virtually no planning, reporting, evaluation, or accountability components.
Proposition 98 Priorities
February 23, 2006 - The Governor’s budget proposes to spend $1.7 billion more in 2006-07 for K-12 education and community colleges than the administration’s estimate of the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee. If approved, this increase would widen the state’s structural spending gap in 2007-08 and beyond, and raises the issue of whether the state would be able to sustain the budget’s proposed overall level of General Fund expenditures in the future. We recommend the Legislature reject all proposals for new K-14 programs and fund Proposition 98 at the level needed to fully fund base program costs in the budget year. While this would result in $1 billion less in K-14 spending than the Governor’s budget, it would still provide an increase of $3.3 billion over the current year.
Proposition 98 Update
February 23, 2006 - Our updated economic and revenue forecasts lead us to project different Proposition 98 outcomes than the Governor. Specifically, we estimate a somewhat higher Proposition 98 minimum guarantee for both the current and budget years. We also discuss various issues related to Proposition 98, including an update on the outstanding maintenance factor and our recommendation that the Legislature enact trailer bill language to rebench the Test 1 factor. Finally, based on updated economic data, we estimate that the K-12 cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) will be higher than the Governor’s projection-5.8 percent instead of 5.2 percent. Funding COLAs at this level could lead to additional state costs of around $300 million.
UC and CSU Enrollment Growth And Funding
February 23, 2006 - The Governor’s budget proposes $110 million to fund 2.5 percent enrollment growth at the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU). This amount would provide $10,103 in General Fund support for each additional student at UC and $6,792 for each additional student at CSU. (The proposed budget also provides $149 million for a 3 percent enrollment increase at the California Community Colleges.) In this write-up, we (1) review recent enrollment trends at UC and CSU, (2) analyze the Governor’s proposed enrollment growth and funding rates for 2006-07, and (3) recommend alternatives to those rates.
Higher Education Student Fees
February 23, 2006 - For 2006-07, we recommend the Legislature at least maintain nonneedy students’ share of cost at the current-year level. Holding this share constant would entail modest fee increases of 3.5 percent at the University of California (UC), 3.0 percent at the California State University (CSU), and 7.0 percent at the California Community College (CCC). For a full-time undergraduate, this equates to an annual increase of $215 at UC, $76 at CSU, and $55 at CCC. These increases would generate $84 million in net new fee revenue. (Of this fee revenue, $35 million is generated at UC, and $1 million at Hastings, $24 million at CSU, and $24 million at CCC.) We also recommend the Legislature reject the Governor’s “fee buyout” proposal because it distorts budgeting and creates the wrong incentives. Rather than provide a fee buyout, we recommend the Legislature provide the segments sufficient funding to meet identified needs.
Year-Round Operations at UC and CSU
February 23, 2006 - Operating University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) campuses on a year-round schedule-which more fully utilizes the summer term-is an efficient strategy for serving additional students with existing facilities. In this write-up, we (1) review actions the state has taken to promote summer expansion, (2) provide an update on UC’s and CSU’s efforts to expand summer operations, and (3) identify issues for the Legislature to consider in regard to further summer expansion.
Community Colleges Per-Student Funding Equalization
February 23, 2006 - The Governor’s 2006-07 budget proposal includes $130 million to equalize per-student funding among community college districts. To the extent the Legislature wishes to fund priorities beyond workload increases, we recommend that the Legislature approve an augmentation sufficient to finish funding equalization to the 90th percentile, as called for in statute. However, we recommend the Legislature fund equalization contingent upon enactment of legislation providing an allocation method that preserves its equalization investment.
Restructuring How the State Administers Higher Education Grant and Loan Financial Aid Programs
February 23, 2006 - We recommend the Legislature enact legislation that would restructure how the state administers grant and loan programs. Specifically, we recommend the Legislature authorize a single agency, with a single board and Executive Director, to administer both state grant and federal loan programs. We recommend the agency be structured as a nonprofit public benefit corporation but subject to stronger accountability requirements.
Improving Services For Migrant Students
February 15, 2006 - The Migrant Education Program is a federally funded program that provides supplemental education services to migrant children. This report reviews the state’s implementation of the program. We find that the state could better target resources and better serve migrant students by implementing a comprehensive package of reforms. Specifically, we recommend a number of modifications related to the program’s: (1) funding and service model, (2) data system, and (3) carryover funding process. We also identify funding available to help in implementing these changes. (The California Department of Education has translated this report into Spanish. El Departamento de Educación de California ha traducido este informe al español.)