To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
April 7, 2010 - Testimony of Higher Education Director, Steve Boilard, to the Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education.
April 7, 2010 - Presented to Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
April 6, 2010 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
March 24, 2010 - Presented to Assembly Budget Committee Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
March 18, 2010 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education.
March 15, 2010 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
March 10, 2010 - Presented to Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education
February 25, 2010 - Section director Steve Boilard discusses the LAO report "The 2010-11 Budget: Higher Education."
February 25, 2010 - Section director Jennifer Kuhn discusses the LAO report "The 2010-11 Budget: Proposition 98 and K-12 Education."
February 25, 2010 -
Though the Governor portrays his 2010-11 budget proposal as protecting education, his plan would affect areas of education quite differently—significantly reducing funding for child care and K-12 education while augmenting funding for most higher education programs. We recommend the Legislature build a more balanced education budget. For higher education, we recommend providing new funding for community colleges through a $14 per unit fee increase; reducing the proposed augmentations for the state’s universities while still restoring their per-student funding rates to 2007-08 levels; and rejecting the Governor's proposed cuts to financial aid programs. Our recommendations on other parts of the education budget are contained in a companion publication: The 2010-11 Budget: Proposition 98 and K-12 Education.
(Short video introducing this report)
February 25, 2010 -
Though the Governor portrays his 2010-11 budget proposal as protecting education, his plan would affect areas of education quite differently—significantly reducing funding for child care and K-12 education while augmenting funding for most higher education programs. We recommend the Legislature build a more balanced education budget. Detailed in this report, our Proposition 98 alternative budget plan cuts child care about $100 million less than the Governor; makes approximately $800 million in targeted cuts to K-12 education, with additional K-12 cuts, as needed, coming from general purpose and/or categorical funding; and provides new funding for community colleges through a $14 per unit fee increase. In a companion publication, The 2010-11 Budget: Higher Education, we provide additional detail on our community college recommendations, as well as cover various other postsecondary education areas, including the state's universities and financial aid programs.
(Video introducing this report)
February 17, 2010 - Presented to the Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Education. Hon. Ira Ruskin, Chair, and Hon. Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair.
February 17, 2010 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
February 9, 2010 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 On Education Finance
February 2, 2010 - Currently, the state requires K-12 and community college districts to perform hundreds of mandated activities, the majority of which provide little benefit to students or teachers. Since the state does not pay for K-14 mandates on a regular basis, the result is billions in outstanding costs the state must eventually pay. In this report, we recommend comprehensively reforming K–14 mandates. If a mandate serves a purpose fundamental to the education system, such as protecting student health or providing essential assessment and oversight data, it should be funded. If not, the mandate should be eliminated. Taken as a whole, our reform package would relieve school districts and community colleges of performing hundreds of activities that provide little value to students while providing them with adequate and timely compensation for the activities still required of them. In addition, comprehensively reforming mandates would reduce the state’s annual obligations by more than $350 million—funds that could be saved or allocated to districts for higher priorities.