Featured Item
Education Publications
To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
Outcome Measures
- Format:
February 22, 1995 - California Community Colleges Outcome Measures: focus more directly on outcomes of higher education, rather than inputs and processes.
Mega-Item Flexibility
- Format:
February 22, 1995 - Mega-Item Flexibility
Meeting Workforce Needs
- Format:
February 22, 1995 - Meeting Workforce Needs
Implementing New Federal Education Legislation
- Format:
- HTML
February 22, 1995 - Implementing New Federal Education Legislation
Federal Overhead Funds
- Format:
February 22, 1995 - University of California: Federal Overhead Funds: a reallocation of federal overhead receipts to other critical needs within UC is justified.
Implementing New Federal Education Legislation
- Format:
February 1, 1995 - Within the past year, the federal government enacted three federal education programs: The Goals 2000: Educate America Act, The School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and The Elementary and Secondary Education: Improving America's Schools Act. These new acts reflect a new federal strategy for improving K-12 education, a strategy that is evident in four common themes contained in the acts. First, the new acts require states to set goals for what all students should learn. By creating statewide goals for all students, the federal acts seek to raise the standards for compensatory programs and reduce the fragmentation of services provided to students. Second, instead of a process-oriented oversight role, the acts seek to judge local programs by how well students are educated. This new approach to accountability provides more state and local flexibility over how to achieve improved outcomes. Third, a set of state improvement activities are defined that are common to each act. These activities revolve around technical assistance and staff development activities, plan approval and fund allocation, and setting specific performance standards. Finally, the acts encourage increased coordination among federal education programs. Coordination is designed to reduce fragmentation of federal programs at the state and local level.
New Funding Model for Special Education - The Development Process
- Format:
January 1, 1995 - Presented To: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2
New Funding Model for Special Education - A Preliminary Report
- Format:
January 1, 1995 - In February 1994 the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) in its Analysis of the 1994-95 Budget Bill cited a number of major problems with the state's current special education funding formula. Among the major shortfalls cited were (1) unjustified funding variations among local education agencies (LEAs), (2) unnecessary complexity, (3) constraints on local innovation and response to changing requirements, and (4) inappropriate fiscal incentives. Based on this analysis, the Legislature adopted language in the Supplemental Report of the 1994 Budget Act directing the State Department of Education (SDE), the Department of Finance, and the LAO to jointly review the Master Plan for Special Education (MPSE) and propose a new funding model by May 31, 1995.
Rethinking Community School Funding
- Format:
August 10, 1994 - Community schools are operated by County Offices of Education (COEs) as alternative instructional placements for about 18,500 pupils in grades 7-12 who, for various reasons, have not been successful in traditional school programs. Pupils referred to community schools by a county probation department-often termed "Type C" pupil-comprise about three-fourths of all community school pupils. The COEs receive a level of funding for Type C pupils, that is about $1,200 per pupil higher than the average level of funding received by school districts. The basis on which the state should grant the higher Type C funding level has been the subject of legislation and budget control language for several years.
Special Education Pupil Assessment
- Format:
February 23, 1994 - Special Education Pupil Assessment
Restructuring Public School Finance
- Format:
February 23, 1994 - We suggest an approach to K-12 education funding that would increase local control over the level of general-purpose education revenues and local accountability for outcomes, without compromising the state's fundamental interest in ensuring an adequate education for all.
Outcome Measures
- Format:
February 23, 1994 - Higher Education Outcome Measures: focus more directly on the outcomes of higher education, rather than the inputs or processes. If the Legislature can develop measures that accurately and reliably gauge these outcomes, it could hold the segments accountable for their performance.
Medical Residents
- Format:
February 23, 1994 - UC Medical Residents: recommend adoption of legislation requiring the UC to ensure specific increases in the number and percentage of medical residents enrolled in primary care and family practice specialties by 1998-99 and 2001-02.
Analysis of the 1994-95 Budget Bill, Higher Education Chapter
- Format:
February 22, 1994 - Analysis of the 1994-95 Budget Bill, Higher Education Chapter
Education Staff
- Kenneth Kapphahn
- (916) 319-8339
- Proposition 98, School District Budgets, School Transportation
- Paul Steenhausen
- (916) 319-8303
- California Community Colleges
- Sara Cortez
- (916) 319-8348
- Special Education, Preschool, and Child Nutrition
- Lisa Qing
- (916) 319-8306
- California State University, Student Financial Aid
- Michael Alferes
- (916) 319-8338
- Local Control Funding Formula, Charter Schools, Alternative Schools, High School Career Technical Education
- Edgar Cabral
- (916) 319-8343
- Deputy Legislative Analyst: K-12 Education
- Jennifer Pacella
- (916) 319-8332
- Deputy Legislative Analyst: Higher Education