To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
March 1, 1995 - Presented To Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No.1 - Hon. Nicholas Petris Chair
March 1, 1995 - While California school districts are supported primarily from Proposition 98 funds (state funds and local property taxes), they also receive considerable support from other sources. In this report, we discuss K-12 education funding from all sources, first as proposed in the 1995-96 Governor's Budget and then over the past ten-year period.
March 1, 1995 - (1) Trends in K-12 Education Funding, and (2) Economic and Revenue Developments
February 22, 1995 - Analysis of the 1995-96 Budget Bill, K-12 Education Chapter
February 22, 1995 - Analysis of the 1995-96 Budget Bill, Higher Education Chapter
February 22, 1995 - Analysis of the 1995-96 Budget Bill, Capital Outlay Chapter
February 22, 1995 - Special Education Reform
February 22, 1995 - School Safety Initiative
February 22, 1995 - Performance-Based Budgeting
February 22, 1995 - California Community Colleges Outcome Measures: focus more directly on outcomes of higher education, rather than inputs and processes.
February 22, 1995 - Mega-Item Flexibility
February 22, 1995 - Meeting Workforce Needs
February 22, 1995 - Implementing New Federal Education Legislation
February 22, 1995 - University of California: Federal Overhead Funds: a reallocation of federal overhead receipts to other critical needs within UC is justified.
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.