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 - Florence Bouvet
-
(916) 319-8310
University of California; College of the Law, San Francisco; California State Library
Publications
Education
To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
An Overview of California’s Adult Education System
- Format:
January 29, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Higher Education Committee and Senate Education Committee
Noncredit Instruction at the California Community Colleges
- Format:
January 29, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Higher Education Committee and Senate Education Committee
Initial Review of CSU's Early Start Program
January 14, 2014 - In 2012, the California State University (CSU) launched Early Start—a program that requires freshmen who do not pass CSU’s placement exams to begin taking remedial courses during the summer before freshman year. Chapter 430, Statutes of 2012 (AB 2497, Solorio), requires our office to report on Early Start participation, demographics, and outcomes. About 27 percent of CSU freshmen participated in Early Start in 2012. A higher percentage of Latinos, blacks, women, and financially needy students enrolled in Early Start compared to all CSU freshmen. Because CSU did not provide data on Early Start outcomes, we were unable to assess whether Early Start affected the time it took for students to become college ready. Moving forward, we recommend the Legislature eliminate the remaining Early Start reporting requirements and instead focus on the reasons why remediation rates remain high. To this end, we recommend the Legislature consider authorizing a broader series of studies on: (1) the appropriateness of CSU’s placement exams and cut scores, (2) whether CSU is accepting students who fall outside its eligibility pool (the top one-third of high school graduates), (3) the rigor of college preparatory coursework in California high schools and the timing of test results that inform what classes are taken senior year, and (4) whether the state's subsidy policies encourage CSU to address high remediation rates.
Oversight of Private Colleges in California
December 17, 2013 - California's Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (Bureau) oversees private colleges operating in the state, but some institutions are exempt from the Bureau's oversight by virtue of their accreditation. This report compares the oversight provided by regional and national college accrediting agencies with the Bureau's oversight to assess the extent to which accreditors and the Bureau provide the same level of student protection. We make a number of recommendations in the report, including (1) continuing the exemption for most regionally accredited schools but conducting a limited review of business practices for a small number of these schools that are deemed higher risk, (2) reducing the scope of reviews for some nationally accredited schools that currently are subject to full state oversight, and (3) providing an opportunity for exempt schools to volunteer for a limited business practices review to help them meet new federal requirements.
College Affordability
- Format:
October 7, 2013 - Presented to Assembly Higher Education Committee
Contingency Language for Federal Challenge Grant
- Format:
June 5, 2013 - Presented to Budget Conference Committee
UC and CSU Enrollment Growth
- Format:
June 5, 2013 - Presented to Budget Conference Committee
Dream Act Assistance to States
- Format:
June 5, 2013 - Presented to Budget Conference Committee
California Community Colleges Categorical Programs
- Format:
June 4, 2013 - Presented to Budget Conference Committee
May Revision: Adult Education
- Format:
May 20, 2013 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
Overview of Infrastructure Planning, Budgeting, and Financing
- Format:
April 25, 2013 - Presented to: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
Financial Aid and the State Budget
- Format:
March 20, 2013 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
The 2013-14 Budget: Analysis of Governor’s Proposition 39 Proposal
February 21, 2013 - The Governor’s 2013‑14 budget includes a plan to implement the provisions of Proposition 39, which increases state corporate tax (CT) revenues and requires that half of these revenues for a five-year period be used for energy efficiency and alternative energy projects. The Governor proposes to count all associated revenues toward the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee for schools and community colleges. The Governor also proposes to designate all energy-related Proposition 39 funds to schools ($400.5 million) and community colleges ($49.5 million) in 2013‑14 and for the following four years. The Governor’s proposal to count all Proposition 39 revenues toward the Proposition 98 calculation is a significant departure from our longstanding view that revenues are to be excluded from the Proposition 98 calculation if the Legislature cannot use them for general purposes. In addition, the proposal excludes other eligible projects besides schools and community colleges (such as public hospitals) that potentially could achieve greater energy benefits. Further, the proposal does not coordinate Proposition 39 funding with the state’s existing energy efficiency programs. In view of the above concerns, we recommend the Legislature exclude from the Proposition 98 calculation all Proposition 39 revenues required to be used on energy-related projects and not count spending from these revenues as Proposition 98 expenditures. In addition, we recommend the Legislature direct the California Energy Commission (CEC) to administer a competitive grant process in which all public agencies, including schools and community colleges, could apply and receive funding based on identified facility needs.
The 2013-14 Budget: Analysis of the Higher Education Budget
February 12, 2013 - In the 2013-14 Governor's Budget Summary, the Governor expresses major concerns about higher education in California. Most notably, the Governor is concerned about escalating higher education costs, funding models that promote neither efficiency nor effectiveness, and generally poor student outcomes. To address these issues, the Governor lays out a multiyear budget plan. The main component of the plan is large annual unallocated base increases for all three higher education segments. The Governor loosely links these base increases with an expectation the segments improve their performance. Although we believe the Governor’s budget plan has drawn attention to some notable problems, we have serious concerns with several of his specific budget proposals. By providing the segments with large unallocated increases only vaguely connected to undefined performance expectations, the Governor cedes substantial state responsibilities to the segments and takes key higher education decisions out of the Legislature’s control. We recommend the Legislature take a different approach and allocate any new funding first for the state’s highest existing education priorities, including debt service, pension costs, and paying down community college deferrals. If more funding is provided, then we recommend the Legislature link the additional funding with explicit enrollment and performance expectations.