Featured Item
To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
February 15, 2017 - In this post, we provide detail on federal funding for K-12 education in California, with a focus on funds that pass through the California Department of Education.
February 15, 2017 - Presented to Senate Education Committee and Assembly Education Committee
February 10, 2017 - Our 2016-17 Proposition 98 Education Analysis provided an in-depth analysis of the county office of education “minimum state aid” provision. In this analysis, we provide an update on the escalating cost of the provision and recommend the Legislature repeal the provision.
February 9, 2017 - An analysis of the Governor’s overall 2017-18 Proposition 98 budget package as well as his specific spending proposals for K‑12 education, including a summary of our recommendations.
February 8, 2017 - Presented to: Assembly Committee on Education
February 8, 2017 - From 1990 to 2014, personal income in California grew fairly consistently, with limited volatility. On the other hand, California's personal income tax (PIT) base was much more volatile. This is because (1) some of the more stable pieces of personal income are not taxed under California's PIT and (2) the PIT tax base includes capital gains, which are extremely volatile and are not counted as part of personal income in federal statistics. This brief examines the volatility of the PIT tax base, one important element of the PIT's overall volatility in California. (This brief does not focus on other reasons for PIT volatility, such as California's PIT rate structure, in which high-income Californians pay a bigger fraction of their income than lower- and middle-income Californians.)
February 6, 2017 - In 2013-14, the state created the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) for county offices of education (COEs). With this funding, COEs are required to (1) provide alternative education to certain at-risk students and (2) oversee school districts’ budgets and academic plans. COEs may use any funding available after completing these tasks on optional activities that reflect their own priorities. We have concerns that providing funding directly to COEs for alternative education and optional activities detaches school districts from the decision making process of how to best serve their students. To address these concerns, we recommend the Legislature shift that funding to districts and allow them to contract with COEs (or other providers) for services. Because oversight of school districts’ budgets and academic plans likely is both more effective and efficient when performed at the regional rather than state level, we recommend the Legislature fund COEs directly for these activities. Because our recommendations signify major changes in the way the state funds COEs, we recommend the Legislature phase in the new funding model over several years.
(2/17/17 -- Corrected district services funding for district in county on figure 5.)
January 18, 2017 - Approved by the voters in 1988, Proposition 98 established certain formulas for calculating a minimum annual funding level for K-14 education. The state commonly refers to this level as the minimum guarantee. This report reviews the state’s more-than-quarter-century experience with Proposition 98.
January 13, 2017 - On January 10, 2017, the Governor presented his Proposition 98 budget package to the Legislature. In this post, we provide an overview and initial assessment of the package.
January 13, 2017 - At key times during the state's budget cycle, we post tables containing important information about the education parts of the budget. This initial January posting reflects the 2017-18 Governor's Budget proposals. The tables cover Proposition 98, K-12 education, child care and preschool, higher education, and student financial aid. We will publish additional tables as we have them available.
December 5, 2016 - Presented to: California School Boards Association
November 17, 2016 - Presented to: California Association of School Business Officials
September 21, 2016 - California opened its first school for the deaf in 1860, long before it established most other forms of special education. Today, we estimate California spends more than $400 million a year to educate approximately 14,000 students who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH). On a per–student basis, California spends substantially more to educate DHH students than other groups of children, including students with various other disabilities. Despite California’s long experience with and relatively large expenditures on DHH students, these students continue to lag far behind their hearing peers on statewide assessments of reading and math. In this report, we undertake a comprehensive review of DHH education in California. We begin by describing the state’s current approach to DHH education, then identify several major shortcomings with this approach, and conclude by making recommendations to address the shortcomings.
August 3, 2016 - Presented to Senate Education Committee