To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
March 7, 2017 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
March 7, 2017 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
March 2, 2017 - Presented to: Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Education Finance
March 2, 2017 - Presented to: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
March 1, 2017 - Since 2013-14, the state has experienced a disconnect between the funding allocated for special education and the funding level specified by state law. In this web post, we explain the source of this disconnect and offer two options for rectifying it.
February 28, 2017 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
February 28, 2017 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
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.