March 19, 2020 - In this post, we provide background on fiscal oversight of school districts in California, describe the Governor’s proposals to augment oversight and reporting requirements related to school district budgets, assess those proposals, and provide associated recommendations.
April 30, 2012 - This report provides an overview and assessment of the state's comprehensive system for monitoring the fiscal condition of school districts. Under this system, County Offices of Education review the fiscal condition of school districts at several points during the year and provide additional support for districts showing signs of fiscal distress. In the most serious case—when a district no longer appears able to meet its financial obligations—the state provides the district with an emergency loan and assumes administrative control. Our review indicates that the oversight system has been effective in preserving school district fiscal health and preventing districts from requiring an emergency loan. Most notably, during the more than 20 years the new system has been in effect, 8 districts have received emergency state loans whereas 26 districts required such loans in the 12 years prior to the new system. Additionally, the number of districts experiencing fiscal distress has increased in tight budget times, but without a corresponding increase in the number of emergency loans required. This suggests the system’s structure of support and intervention is serving a critical early warning function—allowing districts to get the help they need while fiscal problems tend to be smaller and more manageable. Given its effectiveness, we recommend preserving the existing system, as it has shown to be a vital tool for fostering the ongoing fiscal well-being of districts.
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 21, 2020 - In this report, we examine district budgets—both looking back at actual experiences to date and looking ahead at what experiences could be over the next few years. First, we provide background on districts and their budgets. We then discuss trends in districts’ main cost drivers. Next, we examine overall district fiscal health, with a particular focus on districts in fiscal distress. In the final section, we identify some ways the Legislature could help school districts address their cost pressures moving forward.
November 14, 2018 - In this report, we examine how the minimum guarantee might change over the next several years and discuss the factors likely to be driving those changes. We then examine key aspects of district budgets—focusing on the main cost pressures facing districts over the next several years.
In addition to this report, you can find the main California's Fiscal Outlook report along with a collection of other fiscal outlook material on our fiscal outlook budget page.
November 28, 2023 - This post summarizes overall Proposition 98 funding and K-12 education spending in the 2023-24 budget package. It is part of our Spending Plan series, which contains posts focused on each major sector of the state budget.
August 17, 2011 - Presented to Select Committee on State School Financial Takeovers
February 18, 2016 - In this report, we cover the Governor's estimates of the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee, his overall Proposition 98 spending package, and his specific Proposition 98 proposals. We also provide in-depth analysis of the Governor's proposals for the Local Control Funding Formula, preschool, education mandates, special education, county offices of education, and the High Speed Network. In addition, we include an analysis of teacher workforce trends and we highlight several issues for the Legislature to consider when exploring potentially new workforce policies.
February 7, 2018 - In this report, we analyze the Governor’s overall Proposition 98 budget package as well as his specific spending proposals for K‑12 education and early education.
February 22, 2013 - The Governor proposes to restructure the way the state allocates funding to school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education. We believe the Governor’s proposed new formulas would address many problems inherent in the state’s existing K-12 funding approach, and we recommend the Legislature adopt most components of the proposal. Unlike the current system, the proposed formulas would be simple and transparent, fund similar students similarly, and link funding to the cost of educating students. We believe the proposed approach could be improved, however, with some notable modifications. We suggest a number of specific changes to better align funding levels with anticipated costs, eliminate irrational funding differences across districts, simplify the formulas, and ensure important state priorities are addressed.
August 28, 2014 - The core responsibility of the California Department of Education (CDE) is to administer federal and state education programs. Our review found the department currently is adequately positioned to fulfill this core mission. We also found, however, that the scope of CDE’s responsibilities—and the associated need for staff and funding—change frequently based on shifting state and federal policies. In order to maintain the department's capacity to meet its responsibilities, we recommend the Legislature ensure that additional responsibilities placed on CDE in the future are paired with additional resources. Similarly, should the Legislature notably reduce CDE’s responsibilities, we recommend it make a conforming reduction to associated CDE positions and funding. We also believe CDE could find ways to make its existing services more valuable to districts and integrate state and federal accountability activities. Finally, we recommend that the Legislature repeal some CDE reporting requirements that provide limited value.
May 14, 2018 - In this report, we analyze the 2018-19 May Revision education proposals. We first provide an overview of Proposition 98 funding and then focus on the Governor’s major proposals for K‑12 education, child care and preschool, community colleges, universities, and student financial aid. In the pages that follow, we offer many specific recommendations for the Legislature to consider. Our package of recommendations includes adopting some proposals, modifying others in certain ways, rejecting others but inviting better proposals next year, and rejecting some proposals in their entirety.
March 5, 2019 - Presented to:Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
February 29, 2024 - In this report, we analyze the funding determination process for nonclassroom-based charter schools and make recommendations to improve the process. In addition, we highlight several key issues related to oversight of charter schools and provide recommendations for the Legislature to consider. This report is in response to a request of the Legislature. Chapter 48 of 2023 (SB 114, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) required the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team to identify and make recommendations to improve the funding determination process for nonclassroom-based charter schools, including recommendations for enhancing oversight and reducing fraud, waste, and abuse.
Update (3/1/24): Figure 6 updated to correct number of districts that are between one and ten times the district's ADA.
March 14, 2019 - Presented to: Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Education