Back to the Report

More publications like . . .

Increasing Transparency of County Office of Education Spending


Handout

[PDF] Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula and Local Control and Accountability Plans

March 10, 2015 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance

Report

Re-Envisioning County Offices of Education: A Study of Their Mission and Funding

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.)

Post

The 2023-24 California Spending Plan: Proposition 98 and K-12 Education

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.

Report

[PDF] Review of School Districts' 2014-15 Local Control and Accountability Plans

January 20, 2015 - This report examines Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) for 50 school districts to evaluate whether they reflect thoughtful strategic planning and meet statutory requirements. We find that fulfilling all of the statutory LCAP requirements is a challenging undertaking for districts. Requiring districts to cover every area required in statute—regardless of local conditions—reduces the time and energy districts can spend on areas in need of greatest attention. We recommend the Legislature allow districts to focus their plans on their highest priority areas rather than require them to address all eight state-specified priority areas. We also find that the information in districts’ LCAPs related to the services they will provide to EL/LI students is often unclear and difficult to understand. We recommend several changes that would improve the quality of this information. We also recommend the Legislature clarify the metrics districts can include in their plans. Additionally, we recommend the state disseminate model LCAPs to help districts improve their plans moving forward.

Handout

[PDF] Overview of Local Control Funding Formula and New State Accountability System

March 8, 2016 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance

Brief

[PDF] The Local Control Funding Formula for School Districts and Charter Schools

January 9, 2023 - In this brief, we provide some historical background on the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), describe how the formula works for school districts and charter schools, describe how the formula was phased in, and explain requirements for districts to adopt plans that describe how LCFF funding will be spent.

Handout

[PDF] Local Control Funding Formula Implementation

March 19, 2015 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education

Brief

[PDF] The 2023-24 Budget: Equity Multiplier and Accountability Proposals

February 23, 2023 - This brief provides an overview and analysis of the Governor's proposals to (1) provide ongoing funding for the highest-poverty schools and (2) make several changes to the system of transparency and accountability.

Handout

[PDF] Implementation of LCFF and LCAPs

January 21, 2015 - Presented to: Senate Education Committee

Handout

[PDF] Overview of the Statewide System of Support for School Districts

March 22, 2018 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education

Report

The 2015-16 Budget: Proposition 98 Education Analysis

February 18, 2015 - The Governor's budget includes $7.8 billion in Proposition 98 funding increases for schools and community colleges, including $5 billion for programmatic increases and $2.8 billion for retiring outstanding obligations. In this report, we recommend the Legislature improve some of the Governor's specific Proposition 98 proposals and reject others. Most notably, though we recommend the Legislature adopt the Governor's proposal to provide $500 million for adult education consortia, we recommend making various programmatic improvements, folding some of the Governor's other proposed workforce funding into the adult education program, and rejecting a couple of the Governor's career technical education proposals. We also recommend rethinking the Governor's Internet infrastructure proposal. Additionally, we have various recommendations relating to the Local Control Funding Formula, county offices of education, and education mandates.

Report

[PDF] Analysis of Education Mandates

February 26, 2014 - Traditionally, the state has reimbursed local educational agencies (LEAs) for performing mandated activities by requiring them to submit detailed documentation of their costs. In recent years, the state has tried to simplify this process by creating two alternative reimbursement structures. The reasonable reimbursement methodology (RRM) provides reimbursement for a particular mandate using a formula developed in a quasi-judicial forum. The education mandates block grants (one for schools and one for community colleges) provide reimbursement for all active education mandates using a per-student rate established in the budget. Whereas the rarely used RRM process has been very adversarial (once involving litigation) and resulted in long reimbursement delays, nearly all LEAs have chosen to participate in the block grants. Given their overlapping purposes and the comparative advantages of the block grants, we recommend the Legislature repeal the RRM for education mandates.

Post

[PDF] The 2022-23 Budget: K-12 Early Literacy Proposals

February 15, 2022 - This post provides background on school funding and literacy, describes the Governor’s K-12 early literacy proposals for schools, and offers associated assessments and recommendations to the Legislature.