^[PDF] Extended School Year Program At Compton Unified School District: Report on Program EffectivenessExtended School Year Program At Compton Unified School District: Report on Program Effectiveness

Figure 1 Compton Extended School Year Student/Teacher Participation 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Total district enrollment 28,839 29,337 29,409 30,775 Participating students 1,697 1,600 4,167 5,000 Participating teachers 77 70 185 202 Students per teacher 22 23 23 25 Figure 2 Compton Extended School Year
https://lao.ca.gov/2000/050200_compton_schools.pdf

Extended School Year Program At Compton Unified School District

Extended School Year Program At Compton Unified School District First and second year teachers 13% aSummer 1999. b1998-99 school year. According to the district's policy, teachers were to be evaluated for participation in the ESY program based upon their students' gains in test scores during the regular school yea r, classroom observation, and evaluations by their principals.
https://lao.ca.gov/2000/05022000_compton_schools.html

2000 Senate Floor Packet.p65

This difference primarily reflects Senate adoption of the LAO revenue e stimate in the current year, partially offset by higher expenditures for K-14 education. The Senate’s expenditure figure is up $4.6 billion compared to the Governor’s.
https://lao.ca.gov/2000/050800_senate_floor_packet.html

^[PDF] May 8, 2000 The 2000-01 Senate Budget Bill SB 1344 (Peace) As Adopted by the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee

. • Increased fees to $25 per day. • $28.4 million cost. K-12 Education Funding level • Appropriates $257 million above the Proposition 98 guaran- tee in the budget year. • Increased Proposition 98 spending by $1.3 billion above Governor's budget. • $1.3 billion cost.
https://lao.ca.gov/2000/050800_senate_floor_packet.pdf

Traveling in California: The Transportation System—How Decisions Are Made

• Under current law, 75  percent of STIP funds are designated for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) with projects chosen by RTPAs, while the remaining 25  percent are designated for the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) with projects chosen by Caltrans.
https://lao.ca.gov/2000/051100_cal_travels/051100_cal_travels_decisions.html

^[PDF] An LAO Overview of the 2000-01 May Revision

Plan provides one-time funding over five years, but does not provide additional ongoing funding. How should the state address the unfunded statewide needs on an ongoing basis? • Project Selection Process.
https://lao.ca.gov/2000/051700_may_revision/051700_may_revision.pdf

Major Features of the 2000-01 Budget

This program awards schools that achieve specified increases in pupil test scores (both low- and "hi gh-performing" schools are potentially eligible). The augmentation brings the budget-year amount for this program to $227 million, including a carry over of $96 million t hat was not allocated in the current year.
https://lao.ca.gov/2000/070300_budget_maj_features.html

^[PDF] An LAO Major Features of the 2000 California Budget

Specifically, the budget: u Requires counties to forego 25 percent of incentives previously earned in order to be eligible for future incentive payments. (Savings of $411 million.) A remaining unpaid obliga- tion of $320 million will be paid to counties over two years, beginning with $250 million in 2000-01. u Prohibits counties from earning incentives during the budget year.
https://lao.ca.gov/2000/070300_budget_maj_features.pdf

^[PDF] California’s Changing Income Distribution

Both of the above factors cause the CPS data to understate the increase in income inequality that has resulted from rapid in- creases in income at the very top of the distribution in recent years. For these reasons, the tax data used in this report show larger increases in income concentration at the top of the distribu- tion during the past 25 years than do other studies which are based on CPS data.
https://lao.ca.gov/2000/0800_inc_dist/0800_income_distribution.pdf

^[PDF] 2000 Cal Facts: California's Economy and Budget in Perspective

The K-12 school-age population will grow at a rate slower than the general population over the next sev- eral years. The number of preschoolers is projected to grow even less—indicating that the K-12 population’s growth will continue slowing.
https://lao.ca.gov/2000/calfacts/2000_calfacts_all.pdf