Yearly Archives: 2012


PACE/USC poll finds California tax initiative is vulnerable

By Merrill Balassone

PACE/USC Rossier School of Education Survey

Topline PDF

Crosstabs PDF

A slim majority of Californians favor enacting Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown’s ballot initiative that would raise taxes in order to avoid further spending reductions in education and public safety, according to results from a new Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)/USC Rossier School of Education Poll released today. But the arguments against the initiative carry much greater weight with voters, imperiling the initiative’s chances of passage when Californians cast their ballots less than three months from now.

The poll found about 55 percent of Californians are in support of Proposition 30, and 36 percent oppose it, making it one of several statewide surveys that show support for the initiative is perilously close to the 50 percent threshold needed for passage. When arguments for and against Proposition 30 were compared, Californians were far more likely to agree with the initiative’s opponents.

About 49 percent agreed with the statement that politicians should focus on wasteful spending before raising taxes, compared to 35 percent who agreed that voters should “take a stand against further cuts to schools and public safety, make the wealthy pay their fair share and help balance the budget.”

Even among parents, 51 percent agreed the focus should be placed first on cutting waste before raising taxes to fund education and public safety.

“Californians are willing to spend money in order to protect their schools from spending cuts. But they also believe that state government is spending too much money on things that aren’t necessary and want to see that spending reined in before supporting the governor’s initiative,” said poll director Dan Schnur, who also serves as the director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC. “Jerry Brown can still pass Proposition 30, but first he has to convince voters that state government can be trusted with their tax dollars.”

The proposition would raise the state sales tax by a quarter-cent for four years and hike taxes on incomes of more than $250,000 for seven years to fund schools and public safety.

The poll showed the other tax measure to fund schools and early childhood education, Proposition 38, was losing, with about 40 percent of Californians in support and nearly 49 percent opposed.

When asked where they would spend the money if either proposition passed, Californians said they would direct funds to restore previous education budget cuts and to prevent further cuts, reflecting low expectations for a state system that has been subject to repeated funding cuts in recent years.

If the tax initiatives fail and further education cuts need to be made, Californians said they would first choose to cut transportation of students to school (33 percent), increase class sizes (32 percent) or shorten the school year (31 percent) over cutting extracurricular sports and music programs (23 percent) or reducing teacher salaries (17 percent).

Technology important, but not a panacea

Three in four California voters said public schools should invest more in technology to improve students’ classroom performance, and a strong majority favored making online education part of the regular school day.

The PACE/USC Rossier Poll showed more than 56 percent of Californians said students should spend part of each day working independently online and part working with a teacher.

“These findings are quite striking. Although there are now some innovative models in K-12 using online learning for part of the school day, these are still the exception,” said David Plank, executive director of PACE. “Despite rapid changes in technology, most students continue to sit in classrooms all day long with a teacher standing in front of them, much like they did 100 years ago. Californians appear to be ready to see this change.”

But overall, teachers still trump technology, the poll showed.

While more than 77 percent of Californians said students are savvier about digital technologies than are their teachers, they overwhelmingly agreed (83 percent) that computers and technology cannot replace a teacher.

Thirty-six percent of Californians said schools should invest in new technologies even if it is at the expense of teacher hiring.

Lingering stigma for career-technical education

In addition to teaching the basics of reading, writing and math, Californians agreed that schools need to better prepare students for real-world work outside of high school.

A majority of Californians (51 percent) said the state should fundamentally change its approach to education so students can compete for good jobs, as opposed to 42 percent who said the state should maintain its approach but do a better job schooling students in the basics.

Nine out of 10 Californians said students should graduate high school with the skills to get a job. But at the same time, age-old stigmas about career-technical education seem to persist.

More than 48 percent of Californians agreed with the statement: “Career-technical education is for students who don’t do well in school,” and 45 percent disagreed.

Nearly 80 percent of Californians agreed with the statement: “Some students just aren’t good at academic subjects.”

“The poll shows a continued strong stigma associated with career-technical education as being for only certain types of students, stemming from the days when ‘vocational’ education was used as a vehicle to track poor and minority students into a second-class education,” said Dominic Brewer, Clifford H. and Betty C. Allen Professor in Urban Leadership at USC Rossier. “Although high-quality career and technical education is clearly needed to meet California’s labor market needs — and the poll shows voters recognize this — overcoming the lingering stigma is an uphill battle.”

State schools in bad shape

The PACE/USC Rossier Poll also showed Californians continue to rate the state’s education system as being in poor shape, with too much waste and bureaucracy and students not prepared for higher education or work after high school.

On average, Californians gave their state and local schools a grade of “C-.”

Nearly 42 percent of Californians graded the state’s schools with a “D” or “F,” and 26 percent gave their local schools those grades. When the poll was first conducted in May, just 20 percent of Californians gave their local school a “D” or “F” grade.

Californians were also asked to rank various aspects of the state’s public schools on a scale of 0 (worst) to 10 (best).

Respondents gave the best mean score — a 5 — to the question of how the state’s schools teach students the basics: reading, writing and math. They gave a mean score of 4.3 for “preparing students for a four-year university” and a mean rating of 4.3 for “holding principals, teachers and parents accountable for student performance.”

“The poll is an important new effort to inform policymakers on how Californians understand the challenges facing our education system,” said Karen Symms Gallagher, dean of USC Rossier. “While Californians are clearly frustrated, the results also give us a blueprint for how the intelligent use of technology — like including online education as part of the school day and training tech-savvy teachers — will help our students better compete in the global economy.”

The PACE/USC Rossier Poll was conducted Aug. 3 to 7, 2012 and surveyed 1,041 likely California voters online. The margin of error for the overall sample was plus or minus 3.0 percentage points.

The poll is the second in a series from PACE and USC Rossier. The first poll, released in May, found Californians strongly believe local school districts should hold more control over how money is spent, and the majority of Californians favored higher spending in poor districts even it meant shifting money away from their neighborhood schools.

New Schools, Overcrowding Relief, and Achievement Gains in Los Angeles – Strong Returns from a $19.5 Billion Investment

Aiming to relieve overcrowded schools operating on multiple tracks, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has invested more than $19 billion to build 130 new facilities over the past decade. In a new PACE policy brief, William Welsh, Erin Coghlan, Bruce Fuller, and Luke Dauter from the University of California – Berkeley analyze the effects on student achievement of this massive initiative. Tracking thousands of students who moved from overcrowded to new facilities over the 2002-2008 period, the authors discovered robust achievement gains for many students.

Elementary-school pupils who switched from an old facility to a newly constructed facility experienced significant achievement gains. On average, these ‘switching pupils’ outpaced the average LAUSD student by a gain equal to about 35 additional days of instruction each year. The largest achievement gains were found for elementary students who escaped severe overcrowding by moving to a new elementary school. Relative to the rate of learning for the average LAUSD student, this subset of students enjoyed achievement gains equivalent to about 65 days of additional instruction per year. Students who remained in previously overcrowded elementary schools experienced modest gains after a new school opened nearby, compared with the average LAUSD student.

Significant achievement gains were limited to elementary school students. New high school facilities produced weak and inconsistent achievement gains at best for their students.

Click HERE to download full report

How Next-Generation Standards and Assessments Can Foster Success for California’s English Learners

How Next-Generation Standards and Assessments Can Foster Success for California’s English Learners

A new PACE policy brief, by Robert Linquanti, Project Director and Senior Researcher at WestEd, and Kenji Hakuta, Professor of Education at Stanford University, examines how next-generation standards and assessments can foster success for California’s English Learners.

California cannot afford to ignore or postpone questions of how to support the academic success of English Learners (ELs) in the state’s K-12 education system. Language-minority students already represent more than 40 percent of the state’s K-12 public education students, and their share of enrollment is growing. How well California serves these students will help determine the vitality of the state’s economy and society in the years ahead.

In this policy brief, the authors argue that next-generation college- and career-ready standards signal a fundamental shift in the expectations for sophisticated language practices required of all students. This shift has enormous systemic implications for how we assess ELs’ academic performance; what English Language Development (ELD) standards emphasize; how we instruct and assess ELD to better develop ELs’ academic uses of language; how teachers instruct and students learn both language and content; and how the state can design more nuanced, responsive accountability policies and systems.

California’s implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), its revision of State ELD standards, and its governing state role in the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) all present opportunities to move forward on the challenges of fairly and accurately assessing the academic performance of English Learners.

Linquanti and Hakuta argue that:

  1. The state should address the correspondence between its ELD standards and its content standards strategically, to identify and prioritize aspects of the CCSS that maximize the potential for new assessments to attend to and measure language that is most relevant to academic content constructs.
  2. The next-generation academic content assessments now being developed by SBAC must move toward gauging the use of academic language of all students and reporting on their performance.
  3. Educators need to shift how they provide both ELD and core content instruction so that EL students have greater opportunities to learn language through content, and to learn content using language.

The authors offer concrete recommendations throughout the brief to help educational leaders and policymakers move toward these goals.

As California implements next-generation standards, instruction, assessments, and accountability, our state is uniquely situated – both in its needs and its resources – to help advance these interrelated efforts in directions that are more meaningful, relevant, and effective for its many EL and language-minority students, as well as for its teachers, parents and other stakeholders.

Click HERE to download full report

Deregulating School Aid in California: Revenues and Expenditures in the Second Year of Categorical Flexibility

By Jennifer Imazeki

California’s system of school finance is highly regulated and prescriptive. A large share of state funding is allocated through categorical programs; that is, programs whose funding is contingent on districts using the money in a particular way or for a particular purpose. In 2008–09, the strings were taken off 40 of those programs, collectively known as the “Tier 3″ programs, as part of a budget deal that also reduced the funding for those programs. The author gathers evidence about how districts have responded to this fiscal freedom, particularly how resource allocations are made at the district level and what specific changes districts have made in their allocations. Although concerns have been raised that those districts with relatively more Tier 3 funding have been disproportionately affected by the state’s budget crisis, the data show that districts with more Tier 3 funding lost a similar share of their budget as other districts (although that represents larger per-pupil dollar amounts). Furthermore, so far and on average, districts do not appear to be making large-scale changes in how they are spending their money.

Key Findings
Almost All Districts Have Lost Revenue over the Past Few Years; Districts with More Tier 3 Funding Lost a Similar Share of Their Total Budget as Other Districts

  • All districts have protected instructional personnel, special education, and pre-kindergarten.
  • Variation in how districts have responded to the budget cuts and the Tier 3 flexibility does not seem to be strongly correlated with any observable district characteristics.
  • The majority of Tier 3 funds are spent on direct instruction, with a slight shift toward personnel over other items.
  • Districts do not appear to be making large-scale changes in how they are spending their funds.

Districts with More Tier 3 Revenue per Pupil Spent Relatively More of That Revenue on Alternative Education, Adult Education, and Other Noninstructional Goals

  • They spent relatively less of their overall budgets on instructional personnel but relatively more of their total budget on pupil services and “all other” functions, possibly because they tend to have more students with higher needs (e.g., lower-performing, higher-poverty students), and they must devote more of their budgets to such pupil services such as counseling, health, and food.
  • They also seem to be somewhat more aggressive about maintaining special education.

Click HERE for full report

Deregulating School Aid in California: How Districts Responded to Flexibility in Tier 3 Categorical Funds in 2010–2011

By Brian M. Stecher, Bruce Fuller, Tom Timar. Julie A. Marsh, with Mary Briggs, Bing Han, Beth Katz, Angeline Spain, Anisah Waite

California’s system of school finance is highly regulated and prescriptive. A large share of state funding is allocated through categorical programs, that is, programs whose funding is contingent upon districts using the money in a particular way or for a particular purpose. In 2008–09, the strings were taken off 40 of those programs, collectively known as the “Tier 3″ programs, as part of a budget deal that also reduced the funding for those programs. The authors conducted a survey of 350 California school district chief financial officers (CFOs) between April and August of 2011 to see how district leaders responded to this sudden, limited fiscal flexibility and the conditions that shaped their decisions.

Key Findings

School District Leaders Had Limited Understanding of the Legislature’s Intent and Regulations Governing Tier 3 Funds

  • A year after implementation, uncertainty still persisted over the purposes of Tier 3 flexibility and the rules governing it.
  • Chief financial officers (CFOs) relied heavily on School Services of California and their county offices of education to make sense of the rules and regulations related to Tier 3 flexibility.

Decisions Were Made by District Central Office Staff

  • CFOs and superintendents had the greatest say in how Tier 3 funds were used.

The Bulk of Tier 3 Program Funds Were Reallocated, That Is, “Swept” into District General Funds to Help Meet Districts’ Most Pressing Needs

  • CFOs reported three top priorities: preserving fiscal solvency, retaining staff, and protecting current instructional programs.
  • There was nearly unanimous agreement that flexibility helped districts avoid layoffs and salary reductions.
  • Some programs took heavier hits than others, such as programs linked to teacher quality.
  • CFOs expect to reduce classified and certificated staff and increase class size in 2012 but were less likely to anticipate changes that require renegotiating contract provisions.

Recommendations

  • The legislature and governor should articulate clearly the purposes of fiscal flexibility in order to reduce confusion at the local level.
  • If the legislature and governor hold particular priorities with regard to improving the performance of low-achieving students or advancing certain reform models, those priorities should be made explicit to local educators.
  • Educators should have much clearer information and guidance to deal with multiple, interrelated policy changes.
  • The California Department of Education should require districts to use a common system for reporting on revenues and expenditures.
  • Policymakers should require an evaluation of the impact of flexibility to determine which students, schools, and programs benefit from fiscal flexibility, and which do not.

Click HERE for full report.

School Finance Reform – A Weighted Pupil Formula for California

Governor Jerry Brown has called for a major overhaul of California’s school finance policies. His proposal for a weighted pupil funding system would simplify the rules that govern the distribution of funds to schools and school districts, while targeting a larger share of available resources to the schools and students with the greatest needs. In this policy report Mary Perry offers an overview and analysis of the policy change that the Governor has proposed. She reviews criticisms of California’s current school funding system, the basic principles that define a weighted pupil funding formula, the key features of Governor Brown’s proposal to the Legislature, and some of the political and practical issues raised by a move to weighted pupil funding.

 
Developmental Students: Their Heterogeneity and Readiness

May 3rd Podcast – Getting down to facts: Five years later

This report commemorates the fifth anniversary of the Getting Down to Facts project, which sought to provide a thorough and reliable analysis of the critical challenges facing California’s education system as the necessary basis for an informed discussion of policy changes aimed at improving the performance of California schools and students. The report focuses on the four key issues that received emphasis in the Getting Down to Facts studies: governance, finance, personnel, and data systems.

Download report

Getting Down to Facts: Five years later

May 3, 2012
1:00 – 3:00 PM

Welcome Jack O’Connell, School Innovations and Advocacy
Getting Down to Facts: Five years later
  Introduction Susanna Loeb, Stanford University
  Governance Richard Welsh and Dominic Brewer, University of Southern California
Presentation
  Finance Heather Rose, University of California – Davis
Presentation
  Teachers and Leaders Jennifer Imazeki, California State University, San Diego
Presentation
  Data Systems David Plank, Policy Analysis for California Education
Getting Down to Facts: Then and now
  Moderator: John Fensterwald, Silicon Valley Education Foundation
  Panelists: Susanna Cooper, Office of the President Pro Tem, California Senate
Erin Gabel, Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Rick Simpson, Office of the Speaker, California Assembly
Getting Down to Facts: Public opinion
  Mark Baldassare, Public Policy Institute of California
  Dan Schnur, University of Southern California

GETTING DOWN TO FACTS: FIVE YEARS LATER

This report commemorates the fifth anniversary of the Getting Down to Facts project, which sought to provide a thorough and reliable analysis of the critical challenges facing California’s education system as the necessary basis for an informed discussion of policy changes aimed at improving the performance of California schools and students. The report focuses on the four key issues that received emphasis in the Getting Down to Facts studies: governance, finance, personnel, and data systems.

 
Developmental Students: Their Heterogeneity and Readiness