California Education Study

Implications for Alameda Unified School District

March, 2007

Certainly everyone has an opinion about education and how to "fix it". Unfortunately, actually developing the political will to improve student outcomes for ALL students is the challenge. One side of the political spectrum wants to see "major reform" before adding money while those on the other side want to increase funding before/while making "major reform". Interestingly both camps agree "major reform" is needed. It seems that "public edcuation" gets no respect as evidenced by this 2007 education survey from Public Policy Institute in California.

With the release of the "Getting Down to Facts (GDTF): A Research Project to Inform Solutions to California's Education Problems", a bipartisan group of leaders including the Governor Schwarzenegger, Senate Leader Perata, Assembly Leader Nunez and State Superintendent O'Connell have the "facts" to start the process of "fixing public education". GDTF represents an unprecedented attempt to synthesize what we know as a basis for convening the necessary public conversations on what we should do.

Concurrently during 2005-06, the California School Boards Association, Children Now, the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund and the California State Parent Teachers Association conducted nearly 70 interviews with key opinion and political leaders in California on school finance reform through a generous grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

The interviewees included major statewide and regional business organizations, prominent business leaders, major statewide ethnic, faith based and community based organizations and leading policymakers and opinion leaders in California ranging across the ideological spectrum, and key members of the Education Coalition and other education leaders.

The goal of these interviews was to begin identifying common ground for the development of a comprehensive package of both reform and investment relative to California’s public school system. The entire 14 page report is here.

The GDTF project was not designed to recommend specific policies but had four four conclusions:

1. The highly prescriptive finance and governance systems thwart incentives for local schools and districts in their efforts to meet the needs of their students and promote higher achievement. Extensive restrictions on local resource allocation, for example, keep administrators from responding to accountability incentives. The restrictions also lead to sub-optimal allocation of resources, in that schools spend money as the regulations demand, not necessarily to meet the needs of their students. Compliance with regulations and associated paperwork also take time away from work with students. At the same time, constant policy changes hinder planning and frustrate school and district staff.

Implications for Alameda: With 35% of Alameda's budget restricted on where monies can be spent, Alameda would benefit from a relaxation of resources based on legislative mandate.

2. Current teacher policies do not let state and local administrators make the best use of the pool of potential teachers nor adequately support current teachers. Teacher education and professional development requirements often are disconnected from the skills and knowledge needed in the classroom. While there is some evidence that high quality teacher education can improve teaching, policies that create incentives for teachers to obtain generic credits (such as required masters’ degrees) are costly for teachers and districts and show little benefit for students. Moreover, a theme that emerges over and over again in the studies is the excessive difficulty in dismissing weak teachers. Although few administrators wish to dismiss large numbers of teachers, making it easier to dismiss the weakest teachers may well change the dynamics of local school reform.

Implications for Alameda: Alameda's teacher contract contains the similar langauge regarding transfers and educational experience as contracts throughout the state. Certainly any changes agreed to by the California Teachers Association in regards to contractual language would be beneficial.

3. The current distribution of resources across schools and school districts is complex and irrational. Currently, districts that are similar in their costs and needs can receive substantially different resources due to spending differences dating back to the 1970s and to a multitude of categorical grants. To be sure, there are good reasons for districts to receive different funds when their needs and costs differ, or even when their interest in education differs. However, the current system does not treat these differences coherently.

Implications for Alameda: With 33% of Alameda's students classified as Socioeconomically Disadvantaged and 25% classified as English Learners, Alameda would benefit from redistribution of resources based on student need.

Here is a 2008 report examining site based funding for San Francisco and Oakland.

4. Policy makers, school and district administrators, and parents all lack the information they need to make informed decisions about education policies and practices: California lags far behind other states in collecting useful information on students’ learning, their teachers, and the programs and resources that they experience. Moreover, reforms have not been designed in ways that allow California’s citizens and policy makers to learn from experience about how to best design and implement policy. Basic data on such things as the learning patterns of students across grades and programs are currently absent.

Implications for Alameda: Alameda has been at the forefront of using data to improve instructional practice.

To be clear, meaningful reform to meet student outcome goals may well require substantial new investments. In particular, so few of the schools serving a high proportion of students in poverty reach state goals that investment in these schools will likely be necessary. But financial investments will only significantly benefit students if they are accompanied by extensive and systemic reforms. Without accompanying policy reforms, the substantial gains in student outcomes that Californians need are unlikely to accrue.

To the point, there is no evidence to support the idea that simply introducing yet more new programs will produce the desired achievement gains. CA already has far over 100 well-intentioned categorical programs, and there is no reason to think that adding one or two more will make much difference, no matter how carefully targeted or lavishly funded. The marginal impact of any new program will be small. Quite simply, the finance and governance system is broken and requires fundamental reform not tinkering around the edges.

• simplification and relaxation of state regulations to allow greater local flexibility for local resource allocation
• efforts to support the recruitment and development of effective teachers through new approaches to pre-service education, in-service professional development, due-process, evaluation, and compensation
• experimentation with alternative ways to improve the training, induction, development, and evaluation of effective educational leaders
• more effective use of instructional time and possible expansion of that time especially in schools with high concentration of disadvantaged students

Other policy areas are worth exploring because of their evident importance. This would include among others:

• enhanced curriculum and instruction for improving reading comprehension
• improved instruction of English language learners
• effective approaches for helping continuously failing schools

In April, 2008, EdSource had its annual conference where there was a presentation on principles for California School Finance Reform.

Reference Materials

Listed below are selected resarch summaries directly impacting Alameda. For the complete list of projects and complete reseach papers, visit IREPP Wesbite List of Projects.

Background

Equality and Adequacy in the State’s Provision of Education: Mapping the Conceptual Landscape

Finances

Evolution of Finances for California Schools

• California's finances sytem is constrained by past decisions and disconnected from academic expectations
• Finace reforms in other states yield instructive comparisons and implementation lessons

• California's centralized education finance system differs from other state's systems in several ways
• In California, money matters. There is a clear relationship between spending and student performance
• Costs vary based student characteristics and labor market conditions
• Higher proportions of categorical aid lower district efficiency related to student performance
• Local voter behavior affect efficiency of districts and student performance

• Total district spending from all funds varies dramatically across districts, but the types of expenditures are similar
• on average, about two-thirds of district expenditures are unrestricted
• Urban and high poverty districts have somewhat higher expenditures and revenues
• Spending in California has increased by 40% over a decade, including both captial and operating expenditures
• California spends less per pupil than most other states, particularily whnd adjusted for cost differences

• Policy decisions made in 1998 led to increased investment
• The level of facilities funding varies widely across school districts
• Funding disparities are related to need and, more strongly, to district's ability to pay
• Districts with the greatest facility needs are receiving more funds per pupil
• Funding options for charter schools have improved, but challenges remain

• Existing research indicates that school finance reforms have a minimal effect on public edcuational spending from nonschool resources

November, 2006 Report from EdSouce on District Fiscal Management Practices

Governance

Governance of California Schools

• Effective governance is necessary for meeting student outcomes but relationships are complex
• A framework for understanding governance structure: the what, who and how of governance
• Five general indicators provide context for evaluating the educational govenrnance structure in California

• Based on the measure created for this study, slightly more than half of California school districts are fiscally healthy
• Three external conditions - district type, enrollment and revenue levels- singificantly influence fiscal health
• California school district personnel, policies and practices reflect some notable variations, including some relevant to fiscal health

Assessing the Cost of K-12 Education in California

• Data on current expenditures, students, district characteristics and performance are used in the analysis
• Current variations in per-pupil spending in California school districts are not strongly connected to variations in the cost of education
• The cost-function model estimates that California school districts need up to $1.7 billion more to achieve to achieve state API goals, but the production-function model estimates $1.5 trillion more

• Both models of educations professionals report that more resources are necessary for average schools to meet state standards
• With additional special needs students at a school, the panels add staff and specialized resources
• Total costs, adding district services and accounting for variations, are highest in urban districts
• AIR estimates the total cost for providing an adequate education in California is more than 50% above current expenditures

• Elementary, middle and high school educators differ in staffing ratios, but they would use additional resources similarily
• Educators predict that oncreased student poverty strongly hinders school performance, while resources increases have a modest positive effect
• The analysis provides school-level costs per pupil that vary substanially due to factors such as student poverty

Data

Part One

• California lags most states in its data approach and the quality of its eduational data system
• The state has taken some important steps in recent years
• Political obstacles and lack of commitment leave progress in question

Part Two

• California data system has not supported school district data needs, but some changes are occuring
• While districts vary in thier use of data, thier most pressing need is for data related to student achievement and instructional improvement
• Accessibility, a sense of ownership, and ease of use are keys to effective district-based data systems
• A strong data infrastructure and fine-grained data are central requirements for a useful system
• Developing staff capacity to use data, particularily at the school level, will support the good use of data

Staffing

Teacher Compensation and Local Labor Market Conditions: Implications for School Funding

• Teacher compensation and experience levels vary substantially across school districts
• A formula to equalize labor purchasing pwer of districts could be based on a comparable wage index, adjsuted for enrollment growth

In 2007, a report Performance-Pay for Teachers: Designing a System that Students Deserve, was issued to bring the views of expert teachers to bear on the critical issue of teacher pay. In a separate report, nearly 2,000 California teachers indicates that teacher working conditions have significant influence over both teacher retention and student achievement.

• California state law do little to address teacher-quality gaps among schools, ceding responsibility to local district officials
• Prior studies conclude that teacher-quality gaps among schools associated with or exacerbated by, prescriptive teacher assignment rules
• Contray to prior research and convential wisdom, districts with strong transfer provisions tend to have larger percentages of credentialed teachers
• Strong district transfer and leave provisions have no systematic effect on teacher-quality gaps among schools
• District administrators report actions that circumvetn teacher transfer rules

• Preparation and licensing: State policies define requirements, bth there is little research to judge effects
• California school district personnel, policies and practices reflect some notable variations, including some relevant to fiscal health
• Tenure: California's tenure decisions occur earlier than most other states
• Professional Development: California's policies have focused on beginning teachers
• Incentives: Teachers respond to wage incentives, but little is known about the effects of specific programs
• Salary structure: Teachers' compensation in California is based largely on local collective bargaining
• Teacher associations: Collective bargaining scope and processes are specified in state policy in California

• Strong leadership development programs connect theory to practice
• California's efforts in regard to leadership development fall behind the other states studied
• Improvements in preservice, recruitment, and ongoing professional development would support California's leadership development

• California principal emphasize basic skills as top educational goal
• Most principals report significant parent volunteer time
• Principals do not consistently deploy resources strategically

In 2007, a report The Autonomy Gap examines the nationwide autonomy gap of principals.

Other

• A definition of successful schools based on consistent high performance yields a small group that beat all odds
• Statistical analyses show no differences in the number of personnel, but some variation by type and qualifications are related to school performance
• Data reveal no relationship between school resources and academic success
• Interviews reveal some factors related to success but no clear "recipe"

Special Education

• Conventional techniques for estimating educationa adequacy shed little light on special education costs
• Analyses of actual expenditures provide the best estimates of costs, but they are not linked well to educational outcomes

• In California, public schools, 42% of students fit the "linguistic minority" definition, and most speak Spanish
• Determining the resource needs of linguistic minority students depends on the outcome standard targeted
• An adequate education for California English learners would require different resources
• Existing studies reflect little consensus regarding resource needs for English learner students

TOP

Comments. Questions. Broken links? Bad spelling! Incorrect Grammar? Let me know at webmaster.
Last modified: April, 2007

Disclaimer: This website is the sole responsibility of Mike McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community.