Print this Article

LAO’s Analysis of the May Revision Education Proposals

(Editor’s note: On May 15, the Legislative Analyst’s Office released its analysis of Gov. Newsom’s May Budget Revision. Below are highlights from the LAO website pertaining to K–12 education.)

Introduction

The May Revision contains more than 100 proposed changes to education programs. The changes range from large new policy proposals, to major modifications of January proposals, to small adjustments relating to revised student attendance estimates. In this post, we focus on the first two categories of proposals. The post has six sections. The first section provides an overview of the proposals. The next four sections cover specific proposals relating to (1) early education, (2) K-14 education, (3) the universities, and (4) financial aid. The last section covers library-related proposals and a crosscutting proposal relating to education innovation.

Overview

New Policy Proposals Raise Many Important Issues for the Legislature to Consider. The May Revision contains more than a dozen major new policy proposals. Among the most notable of these policy proposals are creating an emergency child care program, creating rapid rehousing programs for homeless college students, and offering loan forgiveness to teachers agreeing to work in shortage areas. Whereas we do not have notable concerns with a few of these new proposals, we think many of them raise important issues for the Legislature to consider. Were the Legislature interested in pursuing these new proposals, we think it has opportunities to improve them.

Modifications to January Proposals Reflect Some Steps Forward, Some Back. The May Revision also contains several modifications to policy proposals the Governor first presented in January. In some cases, we think the modifications are improvements. For example, the May Revision reduces proposed funding for kindergarten facility grants and makes the program more targeted. In other cases, the changes heighten our original concerns. For example, the May Revision increases ongoing funding for special education concentration grants without addressing any of the poor incentives the proposal would create for schools to retain students in special education. In yet other cases, the modifications in the May Revision do not change our overall assessment of the original proposals (as reflected in our Proposition 98 Analysis, Higher Education Analysis, and spring budget analyses).

Post Highlights New Concerns and Considerations. Figure 1 lists the May Revision proposals that we believe raise new concerns or issues for consideration. The list includes both new policy proposals as well as notable modifications to January policy proposals. The rest of the piece focuses on analyzing these proposals.

Figure 1

May Revision Education Proposals That Raise Notable Concerns or Considerations

Change From Governor’s Budget, 2019–20 (In Thousands)a


May Revision Proposal

Funding Amount

Fund Duration

Fund Source

Early Education

Starts 10,000 State Preschool slots later in year (April 2020, not July 2019)

-$93,476

Ongoing

GF

Adds more child care voucher slots

80,463

Ongoing

SF

Makes changes to CalWORKs Stage 1 child care

40,633

Ongoing

FF

Creates emergency child care pilot program

12,842

Ongoing

FF

Provides more detail on facility, workforce, and planning initiatives

TBL

One time

GF

K–14 Education

Provides additional pension rate relief for school districts and community colleges

150,000

One time

GF

Reduces funding for kindergarten facility grants

-150,000

One time

GF

Increases funding for special education concentration grants

119,008

Ongoing

P98 GF

Funds the Classified School Employee Summer Assistance Program for second year

36,000

One time

P98 GF

Establishes Educator Workforce Investment Grant

33,800

One time

GF

Provides broadband connectivity grants to poorly connected schools

15,000

One time

GF

Adds three staff positions to CCC Chancellor’s Office

381

Ongoing

GF

Extends apportionment formula hold harmless protection for a fourth year

TBL

One time

P98 GF

Universities

Pays down a portion of UC’s unfunded pension liability

25,000

One time

GF

Creates student rapid rehousing program at CSU and UC

10,000

Ongoing

GF

Funds UC San Francisco Dyslexia Center pilot program

3,500

One time

GF

Requires Chancellor’s Office to study a potential new campus in San Joaquin County

BBLb

One time

GF

Funds First Star foster youth cohort at CSU, Sacramento

740

One time

GF

Funds additional UCPath implementation costs at Hastings

594

One time

GF

Student Financial Aid

Provides loan forgiveness to teachers in shortage areas

89,750

One time

GF

Has CSAC administer new round of grants to incentivize college savings accounts

TBLb

One time

GF

Has CSAC administer student loan outreach campaign

TBLb

One time

GF

Other

Introduces several state and local library proposals

10,878

Mix

GF

Funds education innovation grants

10,000

One time

GF

 

a) Reflects funding amounts in May Revision letter. In some cases, the administration has since revised proposed amounts.
b) Funding provided in Governor’s January budget.

 

GF = General Fund; SF = special fund; FF = federal funds; P98 GF = Proposition 98 General Fund; BBL = budget bill language; CSAC = California Student Aid Commission; and TBL = trailer bill language.

K–14 Education

Below, we analyze the May Revision proposals relating to (1) pension rate relief for school districts and community colleges, (2) kindergarten facility grants, (3) special education concentration grants, (4) the Classified School Employee Summer Assistance program, (5) the Educator Workforce Investment Grant, (6) school broadband connectivity grants, (7) new staff at the Chancellor’s Office, and (8) the community college apportionment funding formula. (The May Revision also contains a proposal to allow school districts to use surplus property for teacher housing.)

CalSTRS Rate Relief

In our February Proposition 98 Analysis, we analyzed the Governor’s proposal to allocate $700 million (non-Proposition 98 General Fund) for school and community college pension rate relief in 2019-20 and 2020-21. In that analysis, we noted that the administration’s proposal comes when school funding is at a historically high level and growing. We acknowledged that districts view rising pension costs as one of their most significant fiscal challenges, but noted that those challenges would be more severe if the state were to enter a recession. We recommended setting aside the funding proposed by the Governor but not adjusting district contribution rates until the next economic downturn. The May Revision builds upon the January proposal by providing an additional $150 million for pension rate relief specifically in 2019-20. Although this proposal would reduce pressure on district budgets next year, we continue to think that rate relief would be even more effective at promoting fiscal stability if the state were to designate it for tight fiscal times.

Full-Day Kindergarten Facility Grants

May Revision Reduces Funding for Kindergarten Facility Grants by $150 Million. In the May Revision, the Governor reduces funding for kindergarten facility grants from $750 million to $600 million (non-Proposition 98 General Fund). The May Revision also proposes making the funding available through 2021-22. For the first two years (2019-20 and 2020-21), funding would be limited to school districts that plan to convert their part-day kindergarten programs to full-day programs. For the third year, grant funding would be opened up for districts already running full-day kindergarten programs. The May Revision also increases the state share of project costs to 75 percent, reducing the local share from 50 percent to 25 percent for new construction projects and from 40 percent to 25 percent for renovation projects. As in January, school districts facing challenges raising their local match could qualify for additional state funding, up to 100 percent of project costs.

Proposed Changes Move in Reasonable Direction, but Grants Could Be Further Targeted. The May Revision limits grants to districts interested in converting part-day programs to full-day programs, which is a more targeted approach to meeting the objective of creating more full-day programs. In addition, lowering the required local match might encourage more low-income districts to apply for grant funding. Though we view these May Revision changes as reasonable, the Legislature could further target the grants by earmarking them only for low-income districts. Of the 160 districts currently running part-day programs, we estimate almost 100 are not low income (based upon the grant program’s existing prioritization criteria—having at least 60 percent of district students eligible for the federal school meals program). Higher-income districts likely have other means for creating more full-day kindergarten programs. Moreover, some research suggests low-income students benefit most from longer-day kindergarten programs.

Proposed Amount May Overestimate Demand, Consider Providing Lower Amount. We remain concerned that even the reduced funding level in the May Revision might be higher than district demand for converting part-day kindergarten programs to full-day programs. Based on our analysis of the first-round of facility grant applicants and the results from a survey we recently sent to 59 low-income districts running part-day kindergarten programs, we have identified four funding alternatives for the Legislature to consider (see figure). The alternatives range in cost from $50 million to $200 million. These alternatives would allow the Legislature to continue promoting more full-day kindergarten while freeing up some non-Proposition 98 General Fund for other legislative priorities.

Special Education

Provides More Ongoing Proposition 98 Funding for Proposed Special Education Concentration Grants. The May Revision retains the Governor’s January proposal to provide special education concentration grants to districts serving large numbers of low-income students, English learners, and students with disabilities, but it increases total grant funding. Whereas the Governor’s budget proposed $577 million ($390 million ongoing and $187 million one-time), the administration now proposes $696 million (all ongoing) for these grants.

May Revision Exacerbates Weaknesses of Governor’s January Proposal. By increasing ongoing funding for this proposal, we believe the administration further undermines its own policy goals. The administration intends this funding to support early intervention programs that aim to reduce the number of students identified for special education. The design of the proposal, however, has an inherent contradiction by fiscally rewarding districts that maintain above-average special education identification rates. Districts that achieved the administration’s goal and reduced the number of students identified for special education could lose substantial funding. Specifically, we estimate districts under the program would lose about $15,000 in ongoing funding for every student they no longer identified for special education. (By comparison, we estimate schools currently spend on average a little over $10,000 in local unrestricted funding per student with a disability.) Consequently, the roughly one-quarter of school districts that benefit from the administration’s proposal would have a strong fiscal incentive to maintain high special education identification rates.

Recommend Considering Alternatives for Augmenting Special Education Funding. If it is interested in increasing special education funding, we believe the Legislature has better options than introducing a new categorical program. In particular, we have long recommended equalizing per-student special education funding rates, which vary from less than $500 to more than $900 for historical reasons. Another option is to modify the state’s special education funding formula to allocate some funding specifically for preschool special education, which schools are required to provide but for which they currently receive no dedicated state funding. We estimate the state could fund both of these options for the cost of the administration’s May Revision proposal.

Classified School Employees Summer Assistance Program

Extends Summer Matching Program for Classified Employees.  The May Revision provides $36 million (one-time Proposition 98 settle-up) to fund a second year of the Classified School Employees Summer Assistance Program. This program allows classified employees to deposit a portion of their income earned during the school year into a fund that is supplemented by state dollars and paid out in one or two installments during the summer months. The state matching dollars are spread proportionally among participating employees. The program received $50 million one-time funding in 2018-19, but lower-than-anticipated participation resulted in only $36 million being spent. The administration anticipates a similar level of participation if the program is renewed for a second year.

Raises Issues to Consider. The administration’s proposal would help some classified employees receive higher income for a summer. Many other classified employees, however, would not benefit from the program. This is because the program is somewhat complex to administer. In 2018-19, only about one-fifth of eligible local education agencies chose to operate the program. The program also is not a long-term solution to what might be viewed as a long-term issue. If the underlying issue is related to classified employee pay, the Legislature might want to consider more ways to bolster that pay on an ongoing basis. Schools typically use their Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) allocations (their main discretionary funding) for employee compensation. By increasing LCFF funding and providing districts with more unrestricted funding, the Legislature could help all schools have more resources for employee compensation.

Educator Workforce Investment Grant

Creates the Educator Workforce Investment Grant. The May Revision provides $34.8 million (one-time non-Proposition 98 General Fund) to provide teachers with professional development opportunities in various topics, including inclusive practices, social emotional learning, and computer science. Of the proposed funding, $1 million would fund one new computer science coordinator position at CDE over four years.

Several Key Issues to Consider. First, professional development for teachers is commonly funded using Proposition 98 monies, but this proposal uses non-Proposition 98 monies. The Legislature may wish to consider whether teacher training is among its highest priorities for non-Proposition 98 funds. Second, the state funds most professional development indirectly through LCFF and the statewide system of school support. The administration has not made an explicit case that funding through these other means in insufficient. Third, the administration has not made a clear case that the proposed focus areas (such as social emotional learning and computer science) are the areas where teachers statewide have the greatest need for additional training. Computer science, for example, is already a required course for teachers prior to receiving their clear teaching credential. If the Legislature does want to provide professional development funding in specific classroom areas, it may want to develop a clear methodology for selecting which areas are of highest statewide priority. For example, the Legislature may want to use the School Dashboard outcomes to identify areas where districts have poor outcomes. Lastly, the Legislature may want to consider giving priority for teacher professional development to districts receiving differentiated assistance under the statewide system of support.

Broadband Connectivity Grants

Proposes New Broadband Infrastructure Grants. The May Revision provides $15 million (one-time non-Proposition 98 General Fund) to expand fiber broadband at schools that are considered poorly connected. In contrast to the Broadband Infrastructure Improvement Grants that the state funded in 2014-15 and 2015-16, which focused on connectivity required to support statewide standardized testing, this proposal intends to enhance digital learning opportunities more generally. Trailer bill language specifies that CDE is to contract with the Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC). CENIC, in turn, is to (1) identify “solutions that provide fiber broadband connectivity to the most poorly connected schools,” (2) submit identified solutions to the Department of Finance for approval, and (3) implement the approved solutions. CENIC may use up to $1 million of grant funding to complete these tasks, with CDE allowed to retain up to $100,000 for its administration of the program.

Proposal Has Several Notable Shortcomings. First, the proposal aims to target the most poorly connected schools, without clearly defining what it means to be poorly connected. The administration leaves it to CENIC to define and identify these schools. Second, the administration also has not provided a needs assessment examining which schools currently are poorly connected, where they are located, and the number of students they serve. Third, the administration has not provided a fiscal analysis examining what connectivity options are available for these schools, the associated costs, and the potential fund sources. Fourth, the proposal has no benchmark for what the grant funding is intended to achieve – that is, what level of connectivity improvement (or increase in Internet speeds) is sought. Fifth, it has no method for tracking progress towards the goal of increasing digital learning opportunities in schools.

If Grants Are Funded, Recommend Modifications. If the Legislature wishes to fund additional broadband grants, we encourage it to consider several modifications to the May Revision proposal. First, we recommend the Legislature define “poor connectivity” for schools as well as identify what connectivity (or Internet speed) is sought for grant recipients. Second, we recommend allowing schools to use whichever method of connectivity is most cost-effective in their area for achieving the program’s goal, instead of limiting the grants only to fiber solutions. For example, in some areas, options such as satellite or microwave technologies, which do not require installing cables across areas that may be difficult to reach, might be less costly. Third, we recommend adding reporting language to enhance legislative oversight. Specifically, we recommend the Legislature require the Department of Finance to notify the Joint Legislative Budget Committee prior to approving project proposals and submit a final report that identifies each project, its location, project cost, the connectivity solution implemented, and the resulting increase in Internet speed and functionality.

Financial Aid

Below, we analyze the May Revision proposals relating to (1) Teacher Service Credit Scholarships, (2) child savings account grants, and (3) student loan awareness.

Teacher Service Credit Scholarships

Proposal Is Unlikely to Lead to Sustained Reduction in Teacher Shortage. The administration proposes $90 million (one-time non-Proposition 98 General Fund) to provide 4,500 teachers up to $20,000 each to incentivize them to pursue jobs in subject areas and schools that have teacher shortages. Teachers would qualify for the program if they had student loan debt. They would receive $5,000 of loan forgiveness upon completing each year of service in a shortage area or school, for up to four years. While this approach might assist with teacher recruitment and retention, its effect likely would be short term. Because only 4,500 teachers would benefit and the fiscal incentive they receive would expire after four years, this initiative is unlikely to result in a notable, sustained increase in the availability of credentialed teachers.

Proposed Incentive Might Not Change Teachers’ Career Decisions. For the grant to serve as an effective incentive, prospective teachers would need to know about it before they decide which subject areas and schools to teach in. In conversations with our office, the administration has indicated priority schools (schools where a high percentage of teachers hold temporary licenses) likely would inform job candidates of the grant opportunity during the recruitment process. Candidates would then apply to CSAC, and CSAC would prioritize applicants according to the school’s need for credentialed teachers. We think this approach would decrease the effectiveness of the incentive because most teachers would find out about the grant after they have already completed their teacher preparation program and received their teaching credential in a certain subject area. The approach also is problematic because teachers might need to respond to job offers before finding out whether they have been selected for a grant.

If Legislature Wanted to Improve Proposal, Recommend Reaching Teachers Earlier in Pipeline. The Legislature may wish to consider an alternate approach to identifying and selecting applicants. For example, it could direct CSAC to work with universities to select students enrolled in teacher preparation programs to receive the grant. (This resembles the approach taken under the Assumption Program of Loans for Education, a previous program administered by CSAC that provided loan forgiveness grants to teachers serving in shortage areas.) This would ensure that prospective teachers find out about the grant—and potentially receive a grant offer—early enough to influence their career decisions. (CSAC would still disburse the awards after students completed each qualifying year of work, as currently proposed.) The Legislature may also wish to require CSAC to report on program outcomes, including the number of teachers receiving grants, the subject areas they obtain credentials in, the schools they work in, and the length of time they remain in their jobs. This information could inform future decisions the Legislature may face regarding the use of grants to address teacher shortages.

Other

Below, we analyze the May Revision proposals relating to library initiatives and education innovation grants.

Library Initiatives

Library Proposals Raise Key Issues for Consideration. Each of the new proposals relating to the State Library and its local library initiatives raise issues for the Legislature to consider. In a few cases, the Legislature could work with the administration to clarify the proposals’ objectives and goals. The Legislature also could request the administration provide a cost estimate for bringing the proposal to scale and funding it statewide. In addition, we recommend adding parameters to the proposed budget bill language to ensure the funds are allocated according to legislative priorities. Finally, for every proposal, we recommend adopting reporting language to enhance legislative oversight. Figure 2 summarizes the key considerations for each proposal. We describe these considerations below, beginning with the largest of the proposals.

Figure 2

Summary of Issues for Consideration


Proposals

Clarify Objectives

Identify Cost Pressures

Add Parameters

Add Reporting

After school programs

  ✓

  ✓

  ✓

  ✓

Local library bookmobiles

  ✓

  ✓

  ✓

Digital preservation activities

  ✓

Statewide cultural inventory development

  ✓

  ✓

Other preservation activities

  ✓

  ✓

 

a) Figure excludes Grants Web Portal proposals, as our only issue for consideration is whether the proposed positions should be ongoing or limited term.

After School Programs. The May Revision proposes $5 million (one-time General Fund) for the State Library to offer grants to local libraries for additional after school programs. According to the administration, grant funding would be prioritized for local libraries with low per capita library spending. According to the staff at the State Library, the grants would encourage local libraries to partner with First 5 and other groups to provide children educational and other support services. The State Library appears to have flexibility to determine other key grant parameters, including developing the specific criteria used to allocate funds and identifying the specific activities that could be funded. In reviewing this proposal, we encourage the Legislature to consider the extent which First 5 groups already partner with libraries to provide services to children, why additional state funding is needed to foster these partnerships, and the potential future cost pressure to sustain new partnerships on an ongoing basis. If the proposal were approved, we recommend expanding provisional language to specify the criteria the State Library is to use in allocating grant funds and the allowable uses of grant funding. We also recommend requiring the State Library to report on the program, with the report including the grant amounts allocated to each library jurisdiction, how each library jurisdiction spent the funding, the number of students served by the grants, the amount and source of other funding used to support grantees’ after school activities, and a quantitative assessment of how these activities improved students’ learning outcomes.

Local Library Bookmobiles. The May Revision proposes $3 million (one-time General Fund) for a one-time initiative to offer grants to local libraries for the purchase of bookmobiles. Purchasing bookmobiles is a good example of one-time costs. We encourage the Legislature, however, to understand the potential cost pressure of this proposal. The administration has not yet surveyed the number of local libraries interested in having bookmobiles but not able to cover the associated cost with their local funds. The State Library also appears to have flexibility to establish many of the proposal’s parameters, including how to prioritize among applications. If the Legislature were to approve the proposal, we recommend adding provisional language specifying how the funds will be prioritized if library demand exceeds available funding. We also recommend requiring a report that includes a list of the grant recipients and the amount of their grants, a narrative summary of the services offered by the bookmobiles, the number of individuals served by the bookmobiles and the amount and source of other funding used for the initiative.

Digital Preservation Activities. The May Revision proposes $1 million (ongoing General Fund) for the State Library to add three staffing positions and contract for certain digital preservation activities. Specifically, the three new staff would form an ongoing team that works with state agencies to identify materials to be digitized. The team would then contract with private vendors to digitize these materials. In reviewing the proposal, we encourage the Legislature to consider the state’s overall preservation objectives, including which assets in which locations face risks of not being well preserved and have the greatest statewide benefit from being preserved. We also encourage the Legislature to consider how best to coordinate the digital preservation activities of the State Library with the ongoing efforts of other state agencies to preserve their important materials digitally. If the Legislature were to approve additional funding for preservation activities in 2019-20, we recommend it adopt reporting language that describes which agencies participated and provides a list of resources that were digitized.

Statewide Cultural Inventory Development. The May Revision proposes $700,000 (one-time General Fund) for the State Library to contract with a private vendor to develop a census of cultural assets across the state. The contract would be overseen by the newly established three-position team described in the previous paragraph. The administration states that the overarching objective is to identify which cultural resources are at greatest risk for loss or damage and develop strategies to protect these assets. According to staff at the State Library, the state’s previous efforts to develop such an inventory have been unsuccessful. Staff at the State Library indicate the proposed funding would support the first stages toward developing an inventory, with funding potentially requested in later years to complete it. We encourage the Legislature to consider the additional future costs needed to complete the inventory, maintain and update it on an ongoing basis, and implement strategies to preserve at-risk resources. Furthermore, we encourage the Legislature to explore why past efforts to create an inventory have not succeeded and what steps the State Library plans to undertake to ensure the success of this project. If the Legislature were to approve this proposal, we recommend adding a reporting requirement. We recommend the report provide an update on the status of the statewide inventory, a list of the remaining institutions to be surveyed, and whether any funds remain unspent.

Grants Web Portal. Recently enacted legislation authorized creation of a web portal that lists all state grant opportunities. The authorizing legislation did not include funding for the project. An April Finance Letter proposed providing the State Library with $641,000 ($391,000 ongoing General Fund and $250,000 one-time General Fund) for the project. The ongoing funding would be for the State Library to add two staff to manage development of the site and maintain it moving forward. The one-time funding would be to contract with a private vendor to develop the website and train the newly hired staff to use it. In 2019-20, the proposed costs appear reasonable, as the State Library will likely face considerable workload to enter into agreements with state agencies, interact with key stakeholders, manage the contract, and debug potential glitches with the newly developed website. We are concerned, however, with making the two staff positions ongoing. Under some possible constructions of the portal, very little work might be entailed in managing the site on an ongoing basis. For example, state agencies might have their new grant opportunities automatically uploaded to the site each year. If this were to be the case, the State Library in future years might be able to accommodate such work within its ongoing budget. To ensure staffing remains aligned with the website’s workload over time, we recommend making the positions limited-term and revisiting the ongoing cost to maintain the system after it has been built.

Other Preservation Activities. The May Revision proposes $500,000 one-time General Fund in local assistance to organizations that specialize in preservation of artifacts relating to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer history. In reviewing this proposal, the Legislature may wish to consider how these funds would be allocated and what materials would be preserved as a result of the funding. If approved, we recommend adding reporting language to enhance legislative oversight. We recommend the report include a list of the grant recipients and how the recipients spent their funds.

Education Innovation Grants

May Revision Modifies and Adds More Detail to Governor’s Innovation Grant Proposal. The Governor’s budget included $10 million one-time General Fund for OPR to administer a higher education innovation grant program. Under the January proposal, grants would be available to higher education institutions in the San Joaquin and Inland Empire regions to implement innovative educational strategies. The May Revision adds budget bill language to this proposal specifying the following changes:

  1. The $10 million in grants would be available to both K-12 schools and higher education institutions in the region.
  2. The grants would support innovations that emphasize aligning secondary and postsecondary programs, reducing achievement gaps, and/or improving student degree and certificate completion.
  3. OPR’s administrative costs would be limited to 5 percent of the funding.
  4. OPR would be required to report the program’s outcomes to the Director of Finance and the Legislature by July 1, 2020.

Proposal Does Not Include Assurances of Statewide Benefit. The proposed education innovation grants appear to have the same shortcoming as recent higher education-specific innovation grant programs in that it provides no assurance of statewide benefit. For several years, the Brown administration proposed funding one-time grant initiatives aimed at supporting innovative strategies in higher education, with the Legislature adopting some of these proposals. We consistently advised against the proposals, as they provided relatively large sums to a small number of institutions to implement local initiatives without clear plans for broader dissemination. Past proposals also did not include incentives to promote buy-in among institutions to implement those innovations determined to be effective. The new innovation grants appeared structured in the same problematic ways.

Proposal Also Duplicates Other State Efforts Intended to Improve Student Outcomes. In addition to the concerns described above, the state has already taken many more impactful steps to improve student education outcomes. These steps include: (1) creating the Local Control Funding Formula, Local Control and Accountability Plans, the School Dashboard, and the statewide system of school support; (2) creating the Student Success and Support program at the community colleges, combining major community college student support programs into a block grant, and changing the community college allocation formula to include student outcomes; and (3) ongoing budget augmentations to support CSU’s Graduation Initiative. In each one of these initiatives, campuses are provided considerable flexibility to allocate the funds and develop innovative strategies to improve student outcomes. The Legislature monitors these efforts on an ongoing basis. Given these and other initiatives, the added benefit of a relatively small, one-time program is likely very limited.

Recommend Rejecting Proposal. Given the issues we raise above, we recommend the Legislature reject this proposal and use the associated $10 million one-time non-Proposition 98 General Fund for other priorities.

Source: Legislative Analyst’s Office



A Total School Solutions publication.