Narrowing California’s K-12 Student Achievement Gaps

Narrowing California’s K-12 Student Achievement Gaps GABRIEL PETEK LEGISLATIVE ANALYST JANUARY 31, 2020 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Executive Summary Legislature Established an Achievement Gap Work Group and Required a Report. In response to concerns over K-12 student achievement gaps, the Legislature tasked our office with convening a work group on the topic and submitting a report. The work group needed to have representatives from both houses of the Legislature, the administration (including the Department of Finance), and the California Department of Education (CDE). The group met five times during fall 2019. The required report needed to: (1) examine data on K-12 student achievement gaps, (2) identify funding provided for disadvantaged and low-performing students, (3) assess existing state efforts to serve these students, and (4) develop options for better supporting these students. This report responds to these requirements. Student Achievement Gaps Among Racial/Ethnic Groups, African American Students Have Worst Outcomes. On average, across all grade levels, African American students had the lowest scores on state standardized tests in spring 2018. African American students also had the lowest graduation rates and were the least likely to be prepared for college/career at graduation. On average, African American students missed much more school than other students, with a chronic absenteeism rate about double that of Latino and white students in 2017-18. Similarly, they were suspended at nearly double the rate of Latino and white students. Racial/ethnic achievement gaps held even after taking family income into account. For example, low-income African American students as a group performed worse across a range of outcome measures relative to other low-income students. Several Other Student Groups Also Have Relatively Low Performance. Low-income students, English learners, students with disabilities, foster youth, and homeless youth also have worse outcomes on average than other students. All five of these student groups had relatively low test scores and low graduation rates in 2018. Foster youth had the lowest graduation rate, with only about half graduating within four years. The share of students deemed prepared for college/career and the college-going rates for all these student groups also were lower than for the overall population of students. Foster youth missed the most school, with a chronic absenteeism rate more than double that of all other students and 6 percentage points higher than the rate for African American students. In 2017-18, the suspension rate for foster youth was about five times higher than the rate for all students and nearly twice the rate for African American students. State Efforts to Narrow Gaps Significant Funding Is Allocated for Disadvantaged Students. School districts currently receive $15.2 billion in ongoing state funding and $4.9 billion in ongoing federal funding for supporting disadvantaged, low-income, low-performing, and special needs students. A large share of this funding is for direct student services, but some of it is for helping school districts develop and implement improvement plans. In addition to ongoing funding, the state has provided $2.1 billion in one-time funding over the past five years for special initiatives aimed at better supporting disadvantaged and low-performing students. www.lao.ca.gov 1 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT State Has New System for Supporting School Districts With Low-Performing Students. When the state created a new school funding system in 2013-14, it also adopted a new accountability system. A core part of the new accountability system is having each district develop a strategic plan known as a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). In their LCAPs, districts must identify their achievement gaps, set performance goals, and track progress toward meeting those goals. Under the new system, the state uses multiple measures to assess whether a district is low performing. A district identified as low performing is to receive targeted support from its county office of education (COE). For a district with persistent performance issues, CDE is currently developing a more intensive level of intervention. This level of intervention is likely to begin with CDE, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE), and other regional partners coming together to conduct a systemic review of the district’s instructional practices. A Package of Four Promising Legislative Options Make Achievement Gap Information More Readily Available. The work group expressed concern that information about student achievement gaps can be difficult to access. One legislative option is to require CDE to post the progress of the state and each district in narrowing student achievement gaps over time. In addition, the Legislature could direct CDE to profile districts making particularly good progress, including information about their improvement strategies. Knowing which districts are performing well and what they are doing to attain better outcomes could help other districts improve. Monitor Efforts to Improve School Leadership. Work group members agreed that leadership was key to guiding and sustaining improvement efforts. Districts that have narrowed achievement gaps tend to benefit from stable, experienced school leaders who know how to use data to inform their improvement efforts. A second legislative option is to specify how the state’s recently created California School Leadership Academy is to be evaluated. Then, if signs emerge that the academy might have shortcomings, the Legislature could seek to rectify them through subsequent legislation. For example, if recent academy graduates report that they still lack proficiency in using data to assess achievement gaps, the academy could be directed to enhance training in this area. Create Standards for Reviewing Districts’ Academic Plans. Currently, the state tasks COEs with reviewing whether districts fill out the LCAP template correctly, but it does not require COEs to do a qualitative review of these plans. Importantly, COEs are not tasked with assessing if districts have ascertained their most pressing performance issues, identified promising strategies for improving their performance, and made budget decisions that are well aligned with their improvement plans. A third legislative option is to convene certain experts to develop a set of LCAP review standards. Based upon a holistic review of districts using the new review standards, COEs could identify poorly performing districts and increase support for them. Establish Academic Assistance Program for the Lowest-Performing Districts. The work group expressed frustration that some districts persist in having long track records of poor performance despite the many improvement strategies the state has tried in the past. A fourth legislative option is to establish an academic assistance program for districts with the most significant achievement gaps that have not narrowed over time. CCEE, in partnership with other agencies, could provide these types of districts with intensive intervention over a multiyear period. The assistance could include a comprehensive improvement redesign and realignment of core spending within the district such that ongoing funding is used more effectively. 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION Student Achievement Gaps in California Are these students, and (4) develop options for better Large and Persistent. Year after year, Latino and supporting these students. The rest of this report African American students consistently have lower contains four sections corresponding to these four average state standardized test scores than white requirements. and Asian students. Latino and African American Work Group Did Not Examine Governor’s students also tend to have worse outcomes on 2020-21 Budget Proposals. The Governor’s other academic performance measures, such budget plan for 2020-21 contains two large as attendance and suspension rates. Similar one-time initiatives focused on narrowing student achievement gaps can be observed between achievement gaps. Specifically, he proposes students with and without disabilities and students $300 million for “opportunity grants” designed to who do and do not come from low-income families. provide integrated and intensive interventions to Legislature Established Achievement Gap the state’s lowest performing schools and districts Work Group and Required Report. In response to help them close their achievement gaps. In to concerns over these student achievement gaps, addition, he proposes $300 million for community the Legislature tasked our office with convening school grants to help districts coordinate student a work group on the topic and submitting a wraparound services, expand learning time, deepen report by February 1, 2020. As required by the community engagement, and promote collaborative Supplemental Report of the 2019-20 Budget Act, school leadership. Because the work group held the group needed to have representatives from its final meeting in October 2019 (a few months both houses of the Legislature, the administration prior to release of the Governor’s budget), it did not (including the Department of Finance), and the have the opportunity to evaluate these proposals. California Department of Education (CDE). The In the nearby box, we provide some of our office’s group met five times over the course of fall 2019. preliminary thoughts on those proposals. In our The required report needed to: (1) examine data on forthcoming “The 2020-21 Budget: Proposition 98 K-12 student achievement gaps, (2) identify funding Education Analysis,” we will provide a more detailed provided for disadvantaged and low-performing analysis. students, (3) assess existing state efforts to serve Governor’s Achievement Gap Proposals Might Not Require Districts to Make Essential Changes. We are in the midst of analyzing the Governor’s two achievement gap proposals. While we believe both of the Governor’s achievement gap proposals have laudable intent, we cannot determine from the information currently available whether they would require districts to undergo the types of ongoing changes needed to address their root issues. In particular, it is not clear whether either proposal would require districts to change their spending habits and priorities. Without reexamining how they deploy their core ongoing funds and assisting them in redeploying those funds more strategically, districts likely would not be able to sustain efforts to narrow their achievement gaps. In addition, given the lack of detail currently in the Governor’s proposals, it is difficult to determine how they would interact with the state’s existing system of support. www.lao.ca.gov 3 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT ACHIEVEMENT GAPS Gaps Between Several Student Groups ACHIEVEMENT GAPS BY Examined. The work group examined K-12 RACE/ETHNICITY achievement gaps by student race/ethnicity. It also examined gaps between the general population Among Racial/Ethnic Groups, African of students and low-income students, English American Students Have Lowest Standardized learners, students with disabilities, foster youth, Test Scores. California administers standardized and homeless youth. Figure 1 shows each of these tests on an annual basis to all students in student groups as a share of all public school grades 3 through 8 and grade 11. The standardized students. More than 60 percent of students, for tests cover proficiency in English Language Arts example, are low income. African American and Figure 1 Latino Students Comprise A Profile of California’s K-12 Students a Disproportionate Share Share of Students in Each Group, 2018-19 of Certain Student Groups. Although African American Total of 6.2 Million Students Other students comprise 5.4 percent of all public school students African American in California, they make up a greater share of certain student Asian subgroups. For example, 19 percent of foster youth and 8.3 percent of homeless youth are Latino African American. In a similar vein, Latino youth make up 55 percent of all students, but 81 percent of White English learners and 71 percent of low-income students. Several Achievement Gap Measures Examined. For each 70% student group, the work group looked at standardized test 60 scores—the most common tool used to identify and measure 50 achievement gaps. The group also looked at an assortment of other 40 outcome measures, including 30 high school graduation rates and chronic absenteeism rates. 20 Figure 2 lists all the measures that the work group examined. 10 Low English Students Homeless Foster Income Learners With Youth Youth Disabilities 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Figure 2 List of All Outcome Measures the Work Group Examined Outcome Measure Definition Standardized test scores The average score of a student group on state standardized assessments administered at the end of each year in grades 3 through 8 and grade 11. Cohort graduation rate The share of students from a given group graduating high school within four years. College/career indicator An index containing various measures intended to assess readiness to pursue college or a career. College preparatory courses The share of high school graduates having completed all coursework required for admission to the University of California or the California State University with at least a “C” grade. College-going rate The share of students who enrolled in a postsecondary institution within 12 months of completing high school. Chronic absenteeism rate The share of students from a given group absent for 10 percent or more of the school year. Suspension rate The share of students from a given group suspended at least once during the school year. and mathematics. On average, across all grade in 2018 were considered prepared for college or levels, African American students had the lowest career, compared to 52 percent of white students scores on the standardized tests administered in and 74 percent of Asian students. Latino students spring 2018. Latino students performed somewhat on average have lower rates of graduation and better, followed by white students, with Asian college/career preparedness than white students, students having the highest average scores. As although the gap between Latino and white Figure 3 shows, racial and ethnic achievement students is narrower than the gap between African gaps held even taking family income into account. American and white students. Asian students have For example, low-income Latino students had the best outcomes in these performance areas. lower average test scores than low-income white African American Students Have Higher students. Rates of Chronic Absenteeism and Suspension. African American Students Also Have Lower African American students, on average, miss much Graduation and College/Career Readiness more school than other students. Twenty percent Rates. As the top part of Figure 4 shows (see of African American students are chronically next page), average high school graduation rates absent—meaning absent for 10 percent or more among student racial/ethnic groups range from of the school year. This rate is about double that 73 percent for African American students to 94 percent for Asian Figure 3 students. As with test scores, Achievement Gaps Exist by Race/Ethnicity and Income differences exist even when taking Average Percentile Rank of Group on State Tests, Spring 2018 family income into account. For example, among non-low-income students, graduation rates still are highest for Asian students Low Income Group Average Non-Low Income and lowest for African American students. Non-low-income African African American 30th 34th 51st American students on average Latino 37th 40th 57th have the same graduation rate as low-income white students. White 47th 63rd 70th As the bottom part of Figure 4 Asian 57th 73rd 80th shows, 21 percent of African American students who graduated www.lao.ca.gov 5 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT of Latino and white students. Figure 4 Asian students, on average, are the least likely to be chronically African American Students Have Lowest Graduation Rates and Are Least Prepared for College/Career absent. African American students also are suspended at nearly Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rates, Class of 2018 twice the rate of Latino and white students and more than four times the rate of Asian students, Low Income Group Average Non-Low Income on average. Gaps on these measures exist even after taking African American 72% 73% 78% family income into account. For example, low-income African Latino 80%81% 86% American students have a notably White 78% 87% 92% higher chronic absenteeism rate than other low-income students. Asian 92% 94%96% OTHER Share of Group in Each Performance Category of College/Career Indicator, Class of 2018 ACHIEVEMENT GAPS Several Other Student African American Groups Also Have Relatively Low Test Scores. In spring 2018, average standardized test Latino scores of low-income students were at the 39th percentile of all White test takers. As a group, students with disabilities were at the 18th percentile. Data were not available Asian for foster youth and homeless youth, but given those populations are overwhelmingly low income, 20 40 60 80 100% they likely also had below-average Prepared Approaching Prepared Not Prepared test scores. Because of reclassification issues, we did not average the scores of English learners across all grade levels. prepared for college/career also is lower for all At any given grade, however, English learners have these student groups. For example, only 9 percent lower test scores. For example, in third grade, of students with disabilities and 10 percent of foster English learners’ average test scores were at the youth are deemed prepared for college/career, 27th percentile in English Language Arts and at the compared to 42 percent of all students. Moreover, 30th percentile in mathematics. all these student groups have lower college-going These Groups Also Tend to Have Lower rates than the overall population of students. (The Graduation and College/Career Readiness college/career indicator is a relatively stringent Rates. As Figure 5 shows, the graduation rate for measure of readiness compared to the actual all these student groups is lower than the average college-going rate.) Some of these student groups for all students. Foster youth have the lowest on some of these measures have notably worse graduation rate, with only about half graduating outcomes than African American students. within four years. The share of students deemed 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Foster Youth Have Highest Figure 5 Chronic Absenteeism and Several Other Student Groups Have Relatively Low Performance Suspension Rates. More than one-quarter of foster youth were Class of 2018 chronically absent in 2017-18— Share Deemed more than double the rate for all Four-Year Cohort “Prepared” for College-Going Graduation Rate College/Career Rate students. The chronic absenteeism rate for foster youth also was higher All students 83% 42% 64% than the rate for African American Low income 80 34 57 students (26 percent compared Homeless youth 69 24 50 Foster youth 53 10 48 to 20 percent, respectively). The English learners 68 15 42 suspension rate for foster youth Students with disabilities 66 9 45 is about five times higher than the rate for all students, while students with disabilities, and homeless youth also also being higher than the rate for are somewhat more likely to be suspended than the African American students. Low-income students, general population of students. EXISTING STATE EFFORTS TO NARROW GAPS Work Group Focused on School Factors. of these students also receive additional funding Achievement gaps are influenced by many factors through the LCFF concentration grant. As the outside and inside the education system. For figure shows, the state funds many other programs example, experts have suggested that family intended to support students with disabilities, characteristics, residential segregation, health low-income students, and low-performing disparities, public safety issues, and school quality students. It also funds several programs that all can influence achievement gaps. The work comprise the state’s current system of support for group, however, focused only on the school factors low-performing districts. This system consists of a that contribute to achievement gaps. Among network of experts at the county and state levels state agencies, only CDE was directed to be a designed to assist districts in their improvement part of the work group. Moreover, focusing only efforts. (We describe the system in more detail later on school factors made for a more manageable in this report.) scope of work for the group. Thus, in this section, All Districts Must Develop Plans for we focus specifically on the role of the state and Helping Low-Performing Students Improve. In federal governments in supporting schools, with a conjunction with establishing LCFF in 2013-14, particular emphasis on support for disadvantaged the state adopted a new system of accountability and low-performing students. for school districts. A core part of the new Significant Ongoing Funding Allocated for accountability system is a requirement that each Disadvantaged Students. As Figure 6 shows district develop a strategic plan known as a Local (see next page), California currently spends Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). Districts $15.2 billion annually to support disadvantaged must adopt an LCAP every three years and update or low-performing students. The single biggest the plan annually. State law specifies the various component of this spending is the $10 billion the groups (such as teachers and parents) that districts state allocates through the Local Control Funding must include in their planning process. In their Formula (LCFF) supplemental and concentration LCAPs, districts must identify their achievement grants. The LCFF supplemental grant is intended gaps, set performance goals, and track progress to benefit students who are low income, English toward meeting those goals. learners, or foster youth. Districts with a large share www.lao.ca.gov 7 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT State Has New System for Supporting School A district that is identified as low performing in any Districts With Low-Performing Students. In of these areas is to receive targeted support— developing its new accountability system, the state also known as Level 2 support, or differentiated moved to evaluating school district performance assistance —from its county office of education based upon multiple measures, including not only (COE), sometimes in consultation with other test scores and graduation rates but also chronic regional and state partners. For a district that has absenteeism and suspension rates, among others. persistent performance issues, CDE is currently Figure 6 Ongoing State Education Programs for Disadvantaged Students 2019-20, Ongoing Funding (In Millions) Program Description Amount Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Supplemental grants For every English learner or low-income (EL/LI) student, homeless youth, and foster youth, $6,400 provides supplemental funding equal to 20 percent of the base per-student LCFF grant. Concentration grants Provides additional funding for districts with more than 55 percent EL/LI enrollment. Each 3,584 EL/LI student above the threshold generates an additional 50 percent of the base LCFF grant. Subtotal ($9,984) Other Student Servicesa Special education/AB 602 Funds Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs) on a per-student basis. $3,421 State Preschool Funds part-day or full-day preschool for children from low-income families. 963 After School Education and Safety Funds before and after school programs, primarily for low-income children. 650 Foster Youth Services Provides range of wraparound services for foster youth to improve their educational 27 performance. Learning Communities for School Funds grants aimed at reducing truancy and supporting students who are at risk of dropping 19 Success Program out of school or are victims of a crime. California Student Opportunity Provides outreach to areas with low college-going rates. Program focuses on improving the 8 and Access Program availability of information about college and financial aid. Early Academic Outreach Funds a support program aimed at increasing college access for disadvantaged middle 7 Program school and high school students. Mathematics, Engineering, and Funds a support program focused on increasing the number of disadvantaged students 4b Science Achievement completing science, technology, engineering, or mathematics degrees. Puente Project Funds a support program for Latino and other underrepresented students, with a focus on 1b improving writing skills and increasing college participation. Subtotal ($5,101) State System of Support Support from county offices of Funds COEs to support low-performing districts. Funding is based on the number and size $75 education (COEs) of the low-performing districts within a county. Preschool Quality Rating and Funds evaluations and resources for State Preschool providers to help improve or maintain 50 Improvement System their program quality. California Collaborative for Provides support to geographic and SELPA leads to improve student outcomes. CCEE also 12 Educational Excellence (CCEE) can provide support directly to low-performing districts. SELPA leads Funds seven SELPAs to provide statewide assistance on improving special education 10 outcomes.c Geographic leads Funds nine COEs to provide assistance to other nearby COEs to train and assist them in 4 better supporting low-performing districts in their areas.d Subtotal ($151) Total $15,236 a Excludes some outreach programs administered by postsecondary institutions because funding information is not readily available. b Includes funding for high school and community college students. c El Dorado, Riverside, West San Gabriel, Marin, Placer, South, and Imperial. d Shasta, Sonoma, Placer, Sacramento, Alameda, Tulare, Kern, Riverside, and San Diego. 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT developing another tier of assistance—called a simplified illustration of the structure of the new Level 3 support, or intensive intervention. This system of support, outlining the basic roles of the level of intervention is likely to begin with CDE, the organizations involved at each level. California Collaborative for Educational Excellence State Has Funded Many One-Time Initiatives (CCEE), and other regional partners coming Focused on Improving Outcomes. Over the together to conduct a systemic review of the past five years, the state allocated a total of district’s instructional practices. Figure 7 provides $2.1 billion for numerous initiatives intended to Figure 7 California's System of Support School districts also may reach out to these organizations for additional support:a Community Engagement Lead Agency School Climate Lead Agency Equity Lead Agency Special Education Local Plan Area Resource Leads (7) English Learner Specialist Leads (11) California School Leadership Academy Educator Workforce Investment Institutions Statewide Early Math Initiative State CDE and CCEE work primarily with lead COEs. In certain cases, they may support low-performing districts directly. Regional Leads (9) Lead COEs support other COEs in their regions. County Offices of Education (58) COEs review district Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) and help districts develop and implement improvement plans. School Districts (944) School districts develop their LCAPs, which contain performance goals and strategies. a Reflects select list of state and federally funded initiatives. Is not an exhaustive list of all support providers. CDE = California Department of Education; CCEE = California Collaborative for Educational Excellence; and COEs = county offices of education. www.lao.ca.gov 9 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT benefit disadvantaged students (Figure 8). Among partnerships. One of these initiatives created a new these initiatives, seven focused on improving state-funded Center to Close Achievement Gaps. services for students. These particular initiatives State Piloted a Block Grant for included efforts to increase college-readiness at Low-Performing Students. Among the largest certain high schools, provide additional support of the one-time initiatives that the state funded for refugee students, and better coordinate over this period was the Low-Performing Students services for foster youth. Another seven programs Block Grant. The state provided $300 million for focused on professional development, with a this initiative in 2018-19, with districts allowed focus on improving the effectiveness of teachers, to use the funding through 2020-21. Districts administrators, and counselors, including those qualified for grant funding if they had students involved in preschool. The remaining seven who were both low performing and not generating programs included a variety of special initiatives, LCFF supplemental funding or special education including those designed to improve school climate, funding. Districts are required to report how they community engagement, and intersegmental spent their grant funding, but the report is not due to the Legislature until November 2021. In our Figure 8 One-Time State Education Initiatives for Disadvantaged Students 2015-16 Through 2019-20 (In Millions) Years Total Initiative Description Fundeda Fundingb Student Services Preschool-aged children with disabilities Funds special education services for children ages three and four. 2019-20 $493 Low-Performing Students Block Grant Funded LEAs serving students identified as low performing but not 2018-19 300 eligible for LCFF supplemental funds or special education services. College Readiness Block Grant Provided high school students, especially EL/LI students, with 2016-17 200 additional support to increase college going. Early Education Expansion Grant Aimed to increase access to early learning and care for children with 2018-19 167 disabilities. College outreach Funds outreach to high schools having at least 75 percent of their 2016-17, 26 students classified as EL/LI. Outreach focuses on promoting college 2019-20 going among low-income and underrepresented students. Expanded refugee student services Allocated grants to districts serving a notable number of refugee 2017-18 10 students to provide additional support services. First Star foster youth Funds support services for one cohort of high school foster youth 2019-20 1 living in the CSU Sacramento area over a four-year period. Subtotal ($1,196) Staff Development Educator Effectiveness Block Grant Supported broad range of training activities (including implementing 2015-16 $490 state standards) for beginning teachers, veteran teachers, administrators, and counselors. Child care/preschool workforce Funds grants to increase the number and educational attainment of 2019-20 195 child care/preschool staff ($150 million in state funds, $45 million in federal funds). Educator Workforce Investment Grant Funds professional development for teachers and instructional aides 2019-20 37 (includes $10 million for EL training and $5 million for special education training). Multi-Tiered System of Support Provided statewide resources and training focused on improving 2015-16, 30 students’ academic and behavioral supports. 2016-17 (Continued) 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT conversations with districts, districts have indicated Within ESSA and IDEA, the federal government they are spending their grants for summer school, funds several programs specifically designed tutoring, and wraparound support. to help low-performing districts improve their Federal Funding Supports Many of the academic practices. The federal government also Same Purposes as State Funding. In addition funds Head Start, which is designed to ensure to state funding, the federal government funds many children from low-income families receive many education programs on an ongoing basis additional support in their preschool years. Though that are focused on addressing poor student ESSA, IDEA, and Head Start are relatively large performance and poverty (Figure 9, see next federal grant programs, together they amount to page). Most notably, the federal government only about one-third of what the state provides for supports supplemental educational services for disadvantaged students. low-income students through the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and supports students with disabilities through the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Years Total Initiative Description Fundeda Fundingb Staff Development (continued) CCEE training Funded training for school staff, parents, and community members 2016-17 $20 on school performance data and how to assess LEA strengths and weaknesses. Technology training Funded training, technical assistance, and resources to help districts 2015-16 10 address their technology needs. Dyslexia training Funds two initiatives focused on improving diagnosis and support for 2019-20 10 students with dyselxia. Subtotal ($792) Other School Climate Initiative Supported information gathering and efforts to improve school 2018-19 $15 climate. Intersegmental College Success Funded grants to help community colleges establish or expand 2016-17 15 Partnerships partnerships with school districts and public universities, with the goal of improving college preparation, participation, and success. Community Engagement Initiative Funded efforts to facilitate and improve school district and COE 2018-19 13 community engagement. Education Innovation Grants Provides grants to establish high school/college partnerships to 2019-20 10 improve alignment between programs, raise college-going rates, and increase college completion in the San Joaquin and Inland Empire regions. CCEE pilot program Funded pilot intended to identify effective ways to support 2016-17 10 low-performing districts in their improvement efforts. Center to Close Achievement Gaps Funds a center charged with identifying and disseminating best 2019-20 3 practices regarding narrowing student achievement gaps. Equity Performance and Improvement Aimed at helping LEAs narrow their student achievement gaps. 2017-18 3 Subtotal ($69) Total $2,075 a Reflects year in which relevant budget package was adopted. In some cases, funds were scored to a previous fiscal year. b Consists of all state funding provided over life of initiative. LEAs = local education agencies; LCFF = Local Control Funding Formula; EL/LI = English learner or low income; CCEE = California Collaborative for Educational Excellence; and COE = county office of education. www.lao.ca.gov 11 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Figure 9 Ongoing Federal Education Programs for Disadvantaged Students 2019-20 (In Millions) Program Description Amount Every Student Succeeds Act Local grants to address poverty Funds LEAs to provide supplemental services to low-income students. Funds must $1,826 supplement initiatives supported with state funds, as reflected in the LEA’s LCAP. Supporting Effective Instruction Supports efforts of LEAs to provide low-income and disadvantaged students with greater 212 Local Grants access to experienced, effective educators. Language acquisition local grants Funds LEAs to support English learners. 142 School support and improvement Provides funds to develop and implement school improvement plans. Plans must be 127 aligned with the LEA’s LCAP. Migrant education local grants Funds education programs for migrant children to help them meet academic achievement 108 standards. 21st Century California School Funds professional development for principals and other school leaders. Priority may be 14 Leadership Academy given to low-performing districts. Statewide System of School Support Funds COEs to support schools identified as low performing. 10 McKinney-Vento Homeless Children Funds LEAs to provide homeless youth with a range of academic and support services. 10 Education Migrant education state-level Provides training to teachers in working with migrant students as well as tutorial services 9 activities to migrant students. Rural and Low-Income Schools Provides rural districts with financial assistance for initiatives aimed at improving student 4 Grant achievement. Regional English learner support Funds 11 COEs to support LEAs in serving English learners. These COEs are to provide 2 support to English learners in a manner consistent with the statewide system of support. Neglected and Delinquent Children Funds LEAs to improve educational services, prevent dropout, and promote successful 1 transitions for delinquent, neglected, or at-risk youth. Subtotal ($2,465) Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Special education local grants Funds LEAs to cover the additional costs of educating students with disabilities. $1,163 State-level activities Funds a variety of activities designed to improve the performance of students with 81 disabilities. Preschool grants Funds special education services for children with disabilities ages three through five. 39 Family Empowerment Centers Provides information, training, and peer support to the families of children and young 3 adults with disabilities. State Improvement Grant Funds projects to assist the state in improving educational and other services for children 2 with disabilities. Subtotal ($1,288) Head Start for School Readiness Act Head Start Funds preschool, home visits, and other support for children of low-income families. $1,185 (Amount shown is for 2018-19.) Total $4,938 LEAs = local education agencies; LCAP = Local Control and Accountability Plan; and COEs = county offices of education. 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT ASSESSMENT Assessment Hones in on a Handful of Key using. Some work group members also were Concerns. This section highlights key concerns concerned that information on achievement gaps emerging from the work group discussions. This could be hard to find within districts’ LCAPs. They section is not intended as a comprehensive expressed interest in making these plans more account of everything discussed in the work group, user-friendly. nor is it intended to be an exhaustive list of all the School Leadership Is Key, but Leadership potential shortcomings of California’s system of Training Might Be Lacking. Districts that have supporting schools and narrowing achievement narrowed achievement gaps typically have gaps. Instead, this section reflects our view of the benefited from several consecutive years of five most significant concerns raised during the sustained, concerted efforts. Studies find that work group sessions. stable, experienced school district leadership Linking Funding Directly to Low-Performing is key to providing such continuity. In contrast, Students Has Several Drawbacks. Many in many of the districts that struggle with persistent the work group expressed a set of concerns achievement gaps experience high turnover at the with the Low-Performing Students Block Grant. top, such that they lack administrators with local One concern was with its basic design, which expertise and demonstrated commitment to the allocated funding based upon students who were long-term plans that preceded them. These districts low performing but did not take into account also often lack school leaders who know how longstanding student achievement gaps. Notably, to use student performance data to inform their as a result of this design, approximately one-third improvement efforts. Building upon many earlier of the block grant funds went to non-low-income efforts to improve school leadership, the state white students. Some in the work group also created the California School Leadership Academy expressed concern that linking funding to in 2019-20, providing $13.8 million in ongoing poor student performance might be perceived federal funding for it. Similar to prior efforts, the as an inappropriate reward. Furthermore, the core objective of the new academy is to train effectiveness of the grant may have been principals, school administrators, teacher leaders, undermined by its one-time nature, especially given and mentors such that they can lead successful the persistence of the longstanding achievement school improvement efforts. It is still too early to gaps it desired to address. As we discuss in the know if the new academy improves upon the state’s “Legislative Options” section of this report, we past efforts in this area. believe the state has more promising ways of Review of LCAPs Focuses on Compliance supporting districts with poor student performance. Rather Than Improving Services. State law tasks Achievement Gap Information Could Be COEs with reviewing whether districts fill out the Made Easier to Access. Members of the work LCAP template correctly, but it does not require group also expressed concern that data on student COEs to do a qualitative review of district LCAPs. achievement gaps can be difficult to access. That is, COEs are not tasked with assessing if Although the California School Dashboard contains districts have ascertained their most pressing information on performance by student group, performance issues, identified promising strategies progress in narrowing gaps is not prominently for improving their performance, and made displayed. Moreover, members of the work group budget decisions that are well aligned with their thought that some districts might benefit from improvement plans. Instead, state law tasks COEs having easier access to a list of districts that primarily with a compliance role—ensuring that the had made significant progress in narrowing their required tasks are undertaken even if undertaken achievement gaps, along with information on the poorly. key improvement strategies those districts were www.lao.ca.gov 13 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT While New Systems Are Put in Place, Poor were concerned with the quality of education that Performance Persists. Many members of the children in those districts were receiving year after work group expressed frustration that the state year. The group wondered if the state might have had tried so many accountability and improvement more effective options for dealing with these kinds strategies, but some districts persisted in having of districts. long track records of poor performance. They LEGISLATIVE OPTIONS Four Options Appear Most Promising for point for legislative deliberations. If the Legislature the State Moving Forward. After identifying were interested in pursuing one or more of the shortcomings with the state’s current efforts options, more work would be needed to reconvene to narrow student achievement gaps, the work the affected agencies and craft detailed legislative group turned to considering possible options for proposals. Careful scrutiny and time would be addressing them. We believe four of the options needed to ensure the proposals consider all key discussed are particularly promising. Figure 10 lists facets of the issues involved and avoid negative these options, which we discuss in more detail unintended consequences. below. We generally ordered the options from Require Certain Achievement Gap Information the one requiring the least to greatest amount of Be Made More Readily Available. At a minimum, time and cost to implement. We encourage the state law could require that CDE display certain Legislature to consider adopting all four options achievement gap data in a more prominent way. as a package, but the options could be pursued For example, state law could require CDE to post individually. The options are intended as a starting the progress of the state and each district in Figure 10 Summary of Four Options 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT narrowing student achievement gaps over the past or negative (borrowing terms COEs already use to five years. In addition to this data, the site might review district budgets). A poor LCAP rating would profile districts with particularly good outcomes— trigger more COE support for the district. Such an those that have made significant progress in approach would make COEs’ role in instructional narrowing their achievement gaps—along with oversight somewhat more analogous to their role in contact information for the districts’ improvement fiscal oversight. Though we think this is a promising leads. Knowing which districts are performing well option for the Legislature to consider, we note that could help other districts identify where to go for COEs vary in their capacity and expertise to review help. The site also could include ready access plans. Nonetheless, especially given new support to information about the improvement strategies from geographic COE leads, we think LCAP review adopted by districts making good progress so standards could make the review process more that other districts could learn more easily about meaningful. Another perceived disadvantage of what might work for them. Beyond making this this option is that COEs have difficulty balancing information available on CDE’s website, the state their oversight and support functions, but this is might revisit whether any improvements should a common issue among all entities tasked with be made to LCAPs. Though several state efforts management-type functions. Many entities find have been undertaken to make LCAPs more constructive ways to fulfill both functions. user-friendly, and the latest round of refinements Support Intensive Intervention in Districts was approved just earlier this year, some work With Persistent Achievement Gaps. Though group members wondered if further improvements the state has a crisis assistance program for still might be in order. districts that are fiscally distressed, it has no Monitor Implementation of New California comparable program for districts with poor School Leadership Academy. Given the academic performance. Under the fourth work importance of school leadership to school group option, the Legislature would establish such improvement efforts, the Legislature could closely a program for districts with significant achievement monitor the results from the new California School gaps that have not narrowed over time (despite Leadership Academy. State law directs the CCEE multiple improvement efforts undertaken over the to evaluate the effectiveness of the academy but years). The CCEE would provide these types of contains no detail about what CCEE is to track or districts with intensive intervention and include when the evaluation is due. The Legislature could the applicable COE in the improvement redesign specify these details. If signs then emerge that process. The CCEE estimates it could cost as the academy might have shortcomings in certain much as $1.5 million per year for three years to areas, the Legislature could seek to rectify them work with one of these districts. With that funding, through subsequent legislation. For example, if the involved groups (CCEE, COE, and the district) recent graduates from the academy report that would undertake a comprehensive improvement they still lack proficiency in using data to assess redesign and realign core spending decisions within achievement gaps, the academy could be directed the district such that the district uses its ongoing to place a greater emphasis on training in this area. funding more effectively. Create Standards for COE Review of LCAPs. Establish Key Elements of Academic Crisis Under this option, the Legislature would direct Assistance Program. If the Legislature were to CDE, CCEE, and the COE geographic leads to pursue this fourth option, we suggest making the develop a set of LCAP review standards. For program voluntary, as past state efforts to impose example, COEs could be tasked with examining change on unwilling districts appear to have had the link between a district’s identified achievement little positive effect. To this end, the state could gaps and its strategies for addressing them. Based accept qualifying districts into the program on upon a holistic review of the district using the new a first-come, first-served basis. We suggest the review standards, a COE could assign a qualitative program focus on a small set of districts (for rating to the LCAP—for example, positive, qualified, example, no more than ten). Keeping the number www.lao.ca.gov 15 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT of districts small could help all the involved groups Legislature would need to consider which of the devote the attention needed to undertaking involved groups to hold accountable if improvement intensive intervention without spreading their efforts does not occur after three to five years. It also too thin. We also suggest thinking very carefully would need to consider how to enforce whatever about accountability under the program. The accountability provisions are established. CONCLUSION Encourage Legislature to Consider New to provide crisis assistance to a small number of Policies Carefully. If the Legislature is interested in the lowest performing districts who have signaled pursuing any of the options laid out in this report or a willingness both to work with supportive partners proposed by the Governor, we encourage it to take and change their spending habits could be the the time needed to work carefully through all major intervention strategy that finally helps them narrow policy and implementation issues, with the potential their achievement gaps. In contrast, using one-time goal of having corresponding legislation adopted funding so districts can provide summer school for within the next couple of years. We encourage the only a year or two might have no sustained effect. Legislature to pay particular attention to how it uses Whatever one-time initiative or set of initiatives both ongoing and one-time funding in this context. the Legislature ultimately pursues, we think it is For example, some one-time initiatives could have critically important that districts be required to very large payoff whereas others could have no fundamentally rethink how they use their existing lasting effect. For example, using one-time funding funds on an ongoing basis. 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT www.lao.ca.gov 17 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Ned Resnikoff and reviewed by Jennifer Pacella and Anthony Simbol. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE