The 2023-24 Budget: Equity Multiplier and Accountability Proposals

2023-24 BUDGET The 2023-24 Budget: Equity Multiplier and Accountability Proposals GABRIEL PETEK | LEGISLATIVE ANALYST | FEBRUARY 2023 SUMMARY Governor’s Package Intended to Increase Funding for Highest-Poverty Schools, Improve Outcomes for Low-Performing Schools and Subgroups. The Governor’s budget includes $300 million ongoing for the highest-poverty schools, which must be used to supplement, not supplant, existing spending. The proposed budget also includes several changes related to Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) that are intended to bring greater attention to the highest-poverty schools, as well as low-performing schools and student subgroups. Finally, the proposed budget includes several modifications to the support provided to districts and county offices of education (COEs) identified in need of assistance. Additional Funding Is Not the Key Issue, Recommend Rejecting Funding Increase. We find that more attention to school sites and subgroups is warranted. Initial studies evaluating the effectiveness of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) have shown evidence that additional funding has led to improved outcomes for districts with larger shares of supplemental and concentration funding, but has not resulted in the same levels of improvement for the lowest-performing schools or subgroups within districts. However, it is not clear how the additional funding from the equity multiplier would address any specific issues that cannot be addressed with LCFF supplemental and concentration funding. We find that the key issue is increasing transparency to ensure existing funding actually targets the highest-need schools and student subgroups. We recommend the Legislature consider options to provide greater transparency regarding how funding is spent across schools. In particular, we recommend using the number of teachers, teacher experience, and teacher qualifications as a proxy. We also recommend the Legislature clarify whether supplemental and concentration grant funding can be used to target low-performing racial groups. In our conversations with several school districts and COEs, we found differing opinions regarding whether this was allowable. Proposed LCAP Changes Have Merit, but Will Make LCAPs Longer. We find the Governor’s proposed LCAP changes would bring greater attention to lower performing schools and subgroups. We recommend a few minor modifications to these proposals to bring greater attention to the issues of teacher qualifications and experience. Although these proposed changes have merit, they likely will make LCAPs—documents that are typically over 100 pages—even longer. Moving forward, the Legislature could consider changes that would streamline the LCAP so it’s more accessible to families and communities, while moving key details to other more appropriate mediums. Governor’s Proposals Would Improve System of Support, but Further Changes Needed. The Governor’s budget proposes notable improvements to the system of support by specifying when a district is to receive support from its geographic lead or the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE). These changes would help ensure local education agencies (LEAs) receive support from other entities involved in the system, which is particularly important in cases where little to no improvement has occurred. To ensure assistance is well targeted and builds upon the district’s previous work, we recommend further defining the type of support geographic leads will provide to LEAs when in differentiated assistance for three or more years. With regard to the proposed new equity lead, we question how this support will be different or more effective than other assistance provided through existing system of support entities. If the Legislature adopts the proposal, we recommend clearer and narrower objectives for these entities to avoid duplication of effort across the system of support. We also recommend the Legislature clarify that all the entities within the system of support (not just the equity leads) should be supporting districts in addressing its racial disparities. www.lao.ca.gov 1 2023-24 BUDGET INTRODUCTION In 2013, the state created LCFF with the goal of funding increase, within the state’s constitutional simplifying school funding and distributing funding requirement for schools under Proposition 98, for based on student demographics. In conjunction high-poverty schools. The budget also includes with creating the LCFF, the state established a several changes to the system of transparency and new system of transparency and accountability accountability. In this brief, we provide background that requires local planning and provides support on these issues, describe the Governor’s proposals to districts with low-performing student groups. in more detail, and provided our comments related The Governor’s budget proposes an ongoing to these proposals. BACKGROUND Student Demographics and student groups. For example, 46 percent of non-low-income 8th graders met or exceeded Outcomes the state standards for math, compared with Almost Six in Ten California Students Are 18 percent of low-income students. Significant Identified as Low Income. In 2021-22, 58 percent disparities also exist in the outcomes of different of California’s public school students were eligible racial groups. As Figure 2 shows, these disparities to receive a free or reduced price school meal between racial groups exist even when accounting through the National School Lunch Program. for income. In fact, the share of low-income white States frequently use this eligibility measure as an students that met or exceeded state standards in indicator of a student coming from a low-income math (25 percent) is slightly higher than the share family. Free meal eligibility is for students from for non-low-income Black students (23 percent). families earning no more than 130 percent of Similar disparities exist in English language arts the federal poverty level ($36,000 for a family of and at other grade levels. four). Reduced price eligibility is for students from families earning no more than 185 percent of the federal poverty level ($51,000 for a Figure 1 family of four). Racial Make-Up of California's Students More Than Half of California Students Are Latino. As Figure 1 shows, 56 percent of California public school students Latino are Latino, while roughly one in five are White white. The next largest groups are Asian (9 percent) and Black students (5 percent). Asian The remaining groups each represent Black less than 5 percent of the state’s student Two or More Races population. Compared with the rest of the nation, California has relatively higher Filipino shares of Latino and Asian students, and Native American smaller shares of white and Black students. Pacific Islander Significant Disparities in Education Outcomes by Income and Race. 10 20 30 40 50 60% The state has significant disparities Note: 1 percent of students did not report. in the education outcomes of various 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2023-24 BUDGET Figure 2 Significant Disparities in Student Achievement Percent of Students That Met or Exceeded Standards in 8th Grade Math 90% 80 Non-low-income 70 Low-Income 60 50 40 30 20 10 Asian Filipino White Two or More Pacific Islander Latino Native American Black Races Significant Disparities in Other Indicators. Disparities based on income and race exist Figure 3 for essentially all indicators the state collects. Components of LCFF for For the cohort of students that entered high School Districts and Charter Schools school in fall 2017, 35 percent of low-income students graduated having completed the 2022-23 (In Billions) minimum coursework required for eligibility into the University of California or California State Add-Ons $1.7 University. This compares with 62 percent of those Concentration $5.4 who are not low income. The state also has large disparities in suspension rates, where rates for Supplemental $7.4 Black and Native American students are more than twice the state average. Local Control Funding Formula LCFF Is State’s Primary Funding Formula for Schools. The LCFF is the primary source of funding for school districts, charter schools, and COEs, referred to as LEAs. The formula for school districts and charter schools consists of Base $59.8 base, supplemental, and concentration grants, as well as several smaller add-ons. (The formula for COEs also includes funding that is intended for COEs to monitor and assist school districts in a variety of ways.) LEAs pay for most of their general operating expenses (including employee salaries and benefits, supplies, and student services) using these funds. Decisions regarding how funds will be spent, including how funding is allocated Note: Does not include LCFF for county offices of education. across school sites, are made by local governing LCFF = Local Control Funding Formula. boards. As Figure 3 shows, in 2022-23, the state is estimated to spend more than $74 billion on LCFF www.lao.ca.gov 3 2023-24 BUDGET for school districts and charter schools. (The state If districts choose to use supplemental funding for also is providing more than $1 billion for COEs.) a schoolwide or districtwide purpose, they must We describe the three major components for school explain how this approach will benefit districts and charter schools below. EL/LI students. • Base Grants. The base grant provides Other Targeted Spending per-student funding that varies by grade State Receives Federal Funding to Provide span. This includes two grade span to Certain Student Groups. In addition to state adjustments—one for smaller class sizes in funding, the federal government provides ongoing grades K-3 and one to acknowledge costs funding for several education programs focused of providing career technical education in on addressing poor student performance and high schools. Beginning in 2022-23, this also poverty. Most notably, the federal government includes additional funding for students in supports supplemental educational services for transitional kindergarten. EL/LI students through the federal Every Student • Supplemental Grants. School districts Succeeds Act (ESSA). Within ESSA, the federal and charter schools receive an additional government provides $1.9 billion in Title I, Part A 20 percent of the adjusted base grant rate for funding for supporting low-income students, each student that is an English learner, low $143 million in Title III funding to support English income, or foster youth. (In the remainder of learners, and $133 million to support schools this brief, we refer to these students as with the lowest academic performance and EL/LI students.) A student who belongs to two with low graduation rates. During the pandemic, or more of these subgroups generates the the federal government also provided a total of same funding rate as a student who belongs $21 billion in one-time federal relief funding for to only one of these subgroups. schools. This funding can be used for a variety of • Concentration Grants. Each EL/LI student activities, including for distance learning, costs above 55 percent of enrollment generates associated with COVID-19, and supplementing an additional 65 percent of the adjusted funding for activities funded with federal education base rate. dollars (such as supporting EL/LI students). LEAs Must Use Supplemental and For the majority of these funds, LEAs have until Concentration Grant Funding to Increase or September 30, 2024 to commit the funds to Improve Services. Base grant funding can be specific activities. used by LEAs for any educational purpose. LEAs State Has Funded Variety of One-Time Grants must use their supplemental and concentration to Improve Student Outcomes. In recent years, grant funding to proportionally increase or the state has funded several initiatives intended improve services for their EL/LI students, relative to improve outcomes for various student groups. to the base amount of funding they receive. Most notably, the state provided $7.9 billion in Statute also allows districts to use supplemental one-time funding in 2022-23 for a learning recovery and concentration funding on a districtwide or grant that supports academic learning recovery schoolwide basis. The State Board of Education and the social and emotional well-being of students (SBE) is required to develop regulations and staff. Funding was distributed to LEAs based implementing these provisions. The existing on their number of EL/LI students. In 2018-19, the regulations allow districts to reflect their increase state provided $300 million for the Low-Performing or improvement in services in quantitative or Students Block Grant. Districts received funding if qualitative ways. Districts must report the total they had students who were both low performing amount of supplemental and concentration funding and not generating LCFF supplemental funding they expect to receive, as well as describe how they or special education funding. The state also plan to use their supplemental and concentration provided $2.5 million in 2017-18 for the California funding to principally benefit EL/LI students. Equity Performance and Improvement Program 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2023-24 BUDGET which provided grants to build capacity in LEAs LEAs Must Adopt LCAPs That Set Goals and school sites to implement evidence-based and Specify Actions. To provide transparency programs and practices targeted at improving regarding how LCFF funding is spent, the state outcomes for low-performing student subgroups. requires LEAs to develop and adopt LCAPs every The state has provided one-time funding for three years and update the plan annually, with various other activities, including efforts to increase specific requirements for stakeholder engagement. college readiness at certain high schools, provide LEAs must use a template developed by SBE additional support for refugee students, and better for their LCAP. In their LCAPs, LEAs must set coordinate services for foster youth. goals in the eight state priority areas and specify actions they will take to meet these goals. The Transparency and Accountability plans must also include specific metrics for System Based on State Priority Areas tracking their progress in meeting the established and Associated Performance Measures. goals. (In addition to the required state and local In conjunction with creating the LCFF, the state measures, LEAs may include other performance established a new system of transparency and measures in their LCAPs.) For any actions accountability centered around eight state described in an LCAP, the LEA must also include priority areas. Statute directs SBE to address funding for this purpose in its adopted budget. many implementation details, including setting specific performance measures in the state priority areas. The priority areas and associated Figure 4 measures are shown in Figure 4. State Priority Areas and Some priority areas focus on Associated Performance Measures academic success (such as State Local student achievement and course Measure Measure access), while others address Basic Conditions of Learning issues outside of academics Access to instructional materials, appropriately assigned X (such as parental involvement teachers, and facility conditions and school climate). Seven of Implementation of State Standards the performance measures are Implementation of academic standards X metrics where the state requires Parent Engagement data to be consistently collected Parent and family engagement X and reported. The remaining six Student Achievement measures are local indicators English Language Arts assessment X Mathematics assessment X for which LEAs report locally English learner progress X developed metrics or qualitative College and career readiness X information describing their Student Engagement progress in the priority area. In High school graduation rate X addition to the measures listed in Chronic absenteeism X the figure, COEs are required to School Climate report information on two additional Suspension rate X local measures—coordination Local climate survey X of services for foster youth and Course Access coordination of services for Access to a broad course of study X expelled students. Other Student Outcomes —a X a The state has not adopted specific indicators that districts must use for this priority area. Districts may choose to include specific measures as part of their local planning process. www.lao.ca.gov 5 2023-24 BUDGET COEs Must Review and Approve a School performance levels on the 2022 dashboard are only District’s LCAP. Each district must submit its based on performance on the most recent year of LCAP to its COE for review. The COE must approve data. (Due to these data issues, the College and a district’s LCAP if it determines that (1) the LCAP Career Indicator is not available in 2022.) adheres to the required template, (2) the district’s Dashboard Used to Identify Districts and budgeted expenditures are sufficient to implement COEs in Need of “Differentiated Assistance.” the strategies outlined in the LCAP, and (3) the Districts and COEs are identified for differentiated LCAP adheres to the expenditure requirements for assistance based on the performance of their supplemental and concentration funding. As part of student subgroups. Under current practice, a its review, the COE can then seek clarification from district or COE enters differentiated assistance the district about the contents of its LCAP. If a COE if they have at least one student group that has seeks such clarification, a district must respond in received the lowest performance level in two or writing. Based on a district’s response, the COE more priority areas. In 2022, 628 districts and COEs can submit recommendations for amendments were identified for differentiated assistance. The to the LCAP back to the district. The district most common student group for which districts must consider any COE recommendations at a and COEs were identified was students with public hearing, but the district is not required to disabilities. Once a district is identified, it receives make changes to its plan. The annual deadline assistance from its COE. (Identified COEs receive for approval or rejection of a district’s LCAP by a assistance from either CDE, a consortium of COEs, COE is October 8. The California Department of or another COE.) The COE is to do one of three Education (CDE) must review and approve each things: (1) conduct a “root cause” analysis to assess COE’s LCAP, following a similar process used to a district’s strengths and weaknesses and identify review and approve district LCAPs. Charter schools the primary causes of its performance issues, are not required to have their LCAPs reviewed and (2) secure an academic, programmatic, or fiscal approved by a COE. expert, or (3) ask for assistance from CCEE, which State Displays School Performance Through we discuss below. The state provides COEs with California School Dashboard. The state publicly additional funding for their differentiated assistance displays achievement on the performance activities through a formula based in part on measures on a website known as the California the number of districts in need of assistance. School Dashboard. Performance is shown for In 2022-23, the state provided COEs $70 million for each LEA and school. In addition, performance this purpose. for each LEA and school is disaggregated by up to 13 student subgroups. (Figure 5.) For homeless Figure 5 and foster youth, performance data is shown Student Subgroups for if it includes 15 or more students. For all other Which Outcome Data Is Reported subgroups, performance data is shown if it is at Racial Subgroups least 30 or more students. The dashboard was first Asian made available in fall 2017 and was intended to be Black updated annually. However, the state suspended Filipino these annual updates in 2020 and 2021 given much Latino of this data was not collected due to the pandemic. Native American Pacific Islander Dashboard Uses Five Performance Levels. Two or more races For each performance indicator shown by LEA, White school, or subgroup, the dashboard assigns one of Other Subgroups five performance levels. Prior to the pandemic, the English learners Foster youth performance levels were based on a combination of Homeless youth overall status and growth in the measure. Because Socioeconomically disadvantaged the state did not collect data in 2020 and 2021, Students with disabilities 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2023-24 BUDGET Other Regional and Statewide Entities provides training, collaborates with COEs, and Provide Support to Districts. In addition to directly supports identified districts. The state COEs, several other regional and statewide entities provides $12.4 million annually for CCEE. are tasked with supporting districts identified for Superintendent May Intervene Under differentiated assistance. Certain Circumstances. State law authorizes • Geographic Leads. Nine COEs serve as the state Superintendent of Public Instruction geographic lead agencies. In this role, COEs (SPI) to intervene in a school district or COE that are to help build capacity of other COEs is persistently underperforming. Specifically, within their region to effectively provide the SPI may intervene if (1) an LEA has been differentiated assistance. Geographic leads in differentiated assistance for three or more are also to identify existing resources and subgroups for three out of four consecutive develop new resources in collaboration with years and (2) CCEE has provided assistance but CDE and CCEE, and directly support identified continued inadequate performance or failure to districts when requested by a district or COE. implement recommendations requires the SPI’s The state provides $4 million annually for the intervention. The SPI’s intervention may include geographic leads. making changes to the LCAP, imposing a budget • Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) revision, staying or rescinding an action, or Leads. Three SELPAs serve as “system appointing an academic trustee. improvement leads” to support and build Differentiated Assistance Recently Evaluated. capacity for SELPAs and LEAs to improve In 2021, the state provided $400,000 for CDE to outcomes for students with disabilities. Four contract for an evaluation of the state’s system different SELPAs serve as content leads of differentiated assistance, which was released that support SELPAs to build capacity in January 2023. The authors report that differentiated specific areas. For example, Placer County assistance shows early signs of improving student SELPA provides support to SELPAs regarding outcomes, but has room for improvement. The assistive technology (and a few other areas). report made several recommendations to improve The state provides $10 million annually for differentiated assistance, such as extending these leads. support from one year to two and developing a • CCEE. CCEE advises and assists school multiyear structure for districts that get identified districts, COEs, and charter schools in year after year. achieving their LCAP goals. In practice, CCEE GOVERNOR’S PROPOSALS The Governor’s budget includes a package of 85 percent or more of their students qualify for proposals intended to provide additional funding free meals. Funding would be based on prior-year for high-poverty schools and improve outcomes for enrollment, with no school receiving less than low-performing schools and student groups. We $50,000. LEAs must use this funding for services describe these in more detail below. and supports that directly benefit the school sites Provides $300 Million Ongoing Proposition 98 that generate the funding. Beginning in 2024-25, Funding for an “Equity Multiplier.” This funding the state would apply the same annual cost-of-living will be allocated to LEAs based on enrollment at adjustment provided to other K-12 education high-poverty schools. Specifically, LEAs will receive programs. Trailer bill language specifies equity funding for elementary and middle schools where multiplier funding must be used to supplement, not 90 percent or more students qualify for free meals supplant, the funding already provided to eligible under the federal requirements for the National school sites. School Lunch Program, and for high schools where www.lao.ca.gov 7 2023-24 BUDGET Makes Several Changes to LCAPs and Creates an Equity Lead in System of Support. Adoption Process. The Governor proposes Through a competitive process, CDE and CCEE several changes to the content of LCAPs and their would identify two to four LEAs across the state adoption process. The proposals are described to serve as equity leads. Equity leads will prioritize in Figure 6. These changes are intended to working with LEAs with schools receiving equity bring greater attention to equity multiplier multiplier funding. These entities are to support schools, low-performing schools and subgroups, LEAs through activities such as identifying barriers and to connect the LCAP with activities in to meeting the needs of students, identifying differentiated assistance. resources to address disparities, and monitoring Makes Changes to Differentiated Assistance the impact of LCAP goals. Although no funding and System of Support. The Governor’s budget is included in the Governor’s January budget for includes several modifications to differentiated the equity lead, the administration has indicated assistance, such as changing the amount of time a funding will be included as part of the May Revision. district eligible for differentiated assistance receives support and specifying when the geographic lead and CCEE are to support a district. Figure 7 describes these changes in more detail. Figure 6 Proposed Changes to LCAPs Category Current Requirements Proposed New Requirements LCAP updates Adopt an LCAP every three years in a public Present a midyear report on the LCAP to the governing hearing and update annually on or before board, no later than February 28. Report must include a July 1. midyear update for metrics identified in the current LCAP and midyear expenditure and implementation data on all actions identified in the LCAP. Goals Develop a goal specific to a student subgroup if Replace current requirements for specific goals with the district or COE has been in differentiated focused goals. Develop focused goals for: (1) schools assistance for three or more consecutive years receiving equity multiplier funding; (2) schools that based on that student subgroup. received the lowest performance level based on one or more state indicators; and (3) student subgroups that Develop a goal specific to a school site if, for two received the lowest performance level based on one or consecutive years, (1) the school received the more state indicators, either LEA-wide or at a school. two lowest performance levels on all but one of the applicable state indicators on the California Focused goals for equity multiplier schools must be specific School Dashboard and (2) the performance to improving performance for low performing student level of the LEA is at least one performance subgroups and addressing any issues with teacher level higher on all of those indicators. credentialing and preparation. Actions Review progress towards meeting goals specified Change actions that have not been effective towards in LCAPs. Assess the effectiveness of actions meeting their intended goal over a three year period. taken and describe any changes to actions as a result of the review and assessment. LEA-wide actions Provide additional justification for allocating Identify one or more specific metrics to monitor the supplemental and concentration grant funding intended outcome of actions and budgeted expenditures on a districtwide, charterwide, or countywide at the districtwide, charterwide, and countywide level. basis. Must show that funding is used to improve or increase services for students. Summary of None. Include summary of differentiated assistance activities in differentiated LCAP. assistance LCAPs = Local Control and Accountability Plans and LEA = local education agency. 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2023-24 BUDGET Figure 7 Proposed Changes to the System of Support Current Requirements Proposed Changes Duration of Eligibility for assistance is determined Once eligible, assistance is provided for at least two years, differentiated annually, based on most recent data. even if improvement occurs after one year. assistance Differentiated Can include a review of performance data to Also can include review of most recent LCAP. assistance activities identify effective, evidence-based programs or practices to address any areas of weakness. Role of geographic Geographic leads support COEs in providing Geographic leads must provide assistance to a district if in leads differentiated assistance. differentiated assistance for three or more years based on the same subgroup. Assistance from CCEE Eligible for assistance from CCEE if requested Automatically referred to CCEE if identified for differentiated by the COE. assistance in three of four years for three or more student groups. Release of School No specific statutory requirement. Data Data must be released by December 1 in 2023. Deadline Dashboard data used to identify districts for differentiated slowly moved up, such that in 2026 data must be assistance is typically released by the end released by October 15. of the calendar year. LCAP = Local Control and Accountability Plan; COEs = county offices of education; and CCEE = California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. LAO COMMENTS Equity Multiplier and LCAP Changes Additional Funding Is Not the Key Issue, Recommend Rejecting Funding Increase. More Attention to School Sites and We estimate that the $300 million for the equity Subgroups Is Warranted. Initial studies evaluating multiplier would be allocated to about 800 school the effectiveness of LCFF have shown evidence sites, with an average of about $860 per student. that additional funding has led to improvements in This compares with an estimated $13 billion and student outcomes for districts that received greater roughly $3,400 per student the state provides shares of supplemental and concentration funding. per EL/LI student through supplemental and These districtwide improvements, however, did not concentration grant funding districts and charter necessarily result in the same levels of improvement schools will receive in 2022-23. Of the roughly for the lowest-performing schools or subgroups 800 school sites that we estimate will qualify within districts with relatively high shares of for the equity multiplier, 98 percent are in LEAs EL/LI students. Furthermore, a 2021 Public Policy that receive concentration grant funding through Institute of California report found that statewide LCFF. LEAs already are expected to use their only about 55 percent of supplemental and supplemental and concentration grant funding to concentration grant funding was used at specific target high-poverty schools. It is not clear how school sites that generated the funding. (Some of the additional funding from the equity multiplier the remaining funding could have been used for would address any specific issues that cannot be districtwide activities that benefits those schools.) addressed with supplemental and concentration This is consistent with broader education research funding. For these reasons, we recommend that documents disparities in spending across rejecting the additional funding increase. As we school sites. High-poverty schools are more likely discuss below, the Legislature can take action that to have less experienced, lower-paid staff, which increases transparency and ensures existing LCFF often offsets the additional targeted spending that funding is targeted to the highest need schools and districts provide to these schools. student subgroups. www.lao.ca.gov 9 2023-24 BUDGET Recommend Greater Transparency to Recommend Minor Modifications to Ensure Existing Funding Actually Targets the Proposed LCAP Changes. We find the Governor’s Highest-Need Schools. Rather than provide proposed LCAP changes would help encourage more funding, we recommend the Legislature LEAs to bring greater attention to lower-performing consider options to provide greater transparency schools and subgroups. In particular, the proposed regarding how funding is spent across schools. focused goals required for low-performing schools This would help the state determine if districts are and subgroups would bring greater attention to targeting schools with the greatest need. Tracking actions that would help students with the greatest spending at the school level, however, can be quite needs. Additionally, requiring LEAs to review the burdensome and difficult to standardize across effectiveness of their actions over a three-year school districts. Given most school funding is spent period is aligned with the three-year LCAP process on staff salaries and benefits, we recommend and can help ensure LEAs are making changes the state instead require LEAs to publicly report when actions do not have their intended effects. for each of their schools the (1) share of teachers We recommend the Legislature adopt the proposed that are fully credentialed and properly assigned, changes, with a few modifications. (2) share of teachers with less than three years of • Focused Goals. The Governor’s proposal experience, and (3) student-to-teacher ratio. The requires that focused goals for equity state could also require similar reporting for other multiplier schools address teacher school staff, such as counselors, psychologists, credentialing and preparation, to the and aides. This information would give the public extent this is an issue in the school. We and the state a good sense of how funding is recommend this requirement apply to all spread across schools. We also would recommend focused goals related to low-performing that any LEAs with low-performing schools be schools and subgroups. Consistent with required to review the disparities in staffing levels our previous recommendation, we also and experience across the LEA and take actions to recommend requiring that all focused goals address them. for low-performing schools address disparities Clarity Needed on Whether Spending on in the experience of teachers across the Low-Performing Racial Groups Can Count LEA. This will provide greater transparency Towards Increasing or Improving Services. with how LEAs address disparities in their In our conversations with several school districts workforce across schools. Finally, we also and COEs, we found differing opinions regarding recommend requiring LEAs to keep focused whether LEAs could use LCFF supplemental or goals for a school or subgroup for at least concentration funding to increase or improve three years, or until the LCAP cycle is services specifically for a low-performing racial completed. This would ensure LEAs’ actions group. We think activities targeting low-performing to address the needs of the school or student racial groups is consistent with the intent of LCFF group are sustained over multiple years. to close achievement gaps, particularly given • Midyear LCAP Update. The Governor’s that lower-performing racial groups are also more proposed changes would require a midyear likely to be low income than the state average. update on LCAPs at a public hearing on or The Legislature may want to ask the administration before February 28 each year. We recommend to report on whether they think targeting specific the Legislature clarify that the midyear update low-performing racial groups is allowable under must only include updated metrics to the current law and regulations. At that point, the extent they are available. This would minimize Legislature could determine whether statutory the administrative burden for LEAs. changes are necessary or whether the state could address the issue by providing additional guidance to LEAs. 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2023-24 BUDGET Moving Forward, Explore Ways to Shorten Clarify Type of Support Geographic Leads LCAPs. Although the proposed LCAP changes Will Provide. To ensure the assistance provided have merit, they are likely to result in LCAPs being is well targeted and builds on the LEA’s previous longer. LCAPs are already very long documents, work, we recommend further defining the type typically more than 100 pages and often more of support geographic leads will provide to LEAs than 200 pages for larger districts. We have heard when in differentiated assistance for three or concerns from stakeholders and LEAs that the more years. Specifically, we recommend requiring length and complexity of these documents makes their assistance be more intensive compared to it difficult to engage families and community differentiated assistance provided by the COE. members. Moving forward, the Legislature could For example, assistance could focus on supporting consider changes that would streamline LCAPs LEAs to develop a strategy for closing achievement so they are more accessible to families and gaps and implementing strategies addressing communities, while moving key details to other the specific needs of low-performing subgroups. more appropriate mediums. For example, the This support should take into consideration the Legislature could explore moving detailed LCAP strategies the LEAs already have implemented. expenditure data to an interactive online portal that Role of Equity Lead Is Duplicative of Other would allow users to determine the level of detail Agencies. The administration indicates the equity they want to review. The Legislature could also leads would support LEAs by analyzing programs, require added features to the California School identifying barriers, and implementing actions Dashboard that allow users to see outcome data by that address the needs of all students. These school or subgroup—data that is commonly listed in activities are very similar to the support COEs, LCAPs in a text-based format—using graphics that geographic leads, and CCEE already provide are more user-friendly and allow disaggregation and through differentiated assistance. While equity manipulation of the data. leads have the added task of providing support that addresses racial disparities, we question how System of Support Changes this support will be different or more effective Requiring Greater Involvement of Geographic than other assistance provided through system Leads and CCEE Is an Improvement Over of support entities. Focusing on racial disparities the Current Practice. The Governor’s budget should be a central part of differentiated assistance proposes notable improvements to the system of since many districts are identified for having support by specifying when a district is to receive performance issues among specific racial groups. support from its geographic lead or CCEE. Current If the Legislature adopts the Governor’s proposal to law does not specify when other system of support create equity leads, we recommend the state have entities are to provide additional assistance or a clearer and narrower objective for these entities. support for districts who have been in differentiated This will ensure that the support equity leads assistance for many years and continue to have provide is not duplicative of other entities within the low-performing subgroups. The administration’s system of support. For example, the Legislature proposed changes help ensure LEAs receive could specify the equity lead is tasked with support from other entities involved in the system, providing training to COEs to ensure equity is at the which is particularly important in cases where little center of differentiated assistance and incorporated to no improvement has occurred. into all improvement initiatives. We also recommend the Legislature clarify that all the entities within the system of support (not just the equity leads) should be supporting districts in addressing its racial disparities. www.lao.ca.gov 11 2023-24 BUDGET LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Michael Alferes and Sara Cortez, and reviewed by Edgar Cabral 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, California 95814. 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE