1. California’s K-12 Policy Environment Laura Hill Northern California Grantmakers Annual Conference— From Ideas to Action May 2015

2. California’s schools face challenging demographics 2  School age population expected to grow at about 1% per year  School children even more diverse than state population –About 23% English Leaners, 12% former ELs –59% Low income – up since recession –0.7% Foster youth –13% with undocumented immigrant parent

3. Scores have improved, but achievement gaps remain 3

4. Time of tremendous change for K–12 education 4  Common Core –New standards, new assessments  Funding –Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) –Positive budget surprises  Accountability in flux –Local Control and Accountability Plan –State accountability

5. More funding, but California is still below the rest of the nation 5

6. The new funding formula funnels more resources to high-need kids 6  Per pupil district-based formula –Supplemental and concentration grants for high-need students  Statewide, 63% of K–12 students are high need –Low-income students –Foster youth –English Learners  High-need students are distributed across schools in high-need districts  Pockets of high-need students in low-need districts –Funding may not get to their schools –May not qualify for concentration grants

7. Some students miss out on concentration funding 7

8. Accountability moving forward? 8  Accountability under LCFF –LCAPs are evolving documents –Rubrics  The state may be missing opportunities by not being more involved –Increase role of county offices of education? –California Collaborative for Educational Excellence  State accountability  Balance between autonomy and accountability

9. California’s K-12 Policy Environment Laura Hill Northern California Grantmakers Annual Conference— From Ideas to Action May 2015

10. Notes on the use of these slides 10 These slides were created to accompany a presentation. They do not include full documentation of sources, data samples, methods, and interpretations. To avoid misinterpretations, please contact: Laura Hill (hill@ppic.org; 415-291-4424) Thank you for your interest in this work.

11. High-need schools in low-need districts SchoolDistrict School share of high-need students District share of high-need students Kinoshita ElmCapistrano USD97.5%24.0% Richard Henry Dana ElmCapistrano USD91.0%24.0% Glenwood ElmConejo Valley USD90.3%25.7% Melrose ElmPlacentia Yorba Linda USD99.4%37.1% Marylin Avenue ElmLivermore Valley Joint USD88.9%28.9% Valadez Middle School AcademyPlacentia Yorba Linda USD96.5%37.1% Captain Cooper ElmCarmel USD75.8%17.0% Topaz ElmPlacentia Yorba Linda USD95.6%37.1% Bay Area School of EnterpriseAlameda USD98.6%40.1% Cordova Villa ElmFolsom Cordova USD96.0%39.0% 11

12. Districts and counties with large school-to-district differences County Countywide average school-to-district difference (percentage point) 1San Francisco17.8 2Sacramento17.4 3San Diego17.0 4Orange15.0 5Santa Cruz15.0 6Napa14.2 7Solano13.8 8Santa Clara13.7 9Sonoma13.7 10Contra Costa12.5 12

13. First year plans vary widely in effectiveness 13  Not all state goals are directly included  Few plans include data to justify goals and actions  County office reviews did not improve most plans significantly  Some districts are clearly inexperienced with strategic planning and budgeting

14. Local input did not meet expectations 14  Districts felt they worked hard to get public input  Turnout was low, and meetings generated little new information  School staff and parents were represented –Community groups and students less so  Districts need technical assistance on helping outside groups participate in input/planning