Donate
PPIC Logo Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

Search Results

Filters Sort by:
Report

Upgrading Technology Infrastructure in California’s Schools

By Patrick Murphy, Niu Gao

As California schools move into online testing and online learning, an adequate technology infrastructure is no longer an option, but a necessity. To fully benefit from digital learning, schools will require a comprehensive technology infrastructure that can support a range of administrative and instructional tools. An earlier PPIC report found that most schools need significant technology upgrades in order to accommodate online learning. What upgrades do schools need most, and how much will they cost? How can policymakers help ensure that all students have access to 21st-century learning tools?

This report describes findings based on new statewide data. First, schools need high-density wireless networks, increased bandwidth, and overall network infrastructure upgrades. The challenges are greater in large schools, mostly because of the high cost of wireless networks for large groups of users. Second, IT staffing continues to be an issue in most schools. Only a third of schools have staff onsite to support desktop and local network configuration.

To estimate the costs of upgrading technology infrastructure, we created two scenarios. Our baseline scenario—which includes minimum bandwidth for digital learning, one device for every two middle- and high-school students, and one IT staffer for every 300 computing devices—would cost an additional $1.5 billion over the next three years. Our target scenario—which involves additional bandwidth and one device to every middle- and high-school student—would cost significantly more: $3.8 billion. In either scenario, staffing costs are more than 60 percent of the total.

As the state explores ways to address these ongoing technology needs, we offer several recommendations. First, continue and maintain sustained funding for technology investment, particularly for staffing. Second, provide targeted technical assistance to address severe staffing problems. Third, to ensure that all students have full access to digital learning, take advantage of federal funding and explore innovative partnerships with private sector to cover the cost of home broadband access for students from lower-income families.

Report

Are California’s Schools Ready for Online Testing and Learning?

By Niu Gao

In addition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), California is implementing a new, online assessment system: the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP). Field tests were conducted last spring and the system is being rolled out this year, amid concerns about whether schools are technologically prepared. Using survey data from the California Educational Technology Professionals Association (CETPA), this report examines school districts’ technology infrastructure and assesses their readiness for online testing. Three findings emerge. First, school districts express confidence in the quantity and quality of their hardware and network capabilities but remain concerned about software and training of instructional and IT staff. Second, there is sizable variation in readiness across districts, linked mainly to student enrollment and district expenditure levels. Third, a clear majority of the state’s onetime CCSS Implementation Fund is going into non-technology spending such as instructional materials and teacher training. Regardless of their current readiness, districts will need targeted and ongoing support to upgrade and maintain their technology infrastructure. In the longer term, virtually all schools will need to upgrade their technology infrastructure in order to adopt and benefit from digital learning.

Report

Low-Income Students and School Meal Programs in California

By Caroline Danielson

School nutrition programs help improve nutrition among vulnerable children. In so doing, they help build a better future for these children and the state. Now that California is implementing the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), there is additional reason to make sure all students who are eligible for free or low-cost meals enroll in these programs. Along with English Learners and foster youth, low-income students—in other words, students who are eligible for free and reduced-price meals—are targeted for additional funds under the LCFF. This renewed focus on enrollment could also prompt further consideration of participation in school nutrition programs.

This report looks at factors that might be linked to variations in student enrollment and participation in free or reduced-price meals. Not surprisingly, we find that districts with higher poverty rates identify higher levels of eligibility than wealthier districts. Low-income high school students appear to be enrolled at levels comparable to younger students, but students in elementary school districts are much more likely to participate in lunch programs than students in other types of districts. We also find that schools in districts with higher shares of foreign-born residents have modestly lower participation levels (but not identification of low-income students). Finally, we find evidence that schools with smaller enrollments are more successful than larger schools at identifying and serving low-income students.

One way to further the goal of full enrollment among low-income students is to cut the large share of low-income students who must submit applications for free or reduced-price meals. Achieving this objective is arguably an important part of a larger state effort to integrate social safety net programs and services.

Report

Implementing Local Accountability in California’s Schools: The First Year of Planning

By Paul Warren, Giselle Carrillo

The passage of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013 gave California school districts flexibility in allocating resources and significantly boosted state support for the education of disadvantaged students. LCFF also includes a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP), which requires districts to enlist the help of parents and the public in identifying student performance goals and ways to achieve them. Our research in 25 California districts suggests that educators have worked hard to develop the first of these three-year plans, but that knowledge about strategic planning, data-driven decisionmaking, and involving parents and the public in the process varies significantly among districts. As a consequence, the clarity and effectiveness of the initial plans varies widely. The state can help by making technical assistance to districts and county offices of education available and affordable. Our research also indicates that expanding the role of county offices would help them push for improved student performance.

Report

School Finance

By Margaret Weston

There is broad consensus that California's school finance system is inequitable, inadequate, and overly complex. In response to these critiques, this year Governor Jerry Brown proposed an overhaul of our school finance system. Also, two initiatives on the November ballot asked voters to increase education funding through tax increases: voters approved Proposition 30, which was integral to the governor's budget plan, and rejected Proposition 38, a citizens' initiative.

Despite the passage of Proposition 30, California faces many school finance challenges. This report provides an overview of the state's school finance system and outlines some longstanding school finance issues that may be in play next year.

Report

Class Size Reduction, Teacher Quality, and Academic Achievement in California Public Elementary Schools

By Christopher Jepsen, Steven Rivkin

In 1996, California passed a statewide class size reduction (CSR) law that aimed to reduce average class sizes in kindergarten through third grade by roughly one-third. Educators and policymakers expected CSR to lead to large gains in student achievement. However, increasing the state's teaching workforce by thousands of new teachers had the potential to offset the direct benefits of smaller classes, particularly for schools in economically disadvantaged communities that already had staffing difficulties.,

In 1996, California passed a statewide class size reduction (CSR) law that aimed to reduce average class sizes by roughly one-third in kindergarten through third grade. Educators and policymakers expected CSR to lead to large gains in student achievement. However, increasing the state’s teaching workforce by thousands of new teachers had the potential to offset the direct benefits of smaller classes, particularly for schools in economically disadvantaged communities that already had staffing difficulties. This report addresses the following questions:

  • What were the effects of CSR on overall teacher experience, certification, and education? Were some schools affected more than others?
  • How did CSR affect student achievement? What were the benefits of smaller classes? What were the effects of new teachers?
  • Are the benefits of smaller classes concentrated among a subset of students, or did all schools benefit equally from CSR?

The authors found that a ten-student reduction in class size raises the percentage of third-grade students who exceed national median test scores by roughly 4 percentage points in mathematics and 3 percentage points in reading. However, having a new teacher reduces the percentage of students who exceed national median test scores by roughly 3 percentage points in both mathematics and reading.

CSR led to a dramatic increase in the percentage of teachers who lacked full certification, who had no postgraduate education, and who were in their first or second year of teaching. These teachers were concentrated in schools with high percentages of nonwhite students enrolled in subsidized lunch programs.

Search results are limited to 100 items. Please use the Refine Results tool if you are not finding what you are looking for.