Donate
PPIC Logo Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

Search Results

Filters Sort by:
Report

Charter Schools and California’s Local Control Funding Formula

By Iwunze Ugo, Laura Hill

Over the two decades since their inception, charter schools have become a significant part of the California public school system. Quasi-independent, but publicly funded, these schools educate about 10 percent of the state’s students.

Report

Measuring Institutional Costs at California’s Public Universities

By Patrick Murphy, Kevin Cook, Talib Jabbar

California has recently increased its investment in higher education after many years of reducing state support. At the same time, the state’s four-year public systems, the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU), are currently poised to raise tuition for the first time in several years. If the past is any indication, intense discussions lie ahead about the need for additional higher education resources.

We offer a constructive starting point for those discussions by introducing a straightforward and objective assessment of institutional costs. We rely on a measure that connects institutional costs to the number of degrees UC and CSU produce. This measure provides a clear understanding of trends in California’s institutional costs and allows comparisons with colleges and universities in other states. It also offers higher education institutions the opportunity to demonstrate progress toward their goals in an accessible, transparent way.

Applying this measure to California’s public four-year institutions, we find that:

  • Institutional costs per degree across UC and CSU fell significantly—17 percent—from 1987 to 2013. This is an important savings in a state that will need to amp up its number of college graduates to meet future economic demand.
  • At UC, the cost per degree fell 6 percent over the period—from $116,000 to $109,000. UC’s institutional costs in 2013 were lower than a comparison group that included both public and private institutions across the nation. But UC’s costs were higher than a national comparison group of public schools only.
  • At CSU, the cost fell 33 percent—from $67,000 to $45,000. CSU’s 2013 costs were lower than both types of comparison groups—one that included public schools only and one that included both public and private institutions.

We recommend that policymakers and higher education leaders use the cost per degree measure as a way to frame higher education finance discussions. It provides a consistent, reliable, and objective measure of institutional costs and performance. For the measure to be most effective, accurate data reporting will be essential. We also recommend the reintroduction of a state-level higher education authority to add validity to the process of gauging institutional performance. Using the measure within a larger framework of agreed-upon goals would go a long way toward improving higher education finance policy in California.

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

Improving College Graduation Rates: A Closer Look at California State University

By Kevin Cook, Jacob Jackson

Low college graduation rates come at a high cost—lower salaries, lower tax revenue, and fewer college graduates in the workforce. At California State University (CSU), the nation's largest university system, graduation rates have an outsized financial and economic impact on students and the state.

CSU has made strides in improving graduation rates, but there is more work to be done. The system continues to struggle with graduation gaps—underrepresented students are much less likely to complete their degree compared to their peers, and these gaps have not narrowed over time. Also, CSU's on-time (four-year) graduation rates still lag behind those of similar universities nationwide.

By 2025, CSU aims to further increase graduation rates while cutting graduation gaps in half. To assist campus planning for this goal, we identify several promising programs and policies. More broadly, the CSU Chancellor's Office must work with campuses to evaluate and expand successful efforts, and the state must play a role in supporting new policies to move the needle on graduation gaps and on-time graduation.

Report

Public Safety Realignment: Impacts So Far

By Magnus Lofstrom, Brandon Martin

Prompted by a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, California’s 2011 historic public safety realignment shifted many correctional responsibilities for lower-level felons from the state to counties. The reform was premised on the idea that locals can do a better job, and it was hoped that incarceration rates and corrections costs would fall. At the same time, critics predicted crime would rise. Four years since its implementation, realignment has made several important impacts:

  • Realignment significantly reduced the prison population, but the state did not reach the court-mandated population target until after the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, which reduced penalties for many property and drug offenses.
  • The reform challenged county jails and probation departments by making them responsible for a greater number of offenders with a broader range of backgrounds and needs.
  • The county jail population did not rise nearly as much as the prison population fell, reducing the total number of people incarcerated in California.
  • Realignment did not increase violent crime, but auto thefts rose.
  • Research so far shows no dramatic change in recidivism rates.
  • State corrections spending remains high, but there is reason to believe expenditures could drop in the future.

Realignment has largely been successful, but the state and county correctional systems face significant challenges. The state needs to regain control of prison medical care, which is now in the hands of a federal receiver. And the state and counties together must make progress in reducing stubbornly high recidivism rates.

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

Implementing California’s School Funding Formula: Will High-Need Students Benefit?

By Laura Hill, Iwunze Ugo

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) reformed California’s K–12 school finance system. It replaced a patchwork of formulas and specific (or "categorical”) programs with a focus on local control, funding equity, and additional support for the large share of students (63%) who are "high needs"—that is, low-income, English Learner, and/or foster care youth. However, there are still concerns about whether the new funding will reach high-need students. Because districts have spending flexibility, and because some of the extra funding for high-need students is based on their districtwide enrollment levels, it is possible that high-need schools in districts with relatively low overall shares of high-need students will not get the funding they need. Our research indicates that county offices of education—which are charged with assisting districts in developing and achieving accountability plans—may have extra work to do in parts of Southern California, the Bay Area, and Sacramento to ensure that extra state funding improves outcomes of high-need students who are not evenly distributed across district schools.

Report

Higher Education in California: Performance Budgeting

By Hans Johnson, Patrick Murphy, Margaret Weston, Kevin Cook

As California begins to reinvest in public higher education after several years of budget cuts, it could opt to tie funding more closely with outcomes—for example, the number of students educated or degrees awarded. This approach, known as performance-based funding, has the potential to incentivize investment by the state’s higher education systems in areas that further state priorities. Drawing on California’s minimal experience with performance-based funding and the approaches other states have pursued, this report raises four important questions for the state to consider if it wants to link funding for higher education with outcomes without compromising on either quality or equity.

Report

Higher Education in California: Student Costs

By Jacob Jackson

Increases in tuition across California’s public four-year universities have heightened concerns about the affordability of a college education, especially for those with the lowest incomes. In-state full tuition at the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) has risen more dramatically than at other public universities in other states over the past decade. During this same period, the federal, state, and institutional grant and scholarship programs that help make college affordable for students from lower- and middle-income families expanded. This helped lower-income families keep up with rising tuition, but the full price of college beyond tuition can still be a relatively large share of their income. Given the importance of higher education to California’s economic future, policymakers at the federal, state, and institutional levels need to make a continuing commitment to keep college affordable for students from low- and middle-income families. Also, given current tuition levels, it is more important than ever for the state to ensure that all students fill out financial aid forms and can easily access tools that can help them understand the financial aid packages they are offered.

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