If our set of studies has one overarching conclusion, it is simply this — California’s school finance and governance system are fundamentally flawed. Consequently, California students perform far lower on tests of achievement than do students in other states. Within the state, schools with high proportions of students in poverty are consistently failing to meet the standards the state sets out for them.

No one program or intervention will fix the system. California has tried over and over the approach of introducing separate programs and disjointed new policies. Although each may have been well intended, the aggregate mass is now a large part of the problem that needs attention.

Instead California would benefit from a policy environment that recognizes the complexity of the task and the limited state of our knowledge. It would focus on reforms that improve the ability of decision makers at all levels to make good decisions for students and to improve outcomes. Such a system would improve the alignment between the accountability system and the decision-making responsibilities, increasing flexibility at the local level. It would improve information collection, both at the state level where data should follow students over time and link them with the resources they receive and at the local level where networks of teachers and administrators could learn from each other’s experiences. It would refine policies to attract and retain high quality teachers and administrators, and place a priority on learning from the effects of the policies it implements. It would simplify its school finance formulas so that similar districts would be treated similarly and differences across districts would be treated reasonably and consistently. It would also target resources to improve the outcomes of students in poverty, most of whom are unable to reach state goals in the current system. And for all school districts, it would make the state budgeting process more predictable, removing the peaks and valleys in annual appropriations, and establishing distributional decisions earlier in the spring so that school and district leaders could be more strategic in determining how best to use their resources for the next academic year.

Finally, we cannot emphasize enough that asking the question, “how much money will it cost to achieve State goals for students?” is meaningless without also asking “how can we develop a system that makes better use of whatever resources are available?” California is so far from achieving its student outcome goals that marginal policy changes are unlikely to produce the desired outcomes. Instead such progress requires a new approach to reform, an approach that allows state, district and school decision-makers to improve their practice and thereby to enhance the opportunities afforded California’s students.

The message of the entire collection of studies is that fundamental changes will be needed if California is to provide a high quality school system. Some changes are easier than others. Some changes are more appealing than others in that they entail less fundamental challenges. But picking a small subset and ignoring the others most likely will have few benefits.

California’s economy is dependent upon the strength of its workers. If California students are going to participate fully in its future development, they will need quality schools that are competitive with those in other states and other nations. Without better schools, the future vitality of California will depend on its ability to attract workers from elsewhere. A failure to act now, abrogates our public responsibilities. Ultimately, we fail our children, our families and the future of our state.

via Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice | Download the Summary | Download the Full Report

school finance