Achieving a college degree in prison is rare, but now a select 33 incarcerated people in California can earn their master’s degrees.
California State University, Dominguez Hills, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation announced a partnership Thursday to launch the state’s first master’s degree program for incarcerated people. Corrections Secretary Jeff Macomber said the partnership furthers the state’s prison system’s goal to expand “grade school to grad school” opportunities.
“These efforts are vital, as education serves as a powerful rehabilitative tool,” Macomber said.
Research shows that prison programs reduce recidivism rates and help formerly incarcerated people find jobs and improve their families’ lives once they are released.Those studies show that incarcerated people are 48% less likely to return to prison within three years than those who didn’t attend a college program in prison.
All 33 of the state’s adult prisons offer the ability for the system’s 95,600 incarcerated people to earn community college degrees; about 13.5% are enrolled in a college course. The state has been expanding its offerings of college in prisons. Eight partnerships with state universitieshave begun since 2016 to offer bachelor’s degrees to incarcerated people. About 230 are enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program for the current semester.
The new Dominguez Hills program will allow all people in all 33 prisons who have already earned a bachelor’s degree and have at least a 2.5 GPA, to earn a Master of Arts in humanities. The students will participate in two years of courses, including urban development, religion, morality and spirituality. The classes will take place over Zoom or through written correspondence.
Tuition for the program is about $10,500 and students or their families will be responsible for covering the costs. However, the corrections department said that it may provide some assistance. The university is also accepting donations to go toward incarcerated students’ tuition. Because these are post-bachelor’s degree courses, the incarcerated students do not qualify for the state’s Cal Grant or federal Pell Grant programs.
“Our mission is firmly anchored in social justice,” said Thomas Parham, president of Cal State Dominguez Hills. “This historic partnership between California State University and CDCR benefits students — and ultimately their families and communities — by distinguishing between what people did and who they are at the core of their being, and recognizing their potential, cultivating their talents and preparing them to thrive in their paths moving forward.”
Parham said it was important for the university to provide advanced learning opportunities in prisons because the campus is focused on “transforming lives.”
The 33 students in the new master’s program reside in 11 different state prisons across the state including Avenal, Chuckawalla Valley and San Quentin state prisons and Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.
A UC Berkeley labor economist this week offered a California answer to the persistent question of whether more money matters for K-12 education.
Rucker Johnson, who researched the state’s decade-old school finance overhaul known as the Local Control Funding Formula, concluded it does matter, especially for the highest needs students targeted for help by the equity-based funding.
“The findings provide compelling evidence that school spending matters and providing additional resources to support high-need students pays dividends,” wrote Johnson, a professor of public policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley.
The improvements were consistent across grades, subjects, and performance metrics, the research found. Johnson calculated that a $1,000 increase in per-student funding, sustained for three consecutive years in the highest-poverty districts, produced roughly a full grade-level increase in math and reading achievement for students in grades three through eight and 11, relative to what the average student achieved in the years preceding the formula’s passage in 2013.
It’s a big deal for students who started third grade a year behind in math to be at grade level by the end of fifth grade, he said.
Graphic note: Third graders’ test scores in math improved as they progressed through fifth grade while receiving increased funding from the Local Control Funding Formula. The vertical scale measures growth in math beyond a standard year of achievement (1.0 is a full extra year of additional growth, whether catching up to grade level or accelerating beyond it). The horizontal scale measures the percentage of high-needs students in a district, which determines how much bonus funding a district receives. The dotted line in the middle marks 55% of high-needs students, the point at which districts gradually begin receiving an extra dose of concentration funding. The blue line shows average academic growth for districts with 55% or fewer high-needs students. The red line shows the impact of districts’ concentration funding on academic growth. The dots signify groups of districts above and below average.
Johnson’s research focused from 2013-14, when the funding formula was introduced, through 2018-19, when the full funding targets were achieved. What mattered, he said, was not just the amount of the increase but the number of years in a row students benefited.
The Covid pandemic of 2020, with more than a year in remote learning for many districts, has wiped out most of the academic gains during this period, particularly among low-income Black and Hispanic students — despite record federal and state funding.
Did equity-based funding cause the improvement?
The Legislature included a number of major policy and accountability initiatives, along with providing more money, in the funding formula law. It required that districts and charter schools spell out how they planned to spend on high-needs students in a Local Control and Accountability Plan or LCAP and then measure the impact. The law defined high-needs students as English learners, homeless and foster youths, and low-income students — those qualifying for free or reduced school meals and other income-based government benefits.
The locally controlled funding formula introduced the color-coded California School Dashboard, which ranks districts’ performance on multiple measures in an effort to pressure districts to reduce suspensions and chronic absences and raise high-school graduation rates. In 2015, the State Board of Education ended the high school exit exam and switched to the Smarter Balanced tests to measure the newly adopted Common Core standards.
Johnson, however, wrote that new money, not new policies, caused the widespread gains in student performance “based on compelling evidence.” Another prominent researcher, however, said that the claim is overstated.
Johnson said he was able to isolate the impact of additional funding in two ways. The new funding formula’s distinct design, with concentrated funding for highest-needs districts, showed disproportionate gains in achievement. He could find no similar pattern of achievement in the decade preceding the new formula. Julien Lafortune, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, who also has studied the funding formula, agreed that is a fair conclusion.
Johnson also compared the achievement of districts funded by the Local Control Funding Formula with basic aid districts – the 100-some districts that received no funding under the Local Control Funding Formula because their funding from property taxes exceeded what they would have received from the state. Because there were no similar effects in student achievement among the basic aid districts that he found with Local Control Funding Formula districts during its rollout, Johnson concluded more funding must be the cause.
That comparison is problematic because the majority of basic aid districts are small, wealthy residential communities with few low-income families. They include Palo Alto, Saratoga, Santa Clara and San Mateo Union High School District in the Bay Area, and Santa Barbara, Newport Mesa, and San Dieguito Union High School District in Southern California. Graduation rates and test scores generally were already above average in those districts, and suspension rates were already lower than in high-poverty districts.
“The correlation of LCFF funding with poverty is at the extreme with the basic aid districts,” said Eric Hanushek, an economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, who has written extensively on education financing. Johnson “makes an admirable attempt to parse the impact of LCFF funding, but this is an exceedingly difficult task. He cannot convincingly separate pure spending changes from the host of other changes in California schools at that time.”
The study did not cite the number of districts that received $1,000 per student in additional funding, sustained over three years, and, therefore, how many students should have gained approximately a year in academic growth. A graph showing yearly Local Control Funding Formula funding increases during this period indicated that many districts benefited by at least that amount. Some districts with the largest numbers of high-needs students received more than $2,000 more per student over the three years.
Funding for the Local Control Funding Formula increased annually after its adoption in 2013. Districts with more than 55% high-needs students received increased amounts of funding, called concentration grants.
But Johnson said the exact number of students whose math and reading scores grew the equivalent of a grade was not calculated because of the methodology and parameters he used. The research was more precise than looking at the unfiltered year-over-year results of all students. It eliminated students who transferred schools during the period and took into account parental socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity. Its specific parameters compared:
Students from the same school across cohorts evaluated at the same grade.
Students from the same school and same kindergarten cohort across successive grades.
Student achievement growth among students from the same cohort and same grade across districts.
Local Control Funding Formula reconsidered
Gov. Jerry Brown, who championed the funding overhaul, made it clear he wanted the funding formula to roll out without interference from the Legislature and would veto any modifications to the law as long as he was in office. Gov. Gavin Newsom has proven more receptive to changes out of recognition that the law has flaws and its implementation has been uneven. Districts receiving the same funding per student have shown wide variations in student performance. That’s because, Lafortune noted, the Legislature sets the rules on funding, but districts decide how to spend it.
Last year, Pivot Learning, a national nonprofit that works with school districts on improving classroom instruction, created aDistrict Readiness Index that measures conditions like family and community engagement, principal retention, and work environment, which can determine districts’ success with programs and investments. In 2019, the Learning Policy Institute, the Palo Alto-based research and education policy nonprofit that published Johnson’s research, producedCalifornia’s Positive Outliers: Districts Beating the Odds. It identified districts that excelled and why.
Advocacy nonprofits like Public Advocates argued for a decade that the Local Control Accountability Plan rules and Local Control Funding Formula law did not require districts to be transparent enough on how they spent money for high-needs students, who make up about 60% of California students. Newsom includedone important transparency change in the 2021 state budget, prohibiting districts from transferring unspent funding for high-needs students to the general fund.
Recognizing that Covid intensified the disparities facing high-poverty areas, Newsom increased funding for districts with the greatest concentrations of high-needs students from 50% of base funding to 66%. Acknowledging the Local Control Funding Formula’s district-centric approach has not narrowed the achievement gap, Newsom created an“equity multiplier” in this year’s budget. It includes an additional $300 million in ongoing money for the high-poverty schools and requires that districts create mini-Local Control Accountability Plans with goals and actions to improve the lowest-performing schools. Until now, the formula allocated funding only by districts.
Lafortune said that Johnson’s research is an important contribution to the effort to evaluate the formula.
“I don’t think school finance formula should exist in stone because the conditions that are affecting schools are changing,” he said. “But now that we have evidence that funding targeted in high-concentration districts on average seems to be making a difference, the question becomes how to equitably deploy the funding everywhere.”
How the funding formula works
Gov. Jerry Brown and Michael Kirst, his longtime education adviser and state board president, said the Local Control Funding Formula made equitable funding a priority. On top of base funding per student, the formula gives districts and charter schools an additional 20% for each high-needs student.
The Legislature then gave an added boost to those districts with high proportions of those students, called concentration grants, based on research that high-poverty neighborhoods compounded challenges that children experience.
The concentration funding kicked in gradually once high-needs students made up 55% of a district’s enrollment. The differential could be significant. While districts with 40% high-needs students received an additional 8% funding, those with 85% high-needs students, like Los Angeles Unified, received 32% funding above the base.
In the decade preceding the new formula, California consistently ranked in the bottom of the states in per-student funding, adjusted for regional costs, according to the report. In 2011, in the aftermath of the Great Recession, it ranked last. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed California’s socioeconomic achievement gaps were among the largest in the nation, the report said.
Faced with Brown’s threat to cut education funding severely without additional revenue, voters in 2012 passed a temporary sales tax and income tax on the top 1% of wage earners. Base funding per student rose from under $6,000 in 2013-14 to more than $8,000 in 2018-19, adjusted by grade span. Districts like Paramount Unified in Los Angeles County, with 95% high-needs students, received nearly $12,000 per student in local control funding.
Johnson found sizable improvement in other performance measures besides higher math and reading scores in high-concentration districts.
LCFF concentration funding increased the likelihood that students would graduate from high school by 8.2 percentage points for students exposed to a $1,000 increase in the average per-pupil spending experienced from grades nine to 12.
By a 9.8 percentage-point increase in math and 14.7 percentage-point increase in reading, students were more likely to meet college readiness standards, as measured by the 11th-grade Smarter Balanced tests.
By a 5 to 6 percentage-point reduction for boys and 3 percentage-point reduction for girls, Local Control Funding Formula-induced increases in school spending led to significant reductions in annual suspensions and expulsions across third to 10th grades. Suspensions for Black students in 10th grade were cut by 8 percentage points in schools benefiting from $1,000 in Local Control Funding Formula increases for three consecutive years.
Lafortune said Johnson’s research was consistent with his own findings comparing the academic growth of districts receiving the most local control funding — those with more than 80% high-needs students — with districts with fewer than 30% high-needs students. Another report will be published next month.
“I’m happy to see there’s actually some good research out using student-level data with evidence in answer to the top-level question, Is (the formula) moving the needle? Yes, for those high-concentration districts,” he said.
An EdSource examination of growth in Smarter Balanced scores for the years of Johnson’s study shows slow but steady progress for both low-income and non-low-income students. Both groups of students grew by an average of slightly more than 1 percentage point annually in math and slightly less than 2 percentage points in English language arts. After five years, the achievement gap remained nearly identical, about 30 percentage points apart.
“Yes, we do care about the gaps, but our idea of equity is not to bring the children that are performing really well to the levels that are not excellent,” said Johnson. The overall gains are evidence that more money matters for all students, he said, adding that the aggregate averages don’t reflect his research of districts receiving the biggest dose of funding.
Lafortune said that the overall averages also reflect that low-income students are spread throughout the state. A fifth — about 800,000 students — attend wealthy districts that get no concentration funding. More than 40% of non-low-income students attend districts that receive concentration funding, he said.
As California’s 1.8 million community college students begin the term, many are forced to make a difficult choice — whether to spend hundreds of dollars on textbooks required to help them earn a degree, or to pay their rent or buy meals for their families. This is a choice that no one should have to make.
Thankfully, this choice could soon become obsolete with the establishment of zero textbook-cost programs throughout the California Community Colleges. Zero-textbook-cost programs are degree and certificate pathways in which students do not pay extra for course materials.
These programs largely rely on openly licensed materials that are free for faculty and students to use, edit and share. In 2021, Gov. Gavin Newsom appropriated $115 million for the state’s community colleges to implement zero-textbook-cost programs and develop open educational resources, paving the way for more affordable education for millions of students and positioning California as a leader and model for other states, stating the need to “deal with the racket … that is the textbook industry.”
However, this unprecedented $115 million investment may fall short of its potential.
More than two years have passed with no coordinated effort to determine what zero-textbook-cost programs exist or are being developed, assess gaps in available openly licensed resources, or implement meaningful ways for colleges to share resources to complete their pathways. In addition, no efforts have been made to develop a process for supporting resource co-creation across the system as required by California Education Code 78052, which states: “The chancellor’s office shall ensure that a grant does not result in the development or implementation of duplicate degrees for a subject matter to avoid duplication of effort.” Clearly, the legislation requires statewide coordination in order to “maximize impact for the benefit of the greatest number of students.” To date, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office has done little to encourage the collaboration necessary to realize the legislation’s intent.
Despite the lack of coordinated preparation, a memo issued by the Chancellor’s Office on Aug. 21 specified an extremely short deadline of Sept. 15 for colleges to submit applications to access $88.55 million in Acceleration Grants, the balance of the available program development funding. Even with a provision for a six-week extension, this turnaround time would be problematic at any point in the year — but even more so when introduced without notice, at the beginning of an academic year, and with minimal guidance. These conditions make it nearly impossible for colleges to conduct the planning required to prepare a quality application. Additionally, while the colleges have received initial funds to plan and establish at least one zero-textbook-cost pathway by fall 2025, this timeline interrupts the Oct. 31 deadline for initial planning that colleges have underway.
Furthermore, the guidance and communication about these grants has been vague. The universal response across colleges has been dismay and frustration. Why would so little time be provided for the development of the application? How will applications be evaluated? And why is nothing being done to establish statewide coordination of the zero-textbook-cost work — as is necessary to achieve the intent of the legislation?
There are ways to fix this. First, the deadline to apply for Acceleration Grants should be extended, encouraging colleges to take the time to optimize plans to use the funds effectively — rather than pushing colleges to apply that may not be prepared to do so. Additionally, funding should be set aside for a subsequent round of grants, providing colleges with an incentive to engage in long-term planning.
Second, guidance should be provided to ensure that colleges do not simply use the funds to purchase textbooks — a quick but temporary fix to an ongoing problem. Further, accountability mechanisms are needed to encourage long-term solutions and the application of lessons learned from implementation efforts. Lastly, the Community College Chancellor’s Office needs to support coordinated resource development and tracking that would provide an easy way to see zero-textbook-cost pathways being created, as well as a means to identify resources that could be shared to maximize the impact of the funds — ensuring that money is not spent reinventing the wheel.
Open educational resources and zero-textbook-cost programs can have tremendous, positive impacts on the lives and success of students. But for that to happen, the state’s investment in these programs must be used wisely and coordinated effectively. If the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office amends its process, encourages collaboration among colleges, and gives colleges the time they need to plan, California students can reap the benefits of a more affordable, engaging education that leads them to better lives.
•••
Lisa Petrides, Ph.D., is CEO and founder of the Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education and president of the San Mateo County Community College District board of trustees.
Michelle Pilati, Ph.D., is a professor at Rio Hondo College and project director, Academic Senate for California Community Colleges Open Educational Resources Initiative.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors and not of EdSource or their organizational affiliations. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
A teacher and students at Aspire Inskeep Academy in Los Angeles.
Courtesy: Aspire Public Schools
In times of crisis, we should be looking for ways to help, not hinder. But in California, the inequities in public school education funding are only deepening the crisis for too many students.
On top of the devastating social-emotional and academic effects of the pandemic, our communities have been dealing with widespread staffing challenges, culture wars and frequent unfair attacks on educators. And in cities across California, projections suggest that public school enrollment will continue to drop — creating a crisis for practically all schools across the state.
Public charter schools face all of these challenges and more. At Aspire Public Schools, a charter school network serving more than 15,000 students in 36 schools across the state, our student population is more than 85% Black and Latino, and the vast majority of our students are experiencing poverty. Yet since the day we were founded, we’ve been forced to get creative with limited resources: Aspire students — like all public charter school students in California — receive less funding than their peers in traditional public schools.
According to new research from the University of Arkansas, the problem remains severe. In the 2019-20 school year, Los Angeles public charter school students received $5,226 less per-pupil funding than their counterparts in traditional public schools. In Oakland, the gap is even larger, at $7,103. This is driven by a lack of public funding. In both cities, public charter schools receive less local, state and federal funding than their counterparts in traditional public schools.
Why? While both public charters and traditional public schools receive the same amount of base funding under California’s Local Control Funding Formula, or LCFF, that doesn’t mean the total funding is equal. One reason for this is that schools receive additional funding for higher-need student categories and for higher concentrations of students in those categories, known as “concentration grants.” However, charter school concentration grant amounts are capped based on the average student demographics for the district in which they reside. This means that public charters are, in effect, penalized for serving a greater share of high-need students than their district. There are also a number of local, state and federal funding streams that are only accessible to traditional public schools —for instance, voter-approved local funding for operations or capital projects.
I’m not writing this to complain. We are honored to serve our school communities and our wonderful, talented scholars. It’s hard work, but unequal funding makes it harder. The more time we have to spend fighting tooth and nail for basic resources, the less we can spend educating California’s next generation. Our scholars are the same students whom politicians claim to want to support, especially in the wake of the pandemic, but they are consistently left out because they and their families made the choice to attend a public charter school. Elected officials frequently speak about the importance of equity, and we at Aspire couldn’t agree more. But equity means all students getting what they need — and Aspire schools (as well as many other public charter schools) serve large numbers of historically marginalized students.
This challenge is nothing new. If you talk to charter leaders across California, they’ll all tell you a similar story. Due to this systemic funding deficit, we have had no choice but to try to raise philanthropic dollars to fill critical funding gaps. But that is often turned into an attack against us, with critics saying that public charter schools are bankrolled by private investors. That is simply untrue. Trust me — I would love nothing more than to be able to operate our schools without fundraising. But it’s just not an option.
And new challenges often emerge. Just two years ago we made the choice to go to Sacramento to advocate for all public charter students to fight against legislation that would have penalized charter schools — and not traditional public schools — for following the state’s guidelines for quarantining students who were exposed to Covid-19. While we were able to win that fight, it is illustrative of the larger issue: Charter students are treated as less than others.
But here’s the thing: Despite these challenges, charter schools have been able to accomplish so much. According to new research from the CREDO Institute at Stanford University, California charter students have gained the equivalent of 11 days of reading and four days of math compared with similar students in traditional public schools. Black and Latino students and students experiencing poverty had even larger gains. At Aspire specifically, we were proud to have met CREDO’s “gap-busting” criteria in both reading and math, recognizing our ability to reduce opportunity gaps at scale.
So many of our students are carrying so much. They are talented and resilient, and they work hard to achieve their goals. We believe in them, and we tell them that every day.
But this funding gap tells them something different — that because they happen to attend a charter school, they matter less. It’s time that education leaders put childish politics aside and focus on giving all of our kids what they need. They’re all California students. They deserve to be treated as such.
•••
Mala Batra is the chief executive officer at Aspire Public Schools, a charter management organization serving 15,000 TK-12 students across 36 schools in historically underserved communities throughout California.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
After years of pandemic declines, enrollment at California’s community colleges may finally be starting to rebound in a significant way.
Several colleges across the state, from San Diego to San Jose, are reporting that their enrollments are up by double digit percentages this fall. Statewide data for the fall isn’t yet available, but enrollment in the spring was up 8% across the system of 116 colleges, according to a memo prepared by the state chancellor’s office.
College officials cited the expansion of dual enrollment and more interest in career-focused programs as being among the main drivers of the enrollment growth.
“In conversations with CEOs for fall 2023, I’m hearing good news, positive trends. And in fact, many of the districts are telling me that they’re seeing double-digit enrollment growth,” Sonya Christian, the statewide chancellor for the system, told the system’s board of governors Tuesday.
Given that, the memo prepared by the chancellor’s office says the system now has “a meaningful positive enrollment outlook for the first time in over five years.”
Still, enrollment across the system as of the spring was down 16% compared to pre-pandemic levels. And although the colleges are seeing big increases in dual enrollment and more enrollments from some older students, other students have not returned. Among students between the ages of 20 and 24, enrollment was down 27% as of the spring compared with pre-Covid levels. It was also down 22% among students between the ages of 25 and 34.
Christian’s goal for the colleges, outlined in her official Vision 2030 plan for the system, is to increase enrollment to greater than pre-pandemic levels by 2030. The board of governors voted Tuesday to begin formally implementing that vision. Among other goals, her plan calls to enroll more low-income adults, who she says have been historically left behind by the system. She also wants colleges to further expand dual enrollment by having every high school student taking a college class.
Dual enrollment has already been growing steadily across the state. In spring 2023, enrollment among students ages 19 and younger was up 14% compared with spring 2022, an increase that was largely aided by growth in dual enrollment programs. As of the spring, students in that age group had surpassed their pre-pandemic enrollment levels, making them the only age group to do so.
At the San Jose Evergreen Community College District, enrollment this fall is up by about 15% compared with a year ago, and the largest increases are among students aged 17 or younger, thanks to dual enrollment expansions. The district has specifically focused on expanding partnerships with high schools in East San Jose to enroll underserved high schoolers in that area, said Beatriz Chaidez, the district’s interim chancellor, in an interview.
“People see the value in community colleges, and that’s creating the increased interest, and we’re casting a wider net with our K-12 partners,” Chaidez added.
Colleges are also reporting growth in career training and skill-based programs. At Mt. San Jacinto College in Riverside County, where enrollment is up 13% compared with last fall, “there is a notable trend of students gravitating more towards career-focused educational paths,” said Brandon Moore, the college’s vice president of enrollment management, in an email.
Moore said there has been a “significant uptick” in enrollment in the college’s automotive and computer information systems programs. “Furthermore, budding programs such as culinary arts are also carving a niche, reflecting a growing interest in specialized skill-based education,” he added.
The San Diego Community College District, where enrollment is up by 14% this fall but still well below pre-pandemic levels, is similarly seeing increased demand for career training programs, said Ashanti Hands, president of San Diego Mesa College. That’s specifically the case for short-term certificate programs in subjects such as accounting, biotechnology and cybersecurity.
“These are students who want to come and really focus on being able to find work,” Hands said. “They can do that within a short amount of time. It’s the immediate return on their investment.”
Christian, who became statewide chancellor in June, wants to connect even more students to the workforce by targeting the state’s adults who have graduated from high school but don’t have a postsecondary degree. According to her office, there are 6.8 million of them in California between the ages of 25 and 54, and those individuals are disproportionately likely to be low-income and struggling to find well-paid work.
Under Christian’s Vision 2030, the colleges would enroll many of those individuals and help connect them to good jobs. The Vision 2030 planning document notes that if the colleges enrolled 5% of those individuals, it would generate 300,000 new students across the system. During the 2022-23 academic year, the system enrolled about 1.92 million students, down by more than 300,000 compared with pre-pandemic levels.
“Vision 2030 asks the fundamental question: Why have we not yet reached these individuals? When students cannot find their way to college, it is our responsibility to bring college to them,” Christian said.
Hands, the Mesa College president, said she’s confident that community colleges across the state, including the San Diego colleges, will be able to fully recover the enrollment they lost during the pandemic. But she added that, as those increases happen in areas like dual enrollment and workforce programs, the colleges won’t look the same as they did before the pandemic.
“We are not there yet, but the way that we are moving, I have no doubt that we will get back to those numbers,” she said. “But it won’t be business as usual because I think we’re going to need to be mindful that we may be seeing different students, a different group of students.”
Students at UCLA Community School pass by one of several outdoor campus murals on their way to class.
Credit: Allison Shelley/EDUimages
EdSource asked Martin Blank for his perspective on California’s massive investment in community schools in the context of the community schools movement that he was instrumental in creating.
For 20 years after he co-founded it in 1997, Blank directed the Coalition for Community Schools, a national organization that advocates for policies that support the implementation of quality community schools. He also served as president of the Institute for Educational Leadership, the coalition’s home.
Marty Blank
After serving as a VISTA volunteer in the Missouri Bootheel region, Blank, an attorney, was a senior staff member at A.L. Nellum and Associates, the nation’s first African American-owned consulting firm.
Through two-year planning and five-year implementation grants, more than 2,000 schools could become community schools to broaden services to meet children’s multiple needs and schools’ connections with the community. More than a place, the book says, a community school “is a set of partnerships built on a foundation of mutually beneficial relationships between schools and communities.”
With growing gaps in wealth and an increase in poverty, is it important that schools take a larger role than traditionally people have thought schools should take?
Yes, the school should have a larger role, but that role should be as an ally with an array of partners with expertise and people who want to help kids thrive.
The idea that schools could take on a larger role and do everything is mistaken. You open up the school to the community, you open up the potential for greater family engagement, and you get people to think about kids in different ways. Health people, youth people, school people, organizers all have a slightly different view of the world and how it should change. When you put them together, you can really create a synergy that leads to a better strategy and better results. It’s the wisdom of the group, rather than a single entity being in charge of everything.
The title of your book is “The Community Schools’ Revolution: Building Partnerships, Transforming Lives, Advancing Democracy.” What’s revolutionary, and how would parents and teachers know that they’re in the middle of a revolution?
That partnerships are essential in today’s public school and policy environment is a revolutionary concept. The power of partnership between schools and community is the essence of our work. We’ve begun to demonstrate how powerful that is.
Listen: How parents, teachers, and the community can tell if the community schools “revolution” is in their midst
We also have leaders in community schools who are thinking and acting differently. Principals are not only focused on their school, on their academic responsibilities, but they also recognize their ability to build a community of parents, teachers and now partners that support their students.
The community schools revolution is also demonstrated by their growth. There are thousands of schools across the country. We have evidence of success, and we have a growing investment. California’s is significant and we’ve got substantial federal money. Maryland has embedded community schools across all school districts, by including them in the school funding formula, and a growing number of states are funding community schools development.
California’s is the biggest bet yet on community schools. In part, it was driven by money. California had a huge surplus, and so the Legislature and the Newsom administration, at the encouragement of State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond, put down $4.4 billion over seven years. It made this commitment without really anything in place as a state system. Does it concern you that it might fall short of its potential?
If I could control the way policy functions, one might do very careful planning, then implement, then evaluate. But in the United States, we don’t do policy that way. It’s all a bit chaotic, and that makes it really hard for school people.
We were worried when New York expanded from 40 community schools to 150, because we thought that was going to be challenging. And it was. But in time, because the school system and the city government and the community-based organizations and the school leaders stayed together, there are now 420 plus community schools in New York, and they’re working toward a set of common goals. Are there challenges? Do we worry that money is going to be taken away? Of course, but sustainable partnerships emerging.
Listen: Whether California’s approach to community schools, through planning grants, followed by implementation grants on a mass scale, makes sense
We saw measurable progress in New York. A report by Rand demonstrated there was some improvement in math achievement, that students were more connected to adults and to the school, that there were improvements in attendance. We saw progress in California, where there are community schools that people could draw on — in San Francisco, West Contra Costa, Oakland, Los Angeles and other places.
We’re hoping that school and community organization leaders will realize that if they go beyond vendor and contract relationships, to really become partners, there will be a foundation on which to continue. Grants may come, but if the relationship between the school and their partners remains, then the essence of the community school will remain.
California is investing many billions of dollars in other services, too, such as mental health, transitional kindergarten, and an extended day and year, particularly for low-income schools. What difference will this make in a community school?
California represents a real opportunity. If it works the way we hope, the person in charge of new mental health money, the person running the after-school program, and other partners will be talking to each other and educators about what they want to accomplish. I remember a principal telling me he was responsible for all partners. They would ask for space and for equipment. He held a meeting and said, “Who are you and why the hell are you here?” What we want is for those potential allies to sit and talk regularly, to listen to students and their families and figure out how to make progress together.
Oakland and UCLA are prominent in your book. Any school would be fortunate to be associated with a university like UCLA. And Oakland has more nonprofits than coffee shops. But there are lots of communities that don’t have those opportunities. If you are in rural San Bernardino County or Humboldt County, what do you do?
The first thing is to go out in the community and talk to the business community, to the religious community. In every community, there are some nonprofit organizations. Every community has resources. We’ve had community schools where the emphasis was on bringing in elders from Appalachian communities to teach about the local history. We’ve had community schools where the kids have learned about the fishing industry. 4H is a significant player in many rural communities.
It’s a mindset issue. People have assets and expertise. If you assume there’s nothing, it puts the school and the teachers in a very negative mindset about what they’re trying to accomplish.
A crucial person will be the community schools coordinator, which all community schools in California must hire to receive state funding. Whom should districts be looking for, and why is that person important?
A community school coordinator is a bridge builder. We’ve had innumerable principals say, “I don’t know how I managed before I had a community school coordinator.” A community school coordinator is vital to connecting the work of partners and school staff. They should be collaborative and like to work with other people; they should be someone who knows how to listen to families and young people, who can bring ideas from partners to the principal and teachers and be part of the school leadership team.
The California Teachers Association has taken a position and some local unions in negotiations that the community schools coordinator should be a certificated teacher. A number of districts have said that first and foremost, the person should come from the community and know the community. What’s your view?
Sometimes you’ll find a social worker with community organizing training. Or a teacher who was a Peace Corps volunteer, a parent or community resident with strong relational skills. We need someone who can build bridges to the community whether they work for a school system, a nonprofit organization or a higher education institution. We should not limit ourselves when we think about where we look for people.
What might be early wins that might set the right tone and culture for community schools?
Attendance is a big issue and really a critical place to start. People are worried about it all across the country. When you have partnerships, whether it’s around health and mental health or just outreach with the ability to talk to parents and meet in their homes or workplaces, you can encourage improvement in attendance. In Baltimore, grassroots groups of Black men, some of whom are formerly incarcerated, have become involved with schools to try to make connections.
I can imagine some principals and teachers might say, “We welcome the partnerships, we welcome the additional resources, but leave instruction and learning to us.” How can what goes on in the school day be integrated into the community school?
We’ve seen teachers do walk-arounds in neighborhoods, so they understand their students’ lives and communities and use that knowledge in the classroom. At the UCLA Community School, the kids have worked on immigration and housing issues. We’ve seen young people get involved in dealing with hunger and nutrition issues in their neighborhoods. Partners can help facilitate that.
Listen to kids. You can build a standards-based curriculum that involves kids dealing with science and math, and everything else around problems that matter to them and to their neighborhood.
Listen: How principals must open up schools and themselves for community schools to succeed
The community can be a resource for learning apprenticeships and internships. The University of Pennsylvania has students going into labs and doing summer work. All of that is part of what can happen in a community school.
For this $4 billion public investment, what metrics should the public use to gauge whether community schools are making a difference in the lives of students including, academic achievement?
They would see better attendance. They might see reductions in disciplinary incidents because they’ve applied restorative justice practices. They might see indications of improvement in mental health, not only because young people have had access to mental health professionals, but also because they’ve just had more opportunities to be on a team, whether it’s a robotics team or a football team, They should be looking for parents to stand up and say, “This school works for our kids” and for kids to be saying the same kinds of things.
I was told by a high school principal who was a community schools manager that building trust can be difficult and that the initial efforts can be frustrating. Parents are busy, and perhaps their own experiences may have turned them off to school.
It’s a never-ending process. Each of us, in our personal lives, in our professional lives, has had situations where we built some trust, we lost the trust, we had to rebuild it. Parents are busy, but if you knock on doors and listen to them, you can capture the essence of what they want. Educators and partners build trust when they look at data together to solve problems.
You mentioned timing may be both right and difficult now, with so much scrutiny on schools for various reasons and tensions brought into schools from the outside. Your book ends with this quote: “Now more than ever, with a deeply divided electorate and an often toxic political environment, community schools may represent a strategy that can bring people together, build community, and even bridge ideological divides.” Why are you confident that a community school can achieve such ambitions?
If you’re not a dreamer or ambitious, then you’re not going to be able to overcome the historic inequities that have existed in our public school system and society. I’ve been at this work for 60 years, and it’s been urgent for all 60 years. When we first opened the migrant education program in a formerly segregated school in southeast Missouri, it was urgent. Now, with our politics so divided, the fact that there can be community schools in Florida and Idaho, in New York and California, in Wisconsin and Texas, indicates there’s a power in the idea of public school being the vehicle around which we build community.
School leaders have to realize that they gain power by being more open. And that’s a challenge, given the politics of the moment. But our schools are a place that everyone knows, where we can all come together and act democratically. It’s not the only solution, but it offers the possibility of creating the kind of trust, the kind of relationships and the kind of places where people can come and see that we all care about each other’s kids.
Community schools show how people and organizations can come together to solve problems.
Students from Bakersfield College participate in an Intro to EV class.
Courtesy: Bakersfield College
I was introduced to community colleges when I left my hometown, Kollam, in southern India, to attend graduate school as a foreign student in California. The idea of open access, that anyone, even older adults, could attend college was astonishing to me.
Now, 30 years later, I’ve been given the opportunity to lead the nation’s largest institution of higher education — the 116-campus, 1.9-million-student California Community College system, where almost half of our students are older adults.
The Community College System is one of our state’s most valuable assets, our main engine of social mobility. We generate $128 billion in annual income for California, amounting to more than 4% of the state’s gross product.
We are essential to the state’s achieving its ambitious goals in everything from climate policy, to growing a world-class labor force, to expanding the middle class. We are essential to the state’s ability to address a massive nursing shortage, support an aging population, prepare for an electric future in need of skilled and trained technicians and more.
None of this can be done without the California Community Colleges.
To fulfill this essential role, we must build on our successes, confront our continuing challenges and accelerate our progress. Our recently released planning document, “Vision 2030: A Roadmap for California Community Colleges,” outlines the steps to take. The plan envisions a higher education system more inclusive of all Californians and one that ensures access points for every learner across race, ethnicity, region, class, age and gender to enter a supported pathway with exit points to transfer or complete a community college baccalaureate or obtain a job with family-sustaining wages.
I am excited that Vision 2030 reexamines what access means when we lead with equity: We can’t wait for individuals to come to college; we must take college to them. We will take college to our high schools and expand dual enrollment, we will take college to our justice-involved Californians, to our foster youth.
We are the largest system of higher education in the nation, yet 6.8 million Californians — disproportionately people of color — have graduated from high school but have no college credentials. This group is likely to be low-income and struggle to find gainful employment. Our roadmap for the coming years addresses this fundamental question: Why has our system not yet reached these individuals? When those in need cannot find their way to college, we must find ways to bring college to them. This means partnering with community-based organizations, worker-represented organizations and industry leaders to implement options that would make college more accessible for these populations, such as short-term courses, workforce-aligned noncredit options, certificates and degrees.
While recently some have questioned the value of college, the evidence is clear: Higher education remains a key to social mobility. We will prioritize skill-building for jobs that pay living wages while recognizing that a baccalaureate degree is a powerful predictor of higher wages.
We will build on our traditional role in workforce training to meet Gov. Gavin Newsom’s priorities for our system in health care, education, STEM and climate change.
In my previous roles heading Bakersfield College and later Kern Community College District, I worked closely with partners to establish a center for renewable energy making the case that community colleges are essential to all aspects of climate work — workforce development, community engagement and large-scale technology transfer for economic development. Our colleges are primed to build the next wave of climate action solutions like the creation of microgrids for grid resilience.
California’s future is inextricably tied to its community colleges. We are committed to partnering together to solve some of California’s toughest challenges, engaging with purpose, creativity, thoughtfulness and urgency. Our time is now!
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Research by Stanford University found that 75 of the lowest-performing California elementary schools that received funding from an out-of-court settlement made significant progress on third-grade state Smarter Balanced tests this year.
The results indicate that the $50 million the schools received for effective reading instruction in the primary grades carried over to third grade after two years of funding.
“The fact that we were able to budge third grade comprehension assessments with a grant that was focused on TK, kindergarten, first grade, second grade, with a light touch on third grade, is amazing,” said Margaret Goldberg, literacy coach at Nystrom Elementary in West Contra Costa Unified, one of the schools that received the Early Literacy Support Block Grants, or ELSBs.
The 75 schools had the lowest scores in the state in 2019 on the third-grade Smarter Balanced test. They received the money, averaging $1,144 per year for the 15,541 K-three students, under the settlement in the lawsuit, Ella T. v. the State of California, brought by the public interest law firm Public Counsel. It argued that the state violated the students’ constitutional right to an education by failing to teach them how to read adequately.
Eligible schools were chosen from various districts, including Los Angeles Unified, San Francisco Unified, West Contra Costa Unified and others. The funding promoted the literacy instruction known as the “science of reading,” which includes explicit phonics instruction in kindergarten and first grade, along with the development of vocabulary, oral language, comprehension and writing.
Schools had the flexibility to choose to fund literacy coaches and bilingual reading specialists, new curriculum and instructional materials, expanded access to libraries and literacy training for parents. Schools were encouraged to participate in professional development in the science of reading and seek guidance on their literacy plans from the Sacramento County Office of Education, which oversaw the grants.
Released Monday, the study concluded that the block grants “generated significant (and cost-effective) improvements in English language arts achievement in its first two years of implementation as well as smaller, spillover improvements in math achievement,” wroteresearchers Thomas Dee, a professor at Stanford’s Graduate School of Education, and Sarah Novicoff, a Stanford doctoral candidate in educational policy.
Students in the funded schools were scoring at the bottom of the scale in 2019, and, despite significant progress, few had achieved reading at grade level in 2023. Dee and Novicoff credited the early education grant for increasing third graders’ achievement by 0.14 standard deviation, the equivalent of a 25% increase in a year of learning, compared with demographically similar students who did not receive the funding. Researchers also found a similar gain by comparing the scores of third graders in the schools with the grants with third-grade scores of fifth graders from the same schools who had not benefited from the funding.
The Smarter Balanced reports results in four performance bands: standard not met, standard nearly met, standard met and standard exceeded. The schools with the grants succeeded in raising scores by 6 percentage points from the lowest category to standard nearly met, significantly reducing the number of students requiring intensive help. Still, after two years of funding, only 13.5% of students are proficient in reading, having met or exceeded standard. That’s 3 percentage points higher than in 2018, and 1 percentage point above pre-pandemic 2019. Schools with similar students not receiving the grants remain below where they were before Covid, according to the research.
Dee and Novicoff were unable to analyze why some schools performed better than others, which could be useful in shaping the state’s policy on early literacy. Unlike some states with comprehensive literacy plans, California does not collect any assessment data that school districts collect from TK to second grade. And, under the rules that the state negotiated in the settlement, participating schools were not required to submit their assessment data to the California Department of Education; most voluntarily did in the second year, but many did not in the first year. It’s also unclear how many schools adhered to their literacy plans or focused on less effective or ineffective strategies for improvement.
Researchers used the only complete set of state-level data to which they had access — third-grade reading comprehension assessments. Those scores may have understated the progress in reading that many schools made on district assessments in the first and second grades.
Public Counsel filed the Ella T. v. the State of California lawsuit in 2017, and the settlement went into effect during the height of the pandemic.Dee said the early success of the program during Covid, amid teacher shortages and extremely high chronic absences, made the results even more striking.
The third graders who took the Smarter Balanced test in 2023 “were the hardest hit by the pandemic. They were in kindergarten when it was interrupted by Covid,” Goldberg said. “They attended first grade remotely. In second grade, in schools like mine, which chose to adopt new curriculum, their teachers had never taught the curriculum before.”
Dee noted the academic gains from the grant were relatively large compared with the cost, making the program quite cost-effective — an effect size that is 13 times higher than general, untargeted spending.
Goldberg said the grant was efficient “because early intervention is cheaper and it’s more effective than waiting until third grade or later grades to provide reading support.”
The grant funding ends in June 2024. Dee said whether schools can sustain improved scores without specific funding support is an open question. Novicoff mentioned that the grant schools may be able to continue receiving support for literacy coaches and reading specialists if they receive funding from the new Literacy Coach and Reading Specialist Grant program.
Instead of being based on performance, the literacy coach grants are awarded to schools with high unduplicated pupil percentages, or the number of students who are eligible for free or reduced meals, are English language learners or are foster youth. Schools eligible for an early literacy grant may also qualify for a literacy coach grant.
Dee said design and implementation are key if the state hopes to continue or scale this success. This means paying close attention to school-based literacy action plans, oversight and resources with some flexibility. “This is a story about how schools that get money tend to do better — money does matter in schools, and this is another piece of evidence into that bucket,” Novicoff said, “but it also shows that what we can do with the money and how you structure that funding really does matter.”
The pandemic had a devastating impact on learning, experts say, with lasting ramifications for the world of education at large.
During the chaotic period when California families were running scared, public schools were shuttered and playgrounds off-limits, an estimated 152,000 California children went missing from classrooms, according to a collaboration between Stanford professor Thomas Dee and The Associated Press.
Now, after a new analysis of the most recent data, experts say they know what happened to roughly 65,000 of those children, meaning the number of missing kids has shrunk considerably, leaving only an estimated 87,000 children still missing from public school rolls. The mystery of exactly where they went lingers, however.
This analysis tracked plummeting public school enrollment from 2019-20, when the pandemic first struck, to 2022-23, by the time schools had reopened. During that rocky time, the school-age cohort in California, the nation’s most populous state, plunged by about 188,000, according to census data, while the number of home-schoolers rose by 8,431 and private school enrollment grew by about 28,000, according to the report.
Tallying all the known factors accounts for about 65,000 students of the state’s total decline of 152,000. Do the math and that leaves roughly 87,000 students, or 28% of the enrollment decline. Where these students went remains unknown, but experts suggest there are myriad factors to consider.
“These data are generative of questions that matter for education policy. … I would encourage you to think of it as an important indicator and kind of a canary in a coal mine,” Dee said.
Data suggests some of the overall decline in enrollment stems from children who have simply aged out of the system at this point. Basically, the school-age population is much smaller than it once was, with 188,000 fewer children in the 7-18 age range in 2022-23. If you were 16 when the pandemic started, you are no longer in this cohort.
After all, California, like the rest of the nation, is grappling with the aftershocks of a declining birthrate. The state’s birth rate is at its lowest level in roughly 100 years, according to a Public Policy Institute of California report. The steep cost of child care coupled with the high cost of housing are often cited by experts as among the key reasons for the falling birth rate.
“Demographic change is continuing to accelerate,” said Dee, “the graying of the country and the continued decline in the number of school-age children.”
As a whole, there’s been an unprecedented exodus from public schools nationwide that experts say has been worse in states like California that focused on remote learning. This trend initially most deeply impacted the youngest learners, such as kindergartners, who struggled mightily with Zoom school. While many experts expected public school enrollment to bounce back sharply as the pandemic faded from view, that has not been the case.
“At the time I thought to myself, this is likely to be a temporary phenomenon,” said Dee. “I was expecting them to crowd into kindergarten in fall of 2021 or skip ahead to first grade, having lost a key kind of developmental opportunity by forgoing kindergarten. And was surprised to see that neither occurred.”
The continued sustained missingness in places like California and New York raises questions for which we still don’t have answers.
Thomas Dee, the Stanford education professor who led the analysis
Many families also fled the Golden State, seeking greener pastures in more affordable spots. That has led to losses in California and gains in Florida, for example.
“In many places, the demographic trends were accelerated by pandemic mobility,” said Dee, “the fact that families reshuffled around the country and out of states like California and New York.”
Many children also switched to homeschooling, which held extra appeal for parents amid recurring outbreaks. Private schools, which resumed in-person classes faster than public schools, also got a big boost.
“There’s been this resetting of enrollment patterns across public and nonpublic settings that is enduring,” Dee said. “We’re seeing that in terms of the sustained growth in nonpublic schooling. … We’re in this new normal where there’s this stickiness there.”
The bad news for public schools is that there are still tens of thousands of children who seem to have fallen off the grid. They didn’t leave the state, they didn’t go to private or homeschool. While there’s a chance some children are being homeschooled without filling out the required big pile of paperwork, there may still be a missing cohort out there.
It should be noted that possible explanations for these remaining missing kids are both numerous and complex. Some of it may be families keeping kids in preschool instead of enrolling them in kindergarten. Some of it may be high-schoolers getting jobs but not officially dropping out.
Part of it might be newly homeless families, displaced by the tidal wave of post-pandemic evictions, who can’t get the kids to school amid their other struggles. Part of it could also be the margin of error on the census population estimate.
“The factors you mention could be occurring simultaneously,” notes Dee.
One near certainty is that the ongoing disengagement with the public school system seems to cut deep. That’s one reason chronic absenteeism has also been escalating, experts say. In the 2021-22 school year, a third of students in California’s public schools were chronically absent, an all-time high. That’s more than three times the rate of absenteeism before Covid.
This spike also holds nationally. One analysis estimated 14 million chronically absent students during the 2021 school, an increase of nearly 7 million since 2017.
Going Deeper
View kindergarten enrollment changes from 2019 to 2021 in California with EdSource’s interactive map.
Some say it may be indicative of a lack of student and parent engagement. Some of that dissatisfaction may have been triggered during remote learning at the height of the pandemic, some say, when parents got to experience what their children were learning firsthand.
“The pandemic gave parents a rare window into the classroom via Zoom,” said Bill Conrad, a Bay Area educator for 47 years and author of “The Fog of Education.” “They were not impressed with the failed teaching practices, especially for reading. Parents elected to provide different learning opportunities for their children. Can you blame them? They are protesting with their feet.”
This trend is particularly disturbing from an equity lens, some say, because families without resources cannot simply shell out for private schools, work at home to manage homeschooling or hire tutors. That may widen the already unsettling achievement gap, some fear.
“The biggest challenge from my point of view is the socioeconomic inequity,” said Jenny Mackenzie, director of the literacy crisis documentary “The Right to Read.” “In other words, families who would like to take a break from the public school system … cannot afford to do that.”
Some families who lost faith in the ability of schools to meet the needs of students across a wide range of issues, including literacy and numeracy, may need to feel that their voices are being heard. The pandemic was the tipping point, some say, but the issues may go beyond school closures.
“Since the pandemic, more parents question whether their child is better off in school,” said Scott Moore, head of Kidango, a nonprofit organization that runs many Bay Area child care and preschool centers. “This is good news because parents should question everything about California’s education system. Decade after decade, less than half of students are proficient in language and math. Perhaps it is the instructional methods or curriculum that lack proficiency?”
Forging stronger connections with families who face challenges with school attendance may also be part of the solution.
“The reasons behind student absenteeism are incredibly complex, and so the responses have to be complex as well,” said Heather Hough, director of Policy Analysis for California Education, noting that the first step should be asking families what challenges they face coming to school.
Low-income students and students of color often feel less sense of belonging at school than their peers, research suggests. Strengthening that frayed bond may not be easy, some warn, but it is necessary.
“School is sometimes a source of trauma, and even intergenerational trauma, disproportionately for historically marginalized groups,” said Shantel Meek, founding director of the Children’s Equity Project, an advocacy and research organization based at Arizona State University. “We’re all familiar with the data on harsh discipline and how Black children are more harshly disciplined than everybody else, despite not having any worse behavior.”
Some suggest we may be approaching a watershed moment, a time for education to pivot to better meet changing student needs.
“Public education has failed to shift post-pandemic to the new way of learning,” said Alex Cherniss, superintendent of Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified. “Now students and families are seeing alternative ways, and often better ways, to learn. As a result, homeschooling is at an all-time high, remote learning is mainstream, and public school can either evolve or continue to deteriorate.”
Amid the looming ambiguities, one certainty emerges. Snowballing enrollment declines are poised to undermine the financial stability of the public school system just as pandemic relief funds expire and learning loss deepens.
Enrollment has fallen at nearly three-quarters of California school districts over the last five years, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, and these losses are expected to continue, with state officials estimating a drop of over a half million students by 2031–32.
“That’s so important at this moment,” Dee said, “because we’re seeing many school districts struggle with chronic under-enrollment of their schools and having to reckon with the fiscal reality of that at a time when ESSER (emergency school relief) funds are going to sunset.”
Preschool children learn to express themselves through painting.
Credit: Courtesy of Daniel Mendoza
Amid a national reckoning over learning loss and chronic absenteeism deepened by the pandemic, arts education may be one of the keys to boosting children’s engagement in school, research suggests. Like sports, the arts can spark the kind of excitement that makes students, and their families, look forward to coming to school.
Devotees of the arts have long argued that art transforms us, but in recent years, neuroscience has shown just how beneficial arts education can be for children. Music, for instance, can buttress the architecture of the growing brain. Theater classes teach empathy, history and literacy all by putting on a show. Creativity, storytelling and the spirit of play ignite learning, effortlessly building the memory and concentration that academic rigor demands.
Low-income children often see the biggest gains. That’s why making arts education accessible to all is the thrust of Proposition 28, the state’s historic arts mandate, which voters approved in 2022. Spearheaded by former Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Austin Beutner, the initiative began doling out money to schools last year.
However, the groundbreaking program has run into several significant hurdles during its rollout, including a deep teacher shortage, widespread confusion about spending rules and pointed disagreements about how to interpret the law. Arts advocates are scrutinizing district arts budgets, and some are pushing for a state audit of the Los Angeles Unified School District, which has been accused of misspending funds in an ongoing lawsuit filed by families and Beutner.
What do students learn from the arts?
The lessons of arts education are vast, from creativity to cognitive boosts. That’s why it has always been part of a classical education. From the arts, children learn focus, discipline and teamwork in addition to how to sharpen their own sense of voice and ingenuity, vital skills in a future likely dominated by artificial intelligence (AI). Originality is essentially a human gift, one that machines can only imitate.
While each school has been tapped to choose the kind of arts education that best suits its community, the California Department of Education (CDE) is leading the implementation of the initiative. CDE has provided guidance in FAQs and webinars to help districts navigate the rules. Questions can be emailed to Prop28@cde.ca.gov.
How much money do schools get?
Funding, which gets funneled through the district, is variable depending on the size of the school and the number of Title 1, low-income students there. The money is ongoing, and school districts have up to three years to spend each allocation. Disbursements began to land in February 2024.
What is the money supposed to pay for?
Arts disciplines are broadly defined, from dance to digital arts, and schools are encouraged to tailor the program to the shifting needs of students over time. However, most of the funding is intended to pay for arts teachers. In general, at least 80% of the funds are for school staffers, certified or classified employees, to provide arts education. Up to 20% is for arts education support, including training, supplies, materials and arts partnerships. No more than 1% of total funds may go to administrative costs.
Is there a waiver from the spending rules?
The CDE may provide a waiver to school districts for “good cause” if the 80/20 rule cannot be followed. Waiver requests must include a problem statement, framing the waiver as a proposed solution to the problem. Reasons for a waiver may include a need to purchase costly supplies or equipment, such as buying musical instruments for an orchestra, or the need to contract with an arts partner due to an inability to hire qualified staff. Thus far, 2.4% of school districts have requested a waiver for 2024-25 spending, according to the CDE, down from 8.2% for 2023-24.
Can you pay for existing arts programs with the new money?
No. Prop. 28 money must “supplement” and not “supplant” funding for arts education. For example, if you spent $1 million on arts education in the 2022-23 school year, you were expected to spend $1 million plus your Prop. 28 money in the 2023-24 school year (the first year Prop. 28 funds were available).
However, allegations of supplanting funds have arisen across the state as arts teachers watch new Prop. 28 funds being used to pay for existing programs. There are also disagreements on whether the litmus test on spending applies to districts as a whole or school by school.
What are the main issues in the Los Angeles Unified lawsuit?
The core issue is paying for old programs with new money. Beutner, the author of the law, maintains that each individual school should offer more arts than before, while Los Angeles Unified officials have argued that spending is measured at the district level. Student plaintiffs and Beutner have filed a lawsuit against LAUSD, alleging misuse of funds. State education officials have avoided taking sides in the matter, but CDE auditing rules suggest that compliance is determined at the district level. Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, D-Los Angeles, has called for a state audit of LAUSD’s use of Prop. 28 funds.
What are the biggest challenges facing Prop. 28?
The challenges of this rollout are myriad. Thorny issues include finding staff amid a teacher shortage, interpreting complicated rules and finding the time and space to hold extra classes. Schools without a Visual and Performing Arts coordinator often struggle with planning, experts say, and many have put off spending the money due to a lack of clarity on the spending rules and a lack of knowledge about the arts in general. While many school districts have reported they did not use the funds in the first year of Prop. 28 funding, according to some estimates, the window to tap into the funds is three years. Next year will be crunch time on assessing how comprehensively California schools are able to expand arts education.
What should parents know?
Ask your principal how the Prop. 28 money is being spent and share your ideas on what artistic disciplines would best fit your community. Remember that arts education is a very broad landscape, from dance to digital arts. If there has been no increased access to arts education, that could be a red flag.
Are adults shaped by childhood exposure to arts education?
Early music training may impart a lifelong neuroplasticity that helps keep the brain sharp even as it ages. A 65-year-old musician has the neural activity of a 25-year-old non-musician, experts say. A 65-year-old who played music as a child but hasn’t touched an instrument in ages has neural responses faster than a peer who never played music.
