The past two months since my last post have been filled with notable news--much of which concerns national and state education. Here is a recap on some of the most pressing stories of these past weeks:
1. President Elect Donald Trump Names Betsy Devos as His Secretary of Education Nominee
Arguably the largest education news from November involves the President Elect's nomination of Betsy Devos as the nominee for Secretary of Education.
A quick Google search will provide a myriad of articles, stories, and op-eds each detailing the political positions of Mrs. DeVos, so there is little need to delve into too many specifics. One interesting item to consider, however, is Mrs. DeVos's personal website which offers a small glimpse into her core views on federal education policy.
2. Federal Audit of California High School Graduation Rates
On a more local level, at the end of November, it was announced that the U.S. Department of Education will review high school graduation rates of California and Alabama. As reported in the Union-Tribune, San Diego Unified School District has not yet been directly notified regarding any auditing procedures.
The rising high school graduation rates across the nation have been met with much scrutiny--specifically related to the complex reporting rules that differ from state to state. For a look at the scrutiny attached to the rising number within San Diego, head over to this recent Voice of San Diego article:
3. San Diego Unified Budgetary Issues Prompts Concern of Layoffs
Most recently, the Union Tribune reported yesterday that SDUSD is expecting a budgetary shortfall of approximately $117 million for the 2017-2018 school year--forcing the need for significant cuts and potential layoffs. Given the concerns of an on-going teacher shortage, this issue should be especially watched. One notable date to keep in mind: California law requires district's to notify classified staff of impending layoffs by March 15.
It goes without saying that this year's election is one of the most contentious, bitter, and inflammatory of any previous in modern history (however, let's not forget the Hamilton/Burr Deul leading up to the election of 1808 or the "Corrupt Bargain" of 1812).
While the divisive and sultry rhetoric of the presidential race may have many of us planning to stay home on November 8th, it is important to remember that there are important state and city initiatives up for vote on that. Here's a rundown of some of those important races:
Local San Diego Ballot
San Diego Unified Board Member Elections
Probably one of the most important issues on the ballot in San Diego is the election of new SDUSD board members. Here is an overview of the seats currently up for vote:
For more information on this race, and the positions of each candidate, visit the election coverage at Ballotpedia.
California Ballot Initiatives
There are two ballot initiatives that will make important statements on the California education system (note: click on each image for more information).
Proposition 51: Public School Facility Bonds
Proposition 58: Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Schools
While these represent a microhrochosm of all the ballot measures and races this November (the Voter Election Guide was over 200 pages this year...), these are some of the key votes related to San Diego education.
For more information on these and all the California races, check out the great summaries and analysis at Ballotpedia:
Earlier this month, the New York Times elaborated on a working report by researchers Katherine Michelmore and Susan Dynarski from the University of Michigan. The study focuses on the method used to track school-wide poverty levels and its connection to overall levels of socio-economic need within that school/district. The researchers suggest that looking solely at the Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) eligibility rates as the primary indicator of socio-economic need provides an inadequate representation of that school's overall level of disadvantagedness.
Instead, the researchers suggest that the rate of FRL eligibility should be further broken down to examine student persistence within that subgroup. For example, it is not enough to just say that 25% of students are eligible for FRL and thus considered socio-economically disadvantaged. Instead, the University of Michigan team suggests that schools and districts should indicate the overall length of time that students and families have remained eligible for the FRL program. In their research, Michelmore and Dynarski found a substantial negative linear correlation between years spent as FRL eligible and corresponding test-scores in 8th grade. While they do not state causation between FRL eligibility with reduced performance (given that the gaps between affluent peers remains unchanged from the early grades) they do suggest that this measure appropriately recognizes varying levels of poverty within their communities. Thus, while the old measures would label two schools with 25% FRl eligibility as equally disadvantaged, the methodology suggested by Michelmore and Dynarski would further break down that 25% into levels of persistent poverty--a factor that they believe that ultimately suggests higher need.
Although the study examines Michigan public schools, the researcher's analysis of FRL measures is at the very least anecdotally applicable to San Diego--especially given the high levels of FRL eligibility that exist within San Diego Unified (SDUSD). According to the California Department of Education reporting, 63.3% of SDUSD students were FRL eligible during the 2014-2015 school year--a rate that grew from 62.5% in the previous year (specific statistics compiled by the Ed-Data demographic reporting service). While this statistic does not break this rate down based on grade levels, consistent FRL eligibility, etc., it is reasonable to assume that a large portion of that 62.5% carried over as FRL eligible in the following school year.
Regardless of how it is looked at, the high rates of FRL eligibility within San Diego speak volumes about the socio-economic need of our community.
In the 2 months since my last post, much has happened in the realm of education--especially in California. For those who have been tuned out for the summer (admiringly, like I have from regular blog-posting) here is a quick re-cap on 2 pressing stories in California education:
For more information on Senate Bill, head over to the California Department of Education website. Teach For America San Diego and San Francisco -- A Tale of Two Cities
Earlier in July, SDUSD voted to renew it's partnership with Teach For America as a method of teacher recruitment. Although the board meeting and vote went on with little resistance or issue, this is not the current atmosphere all across the state.
This past May, the San Francisco Board of Education voted not to renew the Teach for America partnership contract for the 2017-2018 school year and beyond. The news has been met with heavy criticisms from both sides of the issue--especially at a time where California's teacher shortfall remains extremely high entering the new school year.
For more information about this story and the Teach For America response, please see the links below:
On the heels of that groundbreaking achievement, however, are new findings from the Federal Department of Education exposing the prevalence of a problematic barrier to student success: attendance. In a report released in May, the Department of Education found that over 6 million students (13.1%) were chronically absent for the 2013-2014 school year--meaning that they missed more than 15 days of school in that year. Moreover, the highest rate of these absences occur in high school and among students of minority background.
Breakdown of Student subgroups
Nationwide Findings
How do these findings mirror San Diego County? Although the last report by San Diego Unified on this subject was released in 2008, its findings mirrored current national trends. Released nearly a decade ago, it showed some parts of the county reached 25% and higher for chronic absenteeism in district high schools:
San Diego County Rates of Chronic Absenteeism, 2008.
While current figures for San Diego county are unavailable, the fact that these trends existed in 2008 is still striking.
The full Federal Department of Education report can be viewed here:
Last month, a study conducted by the University of California, San Diego predicted a significant drop in San Diego Unified's graduation rate for the 2015-2016 school year. As examined in this blog, these concerning figures stemmed from the district's recent policy of requiring all students to take and complete the rigorous A-G college preparatory curriculum.
During last night's board meeting, however, San Diego Unified released its own rebuttal to these reports--claiming instead that their internal data predicts a record high graduation rate of 92%. This rate reaches significantly higher than the predicted 72% from the UCSD study and slightly higher than the previous years rate of 89.7%. Why the drastic discrepancy in predictions? According to SDUSD officials cited in this morning's San Diego Union Tribune, the UCSD study was flawed in that it relied on data taken last year during the class of 2016's junior year and failed to account for the interventions administered this school year. District officials are confident that their figures are accurate and that the
Below are the articles from KPBS and the San Diego UT highlighting today's reports.
Earlier this week, the New York Times published an eye-opening article highlighting the correlation between socio-economic/racial background and academic achievement. While the article underscores a long realistic unacceptable trend in the American Education system (that minority and socio-economic status play a correlative factor in a students projected academic trajectories), it nonetheless provides important insight into trends within specific districts. According to research conducted by Stanford University, a positive correlation exists between socioeconomic status and academic achievement (meaning that as socioeconomic status rises, so does academic performance and vice versa). The research goes on to cite that more affluent school districts score, on average, 4+ grade levels higher in reading and math test scores than their peers in the poorest school districts. The research further looked at academic achievement across ethic lines and found similar trends--especially in those areas where large socio-economic gaps also existed. Take a look at the interactive maps in the article to see data from various districts (brownie-points if you can find San Diego Unified):
For those that could not--or did not have the time to--find San Diego Unified School District on the two main graphs, take a look at the following screenshots:
First, the graph comparing San Diego Unified to other districts in terms of socio-economic status and achievement. Notice how SDUSD falls in the middle in middle in both of these variables.
Educational Attainment in Each School District in the United States.
The next graph shows how minority sub-groups in SDUSD compared to their peers in terms of both academic achievement and socio-economic status. Notice how Hispanic and Black students fall well below their white peers in both categories.
Academic Achievement Among Minority SubGroups
While it is important to remember that this research only shows a correlation between these factors, it nonetheless underscores the realities that can exist for socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority students. This is especially concerning when you look at the demographic profile of San Diego Unified--again, the second largest school district in the state. According to San Diego Unified's own reporting, the district contains the following rates of ethnic diversity:
46.5% Hispanic/Latino
23.4% White
10.2% African American
19.9% Other
Furthermore, the EdData website--which tracks and records student demographic information from across the nation--reported that nearly 60.7% of students in SDUSD qualified for the National School Lunch Program--meaning that their family income level falls below, or significantly close to, the federal poverty standards. While it is albeit foolish to posit that the Stanford research is accurate for all the reported student subgroups in SDUSD, this research--combined with the demographic profile of San Diego--makes this information all the more relevant to teachers, administrators, students, and families within the district.
Last week, NPR launched a series of stories focused on disparities across the country in state funding of education. Titled "School Money", the stories specifically focus on how funding disparities impact the most deserving students in our communities. Although this blog has examined educational funding within the California budget and the reliance of state funding, the issues described in these recent stories stress the importance of continued engagement with this topic.
First--a refresher course on California's system of educational funding. As a reminder, until 1978, local school districts relied primarily on local and state property tax revenues for a majority of funding. In the late 1970s, however, soaring property values (and the resulting rise in rates) caused panic amongst California citizens--a panic that ushered in a desire for property tax reform. This desire manifested itself in Proposition 13--a citizen based reform initiative that eventually passed in 1978. While the merits of the Proposition were novel in their effort to reign in the exponentially growing property tax rates, the impacts on education proved significant. Mainly, this measure caused local districts to become increasingly reliant dependent on state sources of funding. Again, see the earlier post regarding the state budget and this helpful timeline of Proposition 13 for a better understanding of this process.
Thirty-eight years removed from Proposition 13 and educational funding now constitutes almost 1/3 of California's total state budget. While this 30% may seem like a substantially large source of funding, a 2013 report from the Washington Examiner found that California actually fell behind 11 other states in the overall portion of the state budget dedicated to education.
Moreover, when it comes to per-pupil spending, California--and most of it's districts--fall below the national average. According to NPR, California as a whole spends an average of $8,399 per student--well below the national average of $11,841. When broken down by individual districts, those numbers continue to fall beyond the spectrum. While most school districts in the northern portion of the state fall within or above the national average, the majority of districts in the Central Valley and Southern portions of the state fall below. For example, San Diego Unified (which is the second largest district in the state according to the California Department of Education) spends $9,880--again, below the national average. In fact, with the exception of Rancho Santa Fe Elementary School District and Julian Union High School District (which spend $14, 874 and $15,168 per student, respectively), all school districts in San Diego County fall below the national average.
The main question to ponder from these findings: how to these funding disparities impact our students?
I recommend reading the full story below and taking a look at the interactive map to compare your own districts with the national average.
Last April, the California Department of Education announced that California high schools had achieved a record high graduation rate. Their reporting indicated that the graduation rate among students who started high school in the 2010-2011 school year reached 80.8 percent--a 0.4 percent increase from the year before. Additionally, no sub-group dropped in graduation rates and many groups--including English Language Learners--saw significant improvement. While this--and similar trends across the country--were welcome news, many took a more skeptical view of the rising rates--pointing to differences in what constitutes a high school "graduate" from state to states. NPR ran a series focused on these concerns in 2015.
While the rising rates of high school completes is overall good news, a recent report (embedded below) released by the University of California San Diego suggests that the trend may soon taper off within San Diego Unified high schools. The report points to the district's recent policy of requiring all students to take UC A-G college preparatory coursework--a policy started for the class of 2016 cohort. While the study found that this policy has increased the population of students passing these courses and thus eligible for UC/CSU applications and admissions, the study also reported concerning results that suggest a declining graduation rate this school year. According to the UCSD report:
Approximately 27% will face difficulty in finishing their remaining A-G requirements this semester--meaning that they will be ineligible to graduate by June 2016.
English Language Learners and students with IEPs comprise over half of that 27% of students.
These findings also suggest that those students with grade point averages of less than 2.0--an additional graduation requirement--will increase. When factored in, this means that the group of students at risk of not graduating rises slightly to 28%
If these predictions are correct, the projected 2016 graduation rate will be 72%--a rate significantly lower than than the 87.5% June 2014 graduation rate (89.7% eventually graduated after summer school).
KPBS--San Diego's NPR affiliate--recently discussed these findings with a co-author of the report, Julian Betts, and SDUSD Board Member Richard Barrera.
While the final outcomes remain to be seen, these reports nonetheless underscore the continued need for targeted interventions directed towards our most deserving student sub-groups.
Questions to Consider:
What, if any, problems do you see in the SDUSD policy requiring all students to take UC A-G approved, college prep, curriculum?
What can the district and local schools do to ensure that those struggling 27% of students receive adequate support?
Last week, the United States Senate confirmed John King as the next Secretary of Education. Although King has been acting as interim Secretary since Arne Duncan left the position last Fall, this confirmation now means that King will serve as the full-time Secretary for at least this final year of the current administration.
To learn more about the newly confirmed Secretary of Education, check out the full transcripts of his recent speeches:
Good afternoon. I'm John King, Acting U.S. Secretary of Education. It's wonderful to be here today. What an amazing place this is-it's incredible to think that this was once an abandoned rec center in downtown Baltimore. Today, the Digital Harbor Foundation Tech Center is a public makerspace, with a focus on giving disadvantaged youth the resources and the tools to tinker, create and learn.
Recently, the San Diego Union Tribune published a story that highlighted pockets of economic inequality and "distress" within San Diego County. The story, which cites a recently published research study by The Economic Innovation Group, emphasizes that economic recovery following the 2008 collapse has not been even in San Diego County.
Most of San Diego has recovered following the 2008 recession, but new data shows National City and Imperial Beach are not recovering on par with their neighbors. The Economic Innovation Group, based in Washington, D.C., released a paper last week breaking down the economic recovery. The study researched zip codes across the country and measured them based on the following indicators:
Percent of adults 25+ with no high school degree
Precent of housing that remains unoccupied
Percent of individuals 16+ who are without work
Percent of population living below the Federal poverty level
Median income of the population as compared to the State's media income levels
Percent of individuals switching jobs from 2010-2013
Percent change in the number of businesses in the community from 2010-2013
States and cities were then rated on a scale of 0-100 where scores closer to 100 indicate extreme economic distress.
Overall, the study found positive results for San Diego County. In total, the research found that only 4% of San Diego County residents were considered economically distressed. In fact, San Diego County's score placed it within the to 20 cities to be calculated nationwide. At the same time, however, two communities in San Diego County--National City and Imperial Beach--each scored in the 80s (National City: 80.6 and Imperial Beach: 85.1). Additionally, other zip code regions near downtown, North Park, and City Heights, ranged in the mid-to-high 60s.
While the study did not focus on correlating these issues to specific educational outcomes, the findings are striking given the pockets of economic hardship that still exist in San Diego County.
Below, you can find the research study and an interactive map detailing its findings.
Questions to Consider:
What (if any) impact do these "economic distress zones" have on the educational achievement levels of students living in the region?
The study focused on 2010-2013. Given the 3 year gap between the end of the study and its publication, would you posit that the results have improved or become worse?
Earlier this month, acting Secretary of Education John King expanded on these proposals. In a video released by the United States Department of Education, King announced federal plans to help states and districts minimize the amount of needless testing. Take a look at the video below:
Some key takeaways from the video:
New guidelines for federal funds that can be used towards testing practices--specifically with regards to the specific type and quality of state tests.
Continued emphasis on moving away from traditional "bubble tests" to those that emphasize problem-solving and critical thinking skills.
King's video was followed up with letters and additional materials sent to state Departments of Education and local districts outlining the specific protocols mentioned in his message. The letter, in particular, provides states with specific options on how to utilize remaining federal funding under No Child Left Behind (the new education law--Every Student Succeeds Act--will not be fully implemented until the 2016-2017 school year). In the letter, King stresses the following uses for remaining NCLB funds:
State-wide audits on the current testing systems and procedures in each district.
Professional development for testing coordinators and teachers--specifically focused on testing literacy and best practices for interpreting and leveraging student results.
Developing more efficient and transparent systems for sharing results with students and families
Working to create more reliable and useful tests that better reflect student learning and skill-sets.
The publicity for this event presents startling statistics regarding access to reading in San Diego County--particularly within lower income communities. According to the promotional documents for the Share Your Love of Reading campaign, in low-income communities, there is an average of 1 book at home for every 300 children (radio and TV spots for the program also state that this is in contrast to 5 books for every 1 children in upper-income communities).
The program also highlights concerns regarding word acquisition by children in low-income communities. According to Words Alive, pre-schoolers in low-income households hear 300 million fewer words by Kindergarten than their more affluent peers. This "word gap" as it were, was also covered in an NPR story from 2013. The research cited in the study is also important to consider given its correlation to the disparities in academic achievement that exist in low-income students.
Like most teachers, I have students complete a short survey to better understand their likes, dislikes, and general personal interests. At the top of the survey, is a question that has always stood out to me: "Do you have access to internet at home other than on your cell phone?" Given how digitally connected our society has become, it is a question that I am sure is asked in every classroom across the country.
A recent NPR story, however, highlighted the realities of this question for many low-income students across the country.
Let's start with the Pew Report--which studied general smartphone access and usage. In the report, two key findings stood out as they relate to low-income families and access to internet at home:
Approximately 13% of Americans with an annual household income of $30,000 per year are considered "smart-phone" dependent--meaning that they do not have high-speed/broadband internet access at home and have limited options for obtaining internet access other than their cell phone.
Even then, internet stability in this "smartphone dependent" group is extremely volatile. Nearly half of all smart phone users in this group reported that they either repeatedly reach the maximum data allowed on their cell phone plan or have had to cancel their plans altogether due to financial constraints.
The Rutgers/Joan Ganz Cooney Center study focused more in-depth on smart phone dependence among minorities and those meeting federal poverty levels. Again, many of the results stand out:
Although around 90% of low/moderate income families have internet access at home, 23% of families below the median income level and 33% of those below the federal poverty guidelines are considered "smartphone dependent"--again, meaning they rely exclusively on smartphones for internet access at home.
From the Rutgers/Joan Ganz Cooney Center Study
Children in this group are also less likely to access the internet to pursue educational and personal interests online. Only 35% of children in this group stated that they often research information for educational or personal compared to 52% of their peers with regular home internet access.
Like the Pew study, similar trends in fluctuating access are apparent in this group. Among these "smartphone dependent" families, 52% reported extremely slow access and 20% reported that their service has been repeatedly disconnected due to payment issues.
Among minority groups, this situation is particularly striking in Latino households--especially those of recent immigrants. Of these immigrant households, 10% report no internet access at all and 41% identify as smartphone dependent. These numbers of smartphone dependence are high compared to 25% of Blacks, 16% of Whites, and 17% of U.S.-born Hispanics below the median income.
So what does this mean for education? Well, as any teacher will surely attest, integration of technology and internet has become an increasingly important part of educational standards in the last ten years--especially with the adoption of the Common Core. In the English Language Arts standards, in particular, students are called to, "...evaluate...integrate," and, "present" information using, "...diverse media and formats"--almost certainly requiring a knowledge of technology. Moreover, the new state assessments to evaluate student progress in California--the Smarter Balanced Assessments--are a computer administered and require a degree of familiarity with computer functions.
These studies also particularly apply to San Diego given the student demographics. Consider that in the 2014-2015 school year, approximately 60% of San Diego Unified students qualified for the free and reduced priced meals--meaning that those families fall withinfederal poverty guidelines. Additionally, according to the district website, almost half of SDUSD students are Hispanic/Latino (46.5%) and 26.5% of students are classified as English Language Learners. More importantly (and unsurprisingly), the city of San Diego is home to a sizable community of immigrant families. According to a study released by USC's Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, almost 700,000 immigrants resided in San Diego between the years of 2008-2010--comprising roughly 23% of the population. Moreover, of the children living in San Diego, 44% had at least 1 immigrant parent and 26% of all households were headed by an immigrant adult.
Thus, given the demographics, the concerns of smartphone dependency should be of special concern to San Diego educators who expect students to constantly interact with internet. While no specific data exists for San Diego, given the city's significant population of immigrant families and of students meeting federal poverty guidelines, it is clear that the issues of smartphone dependency and lack of consistent internet access may be especially prevalent.
Update -- February 16, 2016:
Tonight's PBS Newshour featured a story on school districts in rural communities and the barriers that lack of high-speed internet place on their students. Here is the story:
Questions to Consider:
What are ways that we can promote and support student access to internet and other technological necessities for school work?
What other areas (other than academic) are impacted by lack of quality internet access?
California State Funding Towards Education Since 2001. From NPR's California Report. http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/01/31/schools-enjoy-rise-in-state-funding-but-pension-costs-and-recession-worries-loom-large
Many experts, however, remain skeptical about the long-term feasibility of the funding bubble that the chart seems to depict. A recent story from KQED's California Reporthighlights many of these concerns.
Increased funding is directly linked to Governor Brown's tax measures in Proposition 30. Approved in 2012 by voters, this law increased personal income tax rates on individuals making over $250,000 per year and also increased the sales tax each year through 2016. While these increased tax measures are still projected to create additional funding for California schools in the upcoming years, the law expires at the end of 2018--meaning that state legislators will need to enact a new law or find new sources of funding.
Connected to this funding concern is the on-going pension dilemma created in-part from the 2008 recession. Again, while increased state funding from Prop 30 helps alleviate some of this debt, many are concerned about what will happen after that increased revenue stream is run dry--a situation that could occur at any time before 2019 given the always volatile nature of the state's economy.
While these issues will (hopefully) create a sense of urgency within Sacramento, this skepticism speaks to a much larger issue with regards to education funding in California. Specifically, these issues highlight the perils of relying almost exclusively on state revenue streams (as opposed to more local sources) for the majority of funding. Again, while the recent Prop 30 tax increases have significantly raised revenue for education, this system leaves funding in a delicate balance in Sacramento--one that can be easily and dramatically tilted by the legislative process and/or another economic downturn (as seen in the large dip that took between the years 2008-2012 in the above graph).
Although this balance is rooted in a variety of factors, many point to the changes in tax law (mainly, property taxes) that were enacted with Proposition 13 in 1978. While the law addressed the pressing need for property-tax reform in the wake of astronomically rising rates, the shifts created unimaginable effects in local funding for public education. Mainly, it forced local schools to rely primarily on Sacramento for the majority of their funding.
To explain more about Proposition 13, I once again defer to The California Report and a recent infographic that was recently published. The graphic traces the history of Proposition 13 and it's consequences for California public schools.
If you're a politics nerd and junkie like me, you are so jazzed (and likely frustrated) with the 2016 election cycle! Given that education in American politics is the prime focus of this blog, let's explore where the current frontrunner nominees for each party stand on issues of education. Admittingly, much of this information is collected from the good people at On The Issues--a website dedicated to collecting policy information about each candidate. Also, as mentioned previously, the issue of education has been sparsely mentioned on the campaign trail. Unsurprisingly, these candidates' opinions on education are limited to a handful of familiar topics.
In that same interview Donald mentions his acceptance of affirmative action policies--also adding that he believes those policies have out served their purpose.
Senator Ted Cruz
From his website: "Abolish the IRS, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A Cruz Administration will appoint heads of each of those agencies whose sole charge will be to wind them down and determine whether any programs need to be preserved." [bolded for emphasis]
Further: "...return education to those who know our students best: parents, teachers, local communities, and states. And block-grant education funding to the states."
"Passionately opposed to Common Core..." and states that it is a "tool of the federal government" to retain power of education:
Would implement a "New College Compact" that would eliminate costs of "...tuition, books, and fees to attend a four-year public college in their state"
Would be paid for by limiting tax expenditures for high-income earners
Tonight, President Obama once again delivered his annual State of the Union address. Last year, education comprised a significant piece of his remarks as he unveiled his plan to provide free community college for American students. While I know that education is typically a forgotten subject in grandiose American political theater (see my earlier post about the issue of education on the 2016 Presidential debates), I was hopeful cautiously optimistic that the President might include additional policy proposals in the area of K-14 education policy--especially given the recent overhaul of No Child Left Behind with the signing of the Every Student Succeeds Act.
If you want to review the transcript of the President's remarks, feel free to do so here or watch the video below (The President's Remarks start at 00:41:30):
If you want a summary of education at the State of the Union, here you are:
A quick search of the official transcript of the President's speech finds the words "education", "school", "college", and "teachers" used a total of 10 times collectively. In fact, here is a word cloud that captures the most used words from the speech:
Can you find education? Keep looking...
Despite these sparse mentions of "education", the President did link education as a critically important force in America's changing economy. Here are those mentions:
"We agree that real opportunity requires every American to get the education and training they need to land a good-paying job. The bipartisan reform of No Child Left Behind was an important start, and together, we’ve increased early childhood education, lifted high school graduation rates to new highs, and boosted graduates in fields like engineering."
"We should build on that progress, by providing Pre-K for all, offering every student the hands-on computer science and math classes that make them job-ready on day one, and we should recruit and support more great teachers for our kids."
"We have to make college affordable for every American. Because no hardworking student should be stuck in the red. We’ve already reduced student loan payments to ten percent of a borrower’s income. Now, we’ve actually got to cut the cost of college. Providing two years of community college at no cost for every responsible student is one of the best ways to do that, and I’m going to keep fighting to get that started this year"
Clearly, the President quickly shared the progress of education policies during his term and shared his vision for the important role that education should play in the future.
Last week, Governor Brown released his proposal for the 2016-2017 California Budget. Although the budget will not be fully implemented until this Summer/Fall (after the legislative process), the current proposal offers a critical glimpse into educational funding during the next fiscal year--especially given Governor Brown's attempts to increase state funding for K-12 public education (mainly, Proposition 30).
If you would like to read and explore the full budget summaries, feel free to do so here:
The total state expenditures for Education in the 2016-2017 fiscal year are approximately $73.8 billion. This represents an approximate 2% increase from 2015-2016 and an approximate 6.5% increase from 2014-2015.
Specific funding budgeted for K-12 Education, represents 30.1% of the total state funded budget at an approximate $51.4 billion. When also taking into account federal funding and additional sources of non-state funding, this total increases to roughly $78.7 billion--accounting then for a total of 65.5% of the state's approximate $120 billion self-funded budget.
K-12 per-pupil spending also sees similar increases. In the 2016-2017 fiscal year, per-pupil spending is estimated at $14,550 (with $10,591 guaranteed under Proposition 98funds). This represents approximate increases of 2.5% and 6.8% from 2015-2016 and 2014-2015, respectively.
Consolidation of funding for early education through a $1.6 billion early education block grant--with specific attention directed towards promoting programs for low-income and at-risk students and families.
Increased funding for the the state's Career and Technical Education Incentive Grant--a grant program intended to increase funding for CTE programs within school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools. This grant prioritizes new CTE programs or existing programs facing challenges (i.e. significant drop-out population, significant low-income student population, high unemployment region, etc.).
Even though this proposed budget will likely look very different from the final version that will hopefully be passed by the state legislature in the summer, it nonetheless shows the Governor's continued prioritization of educational funding.
Questions to consider:
While the 2016-2017 budget shows continued increases in educational funding, what can be done to ensure that those funds are appropriately and effectively allocated and spent?
Disclaimer: state budgeting is a complicated process--especially since it typically includes a variety of funding sources (i.e. federal grants, outside funding, etc.). While I provided links to sources where my numbers were obtained, it is possible that these numbers were not calculated or interpreted correctly. Any suggested corrections and/or revisions to this post will be documented.
