Search

"Stress factor" is defined as any internal or external influence that makes it more difficult for a school or district to carry out its basic mission of providing a high quality education to all its students, as well as to ensure that its students succeed on state and federal accountability measures. This report identifies 11 such stress factors. "Internal" stress factors include teacher layoffs, larger class sizes, fewer instructional days, fewer counselors, cutbacks in summer school, and security threats. "External" stress factors are declining enrollments, increasing childhood poverty, high unemployment, foreclosures, and health insurance coverage. In February 2013, EdSource sent e-mail surveys on these stress factors to California's 30 school districts with the largest enrollments. This report describes the multiple challenges faced by the school districts as "stress factors," and shows whether these stresses have increased, diminished, or stayed the same since 2011-12 and, in some areas, since 2007-08 before the recession began. [For a related report, see "Schools under Stress: Pressures Mount on California's Largest School Districts" (ED606405).]

California law severely limits local school districts' revenue-raising authority compared to most other states, which allow districts to raise local property taxes to support schools. School districts are primarily funded by revenues allocated by the state through complex formulas established decades ago. In California, school districts have limited ways to raise additional funds--through parcel taxes, a seldom-used sales tax, and private donations typically generated by contributions to local education foundations or raised by parent organizations. Parcel taxes are one of the few ways local school districts are able to raise taxes to supplement the revenues they receive from the state and other sources. Most school districts in the state have not taken advantage of parcel taxes as a revenue-raising option. This report presents an overview of parcel taxes in California school districts from 1983-2012.

During the past several years, there have been growing concerns regarding the effectiveness of school discipline policies, as well as their disproportionate impact on African American and Latino students. For at least a decade, questions have been raised about district-level "zero tolerance" policies that have contributed to larger numbers of students being suspended or expelled for non-violent offences. Attempts to reform school discipline policies in California have gained momentum in recent months, most prominently in a series of bills that have been approved by the state Legislature and are currently awaiting Governor Jerry Brown's signature. Yet little is known about how school discipline policies are actually being implemented in individual districts across the state. To find out, EdSource conducted a survey in the spring of 2012 of administrators in charge of school discipline policies of all California districts with a student enrollment of more than 1,000 students. It is the first such survey to be conducted of California school districts. Responses were received from 315 school districts--a 56 percent response rate. These districts, with enrollments totaling 4.1 million, educate two-thirds of all students in California schools. This report sheds light on a wide range of issues related to school discipline, including school administrators' views on the adequacy of state laws and regulations, the costs of imposing school discipline policies, the extent to which districts are relying on alternative approaches to school discipline, the use of data to improve student discipline outcomes, and the average length of suspensions.

In June 2007, the Supreme Court limited the tools that school districts could use to voluntarily integrate schools. In the aftermath of the decision, educators around the country have sought models of successful plans that would also be legal. One such model may be Berkeley Unified School District's (BUSD) plan. Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court declined to review the appellate court's decision upholding the legality of the district's integration plan; the decision noted the district did not use students' race-ethnicity in a way that violated Proposition 209, an initiative that prohibits the preferential or discriminatory use of race-ethnicity in public institutions. This report explores the BUSD plan and examines what it offers as lessons in a time of growing demographic and legal complexity. BUSD's integration plan uses two levels of geography--zoning and planning areas, which are 4-8 block groups that are coded according to their racial-ethnic, economic and educational demographics--in its "controlled choice" plan. While managing families' school preferences and a set of priorities, the plan seeks to maximize school diversity so that each school reflects its zone-wide diversity as measured by the planning areas. What is innovative about BUSD's plan is that every student living in a particular planning area is assigned the same diversity code, based on the area's population characteristics regardless of their own individual characteristics. Drawn from a year-long study of the BUSD integration plan, this report reviews the district's historical commitment to desegregation, describes how the current plan works, analyzes the extent the plan desegregates the schools despite being located in racially and socioeconomically segregated neighborhoods, and discusses the plan's implementation including the policies and practices that promote participation in its controlled choice assignment plan and matriculation once assigned. Academic Achievement is appended. (Contains 9 tables, 9 figures, and 93 footnotes.)[The foreword to this report was written by Gary Orfield.]

In "Horne v. Flores," Petitioners in the Supreme Court have argued, among other things, that compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) should satisfy state obligations and, other than "individual instances of discrimination," district obligations to comply with the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. The purpose of this analysis is to examine the number of English Language Learners (ELLs) enrolled in California's public schools who are not "counted" in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability system, particularly among schools and districts with ELLs that met NCLB objectives, and to compare ELL proficiency rates with whites in those schools and districts. Accordingly, the analysis was guided by the following questions: (1) How many ELLs are: (a) not considered part of an ELL subgroup because they are deemed not numerically significant or (b) are enrolled in grade levels excluded from the NCLB accountability framework when analyzed statewide and in schools and districts with ELLs that met NCLB objectives?; and (2) What are the proficiency rates for ELLs and whites in schools and districts with ELLs that met NCLB objectives? (Contains 5 tables and 2 footnotes.)

This report presents basic data about Latino students in the public schools of Massachusetts. Recent population data on Latino youth and public school enrollment are presented, highlighting the areas of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts where Latinos are densely concentrated. The report then considers the achievement of Latino students in the schools, highlighting recently published cohort dropout data and Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment Test (MCAS) results for Latinos. The report also looks at the after-school plans of Latino graduates. Among all Massachusetts youth 19 years of age or younger, Latinos represent 8.8%. In 1997, 92,306 Latino students were enrolled in public schools in Massachusetts, accounting for 9.7% of the total number of children enrolled in grades K-12. Projections show that 29% of Latino students that began ninth grade in 1998 are at high risk of dropping out, a rate almost 3 times that of White students. The high rates of school dropout for Latino children are a grave concern for parents and educators. As is true for dropout rates, the outcomes of Latino students on standardized tests are the worst in the state. Latinos appear to be the group most vulnerable to the negative outcomes predicted to result from the use of high-stakes standardized tests. Latino students would benefit greatly from true educational reform, but they will bear the highest burden as the process of reform becomes institutionalized. As new requirements, especially reliance on the MCAS, are implemented, many Latino students will not be able to obtain a high school diploma, and dropout rates may also increase. (Contains 12 figures, 4 tables, and 27 endnotes.) (SLD)