Futures Filled with Opportunity: An EdVoice Institute Policy Agenda

Futures Filled with Opportunity:

Reshaping California’s Public Education System for Children from Low-Income Communities

Executive Summary

The Need: Equitable Access to Quality Education

A quality education from early childhood through high school, which prepares students for college and career, should be a right for all—not a privilege for some . Yet, students from lowincome communities in California fare far worse than students from higher-income communities on every meaningful measure of academic performance and college readiness . This is not a matter of ability, but the result of a public education system not designed to effectively educate all children .

The Solution: Reshape Public Education in California

While California’s leaders have passed legislation over the years to improve public schools, our state has not yet delivered on the promise of a quality education for all children . California must take bolder action to redesign its 170-yearold public education system so that our public schools finally function effectively for children from low-income communities . This will require a new approach to public education in which the

Governor, Legislature, key state departments and educators align on a clear plan to reshape public education in California and act together to dramatically improve California’s public schools .

The Starting Point: An Evidence-Based Policy Agenda

EdVoice Institute for Research and Education (EdVoice Institute) sees itself as a part of the ecosystem of nonprofit organizations that can support state leaders and districts in developing and implementing a comprehensive plan to reshape California’s public education system

After extensive analysis of California’s current education policies and a thorough review of education research and best practices, we have developed a policy agenda detailing the systemic changes we believe are needed in California’s public education system to effectively prepare all children for college, career, and life . The policy agenda (outlined below) includes five policy pillars and two foundational conditions, each with overarching goals and specific policy recommendations.

The Path Forward: Change Policies, Change Lives

The following pages provide a detailed description of our policy agenda . We hope the agenda serves as a resource and guide for state leaders and other advocates to create a clear roadmap for transforming California’s public education system

Systemic transformation is possible and—with enough political will and effective state policy— every student, regardless of background, can unlock the academic success necessary for a future filled with opportunity.

Introduction

Current State of California’s Education System

A quality education from early childhood through high school that prepares students for college and career should be a right for all, not a privilege for some . Not only does education unlock a world of future opportunities for students, it is also an incredible investment in our society at large . An educated society can fuel economic growth, bolster civic engagement, improve overall health outcomes, and reduce crime .

In spite of these benefits, however, the unfortunate reality is that ZIP code and family income still often define a child’s educational opportunities in California . In fact, most students from low-income communities—who make up 63% of all students in public schools across the state—do not have the same access to a quality education as their more affluent peers . 1, 2 This perpetuates economic, racial, and cultural inequities because the vast majority (76%) of students from low-income communities in California are Black or Latino, around one-quarter (25%) are English Learners, and 15% are students with disabilities . 3

On every meaningful measure of academic performance and college readiness, students from low-income communities in California fare far worse than students from higher-income communities . This is not a matter of ability, it’s a matter of access to the same high-quality education and supplemental supports available to students in higher-income communities . The data is irrefutable and cannot be ignored .

► In parts of California with higher concentrations of children from low-income communities, lower proportions of three and four year olds are enrolled in preschool . 4

► When California students from low-income communities enter kindergarten, they are less likely to have had access to early learning opportunities and are already behind their peers academically . 5

► Only 37% of low-income students meet state English language arts standards, versus 66% of non-low-income students . 6

► Just 25% of low-income students meet math standards, compared to 55% of their non-lowincome peers . 7

► Only 37% of low-income students fulfill University of California (UC)/California State University (CSU) entrance requirements, versus 66% of non-low-income students . 8

► Only half (54%) of low-income students enroll in colleges within 12 months of high school graduation compared to nearly three-quarters (73%) of non-low-income high school graduates . 9

► About a third of all 9th graders actually make it to and through college, and low-income students are less than half as likely to earn a college degree as their non-low-income peers . 10

These inequities exist for a number of reasons, many of which go back to the early days of public education in California . Initially established in the early 1850s, California’s public education system was, in many ways, designed with a one-size-fits-all approach to learning, built on discriminatory and racist policies (e .g ., segregation and tracking), and limited in its responsibility to effectively educate all children . While a number of improvements have been made to California’s public education system over the years—the addition of publicly funded high schools, the end of legally segregated schools, increased funding for high-needs schools, strengthened accountability, the creation of universal transitional kindergarten (UTK), and

others—progress has been too slow and millions of children from low-income communities are still not being provided with the education needed to have futures filled with opportunity.

Ultimately, we are not seeing the necessary progress that children in California deserve because the public education system is still not designed to effectively educate all children. The current system, although improved from its initial launch 170 years ago, continues to perpetuate a cycle of inequity whereby a large number of children from low-income communities are not graduating high school with the academic and social-emotional skills needed to access opportunity . The system must change .

Structural Change is Needed

It is time for California to fundamentally restructure its public education system and deliver on the promise of a quality education for all children . This will require a new approach to public education in which the Governor, Legislature, State Superintendent, and key state departments consistently prioritize education and act to dramatically improve California’s public schools year after year.

To break the cycle of inequity, new education policies need to be passed, education funding needs to increase, the state needs to substantially improve the way it supports schools, and school districts need to change certain practices . In conjunction, educators,

labor unions, universities, nonprofits, advocacy organizations, and the general public must play a big role in the change, as significantly more political will and greater collective action will be needed to make consequential progress in California’s public schools .

In a state that prides itself on being a progressive and innovative leader valuing opportunity for all, it is unacceptable that we have continued to perpetuate inequities in public education and failed so many students from low-income communities . California must come together and take the bold steps necessary to provide all students with a quality education and futures filled with opportunity.

Transformation Starts with a Comprehensive Policy Agenda

Today, many committed state leaders, educators, and organizations are often rowing in different directions when it comes to education policy . Each year, a large number of education-related bills are introduced, but they often take narrow, piecemeal approaches to change or are onetime solutions that don’t always address the root issues of inequity .

EdVoice Institute believes that a critical early step California must take to redesign the state’s public education system is to align on the most significant educational inequities facing children from low-income communities and the policies needed to dismantle them . State leaders must develop a clear policy direction, but they don’t have to do it alone. Nonprofit education advocacy organizations like EdVoice Institute can help by offering recommendations for the changes needed to effectively educate all children . EdVoice Institute has developed a comprehensive, research-based policy agenda that lays out the state policies necessary to transform California’s public education system so it prepares all children for college, career, and life .

When developing our agenda, we kept the following considerations at the forefront:

► Explicitly targeting resources towards students from low-income communities and influencing new legislation to direct funds and programming to the state’s highest-needs students .

► Thinking proactively about implementation of new policies and working backwards from the classroom with a lens for how policies will translate into schools and districts across the state .

► Putting forward policy solutions that consider how the different levers of the PreK-12 education system and broader societal structures operate together to serve students .

► Building bridges between advocates, practitioners, and state leaders by ensuring that policies are designed with the strongest evidence-based strategies regarding how students learn and what they need to excel .

Our hope is that this agenda may serve as a resource and guide for state leaders and other advocates when making strategic decisions and prioritizing resources related to transforming public education in California .

EdVoice Institute’s Vision to Reshape Public Education by 2040

After extensive analysis of California’s current educational policies, a thorough review of relevant national and international research and best practices, and input from education experts and leaders across the state, EdVoice Institute has developed a comprehensive policy agenda necessary to reshape public education in California and break the cycle of inequity for students once and for all . The intention of this agenda is not to reinvent the wheel, but rather to offer a cohesive resource that either builds upon steps California has

already taken or recommends the concrete actions needed for policies to go from idea to implementation . This is not an exhaustive list, but it is representative of the broad needs of students from low-income communities both in and outside of the classroom . In addition, this agenda includes descriptions of the foundational conditions needed to upend the structural and systemic inequities that currently define our education system and transform the way that California schools support low-income students .

An Overview of the Agenda

EdVoice Institute’s policy agenda includes five policy pillars and two foundational conditions, each with goals and specific actions that must be prioritized to reach those goals. Our policy pillars represent essential changes and interventions to the current education system necessary to mitigate the inequities faced by students from low-income communities and create a system that is designed to effectively educate all students:

Effective Early Education

High-Quality, Diverse Educators

Enriching and Engaging Courses & Materials

EvidenceBased Early Literacy & Numeracy Instruction

Adequate and Equitable Funding

Additional Supports & Learning Time

Pillars to Reshape the Public Education System

Foundational Conditions Necessary to Deliver on Pillars Accountability,

Learning, and Collaboration

POLICY PILLAR GOALS

Effective Early Education: Children from low-income communities, ages two to four, are provided high-quality, publicly funded preschool and transitional kindergarten (TK) programs

High-Quality, Diverse Educators: Students in high-needs11 schools have consistent access to effective, qualified school leadership, teachers, and staff at all levels

Enriching and Engaging Courses & Materials: Students in high-needs schools are offered engaging courses, grade-level assignments, high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) in core subjects, stimulating electives and college- and career-aligned learning pathways

Evidence-Based Early Literacy & Numeracy Instruction: High-needs elementary schools prioritize literacy and numeracy in their whole-school curriculum and use high-quality, evidence-based approaches to their instruction—including HQIM, effective professional development, and focused interventions—so students finish elementary school at or close to grade level in English language arts and math

Additional Supports & Learning Time: Students from low-income communities are given resources and extended learning opportunities that support both their academic needs and their developmental, social-emotional, and mental and physical health needs

In order to enact policies that fully embody our vision of an education system where students from low-income communities have access to a quality education and futures filled with opportunity, our approach must intentionally dismantle structural and systemic inequities. We have identified two foundational conditions that are instrumental to educating all students in California and should serve as the basis for all of the policy recommendations outlined in the policy pillars:

1. Adequate and Equitable Funding: Increase public school funding and reenvision the way funding is generated, distributed, and allocated across the PreK-12 system so that the needs of students from low-income communities are prioritized

2. Accountability, Continual Learning, and Collaboration: Build policies with a clear roadmap for successful implementation: create space for collaboration between education leaders at all levels (i .e ., state, county, and local); build in opportunities for continual learning; and ensure there are clear accountability structures that guarantee new policies are well executed and delivering results for students from low-income communities

Advancing policy that reshapes an entire system will require persistence, collaboration, expertise, and time . Each of these pillars and foundational conditions are complex and resource-intensive . We know this is an ambitious set of policies that will need a long runway to be introduced, adopted, and implemented—and we also know that California can do this .

EdVoice Institute will continue to revisit this policy agenda, updating and refreshing our policy recommendations as research and learning emerges from the field about new improvements and innovations . Our goal over the next 10 to 15 years is to prioritize advocacy efforts in these areas and work collaboratively with state leaders, educators, and others to pass legislation that will help redesign public education in California so that all children have futures filled with opportunity.

It is important to name at the outset of this agenda that while EdVoice Institute is focused primarily on policies that uplift outcomes broadly for students from low-income communities, many of these students embody multiple vulnerable identities that put them at even further risk of falling behind and not receiving a quality education in our current system .

Students with overlapping identities (e .g ., a student who is from a low-income community and is also an English learner) may need more intensive interventions recommended across this agenda, as well as academic differentiation. We also recognize that specific student populations may need additional targeted supports and interventions not widely addressed in this agenda . There are over 3 .6 million students in California public schools that are from low-income communities:

► 88% are students of color (70% are Latino, 6% are black, 6% are Asian, 3% are Two or More Races, 1 .4% are Filipino, .5% are Pacific Islander, and .5% are Indigenous)

► 25% are English learners

► 15% are students with disabilities

California also has one of the largest foster and homeless youth populations in the country; there are over 200,000 students in California schools who are foster or homeless youth .

When drafting new policies, we must be thoughtful about the ways in which these overlapping identities impact the way that students experience school and show up to their classrooms each day ready to learn . We must always be cognizant of the larger societal ecosystem and barriers that students face to accessing quality education like public school funding structures, access to economic mobility, neighborhood segregation, racism, and the impact of generational poverty . There is no one-size-fits-all solution or shortcut to improving educational outcomes for students . We must design policies that pay careful attention to the context of students living at the intersection of these, and other, identities to help ensure that they can reach their full academic potential .

Policy Pillar 1: Effective Early Education

Our Goal: All children from low-income communities, ages two to four, have access to high-quality, publicly-funded preschool and Transitional Kindergarten (TK) programs .

Our Goal: Children from low-income communities, ages two to four, are provided highquality, publicly funded preschool and transitional kindergarten (TK) programs .

What We Know

Figure 1: A look at access to early learning in California

90% of brain development happens before age five12

Around half of children ages 5 and younger in California live at or near the poverty line13

Studies have shown meaningful, positive shortand long-term benefits on academic, social, and economic outcomes for students when they have access to early learning . 15 Yet, children from lowincome communities in California—who make up half of children ages five or younger16—are less likely than their higher-income peers to have access to early learning and be school-ready by kindergarten . 17 Without effective early education opportunities, children from low-income communities begin their educational journeys a step behind .

For families in California’s low-income communities, the barriers to early childhood education—such as cost18 and access19—often make early childhood education out of reach . The typical annual cost of childcare in California is $14,000; this represents over one-third of the

72% of Californians in low-income neighborhoods live in a childcare desert14

annual income for families living in poverty in California . 20 Around 60% of California residents, predominantly those who are low-income, also live in regions with limited access to early care and education . 21 This is where education journeys first diverge: most higher-income families have the means to access quality early education while low-income families forgo support or rely on lowerquality programs and informal care networks .

It is imperative we change the current trajectory for our youngest children from low-income communities and provide quality early learning experiences, supports, and resources—grounded in positive, caring relationships—for all children, ages two to four, to ensure that they reach critical developmental, behavioral, physical, cognitive, emotional, and social milestones .

Policy Priorities

Priority

Consistent and sustained funding for early education

Increase access to quality preschool and Transitional Kindergarten (TK)

What does this look like?

► Increasing overall funding for state preschools to ensure that no-cost, high-quality programs are accessible to all two- and three-year-old children from low-income communities .

► Expanding programs to serve all three year olds and creating capacity to serve all two year olds from low-income communities .

► Building on the existing universal TK implementation plan and ensuring that all students from low-income communities have access to TK in their local schools .

Remove barriers for parents, families, and caregivers to access preschool and TK

Strong pipelines of effective, qualified preschool and TK educators

Require developmentally, linguistically, and culturally appropriate learning resources and materials

Increase accountability measures for preschool and TK

► Streamlining enrollment processes, improving outreach to hard-toreach student populations (e .g ., foster, homeless, newcomer, English learners, etc .), and eliminating hidden costs of care for families (e .g ., transportation, translation services, and any additional learning accommodations) .

► Increasing the number of high-quality preschool teachers by increasing salaries (including career and wage ladders), streamlining pathways to teacher permits and credentials, strengthening preparation programs, and establishing ongoing professional development supports

► Increasing funding to preschool and TK classrooms so they have resources to provide appropriate learning materials and age-appropriate facilities to support children’s growth and development and school readiness, particularly for English learners and students with disabilities .

► Monitoring implementation of the newly updated preschool learning foundations and TK state standards to ensure that program quality is effective and developmentally age-appropriate, with attention to language and literacy, early numeracy, cognitive skills, social-emotional development, and experiential/play-based guidelines.

► Improving and expanding the statewide quality rating system for preschool and TK so that programs measure developmentally appropriate student outcomes, quality instructional and relationship measures, and other program requirements .

Policy Pillar 2: High-Quality, Diverse Educators

Our Goal: Students in high-needs schools have consistent access to effective, qualified school leadership, teachers, and staff at all levels.

What We Know

Figure 2: A look at access to highly qualified teachers

16% of public school classes were taught by an underqualified teacher

61% of those teachers work in majority low-income schools

Source: The Education Trust-West. “Teacher Assignment Monitoring Outcomes (TAMO) Data Dashboard.” (2022) https://west.edtrust.org/tamo-data-dashboard/

Effective teachers, strong administrators, and qualified counselors play a critical role in students’ academic success . 22 Studies have shown that effective teaching is the most important schoolbased factor that influences student achievement,23 strong school leadership is an essential ingredient for high-quality schools, and there is a positive relationship between lower counselor-to-student ratios and student academic outcomes . 24

However, students from low-income communities in California are more likely to be taught by underqualified teachers,25 more likely to attend a school with high administrator turnover,26 and less likely to have access to counselors than their higher-income peers . 27 A recent analysis found that 40% more teachers in majority low-income schools lack necessary qualifications—and are considered “inexperienced”—than teachers in higher-income schools . 28 Schools serving students from low-income communities experience more teacher vacancies and higher turnover rates, which negatively impacts the opportunity for these students to learn at similar rates as their peers . 29

Historically, California has also struggled to recruit and prepare a diverse teacher workforce and the state has not made the necessary long-term investments to mitigate these challenges . Studies find that students of color often perform better on standardized tests, have improved attendance, and benefit socially and emotionally when they have at least one teacher who looks like them . 30 In a state where the majority of students from lowincome communities are also students of color, it is important that the racial and ethnic make-up of the teacher staff in schools more closely reflects the students of California, and teachers receive training on culturally responsive teaching . State data shows that the teacher population does not reflect the student population of the state—in the 2018-19 school year, roughly 22 percent of students were white while 61 percent of teachers were white, and 77 percent of students were students of color while only 39 percent of teachers were teachers of color.31

Any policy agenda focused on providing a highquality education system for all students from low-income communities must have effective teachers at the forefront . Policies that address teacher recruitment, preparation, selection, retention, and leadership are essential for a comprehensive approach to the issue . Research has shown that improving teacher retention starts with ensuring that prospective teachers are well-prepared . Candidates who receive comprehensive preparation are two to three times more likely to remain in the profession . 32 This is particularly important for teacher candidates of color, who are more likely to begin their careers through alternative credentialing

Policy Priorities

What does this look like?

pathways that lack core elements of teacher preparation shown to improve retention . 33

Studies have also shown that school leaders in high-needs schools have an outsized impact on whether teachers stay in a school—demonstrating the importance of effective school leaders on retaining and supporting teachers . 34

To fundamentally transform the public education system, California must prioritize staffing every high-needs school with effective teachers and administrators, increasing access to counselors, and providing ongoing incentives, mentorship, professional learning, and opportunities for leadership roles to attract and retain effective teachers, administrators, and counselors .

Recruitment: Increase teacher compensation and reduce barriers to entering the field

► Increasing salaries for principals, teachers, and school counselors to be comparable with professionals in other sectors .

► Increasing incentives to work in high-needs schools and in high-demand content areas (e .g ., math, science, special education, and bilingual programs, etc .) .

► Expanding non-traditional pathways into the teaching profession (ex: recruiting high school and community college students into teacher career pathways; providing options for school support staff35 to earn a teaching credential while continuing to work; and promoting on-the-job training programs for people hoping to make a professional shift into the teaching profession) .

► Designing incentives and programs that will increase the racial and linguistic diversity of teacher and counselor candidates through traditional (i .e ., universitybased) and non-traditional pathways—such as as Grow Your Own (GYO) programs

► Reducing other barriers to become a teacher or school counselor (e .g ., cost burden to enter teaching and counseling professions) .

Preparation: Redesign teacher and counselor preparation programs

► Requiring that all program standards, whether for traditional or non-traditional programs, are aligned with the science of learning and development principles,36 rigorous, culturally responsive professional teaching and counseling standards, and evidence-based pedagogy and instructional materials .

► Expanding access to quality teacher residency programs37 that place teacher candidates with mentor teachers as they complete their coursework and teaching credentials .

► Offering multiple preparation models for candidates to choose from, including innovative Grow Your Own programs and apprenticeships, and expanding offerings in traditional university-based programs to ensure that candidates across the state have more quality options to enter the teaching profession .

► Providing state-sponsored compensation for quality teacher mentors if they commit to supporting teacher candidates in high-needs schools .

Priority What does this look like?

Selection: Create incentives for districts to prioritize highneeds schools for staffing and hiring decisions

► Requiring Comprehensive School Improvement (CSI) schools38 to be fully staffed before school starts

► Expanding programs that provide grants for qualified teachers to teach in high-needs schools for a defined period of time (e.g., Golden State Teacher Grant Program).

► Providing incentives—stipends, retention bonuses, leadership roles, etc.—for effective, experienced teachers to transfer and stay in high-needs schools (e .g ., National Board Certification Incentive Program).

► Revising layoff rules so that seniority is not the only deciding factor in layoff decisions and making adjustments to the tenure process to allow for more time for additional support and mentorship for new teachers

Retention: Motivate teachers to remain in the profession

► Increasing staff capacity (e.g., school-based substitutes, apprentices, highly trained tutors) to ensure that teachers have adequate planning and collaboration time, reduced need to cover other classrooms, and spend less time on noninstructional duties .

► Creating opportunities to extend the school year for teachers (with additional pay) to allow for concentrated professional learning aligned to academic standards, culturally responsive pedagogy, evidence-based instructional materials, and high-quality teacher professional standards .

► Providing financial incentives to gain endorsements or certificates of completion in high-impact areas

► Providing teachers access to effective, non-discriminatory artificial intelligence (AI) tools to increase their knowledge and research capabilities, improve productivity in areas such as grading and lesson planning, and reduce inefficiencies.

► Supporting state-wide programs that offer specific teacher leadership professional learning pathways, along with financial incentives, to enable teachers to grow into leadership positions (e .g ., master teacher, mentor, administrator) .

► Creating pilot programs to support innovative staffing models (e.g., team teaching, integration of support staff and substitute teachers) that focus on empowering teachers, reducing burnout, and meeting staffing needs.

Leadership: Ensure there are quality principals in highneeds schools

► Providing incentives to attract highly qualified, experienced principals to high-needs schools .

► Designing and funding programs for aspiring and early career principals that prepare them to lead a high-needs school .

► Investing in ongoing principal professional development in CSI and highneeds schools .

Policy Pillar 3: Enriching and Engaging Courses & Materials

Our Goal: Students in high-needs schools are offered engaging courses, high-quality instructional materials in core subjects, stimulating electives and college- and career-aligned learning pathways .

Our Goal: All students from high-needs schools have access to rigorous core and enrichment classes, college- and career-aligned courses and pathways, along with grade-level, highquality instructional materials .

What We Know

4: A look at college and career readiness by income in California schools

Course work and instructional materials are critical to the foundation of a thriving public education system . Students who have greater access to engaging, grade-level assignments not only learn at faster rates than their peers, but are also more likely to catch up if they are behind . 39 It is essential that all students have access to a robust set of courses and learning experiences that push them academically and prepare them for their future paths . In California, however, there are deep income inequities regarding access to rigorous, highquality courses and materials; students from low-income communities are more likely to

spend time in classrooms without access to grade-appropriate assignments, strong instruction, and deep engagement . 40 They are also less likely to have access to quality content and curriculum in the classroom . 41

Across the state, students from low-income communities have less access to rigorous collegeand career-prep courses,42 AP classes,43 dual enrollment opportunities,44 and robust electives such as computer science45 and the arts . 46 This is part of the reason why students from low-income communities are less likely than their peers to make it from 9th grade to college graduation . 47

Figure

These gaps in access have long-term impacts: research has shown that high school graduation is a strong predictor of overall life outcomes like long-term social mobility,48 economic prosperity,49 and overall health and well-being . 50 Every student should have the opportunity to succeed academically and graduate high school equipped to pursue college and career pathways . This starts with improving access to

Policy Priorities

Priority

Access to core classes that are guided by up-to-date, gradelevel standards

Expand access to electives and enrichment courses in highneeds schools

high-quality learning opportunities for students from low-income communities and providing teachers with professional development and standards-aligned, high-quality instructional materials . This will help ensure that students from low-income communities are equipped with the skills, resources, and confidence to pursue the postsecondary pathways of their choice .

What does this look like?

► Providing continued training and resources for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to embed existing state standards tools (e.g., ELA/ ELD Framework, EL Roadmap, Revised Math Framework) into local district planning .

► Conducting reviews of state learning standards in core subjects at regular intervals to align outcomes with the most up-to-date research on the skills needed for a 21st century education .

► Updating state graduation requirements where evidence shows there are gaps and making sure that high school students finish their K-12 careers with coursework that best prepares them for success in the 21st century

► Aligning state-approved standards and frameworks to college or career standards in core subject areas (i .e ., literacy, math, science, social studies) .

► Requiring that all high school students have access to college preparation courses (including the full A-G sequence) and AP/IB courses.

► Providing grants to high-needs LEAs to expand access to electives and enrichment courses (e .g ., STEM, computer science, arts, etc) .

Access to multiple pathways to postsecondary programs and career opportunities

► Expanding access to free or low-cost dual enrollment opportunities at community colleges .

► Providing technical support to high-needs high schools to help them implement college or career initiatives and programs that provide coaching and support services for students as they prepare for life after graduation .

► Better integrating career technical education (CTE) and training programs at the high school level and aligning those offerings with community college CTE programs through increased partnership opportunities .

► Providing industry credential opportunities in high school, aligning CTE programs with high-demand, high-wage occupations, and allowing for adjustments in instructional-time requirements in certain cases so that quality internships can count as elective course credit in high schools

► Providing funding for LEAs to hire counseling staff and place them at school sites with high concentrations of students who are at risk of dropping out .

► Creating more flexibility in criteria for who can teach dual-credit courses and incentivize teachers who commit to serving students in low-income communities .

► Updating state graduation requirements to include a course at the high school level that provides students with a foundation on how to pursue different college and career pathways (i.e., basics on college enrollment, connections to local colleges, steps to apply for financial aid, and basic professional skills) .

Access to evidence-based, high-quality instructional materials that are aligned to rigorous standards and frameworks

► Launching a pilot program, implemented by County Offices of Education (COEs), focused on providing incentives and education to districts to promote and adopt high-quality instructional materials

► Providing state-sponsored technical and financial assistance51 and performance-based incentives to districts and schools to adopt, purchase, implement, and provide professional development on highquality instructional materials in core subjects .

► Updating the state adoption process for instructional materials to ensure that all instructional materials on the state-adopted lists are high quality and evidence-based .

Policy Pillar 4: Evidence-Based Early Literacy and Numeracy Instruction

Our Goal: High-needs elementary schools prioritize literacy and numeracy in their wholeschool curriculum and use high-quality, evidence-based approaches to their instruction— including high-quality instructional materials, effective professional development, and focused interventions—so students finish elementary school at or close to grade level in English language arts and math .

Our Goal: All high-needs elementary schools will provide evidence-based literacy and numeracy programs to ensure that students meet or exceed grade-level standards by the end of 3rd grade .

What We Know

Figure 5: A look at proficiency rates in English language arts (ELA) and math by income

Early literacy and numeracy skills are foundational building blocks of learning: students who learn to read and grasp early numeracy concepts in early grades are much better equipped to have success in later grades . 52 In fact, the two skills reinforce each other: early numeracy has been

shown to be a strong predictor of later reading achievement and vice versa . 53, 54 However, far too many children in California do not have access to elementary classrooms where they develop strong early literacy and numeracy skills . This means that

the language development, literacy, and numeracy skills they need to be successful academically in middle school, high school, and beyond . The vast majority of the children falling behind are from low-income communities, disproportionately Black and Latino, English learners, students with disabilities, and students living at the intersections of these identities .

Given the importance of early literacy and numeracy for students’ futures, we need to prioritize access to these foundational building blocks in our elementary schools . Teachers must be trained in the evidence-based practices for

Policy Priorities

Priority

All students are identified for learning challenges in literacy and numeracy

Provide additional learning supports for students with reading and numeracy difficulties

What does this look like?

teaching reading55 and the best practices of early numeracy math pedagogy . 56 We must also require that teachers use evidence-based instructional materials and have access to early screening for reading and numeracy difficulties. Identifying learning difficulties like dyslexia and dyscalculia early are essential to ensuring students get the support they need . Evidence-based interventions and supports need to be provided early and often to students who are at risk of falling behind, and intensive supports need to be provided to 4th- and 5th-grade students who do not meet the 3rd-grade benchmark and are still significantly behind.

► Ensuring that all students are screened, with evidence-based identification strategies, on an annual basis for reading and numeracy challenges in early grades (K-3)

► Providing elementary teachers with training and professional development on how to administer screenings and identify early signs of student difficulty with reading and numeracy

► Providing resources for LEAs to implement evidence-based interventions57 for students identified as having a reading challenge or challenge with numeracy and create reporting mechanisms to ensure there is accountability in implementation .

► Creating incentives for LEAs to pilot additional learning time programs so that students who are significantly behind receive evidence-based instruction and interventions in literacy and numeracy during the school day .

► Allocating additional funding to the lowest-performing elementary schools to expand tutoring after school and during the summer for students below grade level (e .g ., reading summer camps) .

► Implementing pilot county and district family tutoring programs where families are trained in foundational learning techniques in literacy and numeracy .

Require evidencebased curriculum, instructional materials, and assessment tools

Literacy:

► Creating updated, state-approved lists of instructional materials in literacy to ensure all basic materials adhere to current evidence-based practices

► Requiring that all districts use the newly adopted state-approved literacy instructional materials, unless they receive a waiver to use materials that are not on the list . Waivers will only be granted by the State Board of Education if there is proof that instructional materials are aligned with evidence-based practices .

► Mandating that CSI schools use materials from the state-adopted list .

► Requiring that districts adopting instructional materials that are not on the stateapproved list demonstrate that the adopted instructional materials are aligned to evidence-based practices

Require evidencebased curriculum, instructional materials, and assessment tools (continued)

Provide systematic professional learning in elementary (or early) literacy and numeracy evidence-based pedagogical techniques

Numeracy:

► Creating incentives for LEAs with the lowest TK-5 outcomes in mathematics to adopt elementary mathematics instructional materials from the newly updated (2025) state-approved list .

► Conducting a study with a third-party research partner to evaluate the impact that local instructional materials adoptions have on student outcomes and use those findings to identify the materials with the greatest impact on student outcomes.

► Providing incentives for CSI schools to adopt instructional materials from the approved list with the greatest positive impact on student outcomes (per above)

► Conducting a statewide survey of elementary educators to understand the current landscape of professional development offerings in early literacy and numeracy to better understand where there are opportunities for improvement .

► Reviewing the ELA/ELD and Mathematics frameworks for elementary grades and identifying a core set of professional development modules that align to the respective evidence about how to effectively teach students to read and develop foundational early numeracy skills .

► Providing more opportunities for current elementary educators to complete professional development courses that provide a foundation in the current evidence-based practices in literacy and math (i.e., courses on how to effectively teach students to read and develop foundational numeracy skills) .

Literacy:

► Requiring that all elementary educators complete professional development and training from a state-approved professional development list that adheres to evidence-based practices around how to teach students to read (unless they have already received the training)

Numeracy:

► Providing funding for and piloting early numeracy professional development programs in the lowest-performing elementary schools statewide and identifying core learning opportunities for educators that support the development of foundational early numeracy skills .

All newly certified elementary teachers are trained in evidence-based literacy and early numeracy pedagogy

► Providing support for the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) to strengthen the accreditation review process for elementary teaching standards in literacy and math

► Requiring that pre-service teachers are trained in the most recent research and evidence-based practices around early literacy and numeracy

► Expanding learning opportunities for faculty at teacher preparation programs to build knowledge in the most recent research and evidence-based practices around early literacy and numeracy skills development

Policy Pillar 5: Additional Supports and Learning Time

Our Goal: Students from low-income communities are given additional supports and extended learning opportunities that promote both their academic needs and their developmental, social-emotional, and mental and physical health needs .

Our Goal: All students from high-needs schools have access to resources that address their developmental, academic, social-emotional, mental and physical health, along with school, home, and community-based extended learning opportunities .

What We Know

Figure 6: A look at adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) by income for California students

Students in CA who experience one or more ACE

22% of students at 400% or above the federal poverty line

44% of students at 0-138% of the federal poverty line

Students from lowincome communities are twice as likely to be exposed to an adverse childhood experience

*The federal poverty line for a family of four in 2021-22 was $27,750. See footnote 56 for more details on adverse childhood experiences.

Source: SHADAC analysis of Percent of children with adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), State Health Compare, SHADAC, University of Minnesota, statehealthcompare.shadac.org, Accessed January 3, 2024.

Source: SHADAC analysis of Percent of children with adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), State Health Compare, SHADAC, University of Minnesota, statehealthcompare. shadac.org, Accessed January 3, 2024.

Research has shown that students learn and develop best in a school environment that focuses on the interconnectedness of academic, socialemotional, and mental health needs . 58 Supporting students’ social and emotional development has been shown to boost grades59 and help students learn new academic content . 60 This is particularly important for students from low-income communities who are more likely than their higher-income peers to face barriers to learning outside the classroom, such as lack of adequate mental and physical healthcare, food and housing insecurity, instability at home, and exposure to other adverse childhood experiences . 61, 62 Many of these factors impact students’ ability to engage in learning and have a negative impact on their academic outcomes . 63

Given these additional challenges, children from low-income communities often need additional supports inside and outside the classroom to develop the social-emotional and academic skills to be successful . When higher-income students need additional supports, families often have the resources to provide tutors, therapists, and academic enrichment activities . These options are often not available to students from lowincome communities . California has made some strides in access to additional supports: there are currently over 980,000 children and youth served by existing publicly funded expanded learning programs;64 84% of the children served by those programs are from low-income communities . 65 While these numbers are encouraging, the reality is that these programs only have capacity for around one quarter (23%) of the students from

low-income communities in California schools . 66 This means that while their more affluent peers likely get additional supports outside of school, many low-income students do not have access to expanded learning and enrichment opportunities . One proven strategy to build strong school environments that solve for these inequities is to create a robust system of support for students that considers their academic, social-emotional, physical, and mental health needs . 67 We must redesign how and when learning happens inside classrooms so that students who are behind receive meaningful small-group instruction and one-on-one support . We must also assist students who have faced barriers outside the classroom to have access to mental health support and school social workers . These opportunities should be student-centered, interactive, results-driven, and, when possible, designed with community partners .

Policy Priorities

Priority What does this look like?

Provide additional academic supports during the school day

Increase access to extended and expanded learning opportunities outside of the school day

Family engagement is a central component of a strong school environment . Parents, families, and caregivers should be authentically engaged in the development of school-based supports . Schools should not only communicate regularly with parents, families, and caregivers but should also leverage their insights in the development of new programming and enrichment opportunities . Shifts in the system are necessary so that students are able to fully access learning inside the classroom and have access to enriching opportunities outside the classroom . If California is going to effectively educate all children, our education system must provide a strong level of support for children from low-income communities who face additional barriers and are often left to rely on the K-12 public education system for support .

► Providing incentives to LEAs to implement differentiated, evidence-based interventions for students who are significantly behind. Interventions must be timely, flexible, and individualized to student needs.

► Providing state-sponsored technical and financial assistance and performance-based incentives to the highest-needs districts and schools that integrate interventions and smallgroup instruction in literacy and math into the classroom, implement smaller class sizes, and build supports into the school day .

► Expanding funding and minimum required number of hours of extended learning time to increase access to publicly funded after-school and summer programs in LEAs with the highest concentrations of students from low-income communities so that they have access to a subsidized, high-quality after-school program.

► Convening a work group to review, update, and revise the quality standards for the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program and creating an updated suite of tools that LEAs can use to evaluate the quality of their after-school programming and request assistance, if needed .

► Improving integration between LEAs and local community afterschool and enrichment providers by implementing pilot programs, offering incentives, and promoting best practices.68

► Driving stronger integration initiatives between key state and county departments so that health services, social services and academic services are better integrated and more effectively implemented in schools and other government agencies.

► Creating pilot programs for LEAs to provide additional school days, offering the highestneed students access to academic, social-emotional, and other enrichment activities beyond regular school hours .

► Provide all students from low-income communities computers or tablets and internet access, and increase access to online and digital tutoring and small-group learning opportunities for high-needs schools .

Increase school site staff capacity to support students of greatest need

► Updating educator preparation program curricula to include pedagogy and training topics like adverse childhood experiences (ACEs); the importance of psychological safety; using data to identify and differentiate supports; and the value of whole-child learning

► Developing an incentive program to encourage existing teachers in high-needs schools to pursue additional micro-credentialing programs on the social-emotional elements of learning .

► Creating state and regional professional learning hubs to help districts and schools learn how to work better with after-school and summer partners so that the supports provided to the highest-need students are better integrated and more effectively meet students’ needs .

► Increase the number of counselors and social workers in the highest-needs schools .

Help the highest-needs schools and districts build cohesive systems of support for students

Extend mental and physical health supports inside and outside of classrooms

Engage families and communities as partners in determining effective extended learning opportunities

► Continuing and extending the funding to LEAs for the CA Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS)69 Initiative to successfully implement the California MTSS Framework that was developed in 2023 to support the whole child .

► Leverage multiple state agencies and non-profit partners to bring effective design and implementation of the California Community Schools Partnership Program for students in high-needs schools .

► Expanding public and private county, state, and federal partnerships to provide more school-based physical health services for Medi-Cal eligible students (including vision and dental services) .

► Expanding school-based health centers through partnerships with hospitals, treatment centers, and non-public schools to create a continuum of services and in/out transition processes to support students with significant/severe mental health and other health needs.

► Increasing pathways for school social workers, behavioral health, and other mental health professionals working outside of education to become school-based employees

► Creating a statewide pilot program to connect families (in multiple languages) to services and supports, and resources that will assist in supporting their child during and after the school day .

► Greater public transparency around how Expanded Learning Opportunity Program and Community Schools funds are used, how they translate to increased programmatic outcomes, and how families are included in the planning process at the local level .

Foundational Conditions for Student Success

Dramatically re-envisioning the way the education system supports students from low-income communities requires rethinking how we fund public schools, the way we distribute funding, and how we hold the system accountable . This means increasing funding for public education, targeting additional funds towards students from low-income communities, and sustaining adequate and equitable funding streams . In order to ensure policies

are implemented with fidelity and funds are reaching students from low-income communities when brought to scale, we must create strong accountability mechanisms and systems of support, anchored in collaboration and continual learning. To effectively deliver on the policies defined in the five pillars above and advance education opportunities for students from lowincome communities, these two foundational conditions must be in place .

Condition #1: Adequate and Equitable Funding

Our Goal: Increase public school funding and re-envision the way funding is generated, distributed, and allocated across the PreK-12 system so that the needs of students from low-income communities are prioritized.

Goal: Adequate and equitably distributed funding to create and sustain a high-quality education system that provides equitable access and opportunity for all students from low-income communities .

A well-funded public education system is essential to providing all children with a quality education. California has made significant progress in the way public schools are funded over the last decade: earlier this century, California was once one of the lowest-funded states in the country and is now around the national average . 70 Part of California’s progress included enacting and implementing the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)71 in the 2013-14 school year, which restructured the state’s school finance system to provide more resources to students from low-income communities, English learners, and foster youth .

These systemic changes and investments have positively impacted student achievement and helped improve outcomes in math, reading, and college readiness, while decreasing suspension and expulsion rates . 73 But California needs to do more . Funding that is on par with the national average is not good enough, particularly given that California has one of the highest rates of poverty in the country when adjusted for the cost of living . 74

Even though California has made strides to allocate additional funding to students with higher needs, the state must continue to strengthen the equitable distribution of funds and substantially increase public school funding, as well .

California also needs to maximize the effectiveness of how public funds are spent by improving transparency around spending at the local and state level, increasing the funds reaching schools and classrooms, and prioritizing higher levels of funding for students with the greatest need . Studies have shown

Policy Priorities

Priority What does this look like?

Increase the level of base public education funding for all students and the level of additional funding provided to students in most need of support

Strengthen requirements so that LCFF funds intended to help educate students in most need of support are actually used for that purpose

Increase transparency around spending at the state and local level, and create systems to help districts allocate funds

that increasing funding in school districts with high populations of low-income students results in meaningful positive short- and long-term benefits for students—such as increasing the overall number of years of education, increasing adult earnings, and reducing the likelihood of poverty in adulthood . 75

► Identifying new state revenue sources and changing the California tax structure, as needed, to increase and stabilize public education funding.

► Lowering the voter threshold for communities to pass taxes (e g , parcel tax) to increase local revenue sources for additional school funding .

► Closely examining areas of the state budget where California is potentially overspending (e .g ., the criminal legal system, incarceration and detention, etc .) and, if possible, reallocating those funds to public education .

► Maintaining and strengthening the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and Equity Multiplier, which provides additional funds to the highest-need schools .

► Identifying non-education-related state revenue sources to fund the state’s unfunded pension liabilities and make adjustments to the pension system moving forward, as needed, to decrease the financial burden of growing liabilities on schools, current staff, and students.

► Redesigning the special education funding and accountability system so that it is more aligned and integrated within the LCFF funding model .

► Strengthening the LCFF finance system so that school districts are held to a higher degree of accountability around directing and spending supplemental and concentration dollars they receive on the students the funds are intended to serve .

► Requiring every school district to post critical financial information online in an accessible, consistent, user-friendly format and report annually to their local school community how new dollars are translating into results for students

► Creating a funding technical assistance center within the California Department of Education focused on supporting districts and county offices of education to help share best practices related to using funds, identifying cost efficiencies, and effectively targeting funds to students most in need.

Condition #2: Accountability, Continual Learning, and Collaboration

Our Goal: Build policies with a clear roadmap for successful implementation; create space for collaboration between education leaders at all levels (state, county, and local); build in opportunities for continual learning; and put in place clear accountability structures that help ensure new policies are well executed and deliver results for students from low-income communities .

Goal: Create systems of accountability, continual learning, and collaboration at all levels of implementation (state, county, and local) that support growth and development to ensure that policies are well executed and highly targeted towards students from low-income communities

California has a responsibility to provide a quality education to all children while also ensuring funding and resources are used effectively and are equitably distributed to public schools . It is important that the state implement a strong statewide accountability system—including data collection, analysis, and reporting—that helps districts and schools share best practices, learn from each other, and improve upon policies and practices. This system needs to offer accessible, high-quality data for educators, families, advocates, and state leaders . It should be designed to help decision makers at the state and school levels alike monitor effective implementation of policies and continuously improve practices in the classroom

Beyond an effective accountability system, the state must also actively foster and champion new ideas, best practices, and innovation statewide . This starts with bolstering California’s statewide system of support . There must be policies put in place to foster more collaboration between the Governor’s Office, California Department of Education (CDE), the State Board of Education (SBE), the California Collaborative for Education Excellence (CCEE), County Offices of Education, and local districts . Improving coherence across the whole system and building a culture of continuous improvement will strengthen policymaking at the state level and help ensure the effective practices reach classrooms.

It is also essential that strong systems of support and collaboration are built into new policies so that county offices and district leaders are well supported as they implement new policies . This would mean that every new education policy that is adopted by the state would have an implementation plan to ensure school and district leaders are well supported when introducing new policy changes . Additionally, the state should

Policy Priorities

Priority

Strengthen the state accountability system to meet the needs of persistently underperforming schools

Statewide PreK-12 longitudinal data system to help provide information on education and workforce outcomes for improved decision making at the local and state level

Strengthen the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) development process and make the LCAP more accessible and userfriendly for community members

critically examine the existing governance structure underpinning the system of support . These two critical components—(1) robust, measurable accountability and (2) systems supporting continuous improvement and innovation—are integral to effective policy implementation and significantly changing trajectories for students from low-income communities .

What does this look like?

► Increasing funding for and improving the CSI program so that schools that are consistently in the lowest-performing 5% of Title I schools receive directive support, technical assistance, and additional resources from their county office of education and CCEE that is based on research for improving academic outcomes .

► Adding key indicators (such as a student growth model) to the California School Dashboard to strengthen the Differentiated Assistance (DA) identification process and improve our state’s multiple measures accountability system .

► Improving the state’s accountability and continuous improvement system so it is more user-friendly for parents and educators, transparently disaggregates data for subgroups across all areas of data collected, and clearly identifies underperforming schools and the plans to improve those schools .

► Modernizing and streamlining the California School Dashboard, Dataquest, and other state data systems, and requiring timely updates to those systems

► Full implementation of the Cradle-to-Career data system so that data collected in the integrated data system is used to help guide decisions on how to best meet student needs and can be easily accessed by the public .

► Streamlining the LCAP process by allowing LEAs to focus on the top two to three priorities each cycle to keep improvement efforts focused on high-leverage activities that will drive change at the local level and reduce administrative paperwork to allow more time to focus on those activities .

► Fully aligning and integrating the LCAP process with the special education Compliance and Improvement Monitoring process (CIM), which is situated outside of the LCAP process to better support students with disabilities .

► Creating a more user-friendly version of the LCAP by exploring an interactive, electronic template that will allow for summarized sections to increase transparency for school staff, parents and community .

All state policies concerning public education with substantial budgets must include clear goals, and an impact analysis must be developed to determine if the policy achieved its overall intent

Support unique and innovative TK-12 school models, to best meet the needs of all students

► Requiring an impact analysis in education-related bills and budget items to determine their effectiveness.

► Improving the capacity of the CDE, and if necessary, the counties and/or external partners, to create and disseminate impact analysis reports to the legislature and the general public .

► Developing a mechanism to highlight and elevate successful state-funded programs so that they can be expanded, as well as a system to revise and/or remove policies that have not proven effective.

► Creating a robust system to support innovative district and county pilot projects aimed at increasing academic achievement for students from low-income communities .

► Creating a system to identify public schools that excel in supporting students from low-income communities, and highlighting and replicating these successful practices across the state .

Streamline the work across state education agencies that are designated as “the statewide system of support” to create a highly effective and responsive mechanism to support students from low-income communities

► Reviewing the responsibilities of current key education agencies (SBE, CDE, CCEE, and COEs) and identifying areas where there is potential to better align roles and responsibilities .

► Analyzing the current state governance structure in comparison to other state models to determine the best governing structure—including exploring if the State Superintendent of Public Instruction should be appointed by the Governor, rather than a publicly elected office to better align education policy and implementation in California .

► Embedding professional development opportunities and capacity building for LEAs into education policies that will require a significant change to the day-to-day management of school operations or instructional practices in the classroom

Conclusion

Access to a quality education has the power to open up opportunity and possibility for all children. There is no reason why income, geography, and race should still play outsized roles in educational outcomes, especially when the research so clearly articulates the best conditions for student success. It is time for California to take bold, innovative actions that prioritize the futures of the over 3.5 million students from low-income communities in schools across the state.

We at EdVoice Institute hope this agenda will serve as a resource for the state to create a clear, cohesive, and comprehensive roadmap to redesign California’s public education system through policy changes over the next 10-15 years.

A significant transformation of California’s public education system is possible and, with enough political will and the right investments in resources, every student—regardless of background—can unlock the academic success necessary for a future filled with opportunity.

Endnotes

1 California Department of Education, Enrollment files 2023-24

2 EdVoice defines students from low-income communities as those that meet the qualifications for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (Student Poverty) per the California Department of Education

3 California Department of Education, Enrollment files 2023-24

4 Analysis of KidsData.org data. Income Level for Children Relative to Poverty, by Legislative District and Children Ages 3-5 Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten, by Legislative District files.

5 Reardon, Sean F., et al. “A Portrait of Educational Outcomes in California. Getting Down to Facts II. Technical Report.” Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE. (2018). https://gettingdowntofacts.com/sites/default/files/2018-09/GDTFII_Report_Reardon-Doss.pdf

6 California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), ELA files 2023-24

7 California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), math files 2023-24

8 California Department of Education, Adjusted cohort graduation rate files 2022-23

9 California Department of Education, College-going rate files 2021-22

10 Johnson, Hans, and Marisol Cuellar Mejia. “Higher Education and Economic Opportunity in California. Technical Appendices.” Public Policy Institute of California (2020).

11 We recommend that policy makers target policies towards schools that meet the National Center For Education Statistics (NCES) criteria for high-poverty (more than 75 percent of the students are eligible for FRPL) and have significant performance gaps in English language arts and/or math between low-income and non-low-income students.

12 Courchesne, Eric, et al. “Normal brain development and aging: quantitative analysis at in vivo MR imaging in healthy volunteers.” Radiology 216.3 (2000): 672-682.; Iwasaki, N., et al. “Volumetric quantification of brain development using MRI.” Neuroradiology 39 (1997): 841-846..; Kennedy, David N., et al. “Basic principles of MRI and morphometry studies of human brain development.” Developmental Science 5.3 (2002): 268-278.

13 Stipek, Deborah. “Early childhood education in California.” Getting down to facts II (2018): https://gettingdowntofacts.com/sites/default/files/2018-09/GDTFII_ Brief_EarlyChildhood.pdf

14 A child care desert is any census tract with more than 50 children under age 5 that contains either no child care providers or so few options that there are more than three times as many children as licensed child care slots.

15 McCoy, Dana Charles, et al. “Impacts of early childhood education on medium-and long-term educational outcomes.” Educational Researcher 46.8 (2017): 474-487. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X17737739?casa_ token=Jz9JCjlSPHYAAAAA%3Aietut7XUeZr8bzbWg1jUNJHg1vsl66iEjpLHmX8PvstoqTYAJxRxSvEkW4e2UomBW2cWFOlzgoSF&journalCode=edra

16 Stipek, Deborah. “Early childhood education in California.” Getting down to facts II (2018): 2018-19. https://gettingdowntofacts.com/sites/default/files/2018-09/ GDTFII_Brief_EarlyChildhood.pdf

17 Reardon, Sean F., et al. “A Portrait of Educational Outcomes in California. Getting Down to Facts II. Technical Report.” Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE (2018). https://gettingdowntofacts.com/sites/default/files/2018-09/GDTFII_Report_Reardon-Doss.pdf

18 Landivar, Christin. “New Childcare Data Shows Prices Are Untenable for Families.” US Department of Labor Blog (2023). https://blog.dol.gov/2023/01/24/newchildcare-data-shows-prices-are-untenable-for-families

19 KidsData. “California Families Face a Child Care Crunch (Part 2): A Closer Look at Availability and Cost.” (2023). https://www.kidsdata.org/blog/?p=10707

20 $39,900 for a family of four set by the California Poverty Measure (CPM), a research effort by PPIC and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality that accounts for housing costs and safety net benefits.

21 First Five Years Fund. “2023 Early Care and Education in California.” (2023). https://www.ffyf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/FFYF_California_2023.pdf

22 Opper, Isaac M. “Teachers matter: Understanding teachers’ impact on student achievement.” (2019). https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_ reports/RR4300/RR4312/RAND_RR4312.pdf

23 Opper, Isaac M. “Teachers matter: Understanding teachers’ impact on student achievement.” (2019).

24 Goodman‐Scott, Emily, et al. “An ecological view of school counselor ratios and student academic outcomes: A national investigation.” Journal of Counseling & Development 96.4 (2018): 388-398.

25 Hong J, Yee E. “Low-income students are more likely to be in classrooms with underqualified teachers.” CalMatters (2022). https://calmatters.org/education/2022/07/ teacher-credentials-california/

26 Bradley, K., and S. Levin. “Understanding and addressing principal turnover.” Learning Policy Institute. (2019). https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/ product-files/NASSP_LPI_Principal_Turnover_Research_Review_REPORT.pdf

27 The Education Trust. “School Counselors Matter in California.” (2019). https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/School-Counselors-Matter-in-CaliforniaFebruary-2019.pdf

28 Lambert D, Fensterwald J, Willis D. “Poorer students still get the least qualified teachers, but California has made progress.” EdSource. (2022). https://edsource. org/2022/poorer-students-still-get-the-least-qualified-teachers-but-california-has-made-progress/676044

29 Carver-Thomas, Desiree, and Linda Darling-Hammond. “The trouble with teacher turnover: How teacher attrition affects students and schools.” Education policy analysis archives 27.36 (2019). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1213629.pdf

30 Blazar, David. “Teachers of Color, Culturally Responsive Teaching, and Student Outcomes: Experimental Evidence from the Random Assignment of Teachers to Classes. EdWorkingPaper No. 21-501.” Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. (2021). https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai21-501.pdf

31 Educator Diversity State Profile: CALIFORNIA. Education Trust—West. June 2022. https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Educator-Diversity-State-ProfileCalifornia-June-2022.pdf

32 Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2014). What are the effects of teacher education and preparation on beginning teacher attrition? [Research Report #RR-82]. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania; Henke, R., Chen, X., & Geis, S. (2000). Progress through the teacher pipeline: 1992–93 college graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching as of 1997 [Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Report]. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

33 Carver-Thomas, Desiree. “Diversifying the Teaching Profession: How to Recruit and Retain Teachers of Color.” Learning Policy Institute. (2018). https:// learningpolicyinstitute.org/media/165/download?inline&file=Diversifying_Teaching_Profession_REPORT.pdf

34 Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., and Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A Coming Crisis in Teaching? Teacher Supply, Demand, and Shortages in the U.S. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/247.242

35 Typically includes instructional assistants, special education assistants, office staff, etc.

36 The Learning Policy Institute (Stanford) defines this as an interdisciplinary field that draws on research from neuroscience, psychology, and education to understand how people learn and develop throughout their lives. It seeks to identify the cognitive, social, and emotional processes that underlie learning and development, as well as the conditions that support or hinder these processes.

37 Teacher residency programs typically attract more diverse candidates and career changers.

38 Lowest 5% of Title I schools, high schools with low graduation rates (federal requirement to identify and provide additional improvement support)

39 The Opportunity Myth. TNTP. (2018). https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/

40 Ibid.

41 Schmidt, W., Burroughs, N., Zoido, P., Houang, R. (2015). The Role of Schooling in Perpetuating Educational Inequality: An International Perspective. Educational Researcher, Vol 44 (7), page 371-386. Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X15603982

42 Hurtt, Alexandria, et al. “Addressing Inequities in College Preparatory Course-Taking.” Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE. (2023). https://edpolicyinca.org/ publications/addressing-inequities-college-preparatory-course-taking

43 Nowicki, J. Public high schools with more students in poverty and smaller schools provide fewer academic offerings to prepare for college. GAO-19-8). Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-8

44 Rodriguez, Olga, and Niu Gao. “Dual Enrollment in California: Promoting Equitable Student Access and Success.” Public Policy Institute of California. (2021). https:// www.ppic.org/publication/dual-enrollment-in-california/

45 Koshy, Sonia, et al. “The California computer science access report.” Kapor Center, Oakland, CA. (2021). https://csforca.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/KC21007_ CS-for-CA_9-28-21-1-1.pdf

46 Create, CA. “California arts education data project.” (2019). https://createca.org/california-arts-education-data-project/

47 Johnson, Hans, and Marisol Cuellar Mejia. “Higher Education and Economic Opportunity in California. Technical Appendices.” Public Policy Institute of California. (2020). https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/higher-education-and-economic-opportunity-in-california-november-2020.pdf

48 Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz. “The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: New evidence from the moving to opportunity experiment.” American Economic Review 106.4 (2016): 855-902.

49 Dynarski, Susan, Joshua Hyman, and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach. “Experimental evidence on the effect of childhood investments on postsecondary attainment and degree completion.” Journal of policy Analysis and management 32.4 (2013): 692-717.

50 Raghupathi, Viju, and Wullianallur Raghupathi. “The influence of education on health: an empirical assessment of OECD countries for the period 1995–2015.” Archives of Public Health 78 (2020): 1-18.

51 The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) is the designated state agency tasked with supporting low and/or under-performing schools

52 Duncan, Greg J., et al. “School readiness and later achievement.” Developmental psychology 43.6 (2007): 1428. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10005971/1/ Duckworth2007SchoolReadiness1428.pdf

53 Duncan, Greg J., et al. “School readiness and later achievement.” Developmental psychology 43.6 (2007): 1428.

54 Birgisdottir, Freyja, Steinunn Gestsdottir, and G. John Geldhof. “Early predictors of first and fourth grade reading and math: The role of self-regulation and early literacy skills.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 53 (2020): 507-519.

55 Evidence-based literacy instructional techniques underscore the importance of developing skills in five key areas: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, oral language and vocabulary skills, and reading comprehension. It is grounded in scientific research about the way our brains process information, recognize word patterns, and develop language fluency.

56 This includes developing students’ understanding of whole numbers (counting and cardinality); understanding number magnitude, comparing and ordering numbers, and representing numbers in a line; and composing and decomposing numbers (the foundation for addition and subtraction). Other areas of importance include: geometry, spatial reasoning, and measurement.

57 These interventions will look different depending on the specific learning needs of the student. Early numeracy tactics might include developing students’ skills in: working memory; number sense; understanding of symbolic equivalence between numbers and symbols; whole number computation; and word problem solving. Early literacy tactics might include developing students’ skills in: phonemic awareness; decoding; developing high frequency words; developing fluency; and building comprehension.

58 Vey, Jennifer S., and Juanita Morales. “Why local leaders should champion community schools to improve student, family, and neighborhood well-being.” (2022). https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-local-leaders-should-champion-community-schools-to-improve-student-family-and-neighborhood-well-being/

59 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor & Schellinger. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1): 405-432.

60 Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. J. (2008). Formulating, identifying, and estimating the technology of cognitive and noncognitive skill formation. Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 783–782

61 Gracy, Delaney, et al.”Health barriers to learning: The prevalence and educational consequences in disadvantaged children.” Children’s Health Fund. (2017). https:// www.childrenshealthfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Health-Barriers-to-Learning.pdf

62 Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are potentially traumatic events that occur in childhood. They can include violence, abuse, and experience family mental health or substance use problems. Toxic stress from ACEs can alter brain development and impact the way the body responds to stress. ACEs have been linked to chronic health problems, mental illness, and substance misuse later in life.

63 Webb, Nathaniel J., Thaddeus L. Miller, and Erica L. Stockbridge. “Potential effects of adverse childhood experiences on school engagement in youth: a dominance analysis.” BMC public health 22.1 (2022): 1-9. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-022-14524-8

64 From the California Afterschool Network: Expanded Learning refers to before and after school, summer, and intersession learning experiences that develop the academic, social, emotional, and physical needs and interests of students.

65 William H et al. “A Hub of Community Resilience: California’s Expanded Learning Programs Respond to Crisis.” California Afterschool Network. (2020). https://www. afterschoolnetwork.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/can-sots-brief-2019-2020-accessible_0.pdf?161809083

66 Analysis of 2022-23 CDE Enrollment data files.

67 DePaoli, Jennifer, and Jennifer McCombs. “Safe Schools, Thriving Students: What We Know about Creating Safe and Supportive Schools.” Learning Policy Institute. (2023). https://doi.org/10.54300/701.445

68 CAN and ASAPconnect are technical assistance partners to the CDE specifically around after school support.

69 California’s Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) is a framework that helps school districts identify children’s needs and align initiatives, supports, and resources based on proven academic, behavioral, and social-emotional learning practices. Learn more about California’s Multi-Tiered System of Support from the California Department of Education: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/

70 LaFortune J. “Financing California’s Public Schools.” Public Policy Institute of California. (2023). https://www.ppic.org/publication/financing-californias-public-schools/

71 The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), enacted in 2013-14, replaced the previous K-12 finance system that had existed for about 40 years. LCFF introduced uniform grade span grants, consolidating various funding streams like revenue limits, block grants, and state categorical programs. LCFF changed the funding, measurement, and support for all school districts in California to help all students reach their full potential—specifically providing more funding for low-income students, English learners and foster youth.

72 From the California Department of Education: The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was enacted in 2013–14, and it replaced the previous kindergarten through grade 12 (K–12) finance system which had been in existence for roughly 40 years. For school districts and charter schools, the LCFF established uniform grade span grants in place of the myriad of previously existing K–12 funding streams, including revenue limits, general purpose block grants, and most state categorical programs. Source: https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp

73 Johnson, R. “School funding effectiveness: Evidence from California’s local control funding formula.” Learning Policy Institute. (2023). https://doi.org/10.54300/529.194

74 Auditor for the State of California. “K–12 Local Control Funding The State’s Approach Has Not Ensured That Significant Funding Is Benefiting Students as Intended to Close Achievement Gaps.” (2019). https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2019-101.pdf

75 Jackson, C. Kirabo, Johnson, Rucker, and Persico, Claudia. “The Effect of School Finance Reforms on the Distribution of Spending, Academic Achievement, and Adult Outcomes.” National Bureau of Economic Research. May 2014. https://gsppi.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/Jackson_Johnson_Persico_SFR_LRImpacts.pdf. ; Johnson, Rucker C. “Long-run Impacts of School Desegregation & School Quality on Adult Attainments.” National Bureau of Economic Research. September 2015. https://www.nber.org/papers/w16664