Tag Archives: California

Ballot Initiative Results in CA, WA, and Other States — and Implications for Education

On Election Day, Bellwether shared a roundup of key races and issues we are closely watching due their potential impact on education,. While the nation nervously waits for clarity in the Presidential race, the results from several important and expensive ballot initiatives have rolled in. Here are four that I’m paying attention to:

California’s Proposition 16

This ballot measure, which would have reversed the state’s longstanding ban on affirmative action in government hiring and in public university admissions, failed. After a summer marked by activism and calls for racial justice, 56% of voters in arguably the most progressive state rejected the measure. As a result of the state’s 1997 ban on affirmative action, the percent of Black students in the state’s university system has dropped in half, even as the state has produced more Black high school graduates. The ban also negatively affected the enrollment of Latino and Native American students in California’s public universities. In all, eight states have affirmative action bans similar to California’s and this loss is likely to have a chilling effect on activists looking to overturn bans in their states. 

California’s Proposition 15

The union-backed initiative that would result in higher property taxes for commercial and industry property to provide additional funding for local governments, schools, and community colleges is trailing as of this writing. Were it to pass, Proposition 15 would be the largest tax increase in California history, resulting in a net increase in tax revenues of up to $12 billion, 40% of which would go to K-12 schools and community colleges. At the time of writing, it appears that the majority of California voters will reject this tax hike and, along with it, potentially billions of additional revenue for schools.

Washington State’s Referendum 90

Washington became the first state this week to pass a comprehensive sex education mandate with nearly 60% support. The mandate requires public schools to offer families the option of age-appropriate curriculum focused on issues including human development and consent. Opponents of the measure argued inaccurately that the legislation would impede on local administrators’ ability to control the curriculum, but it appears voters were not swayed by these arguments. Washington now joins 24 other states and D.C. that require sex education. 

Multi-state Drug Reform

On Tuesday, voters across the nation sent a clear message and voted for drug policy reform. Voters in Arizona, Montana, New Jersey and South Dakota legalized marijuana for recreational purposes. In Mississippi and South Dakota, voters legalized medical marijuana. In Oregon voters decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, and in Washington, D.C., voters decriminalized psychedelic plants (like mushrooms). With these new policies to decriminalize and legalize certain drugs will come new questions for parents and educational officials. How should officials address issues of student drug possession? What will the impact of legalization be on K-12 achievement? What rights do employees have who use recreationally? Leaders can look for some answers in Colorado, which legalized marijuana in 2012, saw the rate of teen drug use fall to its lowest level in a decade. 

Stay tuned for more Election 2020 coverage here.

What Bellwether Is Watching Out For in Election 2020

That there’s a lot at stake in this election is obvious. And there is a lot at stake for schools even as they’ve been mostly an afterthought on the campaign trail. There are immediate questions about COVID-19 relief and, going forward, big questions for early education, higher education, assessment, accountability, and choice policies for K-12 schools. 

This is nothing new: Bellwether has an entire genre of blog posts about how little education gets talked about during presidential debates, vice presidential debates, State of the Union addresses, and other federal policy conversations. And while single-issue education voters may not be unicorns, they are pretty rare.  

At Bellwether we track the election and what it means for clients, and we pay attention to the context and conditions schools operate in. Our team is united by a shared mission of improving life and education outcomes for underserved students, but we differ about how best to do that — and, by extension, about politics. But like everyone, we are paying close attention this year.

Here’s some of what we are watching for: Continue reading

An Underused Path for Rescuing Early Care Providers

This is our latest post in “The Looming Financial Crisis?” series. Read the rest here.

Even in the best of times, the community-based organizations, nonprofits, and schools that run early childhood programs in this country operate on extremely thin margins.

Because of COVID-19, they’re in crisis. Many are waiting desperately for families willing to sign up for in-person care or for the federal government to pass another stimulus bill. In a July survey, 40 percent of current early childhood providers said that without additional public assistance, they would close permanently. In that scenario, thousands of early educators would lose their primary source of income. The resulting loss would also have dire implications for parents and caregivers trying to go back to work — and for the economy. 

Outside of direct financial assistance, there’s another — and largely unexplored — route to help shore up the finances of existing early childhood providers and support the creation of new providers: state legislators should create flexibility from regulations that govern the facilities where early childhood operators can work.

Right now, for example, early childhood providers spend valuable money and limited staff time thinking about things like building individual “cubbies” within classrooms with individual hooks and ensuring an “adequate supply of blocks in varied sizes” that is “organized and labeled.” Facilities regulations can also prevent potential providers from ever opening. For example, in order to serve preschoolers, charter schools often must retrofit their existing classrooms to meet early childhood regulations, which can be a prohibitively expensive endeavor. 

There is no argument that children need safety, and that operators need to be compelled — through a combination of oversight, law, and agency guidance — to make the safest spaces for kids to play and learn. But states across the country have taken things a step too far, adding burdensome hoops that don’t actually do anything to ensure quality, safety, or rigor.

Loosening these regulations would ease the financial pressure on existing providers, allowing them to spend funds elsewhere, like on public health measures, staff salaries, or rent. Depending on the regulation, providers may even be able to reconfigure their existing space to enroll more students while still meeting COVID health and safety standards. And in the best case scenario, providers that have not previously offered child care due to facilities restrictions could begin to do so. 

Continue reading

Misinformation About California’s Special Education Systems and Enrollment Trends Won’t Help the Fiscal Crisis

Many California school districts are in financial trouble. Teacher pensions consume an increasing share of K-12 spending, and inflexible collective bargaining agreements and declining enrollments stretch district budgets.

In this strained financial environment, some of the complexity of California’s school finance system is lost, leading to simplified analyses and incomplete solutions. Addressing the financial shortfall requires a comprehensive understanding of the many different ways funding works in the state.

cover of Bellwether report cover of Bellwether report

 

 

 

 

 

 

To that end, we released new issue briefs yesterday that provide needed context and clarity on important issues in the state: special education financing and school enrollment trends and facilities. These issues have become part of the financial policy debate, but there are misunderstandings that unnecessarily fan the flames of tension between traditional and charter schools. For example, misleading analyses of enrollment trends and their impact on district finances make it more difficult to accurately assess facilities needs for districts and charter schools. And, since charter schools often enroll fewer students with disabilities, many can mistakenly believe that they are not contributing their share to special education.

But this isn’t quite right. Our hope is that a sober examination of these systems will point to reforms that can help schools of all types better serve students.

Continue reading

Learning from a Missed Opportunity in Massachusetts

If current predictions hold, several states will either set new or stand by current limits on charter school growth and expansion. These limits, called charter school caps, place a ceiling on the number of charter schools or students those schools can enroll. In 2016, Massachusetts did the same thing: Voters rejected Ballot Question 2, which would have raised the cap on charter schools in the state. But research released just last week suggests that Massachusetts’ voters made a mistake. The states currently considering similar legislation should pay attention.

In the study I’m referencing, authors Sarah Cohodes, Elizabeth Setren, and Christopher R. Walters examined the effect of a policy that allowed effective charter schools in Boston to replicate their school models at new locations. They found that these new schools produced large achievement gains that were on par with those of their parent campuses. What’s more, the average effectiveness of charter middle schools in the city increased after the policy reform.

This evidence could, perhaps, be dismissed if the sector saw only a marginal increase in the number of schools; that is, if there were only a few additional charter schools that pulled this off. But that’s not the case: Boston’s charter sector produced these results despite a doubling of the charter market share in the city.

This analysis would be a big deal for any charter sector, but it is particularly meaningful for Boston. As Bellwether found in a recent analysis of the charter sector, Boston has the highest performing urban charter sector in the country. The average child who attended Boston charter schools benefited from basically a full year of additional learning compared to students in traditional public schools: 170 additional days of learning in reading and 233 days of learning in math. And the research suggests that Boston charter schools have strong, positive effects on the learning outcomes of students with disabilities and English-language learners, as well. The implication here is that not only did Boston’s charter schools replicate their impact, they replicated some of the most effective charter schools we’ve ever seen, to the benefit of the thousands of students in Boston who are on charter school waitlists.

The states that are poised to double down on charter caps — such as New York, Maine, and California — shouldn’t make the same mistake as Massachusetts did in 2016. New York, in particular, is at risk here: In our analysis earlier this year, we examined the existing evidence on New York and New York City and found that there, too, charters are more effective than traditional public schools. By committing to the cap, the state is refusing thousands of students the opportunity to attend high-quality schools.

To be sure, there are reasons to question the growth of a charter sector other than whether charters can replicate effectiveness across schools. Charter critics cite, for example, concerns about the effect of charter sector growth on traditional public school enrollment. But, particularly during National Charter Schools Week, states should be skeptical of arguments used to support charter school caps that claim charter schools cannot be replicated effectively.