LB 2826 .C2 C66 1984 IGSL UCB : NTAL -lNSTlTUTE OF GO\/_RNME STUDIES LIBRARY MN 2 6 2.817 UNNERSITY OF CALIFORN‘A CONDITIONS OF EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA 1984 84-1 This is a PACE Project sponsored paper. PACE, Policy Analysis for California Education, is a joint undertaking located at the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University. Its Directors are James w. Guthrie and Michael W. Kirst. PACE is funded by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. However, the analyses and recommendations contained in this paper are not necessarily endorsed either by the Hewlett Foundation or the PACE directors. Introduction Highlights Factual Summery TABLE OF Student Enrollment/Demography . Student Performance. Curriculum Staffing . Finance . Appendix A CONTENTS .20 .22 .26 .31 April 1984 CONDITIONS OF EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA 1984 This is the first edition of what is planned as a series of annual reports regarding the conditions of education in California. The primary purpose of this and subsequent publications in the series is to provide public officials, professional educators, and private citizens with a thorough, objective, and regular assessment of the performance of California's schools. This initial, 1984, report may prove particularly significant. In 1983, California launched an ambitious and comprehensive education reform effort. (The reform policies are contained in Senate Bill 813.)The prescribed changes are directed at dozens of education matters such as high school graduation requirements, employee salaries, length of school day and year, secondary school counseling, and teacher licensing. The intent is to render California's schools more productive both for individual students and the state as a whole. ' In future years it will be important to assess the extent to which reform efforts have been successful. By providing data on a number of school related dimensions, this report can serve as a baseline against which to judge future statewide educational outcomes. Toward that end, successive annual versions of this report will address the dimensions contained in this 1984 edition so as to enable comparisons to be made. Future reports will be issued in September to coincide with the beginning of the school year. This report summarizes information about California's schools and students on dimensions such as demography, academic performance, curriculum and instruction, personnel, and finances. The information has been compiled from a spectrum of federal, state, and local sources. The report concentrates on kindergarten through twelfth grade public schools. However, a few data and conclusions are included regarding non—public and postsecondary education matters as well. In compiling data about California education, we have attempted to present a balanced View. Schools have been much criticized of late. We offer no apology for their performance. On the other hand, we wish to make clear that there are April 1984 dimensions on which California's school systems have acquitted themselves well. We emphasize the positive points, as well as negative features, in both the body of the text and in the summary. In the Highlights section, which appears initially, we have attempted to underscore those current or future conditions of California education which likely will need substantial attention from policy makers, education professionals, and the public. Additionally, in the Highlights we summarize those components of education with which Californians can take pride. This report is issued under the auspices of P%CE,.Policy Analysis for California Education. The concept of the PACE Project. was endorsed by legislative leaders, executive branch officers, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and education organizations such as the Association of California School Administrators, California Federation of Teachers, California School Boards Association and the California Teachers Association. PACE is funded by a grant from the Hewlett Foundation. However, none of these organizations or officials is responsible for the content or the conclusions contained in this report. Information in this document. was compiled in substantial measure by Richard Pratt, John Parsons, and Ralph Brott. Judy Snow prepared the manuscript. Helpful advice was pmovided by Robert W. Agee, Charles Benson, Walter I. Garms, Kati Haycock, Rita M. Mize, Rodney J. Reed, David Stern, and Aaron Waildavsky. Errors of fact or interpretation, however, are the responsibility of the PACE Directors, James W. Guthrie and Michael W. Kirst. Reader comments regarding the manner in which this report can be improved or made more useful would be greatly appreciated. The 'report is divided into five sections, Demography, Student Performance, Curriculum, Staffing, and Finance. The major factual points of each section are summarized below. Before proceding with these summaries, however, there are several conclusions deserving of particular emphasis because of their public policy significance. April 1984 HIGHLIGHTS: Conditions Calling for the Attention of Policy Makers, the Education Profession, and the Public Growth of Hispanic Enrollments School enrollments are increasing generally, but growth in numbers of students of Hispanic origin is escalating dramatically. By 2000, Hispanics will comprise the largest single segment of the school-age population in California. Hispanics presently constitute the overwhelming majority (74%) of all students with limited English—speaking ability. In 1983, more than 300,000 Hispanic enrollees in California's schools had only a limited grasp of English. This is 118 percent of the levels only two years before, 1981. Available data suggest that Hispanic students score lower‘ than other students on tests of academic achievement at both the elementary and secondary levels. Perhaps due in large measure to language related learning problems, more than one-third of California's Hispanic students are not now graduating from high school. Similarly, large proportions of students in other ethnic and foreign language categories do not graduate from high school. The waste of human capital represented by the dismal education levels of large numbers of minority pupils is depressing individually for the students and their families and frightening for the overall society. If not addressed in an appropriate and sustained manner, this condition constitutes an arsenal of social explosives which threatens to destroy the economic productivity and civic fabric of the state. California faces 1K) other public policy problem (n: more pressing importance. School Effectiveness Compared to other states, and perhaps other nations, Californa's public schools are generally lacking in rigor. This is evidenced by the shorter amount of time students spend in school, fewer demanding courses required, apparent grade inflation, and low scores on nationally administered examinations. April 1984 Recent state changes have intensified high school graduation and college admission requirements. The majority of students planning to go to college already take the required added courses. The likely prospect is that the more rigorous mandates will fall most heavily (n1 the very students who are not now succeeding in school. Educators will be challenged to implement the new requirements in a manner which does not exacerbate the high dropout rates to which we have already referred. Teachers California faces the Herculean task of employing 91,000 to 110,000 high quality teachers within the next decade. Salaries which are low relative to other professions, poor working conditions, upside down incentive systems, and the demoralizing low prestige accorded the education profession render it unlikely under current conditions that this demand will be fulfilled. Finances By comparison with other states, California is at once~ affluent and taxes its citizens at above national average' levels. Despite such wealth and tax effort, it spends less per pupil than most other states. In fact, when spending is adjusted for inflation, California spent $6,000 per classroom less in 1982-83 than in 1977—78. California spends higher than national average amounts on welfare. Arguably, a stable source of revenue for and effective spending upon education in the present could reduce welfare costs in the future. Higher Education Public school enrollments are increasing overall. However, this growth is currently concentrated im: the elementary grades and its incremental nature coupled with previously mentioned high dropout rates, results i1) continued JIM] secondary enrollments. By 1990, secondary enrollments will have declined 5 percent from their 1980 level, and California will graduate only 204,000 high school seniors. (The number graduating in 1980 was 257,000.) This trend will eventually reverse itself as ever expanding elementary enrollments rise through the grades. However, under present conditions, for a period in the 19805, the pool of students conventionally defined as eligible for higher education enrollment in California can be expected to shrink substantially. April 1984 Conclusion Enactment of Senate Bill 813 in July of 1983 constituted a significant step in addressing California's serious public school problems. However, the intensity of these problems and their systemic nature .renders it necessary' for policy makers, professional educators, and the public to sustain their efforts to provide the state with an effective system of schools. The goal is not yet in sight. April 1984 HIGHLIGHTS: Conditions of Education in Which California Can Take Pride -Student performance on third and sixth grade tests administered by the California Assessment Program (CAP) has increased steadily for eight years. -Scores of California secondary students on the mathematics portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) have risen since 1978 and are once again higher than the national average. -California is tied for third plaCe among the fifty states in the proportion of high school graduates who hold two year college degrees (this percentage was 9.1 for 1972 high school graduates)and tied for 16th in the nation in the proportion of high school graduates having either a 2 or 4 year college degree (this percentage was 24.6 for 1972 high school graduates) -California continues to be a leader among states in providing specialized services to address the educational needs of handicapped, limited and non-English speaking, and low achieving students. No other state has as wide an array of such specialized categorically funded offerings. In fact, in 1983, California allocated almost 30 percent of its total K—12 school spending to such special programs. —Nineteen eighty-four holds the propect of being the second consecutive year during which school revenues have grown faster than the national rate of inflation. April 1984 FACTUAL SUMMARY Student Enrollment/Demography *Previous enrollment declines were concentrated primarily in urban areas from Santa Barbara County to Orange County and in the San Francisco Bay Area. Declines in these limited geographic areas were so dramatic during the 1970s that they swamped overall state-wide pupil figures. Enrollments actually increased in most of California's counties. *While public school enrollment declined during the 19705, non—public schools' share of total enrollments climbed from 8 to 12 percent. *While K-8 enrollment will increase 25 percent by 1990, 9—12 enrollment will decline 5 percent, but rise thereafter. *Hispanic students are the fastest growing portion of the school age population and will constitute the largest segment by the year 2000. *Students with limited English—speaking proficiency account for 12 percent of all California students. This is an increase from 9 percent in 1981. The largest language group among these students is Spanish, with approximately one—third of all Hispanic students being limited in English. Student Performance *Large proportions, between 24 percent and 61 percent, depending upon grade level, of all California public school students fail one or more of the state-mandated, April 1984 locally-administered proficiency tests. *Of twelfth graders satisfying all public school graduation course requirements, 21 percent nevertheless failed one or more subject matter proficiency tests in December 1981. *After a steady, eight-year improvement on state-wide test scores, California's third and sixth graders now perform slightly above the national median on basic skills. HoweVer, scores at grade 12 have remained constant over this same time period, and the average California public school twelfth grader ranks at only the 39th to 46th percentile nationally, depending on the subject. *In 1983, California seniors scored below the national average on Scholastic Aptitude Tests' verbal test and achievement batteries. This is despite their reporting higher—than—national average course grades in the subjects these exams cover. The exception is mathematics, where California scores have risen 8 points since 1978 and are now above the national average. *California's high school dropout rate increasingly exceeds the national average. This is not simply because the state's proportion of dropout-prone, e.g., limited English-speaking students, is higher than the national average. It is also the case in California that above average percentages of white, middle claSs, suburban, and female students do not complete high school. Curriculum *The average California public high school graduate attends the equivalent of one and one third years less school than his or her national counterpart, because of shorter school days and fewer days in the school year. *The lower the socioeconomic standing of California April 1984 students, the less likely they are to be exposed to academic subject matter, e.g., science, math, foreign language, and English composition. *Virtually all the state's secondary schools offer the subject area (A-F) courses required of entrants to the University of California. However, a recent California Postsecondary Education Commission survey reveals that 17 percent of the state's comprehensive high schools do not offer a sufficent number of A-F classes to permit all interested students to complete these. Moreover, not all high schools offer Advanced Placement (AP) courses. Staffing *California will need to employ an estimated 91,000 to 110,000 new teachers between 1984 and 1991. If the state's pupil/teacher ratio, currently the second highest in the nation, were reduced to the national average, then California would need to employ as many as 246,000 new teachers by 1991. *Only 6 percent of California's teachers, contrasted with 26 percent of its students, are of Hispanic origin. Low high school graduation rates among Hispanic students and their low passing rates on the California Basic Education Skills Test (CBEST) required of teacher candidates suggest that this ratio will not change soon. *Teachers continue to be among California's lowest paid professionals. Average salaries in 1980-81 had only 92 percent of the purchasing power of 1969-70. Entry level teacher pay is now lower in terms of purchasing power than was the case in 1960 and 1970. April 1984 Finance *Between 1979 and 1983, California's public school per pupil expenditures declined nearly 8 percent, after adjusting for inflation. Funding of Senate Bill 813 reversed this trend by increasing California expenditures faster than the national average. *California was the only state in 1980 that was higher than the national average in both taxable wealth and tax effort but below average in kindergarten through twelfth grade per pupil expenditures. *In 1980, California's per pupil expenditures were $441.56 less than would be predicted on the basis of the state's wealth and tax effort. If the state had spent the amount ' expected, given its wealth and tax effort, schools would have received an additional $1.76 billion in 1980. More recent data reveal that California continues to spend less per pupil than the national average. STUDENT ENROLLMENT/DEMOGRAPHY ENROLLMENT The 19705 was a decade of decline in public school enrollment in both California and the nation. As Exhibit 1 reveals, public school enrollment declined 8 percent between 1974-75 and 1982-83, and the public school share of total school enrollment dropped from 91.5 percent to 88.4 percent. Private school enrollment in California increased 29 percent between April 1984 1974-75 and 1982-83. As Exhibits 2 and 3 display, however, the above-mentioned enrollment decline has not been an even, state—wide phenomenon. Exhibit 2 presents enrollment figures by county for 1972 and 1982 and the percent of enrollment growth or decline for each county. Shaded areas in Exhibit. 3 indicate counties where enrollments increased during this period. It can be seen that the enrollment decline has occurred primarily in urban areas along the Southern California coast from Santa Barbara to Orange Counties and the San Francisco Bay Area. San Diego is the only urban county that experienced enrollment growth. Enrollments increased throughout most of the state. Altogether, of California's 58 counties, 33 have experienced enrollment growth, with the largest growth occurring in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Past enrollment declines have already begun to be reversed. As Exhibit 1 shows, public school enrollment in 1982—83 is slightly higher than the previous year. This is the beginning of projected increases that will continue well into the next century. By 1990, total public school enrollment is expected to exceed 4,500,000. Most of the initial increase, somewhat obviously, will take place in the early grades. Thus, in 1990, approximately 38 percent of public school students will be in kindergarten through third grade and 37 percent will be in grades four through eight. Less than a fourth of all students will be in secondary school in 1990. In fact, secondary school enrollment is expected to be lower in 1990 than in 1980, but will rise thereafter. This has substantial implications for higher education enrollments, teacher training, and the general labor force, which. we will discuss later. ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION of CALIFORNIA STUDENTS Exhibit. 4 displays the ethnic distribution of California public schools for 1981-82. This too will change over the next several decades, as minorities, especially Hispanics, increase in number. California is home to nearly a third of the nation's Hispanics and their age distribution is considerably younger than non—Hispanics (Exhibit 5). For example, in 1980, 43 percent of the Hispanic population was aged 1 to 19 years, while only 31.2 percent of all non-Hispanics were in this age group. By the year 2000, Hispanics will begin to outnumber whites in the 1—19 age April 1984 group in California. In other words, Hispanics will become the largest single school-age population group in California. As California's Hispanic population grows in both number and as a proportion of total population, there is increasing awareness of great diversity among this group. The term "Hispanic" is applied to persons of Spanish, Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican origin as well as to individuals from Central and South American nations. Furthermore, a Hispanic may be a recent immigrant or a fifth-generation U.S. resident. It is clear that Hispanics cannot be regarded as a homogeneous group. However, it will also become clear in this report that many Hispanics share common problems with respect to education. One such problem is illustrated in Exhibit 6. This depicts the grade distribution of public school enrollment for 1981-82. Hispanic enrollment drops considerably between kindergarten and twelfth grade, while white enrollment rises. All other enrollments remains steady, but decline between grades ll and 12. This exhibit does not reflect the age distribution of the Hispanic population because the 1 1x) 9 age group is virtually identical to the 10-19 age group in number. Instead, these data indicate steady, substantial school attrition among Hispanics, who comprise nearly 35 percent of the kindergarten population, but only 16 percent of the twelfth grade population. Out of a cohort of 100 Hispanic students entering elementary school, fewer than (ES will reach twelfth grade, and nearly 1 le 5 Hispanic sophomores fail to graduate. This compares with 17 percent of Black, 12 percent of White, and only 3 percent Asian sophomore who fail to graduate. Hispanic school attrition is cflearly a major problem in California education and unless conditions are altered will be intensified by increasing numbers of school-age Hispanics. LIMITED ENGLI SH STUDENTS Exhibits 7 and 8 display the distribution of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in California public schools. (Because of uncertainties in the identification of some students as LEP, these data are probably conservative.) Spanish is In! far the largest LEP language group, constituting 8.3 percent of the total student population, and 74 percent of all LEP students. All Limited English Proficient groups have increased over the last three years except Filipino, which has increased in numbers but remains constant as a proportion of the total student population. By combining the information of these exhibits with Exhibit 4, we see that approximately a third of all Hispanics are LEP, while less than a fourth of Asian/Pacific Islanders and an eighth of Filipino are LEP. That is, not only do Hispanics April 1984 constitute the largest minority and Spanish the largest LEP category, but also proportionately more Hispanics are LEP than any other minority. Exhibit 9 displays the percentage of students that are LEP for each. grade. It ‘would be comfortable to believe that the steep) decline of LEP students front kindergarten through grade twelve is due to students becoming English proficient. However, we have already seen dramatic evidence of attrition among Hispanics, who constitute the largest category of LEP students. The fear is that the decline in LEP student numbers is due as much to attrition as to the success of bilingual classes or English language instruction, and that failure to become English proficient may be one factor behind the Hispanic attrition rate. The close parallel between Spanish LEP and all LEP indicates that the proportion of non-Spanish LEP remains fairly constant among all grades. This is probably due to a combination of in-migration of LEP students at all grade levels and the fact that some LEP students do not become English proficient as they rise through the grades. There presently are no data to allow us to assess the relative impact of each of these factors. DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS AMONG COUNTIES Exhibit 10 displays the distribution of ,students among California's counties. Nearly a third of all students are in Los Angeles County, which has more than three times as many students as the second-ranked county. The top four counties have more than half of all students, and the top ranked eleven California counties have 75 percent of all students. Exhibit 10 also reveals how the two largest minorities--Hispanics and Blacks--and LEP students are distributed among counties. Los Angeles County has the largest number of Hispanics, Blacks, and LEP students. This is true not only because of its size, but also because in Los Angeles, proportionately more students fall into these categories than in most other counties. That is, Los Angeles county students are 39.3 percent Hispanic, compared to a state average of 25.8 percent; 16.3 percent Black, compared to a state 9.9 percent; and 16.7 percent LEP, compared to a state average of 11.3 percent. Some counties, however, have higher proportions of students in these three categories, though fewer numbers than Los Angeles. Counties with larger proportion of Blacks include Alameda (24.5 percent), San Francisco (24.2 percent), and Solano (16.5 percent). Although nearly half of all of California's LEP students are April 1984 in Los Angeles County, four other counties have a higher proportion of LEPs. These are Imperial (28.9 percent), San Francisco (26.5 percent), San Benito (23.8 percent), and Monterey (18.4 percent). Los Angeles, by comparison, is 16.7 percent LEP. These five counties are also among the counties that have the highest proportion of Hispanics. This lends further credence to the notion that English language fluency is a major problem among Hispanic students. DESEGREGATION Each school district having more than one school serving the same grade level is required to identify the schools (if any) in the district that have, or are in danager of having, in the judgment of the board, racial or ethnic segregation of its minority students. School districts that have adopted or are currently developing desegregation plans pursuant to court orders are exempt from this requirement. Districts that have identified schools that are or are 1J1 danger' of becoming segregated are required to develop and adopt a plan to alleviate the problem. There is no state definition of segregation, and each district develops its own criteria to determine whether or not its schools- are‘segregated. Every five years the State Department of Education conducts a survey to assess local compliance with these requirements. The last survey was conducted in 1979. Results from the 1984 survey are currently being tabulated. The 1979 survey revealed that 1,943 schools in California were predominantly (over 50 percent) minority. These schools served 32 percent of all students in the state and 61 percent of the state's minority students. Approximately three-fourths of the predominantly minority schools were in predominantly minority districts. The number of predominantly minority schools had risen since the first survey in 1967, but this may have been precipitated by overall declines in white student population coupled with growth in the minority student population. The survey revealed that the degree of isolation of Black students had declined while that of Hispanic students had risen. Isolation refers to the high proportion of minority students in individual schools. According to one measure, minorities were considered isolated if the percentage of Ininorities in 53 school, was at least, 20 percent higher than in the district as a whole. In the fall of 1979, 533 schools met this criteria. Nearly half of these, 266, were in Los Angeles County. Eighty-two districts reported that one cm more schools are segregated or in danger of becoming segregated. The Department of Education's Office of Intergroup Relations expects the 1984 survey will show similar results. April 1984 STUDENT PERFORMANCE The available measures of student achievement discussed in this section focus on cognitive outcomes of schooling. It is important, however, to caution against heavy reliance on test scores to evaluate school and student performance. Schools produce many outcomes that cannot be easily measured by tests. In addition, standardized tests may not be well-aligned with curriculum content, especially at the secondary level, where a wide variety of "elective" courses are often available to students. Also, the available information on student achievement in California leaves many gaps. There is, for example, scant information on the junior high years, little information on the distribution of student scores, and an unsatisfactory method of making national comparison's. This section, therefore, should. not be seen as a comprehensive analysis of student achievement in‘ California. However, even ‘within, these limitations, there are useful indicators of student performance, to which we now turn. PROFICIENCY EXAMS There are three broad measures of California students' academic performance—-state-mandated proficiency exams (which are developed and administered by local school districts), the California Assessment Program (CAP) exams, and the College Board (Scholastic Aptitude Test, SAT) exams. Each of these measures has strengths and weaknesses. Legislatively mandated proficiency exams are developed and administered locally and hence do not permit a statewide standard measure of performance. In fact, these tests vary widely from district to district in terms of content and level of difficulty. They are useful, however, because they indicate the extent to which students meet local standards of performance, and because results are reported with regard to ethnicity and language proficiency. Also, at the twelfth grade level, proficiency exams allow comparisons between proficiency test failure and course failure, (Exhibits 11-13). Exhibit 11 reveals April 1984 that the average failure rate peaks in grade 9, at 61 percent, and thereafter gradually' declines to 24 percent by the first semester mwo& muwqu< CH moflcmamH: mo mGOfluflwcoo : .msmcwo mcu mo Dmmusm mmumum wmuwca ”mounom .Ecto szaam *0 «0: tea Eats 5;:QO *0 22:23:03. .505. I mmmm 95> m 3 o .......................... 41...... 93> E. 3 OF L...b....p bbbbbbbbbbtbbeELi PL} mhmw> mN OH ON mhmw> mm Cu Om 23> mv 3 av 28> mm 3 cm 88> mm 3 cm 59.0 $5.: Lm>o Ucm 57:25 “.0 «oz EC mhwm> Oh 59.0 53:25 mam . ewe. ”wad. m PHmHzxm EXHIBIT 6 Minority Enrollment As a Percent of Total Enrollment Grades K-l2 1981—82 Z White 60 50 40 30 20 . . Hispanic all other 10 0 r1 I7] llf. K123456789101112 Source: California State Department of Education. "Racial or Ethnic Distribution of Staff and Students in California Public Schools, 1981-82." Sacramento, CA 1982. EXHIBIT 7 Number of Limited-English—Proficient Students in California Public Schools, by Language, 1981 through 1983 Year (% of total student population) Language 1983 1982 1981 Spanish 337.141 (8.3) 322.526 (8.0) 285.567 (7.0) Vietnamese 29,033 (0.7) 27,733 (0.7) 22,826 (0.6) Cantonese 15,870 (0.4) 16,096 (0.4) 14,196 (0.3) Korean 8,703 (0.2) 7,980 (0.2) 7,508 (0.2) Filipino 9,624 (0.2) 8,569 (0.2) 6,752 (0.2) Others 57,171 (1.4) 48.545 (1.2) 39.945 (1.0) TOTAL 457.542 (11.2) 431,449 (10.7) 376,794 (9.3) *Data for 1981 include limited-English-speaking and non—English- speaking *For 1983, fluent in students. an additional 11.3% of the students were identified as having a primary language other than English, but as being English. *"Others" Consists of 36 languages. *Six counties (Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, and Santa Clara), have 74% of the state‘s LEP students in 1983. Scurce: 1983. California State Department of Education. Sacramento, CA: "Language Census Report." EXHIBIT 8 Language Distribution of Limited-English-Proficient Students in California Public Schools, 1982-83 Spanish (74%) Other I (12%) Filipino (2%) Korean (2%) Cantonese (3%) Vietnamese (6%) Source: California State Department of Education. "Language Census Report." Sacramento, CA: 1983. EXHIBIT 9 Grade Distribution of LEP Students in California Public Schools 1983 70 60 50 40 3O 20 All LEP 10 Spanish SOurce: California State Department of Education. "Language CenSus Report." Sacramento, CA: 1983. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 00000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 0000 00000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 0000000 00000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 000000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 00000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 0000000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 000000 0.00 0.0 00.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 000000000 000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 0000000 000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 00000 000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.000 0000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.000 000000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.000 00000 000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.000 000000000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.000 0000000000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.000 0000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.000 0000000000 000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.000 00000 00000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.000 00000 000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.000 000000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.00 00.00 000.000.0 0000000 000 f3pcsoo0mpm¢m fiflpssoo0mpmpm0009250000000m 0 pcmsaaopcm pcwEHHopcm mucsoo 0 mo 0 m 00 .. mo 0 0 mm . mo 0 0 mm m>0pmflzszo mpmpm mo & mmq xowam 00:0Q00z mpczoo ma mpcoczpm mo 00 HHmHzxm 000000000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 00000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 00000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 0000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 00000 000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 000000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 00000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0000 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 000000 000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 00000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 00000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.0 0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00000 00.0 000.00 000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 000000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 000000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 00000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 000000 00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 0000000: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 000000 0000 000 0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 000000 00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.00 00.0 000.00 00000000 %&#GSOO*®PQ#W ¥§#SDOU*®PMQW«« hPESOO *omem Wm p5®EHHOka PcmEHHOHCQ hpCZOO mo R a ma mo & 0 mm mo 0 0 mm .m>flpwflzezo mpmgm mo 0 000 00000 00000000 AcQSCHQQOOV zpcsoo an mpcmwspm mo :00psnfippmflm moH HHmHzxm "wozcwucoo .Nme ”<0 .Oucwfimuumm mucmwsum 0cm mwmum we coausafluumflo aflcsum p0 Hmflumm: .mme "<0 .oucmEmuomm :.uuoaom msmsmo mwmswcmd: :.NwIH00H .mHoosom oaandm mHCMOMfiHmo Ca .GOHumuawm mo ucwEupmmwQ wumum mflcuowflamo .GOflumuamm we ucweuummwo mumum mMGHOMHHmo umeHDOm .ucwEHHoucw hucaou HmuOu mo ucwuuwa m mm ucmEHHoucm mmq no .xomam .Uficmamfi: ¥* .ucmEHHOpcm 0mg Ho .xomam .Uflcmamfi: wumum mo unmouma m mm ucwEHHOHCm mm; go .xumflm .UHcmawH: « c; To o; 0.0 50 io 5:3 36 39mm 235.. T: To 93 8.2: £3.30; H32. r.— 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.00e 00.0 ob? mcfima< >.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 mm.mo 00.0 000 mpgmflm ««zpcsoo*mpmpm««zpczoo*mpmpm«¥>pczoou%QMPm & pcmsaaopcm pameaaopcm mpczoo mo & m ma mo & m mm mo & w mm m>flpmazeso mpwpm Mo & mag xomam oflzmmmflz Acm::Hpcoov zpcsoo an mp:m@:pm mo COflpsnflppwHQ no” mewrxm “umSCwucoo .Nme "<0 .oucwemuowm :.mu:wEmmwmm< hucmfloflwoum uUHHumflQ oaansm :o wucmEHOMMwm ucowsum mo xmeEDm wwflzmumum: .GOflumoswm wo ucwEupmmwQ wumum wflCMOWHHmu “muusom «N me #0 mg mqmmo mmofim qmmmq auamo mwmuw><\amuoe mm mm No mm qwqmfi mqmmfi womcfi qHNON aficmamflm ON ow mm mm wmowm Hwfioq oooom wcmom wuHLB HQ me He Hm come mmHN Nmom mNHofi xumHm «N mm mm we qflm wHN 0mm wofi OCHQHHHL ma Hm on am Home mfimm Omfiq 50mm cmfim< om cc Hm Hq mom mqm NwN noq cmfivCH NH mvmuw Hfi mwmuu m wwmpo o mwmuo NH mmmpu HH ovmuo m mvmuo o mwmpo zuHoHCLum mumwu muoE yo wacfiawmw N Ummmmmm< .02 leome .muwoficcum kn .mufismwm umwe zucmwoflmoum HH HHmHzxm .Nwmfi “<0 .Oucmamuomm :.mucmEmmmmm< %ucmfloflwoum uuapumflo uaansm co wocmauowuwm ucmvnum mo kaEEDm mwfi3mumum: .cOHumoswm mo ucwEuumamo mumum mHCMOMflHmu "mousom an me #0 we wqmmo mmofim fimmmq mnfimo Hmuoe mm me co mm Nomfio omeno nmwoq nommm mumsuo fie ac mm on owom omen nmfim Name mm; N~ mwmuu dfi mwmuu m wvmuo o mvmuu Nd mwmuu Ha wvmuo m mwmuo o wumuo msumum mwmswcmq mummH who: no H mafiafimm N cummmmm< .oz Hwaowmfi .mUGQSHm wwmsmcmq kn muaammm ume mocwwowmoum NM mewzxm EXHIBIT 13 Grade Twelve Proficiency Test Results for Students Meeting Course Requirements, by Ethnicity, 1980-81 Z Meeting Course Requirements but Ethnicity No. Assessed Failing One or More Tests Indian 295 18 Asian ' 4791 17 Filipino 914 23 Black 6806 36 White 38658 17 Hispanic 12484 25 Total/Average 63948 21 Source: California State Department of Education. "Statewide Summary of Student Performance on Public District Proficiency Assessments." Sacramento, CA: 1982. .mnmm% wmuuwawm umH£u<.ucwwdum .SOHumuswm mo uawEuummwQ wumum mficuowflamo ”mogsom q.no m.no n.no o.wo m.oo m.oo m.oo m.oo 0.50 mofiqumSumz ¢.ao m.mo m.ao o.me w.wo «.mo . q.wo m.no o.wo mafiafiwmm o.mo o.mo N.mo H.mo «.mo «.mo H.No m.am m.~o scammwuaxm :wuufiuz N.~o ~.mo N.mo «.mo H.mo N.mo m.mo o.mo H.qo mafiwmwm NH mvmuo m: ooN mmm mmm 0mm mew mew Ham oqm mofiumEmnumz m: amm mmm mmm omm mew mew mew omN wwmswcmg cwuufiuz m: mmm «mm NmN 0mm mew mew «cm mqm wcfiwmmm o wvmuu w: New Hem «mm omN III III 1:: III mafiumswsumz as com com mmN omm In: [In nu- is: mwmsmcmq :wuufips m: mom me «mm 0mm mew m¢~ new mcm wcfiwmmm m wvmuu «wumw mwnmw Nwlfiw fiwuow owlmn mmlwn wNunn union onlmm mmu< uawucoo muoom ummH mwmuw>< - cam Hm>wq wvmuo mw-~mmfi smacks“ m~-m~ofi .wwmgu %n mufismmm muw£u< vpoucmum mcu go cauuavo Nmm— mcu vcm .maoosom mflcuowfiamo EH ucwEw>mH£o< ucwwsum .mumm% wmuowamm .GOHuwuswm mo ucmEuumme wumum mflCMOWHHmo "muusom mmhu mg» no cofluavm —mmw as“ no; cm>fim omHm wan mxcmu mafiuchpma mcu .mmlwmmp ucm mmupmm— you .nnmp c“ nmehoc .m Egon Ammpuv .m-fixm uwmmm Lo mumo~ m>fimcm£uuaeou ecu vcw gmma xv: mcu Lo munum mcfiumaum cm co wommm mum mxcmu mHaucmuhmn Amcofiumc "mmfiwxm oqmmm go xo>u3m ch ocpu a mum macau o~uucv09un ugh m>wumhvmoou may new ammh unwummm use uo xuSum mcfiuaacv cm co ummmn mum mxcwu mfifiucouuua oz» mm on am 50 Na hm sq ma Ne vmumewuoo och Nm cc mm cc ac wn we —a ow Nn an an .nsm— aw umshoc .m Egon .mquwxm oflmwm to name» m>wmcwzmuaeou mza ucm .mntmnmw vcm .mhunnm— .hnuofimw .mnnmmm— .nhwanme Cw mucmvaum machouwamu Haw cu nouoameHEuw max ummp Fm mm mm mu .nmuwmmp ucm .Nmnpmmp .—muommp .omumnmp Cw mucmuzum mMCHOLAHmu Ham 0» nmumgmacflevm mm: m muwuo .momp CM umehoc .mnN ucm (nN mg.ou .ch-n~m. a“ vehoywflcMEuw umuwu mm: amok mm on mm mm mm mm wn on umm» mafivmmm omma>mu mzu no mm“ 3 m mad mncm co vommn Cwnmmm nmmw>uu maps .ummp mad an asuoc Nmmp .Uuoucmum mELoc Fame make: uhkfllumflp mafiawEmcuwz msuoc Nmmp .vuOLcmum mELOC mew mEhDC nnmw .mmhu v m: cm; make: Nmmp .uhokcmum mayo: ”ma, mEhOC nhmw .mmpu mayo: wear .pzmu make: neo— .uuo~cmwm cwnmmz um~ a gamma Lo mm>uam mm~mhm oou vmuwumucfievm ammh mmuzp gumbo nmnwmm— Iozomxp nwnwcmw uuz<2zouzmm JHQDm <~zzou~4mfi£u< vuoucmum p—————— —-———_————————_—————-—_—_——-— «who ucaacou .mummm wmuumamm "wfizu< ucwwsuw .EOMumoswm mo ucmEuuman wumum mHCHOMHHmQ “wousom .mea—v mcouauuv nous“ a» m-~xm wanna go xo>uzm as“ no mcfiumsov co woman on “may ”5“ .o coflmfi>~. ccooem < .Fm-omm. :a:o.;a wh-mhm. so“. uo.mumdcfisca mm: .o uum.u .um- “cee~>uflgu< c.o.;mmw as“ .o a~mm_v cofiuwuu “mug”. as» can Ammbuv afifigxm cummm be mamop u>flmcozohaeou on“ go A_mm. .nhm. u .ahmp enema .mxcau mmmgcuuhoa och .Nm-Pmm. ca unhoamwcwevm max "mfiufixm ounce ho xo>uzm may go couaho> numfi>ou ezha .momp Cu washoc mm: :ufizz .c Euou .Amm_uv m—fiuxm ommmm go mamoh u>umcu£mumeou ecu tam mamamm aqmmm Lo xu>hpm mm“ Lo azuuwaco cm :0 ummmo ohm excau nm-uxm oummm Lo xv>u=m ecu .umoa muchouw~mu xv: ache v—«gcvuuva on» .mh-e~m. ca m_“a=a auchohfi~mu -a o“ u~.uumficfieum “my“; mm: .e eumuu Na «a make: «map .nHOngum ow on make: .mmp aw an mm mm . an mm —n on acne: Aha. «a an an an no he mine: ummnplummhp nufiymsuzumz an a: mahoc Nom— .cuoucmum an we make: Fam— mm mm mm mm Nm —n —m ma «Ego: asap no um mm on no no mega: mwmm mm»; m m: cm; Na Na «Ego: Nam— .uHOLcuum mm mm mayo: .mm— um an hm mm mm mm mm mm wagon ano— me no ac ac we we mike: comm mm_u Cwummz nmtwmmF mm-_mnp ~mnomm_ \Dmnmhmw mnwmno_ mhwbnm— \hhnwnm— whamhmp mNumbop abanbm— whnuhm— \Nhuwfimp fin:onmp Dbnmwmp mega nmqauxm gamma no xo>ham mmHqum “mauozxmwmpg Ammhpg ucuacou _ _ eqmm o No>hzm mduuxm ufimmm no name» o>imcmzmuasou wmuuwchHewm ymm» x“ m onmuu nm-Nmm— IQDD:T_ Gnnawmw uuz<2mouzum pzuoabw (Hzmok_4mfi50< ucmwSum .muwm% wmuowawm .COHumuswm mo ucwEuumawo wumum mflcu0wflamo "wousom .an9_ mmw chop cm washc: .mmmumoum accummaosmu mo munch Namacosvmm mg» Anv ucm manor ncm ohm» :w moEuoc.Nmmmum0un oMEmumo< no mammh ANV “mnmp tam Nwm d“ vmeuoc ”capo: Nacowuac saw: mumwu Nazuo yous» was qumxm ommmm Lo xm>unm mcw Lo mmwnawm mcfiuaavm co woman mhm macmu Nacvemo~m>uo umcodamozvu mo mamm» aon Rev o~_g:mu.mg mg. .qm-namp gazohgg «N-qNa. so“; macmuzum machogfidau NNa cu cwhmgmficflevm mm; .NP muauu "mfiafixm uflmmm No Nm>ham or“ .ammu wwchoNMNau mzb. _ _ _ mm «A mm mm _ _ _ make: mNmP ..... we N: Na N: no he he no «a _ we _ “ mega: ONmP .NN—m _ _ ca ,a Na Na _ _ _ mapQLmNmP .1: ma cc qa a: Na P: Fe Fe m: _ mm _ _ mega: Ono. .N<_ _ _ _ .c we we we _ _ _ mega: mnmP ..... m: we we we «a an me ha «a _ Fe _ as ea we we we _ wage: New, .QNNH _ _ _ ............. _ _ _ momumEmzumZ _ _ _ _ _ _ an Nm Na Na _ _ _ megoc mNmP mN an an an mN mN oN mN mN _ NN _ _ ms.o: onP .mu_m _ _ _ an ac Fe cc _ _ _ make: mNm. .... NN mN oN 0N NN NN wN 0N NN _ mN _ _ me_cc onP .;<_ _ _ _ :e ma a: «a _ _ _ make: mNm_ 1:1- am an an an an an an mm an _ Nn _ an on an O; Na _ acne: New? .ohp_ _ _ _ _ _ _ mmcDMCma _ _ _ _ _ _ we Nc Na Na _ _ _ mega: mNmN an an an an an «m an en an _ an _ _ mega: on_ .au_m _ _ _ ca .3 Na Na _ _ _ mags: mNmp .1. mN Nm Nm an Nn Nm NM mm mm _ mm _ _ make: on. .g<~ _ _ _ Fe cc ea «c _ _ mega: mNaP an Na Na N: .c .c Na Na na _ we _ Na Nc me on Na _ mega: New, .oN_H _ _ _ _ _ mmflmmmm _ _ .. _ Nuumcmp..mcnmmup..Nmurmoh.lpmucmmr..mmnonoh..mhnmNor..mnnh\ r..bthbp»..Mhumbphthnwbmk.pwbum>uk:.M saga “seesaw Avmmfl>ozv .mNNMxm o_mam No m>g2m .vmumwmmcmevm uwmh _IhmHkum_ .oammm .0— _ m>ham _ w>~mxp mumgo «m-nwm. gmzohcp oN-ommP wab :m soeuoc x =EON. acmeuc~m>mo fimcodgm02Um go mammp axe“ . a..- 5d“ .IJF ”I cocmENouumg acmuaym machouwfimu cmmtoz go mxcmz ofiwucooumm choNamz nmawemymu NH HHmwzxm NHNN§N..NNukhoh.qphnbhmh..bbumm0r. EXHIBIT 18 Verbal SAT Scores SCORE 470 460 450 440 430 420 0 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Year California National —————— Sources: Educational Testing Service. California Report on College-Bound Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. Educational Testing Service. National Report on College—Bound Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. EXHIBIT 19 Math SAT Scores SCORE 500 490 480 470 460L 0 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Years California National ------- Sources: Educational Testing Service. California Report on College—BOund Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. Educational Testing Service. National Report on College-Bound Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. EXHIBIT 20 SAT Achievement Test Scores, 1973 Test California Nation English Composition 497 518 Mathematics Level 1 521 543 Mathematics Level 2 646 655 American History 497 516 Biology 518 544 Chemistry 562 569 Spanish 532 533 French 533 548 Literature 502 523 Physics 590 595 German 562 567 Latin 557 550 Hebrew 619 627 European History 523 549 Sources: Educational Testing Service. California Report on College—Bound Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. Educational Testing Service. National Report on College-Bound Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. EXHIBIT 21 Mean Number of Years of Study and Mean Grade Point Average by Subject, 1983 Grades Years Subject Calif. Nation Calif. Nation English 3.21 3.11 . 3.98 3.99 Mathematics 2.86 2.86 3.45 3.62 For. Languages 3.11 3.03 2.34 2.23 Bio. Sciences 3.09 3.04 '1.33 , 1.40 Phy. Sciences 3.00 2.94 1.41 1.85 Soc. Studies 3.29 3.19 3.19 3.23 SAT Student Descriptive Questionnaire, 1983 Sources: Educational Testing Service. California Report on College—Bound Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. Educational Testing Service. National Report on College—Bound Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. N 20 15 10 EXHIBIT 22 Math SAT Scores Distribution . 1 : fl I g g I 1 l 1 AL 200—249 250-299 300-349 350—399 100— 449 450-499 500—549 550—599 600-649 650-699 700-749 750-8C California National ------- Sources: Educational Testing Service. California Report on College—Bound Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. Educational Testing Service. National Report on College-Bound Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. EXHIBIT 23 Verbal SAT Score Distribution 20 15 10 I 1 l l l J 1 [\|\‘ 200-249 50-299 30-349 50—399 100-449 43%499 100—549 350- $9 (00-649 650-699 700—749 730—800 California National ——————— Sources: Educational Testing Service. California Report on College-BOund Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. Educational Testing Service. National Report on College—Bound Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. EXHIBIT 24 Proportion of California Seniors taking SAT, by Ethnicity * Ethnic Group Number Percent of Cohort American Indian/Alaskan Native 718 29.8 Asian or Pacific Islander** 13,088 66.9 HiSpanic 8,006 16.8 Black 6,333 . 26.6 White 61,730 33.3 Other 3,387 -- No Ethnic ReSponse 3,470 -- PDQ Non—ReSpondents 10,377 —- Total 107,117 38.5 **Asian or Pacific Islander includes Filipino. *Ethnic percentages calculated with 1982 California data. Total percentage is calculated with 1983 Senior population. No Ethnic ReSponse plus PDQ Non-ReSpondents means that 13% of test takers are not identified ethnically. Therefore, ethnic percentages should be revised upward by an average of 2.17%. PDQ=Personal Data Questionaire Source: Educational Testing Service. California Report on College—Bound Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. EXHIBIT 25 High School Dropouts: California vs. U.S. Year (Data Set) U.S. (Z) California (Z) 1972 (USDE*) 22.8 20.1 1982 (USDE) 27.2 31.1 1982 (HSB**) 13.7 16.8 U.S. Department of Education (Z of ninth graders failing to graduate) High School and Beyond Survey (Z of second semester sophomores failing to reach second semester of twelfth grade) Source: Stern, David et a1. "High School Dropouts in California." Preliminary Draft, University of California, School of Education, 1984. EXHIBIT 26 COMPARING LENGTH OF CLASS PERIOD BY SEMESTER Minutes of student/ instructor contact time Class period Semester Mean . . . . 51 4,590 Maximum. . . 55 4,950 Minimum. . . £2_ 4,050 Difference 10 900 = 15 hours Source: Sanders, Nancy, and Stone, Nancy. California High School Curriculum Study: Paths Through High School. Education, California State Department of 1983. EXHIBIT 27 UNITS REQUIRED IN SUBJECT AREAS Department I Mean I Minimum I Maximum English . . . . . . . 32 20 40 Math. . . . . . . . . 13 10 20 Science . . . . . . . 12 7 20 Social studies. . . . 29 20 40 Physical education. . 26 10 40 Source: Sanders, Nancy, and Stone, Nancy. High School Curriculum Study: California Paths Through High School. Education, California State Department of 1983. EXHIBIT 28 Units required _ Mini- Maxi- Courses Mean mum mum Academic 86 60 110 Nonacademic 33 15 60 Elective 92 60 125 Source: Sanders, Nancy, and Stone, Nancy. California High School Curriculum Study: Paths Through High School. California State Department of Education, 1983. ‘ Exhibit 29 Hours of Instructional Time Over Four Years in Different Tracks at VThree PATHS Schools Average School. English Math ' Science Total per day* School 19 (45 minute period) College Preparatory . . 540 540 540 1620 2.25 General . . . . . . . . 540 270 270 1080 1.50 Lower . . . . . . . . . 540 135 135 810 1.13 School 21 (50 minute period) College Preparatory . . 600 600 600 1800 2.50 General . . . . . . . . 600 450 150 1200 1.67 Lower . . . . . . . . . 600 450 150 ' 1200 1.67 School 12 ‘ (55 minute period) College Preparatory . . 660 660 495 1815 2.52 General ... . . . . . . 495 330 330 1155 1.60 Lower . . . . . . . . . 495 330 330 1155 1.60 .* Based on 720 school days over four years. Source: Sanders, Nancy, and Stone, Nancy. California High School Curriculum Study: Paths Through High School. California State Department of Education, 1983. EXHIBIT 30 Racial or Ethnic Distribution of California Students and Staff, 1983 Race or Ethnic Percent of Students and Staff in Each Group Group Students Teachers Superint. Asst. Supt. Principals V.Principals Am. Indian’ ' .8 1.0 .7 .4 1.1 .5 Asians, 52:2: 5.5 3.4 1.3 .9 1.3 1.9 Filipino 1.6 .7 - .4 .3 .2 Black 9.9 6.2 1.3 4.3 6.8 13.0 Hispanic 25.8 6.0 3.1 3.8 5.6 8.5 White 56.4 82.8 93.6 90.2 84.9 75.9 Source: California State Department of Education. "Racial or Ethnic Distribution of Staff and Students in California Public Schools, 2981—82. Sacramento, CA: 1982. EXHIBIT 31 Teachers K-12, Community College and Administrators Total Males 100,098 38.45% Total Females 160,251 61.44% 260,349 AGE M F Total M F less than—25 250 1,265 1,515 16.5% 83.5% 25-30 4,711 14,228 18,939 25% 75% 30-35 12,816 25,068 37,884 34% 66% 35-40 17,593 30,238 47,831 37% 63% 40-45 15,409 25,533 40,942 37% 62.4% 45—50 14,931 21,270 36,201 41% 59% 50—55 15,946 19,695 35,641 45% 55% 55—60 12,271 14,423 26,694 46% 54% 60—65 5,088 6,807 11,895 43% 57% 65—70 970 1,539 2,509 39% 61% 70—over 113 185 298 38% 62% W9 Source: California State Department of Education. "Characteristics of Professional Staff in California Public Schools, 1982—83." Sacramento, CA: 1983. Source: EXHIBIT 32 TEACHING ASSIGNMENT BY SEX OF STAFF Sacramento, CA: 1983. Percent of staff by sex For Assignments Hale male TEACHING Self-contained classrooms: Kindergarten 3.4 96.6 Grade 1 3.4 96.6 Grade 2 5.8 94.2 C-ade 3 11.8 88.2 Grade 4 22.4 77.6 Grade 5 31.8 68.2 Grade 6 39.5 60.5 Grade 7 47.5 52.5 Grade 8 54.4 45.6 Other! 21.4 78.6 Subject areas: English 35.1 64.9 Foreign Language 41.4 58.6 Humanities 48.3 51.7 Mathematics 66.0 34.0 Computer Education 71.6 28.4 Physical Education 62.3 37.7 Health Education 56.8 43.2 Safety Education 89.7 10.3 Science 72.9 27.1 Social Science 65.2 34.8 Art 51.7 48.3 Drama/Theater 48.3 51.7 Music 60.2 39.8 Special Education 22.0 78.0 Vocational Education 59.7 40.3 other teaching assignment 32.2 67.8 All teachers 35.9 64.1 California State Department of Education. of Professional Staff in California Public Schools, 1982—83." "Characteristics EXHIBIT 33 Average Annual Salaries for 1983 Graduates in Various Fields Chemical engineering $27,083 Electrical engineering 26,031 Computer science 2!: ,485 Civil engineering 22,1473 Physics 20,076 Mathematics 17 ,660 Marketing sales 16,901 Business administration 16,419 Personnel administration 15,931 Communications 15 ,606 Hotel restaurant management 14,699 Social sciences 13,835 Education 13, 358 EXHIBIT 34 Median Income by Educational Level Heads of Family Median Family 3/4 of Median (age 25 or older) Income, 1982 5 years or more of college $41.587 $31,190.25 Finished college $35,778 $26,833.50 1 to 3 years of college $27,440 $20,580.00 Finished high school $23,837 $17,877.75 1 to 3 years of high school $17,517 $13,137.75 Finished grade school $15,251 $11,438.25 Did not finish grade school $12,047 $9,035.25 Source: U.S. News & World Report, August 15, 1983 and September 5, 1983. EXHIBIT 35 Teacher Salaries and State Wealth 1982-83 Item California (rank) U.S. Average teacher salary $23,555 (8) $20,531 Per capita income 12,543 (5) 11.056 Personal income per pupil 82,325 (9) 70,422 Total teacher salaries as a percent of personal income 1.3% (50) 1.7% Source: Feistritzer, C. Emily. The Condition of Teaching. A State by State Analysis. Princeton, New Jersey: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1983. EXHIBIT 36 CBEST Pass Rates by Race (N=23,023) Whites 76% American Indians 72% Asian Americans 53% Hispanics 40% Mexican Americans 36% Blacks 25% Ufiansm MHGHOMHHmU ca wwmum HmSOHmmwwoum mo mwflumamm: .mme "<0 .oucmEmuowm .COHumoswm mo ucwEuumamo wumum mwsuowflamu : - mwlemH .maoonom "wogsom ~.om N.@ 5.“ fly m.~ “v muoumuumficfi2c< mo.N omo.om ¢mm.mm owo.mm mmm.~m oo~.~m com.mm xpmfimm mwmpm>< N.MN m.q w.~ av ~.H Hv mucumuumH=HEQ< mo N q~a.~m www.mm mm~.#m ~m~.Hm cm~.#m Num.~m uumfimm mmmuw>< mmmawm o.nm q.m o.m Hv o.H Hy mucumuumficfi2c< no N oom.nmw qe¢.mmm mmo.mmm om~.mmm Nmm.mmm moo.omw mumfimm mwwum>< wan: UHCQQmHT—IGOZ UHGmefiEICOZ Uficmmmfim OGHQHHHh kwficmHmH Ufiwwumm w>fiuwz Swim—“‘44. HOumHuwHCfiEfi< wufisz xumam no cmfim< Ho cmfivcH mo xmm :mofiumE< asouw aficcum no Hmfiomu kn .zumanm mwmuw>< mwnmwofi .asouw aficzum no Hmfiumm wcm xmm an mucumuuwMCwEw< how wwwumamm wmmuw>< mm HHmHzxu 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 EXHIBIT 38 K-12 Total Revenues per ADA, 1974-75 Through '84 — '85 Current Dollars (109.4% increase) 1972—73 Dollars (9.4% increase) A A I I 1 . t . . . : ‘ 7': .k . * 74—75 75—76 76—77 77—78 78-79 79—80 83—8181—82 82—83 83—84 7': *estimated **budgeted Source: Legislative Analyst. Analysis of the Budget Bill. Berkeley, CA: 1983 and 1984. moscm>mp pmcpo csm .mmmm mHHmHmmmo .mEOOCH zpcsoo .mpcmnm prmvwm\mpmpm UmCHQEoo mmwzHozH .qme cam mwwH ”<0 .hmemem .HHHm umwwsm msu we mHmmHmc¢ .uwkac< m>HumHmemH "wousom .mmxmp anyomopm Umhsommzz on whor :H w. momw mo COHHmOOHHm mEHH wzo map op mac hHHHmsHpm mH mmH>oH xmp zphmmopm CH npzopm wnex Hpmv HwUOH mowzHOCHM Hq.o HH.©QH $5.5m Ho.mmH Hm.mm Hm.qmm Ho.mq| Hm.mH- pcmopmm HNH HHO.H m._mm.© o.mmb w.wmm m.>m®.m m.qw_- N.oom- pcsoe< ulmmmmmmll m>HHwHSE=o HHH._ Hom.m o.mmm.mH m.mmm.H N.omw o.Hmm.w o.mHm o.amw.m A.pmquw-mwo_ ooq.H oHH.m m.Huo.mH N.HoH.H H.mmw H.HHm.w m.mqm o.m©o.m A.pmmvmw-mwar Hom.H mHo.m m.ooo.m_ o.Hbo H.mww m.ob>.> H.mqm *©.HHw.m A.pmmvmw-_wmr 50H.P Hwb.m m.mmb.HH m.oow H.Hoo.H m.woH wom.H bom.m o.mmw.o m.Hmm m.mom «.mmm.m m.HHm H.5mm.m op-m5oH bom.H mHo.m o.o_m.m «.qu m.How o.qom.m 0.0Hm o.wmb.q wb-bpoH NHm.H Hmw.H H.Hm©.w o.moq H.HH© o.qo>.m o.HaH H.0mm.q H>-ob®H bwm.H ome.H 0.5mm.b H.Hmm o.Ham H.Hom.m o.qu m.mou.m op-mb@_ oom.He 0mm.H$ m.on.>w H.Hmmw H.Omme b.0mm.mw m.om-H>oH AH HH-NHV Q:m me>mq me gnaw Hmpoe m Hmpmwwm mpwpm xme mppmmopm thonpm mumpm Hmooq AmCOHHHHE :Hv Hw-mma_ gmzognp mn-HHOH .wo::o>mm Hmpoe mq._§r qm.mom.r om.mom.r om.qbo.r om mo Hgaflmmflmmflz rm.mbeu ww.w©m.m rm.qrm.m b©.©©m.N rrr Nor mpommccflz ©®.o> oo.mmm.m ow.oom.m ©®.mmo.m err no cwwH30flz v>.vmru mm.oqa.m br.mbr.m mu.m_w.m mmr om mppmmzzommmmz oo._q_ oq.mqq.m «m.oqm.m oq.mmm.m oer om ccwflzpmz N>.eomn rw.vro.m qr.mrw.r oo.mm>.e fire ow mafia: ©©.bmru qo.omo.r mr.Mbq.m mm.rbb.r mp mow wcwflmfisoq Nr.mm oo.©>©._ _m.mww._ wr.qob._ ow mm axospcmm «b.5w: mm.©>r.m mr.muq.m r©.wmr.m mm oer mwmcwm om.ww .wo.>wm.m wm.mwm.m mm.mmm.m om mow mBOH NF.Omr mv.mmb.e Nq.bwo.m mm.moo.r «w mo wcmflwcH om.bw mw.mmq.m v<.omq.m mm.>mm.m wow wow mflocHHHH om.wou mo.bmu.r b©.Mbo.r om.>mo.r mm pm onme w<.bmou Nq.oro.m ou.>mq.m w®.mmm.m «me For flflmzmm mv.>mrn or.owb.r Nm.o©w.e m©.mm©.r om Nw mflmpomc mr.@wr Po.©>©.r mm.wom.m qr.w©w.r an ooh wwflpoam 5—.men mm.oom.m rm.wrm.m wo._.pmq.m om m_r ouwMOHoo om.rqqu q>.bob.m m©.._ mm.qom.v ow mu mmmcmxp< qw.wmm- qo.m©m.m mm.©_o.m oq.<©o._ pr? 0w mcomflg< mm.mmr.mu Pb.N0b.m mm.mmm.m mu.wm©.q cor com wxmma< Pm.mor m>.m©q.r om.qmb._ «m.®©m.r mm on mamnwfi< mmhspflwcoaxm waspflccmgxm hpflowawo waspflwsoaxm mesH xmwcH mpwpm wmpommxm aflmsm Mmm mpzpflusmgxm HHmsm pmm ppommm mpflommmo mssflz szpo< copommxm Hflmsm you xme xme omor COHpmoswm gem magspflwcmgxm mpwpm oq mepzxm b>.>mb- mm.oom.m o_.> .3 bw.w>m wb.©mr.m oo.>mm.m m©.m>m.m «a mow copmcflSmwz om.mm Nw.oom._ wq.mmr.m mo.mwo.r mm mm mflcflmpfl> mw.rr we.mwm.r oo.mow.r hm.moo.r «or «w pCOEhm> w>.omml op.ouo.r mm.rmo.r Po.oqo.r For ow amp: —<.Poe ob.wmw.r 5v.mew.m br.omo.r mo «NF mwxme wq.wer ©©.mom.r mw.mo>.r «r.wr©.r «w 95 mommmccme ow.eor oo.bob.r <0.Nwo.m ow.wow.e mm 00 mpoxmm .m oo.oo_ mo.o_o._ op..op._ mo.mN>.P ma mb mafiflopwo .m mm.>mw om.fimmsc®m vo.m_m Pq.mbr.m oo.pmm.m mq.owo.m no mo? commgo oo.me mm.wwo.r m0..qwo.r ow.oom.m >>.mwo.m um 50 Oflno N>.©u mw.mmo.r «v.0m<.m m~.mmm.w Oh wow mpoxmm .z m>.m- oo.oo>.r qr.mrw.r no.mz mu.won ww.qvm.m ow.oom.m mo.ovr.m Nor >0 mxmmpnmz bw.mor om.>mm.m om.eqm.m hb.qu.m Na NF? mcmpcoz wo.mmw wm.rob.w ob.mme.m mm._mo.e «m «a Hpsommflz mpzwflwcmmxm mpspflccmmxm apflommwo opzpflccmmxm meCH waCH wwmpm umpommxm Hanna gem mgspflwcmgxm aflmzm pwm ppommm zpflowmwo mscflz szpo< Umuommxm aflasm pom xwe xme Acmzcflpcoov :ofipmozcm pom mmpzpflwcomxm mumpm Category EXHIBIT 41 Current Public School Expenditures, per Pupil, 1980 United States California Administrative 89.39 Instructional 1,390.95 1,501.10 TranSportation 100.11 Operating & Maintenance 254.51 208.57 Other Pupil Services 125.95 Fixed Charges 308.02 382.87 EXHIBIT 42 Average Annual Instructional Staff Salaries Constant (1980-81) Current Year California U. S. California U. S. 1939-40 $14,569 $8.930 $2.351 $1.441 1949-50 NA 11,008 NA 3,010 1959-60 19.454 15,251 6,600 5,174 1969—70 22,885 20,271 9,980 8,840 1979-80 20,779 18,720 18,626 16,780 1980-81 20,965 18,409 20,965 18,409 EXHIBIT 43 State K-12 Expenditures per ADA Constant Current (1977-78) Year Dollars Dollars 1977-78 $1,676 $1,676 1978-79 1,814 1,670 1979—80 2.065 1,753 1980—81 2,204 1,705 1981—82 2,358 1,689 1982-83 2,360 1,613 1983—84 2,567 1,692 1984—85 2,751 1,725 EXHIBIT 44 Proposed 1984—85 K-12 Budget (millions) Item 1983-84 1984-85* 7. Change Total state/local expenditures $10,983 $11,902 +8.4 Selected Programs** . School Apportionments 6,362 6,864 +7.9 Economic Impact Aid 182 182 —-- Special Bilingual Programs 7 7 --- Adult Education 171 175 +2.3 Special Education Programs for Exceptional Children 929 816 ~12.2 Education for Handicapped Children 942 955 +1.4 Vocational Education Programs 91 81 ~11.0 School Improvement Program 208 263 +26.4 Child Development 270 278 +3.0 Child Nutrition 357 356 -O.3 Urban Impact Aid 71 80 +12.7 *Governor's Budget, 1984-85 **Includes federal funds Source: Governor's Budget, 1984-85. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Governor, 1984. EXHIBIT 45 Funding for $8813 Programs (millions) Program 1983-84 1984-85 Incentives for longer instructional day/year -— 256.9 Beginning teachers salaries 12.3 24.8 (+102Z) Summer school programs —- 40.9 Small school district funding 3.1 3.1 Education improvement incentive program -- 115.0 Specialized secondary programs -- 2.0 Tenth grade counseling 6.2 6.6 (+62) Expansion of opportunity classes -- 4.1 Year—round school incentives -- 7.7 School improvement program equalization -- 10.3 Increased funding for instructional materials 36.9 36.1 (-22) Teacher instructional improvement grants -- 17.1 Mentor teacher program 10.8 30.9 (+1862) Teacher education and improvement center -- 5.1 Administrator training and evaluation program -- 2.0 Pilot project for administrative personnel -- 0.25 Pilot project to strengthen personnel and management -- 0.25 . Urban impact aid program —— 9.2 - California assessment program 0.2 0.7 (+250Z) Adult education growth 4.0 4.0 Serrano equalization 23.5 145.1 (+5177) Education technology 0.5 5.6 (+1020?) School bus replacement 1.0 3.0 (+2002) Local assistance bureau staffing -- 0.2 Total 98.5 630.9 (+540.SZ) Source: Legislative Analyst. Analysis of the Budget Bill. Berkeley, CA: 1983 and 19 EXHIBIT A6 School District Expenditures 1981-82 tate School Building Fund 0.48% General Fund 88.35% Special Reserve Fund 0.60°,i\\‘\\\\fl undz”/’ L11 {:5 Fl. |._l . F" O\ :3 (L WUQ an \‘JJ (3 . 'om OQJ .&J '4 .4) l y. S" ()H (D \1 (D \7 (I k l (l) (l) 3 m 3‘3 (D I p. (D {i (I) i l u n, 00 (h (I) \ O U1 U \0 rs 'J ‘1‘ CI l-J (F {71 4 Q: C a —( ‘1 (l) 0 nd Interest and demrtion Fund 2.37% l \ :‘Llwa (I) I-\ L‘ n (l) .J 'j 00 IAI 3‘} {D SOurce: California State Controller. Financial Transactions Concerning School Districts and Community College Districts of California. Sacramento, CA: Author, 1983. EXHIBIT 47 Public School General Fund Expenditures 1981-82 Public School Bldg. Loan .»”’”’_—_““\\\ and Debt Service .' 0.17% X. - \\ Kl Certified Salaries Capital Outlay ,' 53.64 % 1.64% 5 State School Building Loan 1.99% SuppliesTgv- ///i;/ Classified Boo-;s, / x ‘ /. Ecuinment \ /’ ; Salaries .A.E’33,o \/ ,1 17.11% I], Miscellaneous />4/ f» /’ ‘:.vx_:$actfi-w:- \" ’4’ :“‘* -"= x ; tenses \‘ ”,1 -7.2c: ‘ "' Zficlovee 3enef;ts ' ‘ /'v 13.35/ Source: California State Controller. Financial Transactions Concerning School Districts and Community College Districts of California. Sacramento, CA: Author, 1983. EXHIBIT 48 Number of Districts reporting Transactions or Ending Balances, by Fund, 1981-82 Fund No. of Districts Reporting General Fund 1,137 Building Fund 335 Special Reserve Fund 646 Deferred Maintenance Fund 756 Source: California State Controller. Financial Transactions Concerning School Districts and Community College Districts of California. Sacramento, CA: Author, 1983. .qme 0cm mwmfi "<0 .hmawxumm .Haflm umwmsm ms“ we mflmzamc< .umxamc< w>fiumamflqu "mopsom hfico mvasm mousom mumum* v.0N «.0 N.Nm n.0m H.0m n.0N m.m~ Hoosummum m.m 0.0 m.n~ 0.5H 0.5H m.w~ N.~H wcficfimua um>fiu0 0.NN “.0 0.0~ 0.00 0.0H m.m~ «.mH wmucmawa w wmuwfio m.mmm 0.0“ m.¢H ¢.NN m.m~ «.mq m.m mwumvcmz wumum m.- 0.5 H.00 ~.m0 0.0m «.mo H.No vfi< uumnEH cash: m.0ml n.~fil m.mN _.0N «.mm w.mm 0.0m :ofiuauusz.vaficu c.0m N.0m N.0HN N.0~N n.0mm m.~0N m.0m~ Amvcsm Hmumvwm mmusfiocfiv wumo ufifizo 0.00m 0.0H a.n n.- m.~ H.m H.N ucwEnoaw>00 wwmum 0.0 m.~ n.0c 0.00 0.00 m.~q 0.0m mawfiuwumz cofiuusuumcH H.m| ~.0| 0.H 0.0 0.0 ~.H H.~ mmUfi>umm E:a:uauu:0 0.N0 n.0nm 0.m- ~.n~n m.Nfin m.mm0 d.mcc coaumusnm Hmfiuwmm ¢.m 0.5 m.m¢~ 0.0qfi «.mmfi 0.0qH n.~q~ :ofiumosvm uasw< m.mm N.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 muwucwo :mfiwcH :muauwe< o.o~ o.o o.m c.m o.m ~.m o.m mamuwopm coflumuumcoEwo II II m.0 m.0 m.0 m.0 m.0 .osvm cmofiumefiumz n.mH N.N N.0~ N.0~ N.0H m.mfi 0.q~ Lsucz uwfififiz 0.0m H.0N n.~n~ n.05H n.~m~ n.00fi 0.~¢H vfi< uumaEH UHEocoum N.0N q.nm N.N0~ n.~0~ m.~0~ «.mmfi m.mm~ ucwEw>ouaEH Hoosum NH.~1 m.~w| 0.000» n.0NHw n.0mfim 0.0mfim m.~qfim mmumvcmz kuwcwm 0cm uusoo acmoumm ucaoa< «mlmwofi mwlmwafi Nwlfiwmfi Hmlommfi omumnmfi Emuwonm mwcmzo .u» m umwwam .umm Hmsuu< Hmsuu< Hm3u0< 1. *nmCOfiHHfie cfiv mEmuwoum coaumuavm HmUHuowmumo mumum pow wwfivcam me HHmHzxm EXHIBIT 50 Funding for Local School Assistance Final Budget 1983-84 Funding Source State Federal Total Item Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent School Apportionments 5,700,960 72.1 34,838 4.3 5,735,798 65.8 COLA 524,730 6.6 -0— 524,730 6.0 Categorical Aid 1,683,125 21.3 773,058 95.7 2,456,183 28.2 Total 7,908,815 100.0 807,896 100.0 8,716,711 100,0 Source: 1983 Budget Act, Final Budget. References Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1981 Tax Capacitv of the Fiftv States. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1983. California State Controller. Financial Transactions Concerning School Districts and Community College Districts of California. Sacramento, CA: Author, 1983. California State Department of Education. "Enrollment Data, 1982-83." Sacramento, CA Author, 1983. . "Characteristics of Professional Staff in California Public Schools, 1982-83." Sacramento, CA: 1983. "Language Census Report." Sacramento, CA: 1983. "Racial or Ethnic Distribution of Staff and Students in California Public Schools, 1981-82." Sacramento, CA 1982. Salaries of Professional Staff in California Public Schools, 1982—83." Sacramento, CA: 1983. . "Statewide Summary of Student Performance on Public District Proficiency Assessments." Sacramento, CA: 1982. . Student Achievement in California Schools. Sacramento, CA: selected Years. California State Department of Finance. 1983-84 Final Budget Summary. Sacramento, CA: 1983. Educational Testing Service. California Report on College—Bound Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. . National Report on College-Bound Seniors. Berkeley, CA: 1983. Feistritzer, C. Emily. The Condition of Teaching. Princeton, New Jersey: Teaching, 1983. A State by State Analysis. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Governor's Budget, 1984-85. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Governor, 1984. Guthrie, James W. and Zusman, Ami. "Teacher Supply and Demand in Mathematics and Science." Phi Delta Kappan 64 (1): 28—33, September, 1982. Legislative Analyst. Analysis of the Budget Bill. Berkeley; CA: l983,and '84 Richards, Craig. Bilingualism and Hispanic Employment: SChOOl Reform or Social Control. Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance. Stanford University: 1983. Sanders, Nancy, and Stone, Nancy. California High School Curriculum Studv: Paths Througthigh School. California State Department of Education, 1983. Smith, Sandra. Improving the Attractiveness of the K-12 Teaching Profession in California. For the California Roundtable on Educational Opportunity. March, 1983. Stern, David et a1. "High School Dropouts in California." Preliminary Draft, University_ of_ California, School of Education, 1984. United States Bureau of the Census. "Conditions of Hispanics in America Today." Washington, D.C.: 1982. U.S. News & World Report, August 15, 1983 and September 5. 1983. sifuiisnfixfiufiflixibmsjmi“WWW“ Cllfl NEE? ‘ (‘0‘ " :\ .x Want“ * 1