California’s public school funding should be based on students actually enrolled – Orange County Register

The $150 Billion System That Can't Measure Success—And Just Turned a 2-Year Problem Into a 50-Year Catastrophe

How enrollment vs. attendance debates, pandemic learning loss, grade inflation, and unmeasured instructional time created a perfect storm of educational failure

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

California spends $140 billion annually on K-12 education—approximately $25,941 per student, 6th highest nationally—yet faces a cascading crisis that threatens to damage an entire generation. The debate over whether to fund schools based on enrollment or Average Daily Attendance (ADA) has consumed policy attention while masking far deeper systemic failures: California doesn't measure how instructional time is actually used, doesn't track whether legislative mandates improve learning, and has so corrupted its grading system with inflation that transcripts bear little relationship to actual student competency.

More ominously, grade inflation during the pandemic turned a temporary 2-year learning crisis into what may be a 50-year generational catastrophe. Students who lost ground in 2020-2021 were promoted anyway with inflated grades, never received intervention to close gaps, and are now—five years later—so far behind they're disengaging en masse. California's chronic absenteeism rate remains 68% above pre-pandemic levels not because families changed their attitudes about attendance, but because students promoted beyond their actual skill level can't access grade-level curriculum and rationally disengage from daily experiences of failure.

The "egg through the snake" effect of pandemic learning loss is progressing through California schools: students who were kindergarteners in March 2020 are now 5th graders performing at 3rd grade level, but their transcripts claim successful completion of all intervening grades. By the time this cohort reaches college in 2032, universities will face remediation needs exceeding 80%, employers will receive graduates reading at middle school level, and California's economy will bear $1.5 trillion in lost productivity from a single damaged cohort. Multiply by five pandemic-affected cohorts and the total societal cost approaches $8 trillion.

Charter schools achieving superior academic results with 25-40% less funding demonstrate that operational flexibility, honest grading, performance accountability, and elimination of low-value mandates can dramatically improve outcomes—but their success threatens the political coalition that benefits from the current system's opacity. The state that pioneered American innovation now operates an education system that violates every principle of quality management, treats symptoms rather than causes, blames students for systemic failures, and may be creating a generation so undereducated it cannot sustain democratic governance.

This is not just an education crisis. It's an existential threat to California's future.

TL;DR

The Funding Debate: California funds schools on Average Daily Attendance (ADA)—only 7 states do this. Switching to enrollment-based funding would cost $6 billion annually but would benefit high-poverty, high-need districts most. Yet this debate is largely irrelevant when the system can't measure whether existing resources are used effectively.

The Measurement Scandal: California obsessively tracks ADA to decimals but has NO systematic data on how 6.3 billion annual instructional hours are actually allocated. Estimated 15-20% of instructional time goes to legislative mandates with no proven learning value—equivalent to losing an entire semester of mathematics annually per student.

The Pandemic Catastrophe: Learning loss that should have been a 2-year, $5 billion recovery became a 50-year, $8 trillion generational disaster because grade inflation hid gaps, prevented intervention, and created a chronic absenteeism epidemic (up 68% from pre-pandemic) as students promoted beyond their skill level rationally disengage from curriculum they can't access.

The Charter Evidence: Charter schools achieve better results with 40% less funding partly because they can ignore legislative mandate creep, maintain honest grading, and focus on measured learning outcomes rather than compliance theater. Their success proves current system failure is operational, not resource-based.

The Demographic Crisis: Homeless students (230,000, up 37% over decade), immigrant students (165,000), and English learners create complex support needs that neither enrollment nor attendance-based funding adequately addresses—especially when instructional time is already compromised by mandate overload.

The Ultimate Cost: 2.5-3 million California students permanently damaged by pandemic response, functionally illiterate/innumerate graduates flooding colleges and workforce, $8 trillion in lost lifetime productivity, and democratic governance threatened by civically illiterate electorate. The system we have is producing exactly the outcomes it's designed to produce—and those outcomes are catastrophic.

The Enrollment vs. Average Daily Attendance Debate: Missing the Point

How California Counts Students

California is one of only seven states that funds schools based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA) rather than enrollment. The formula is deceptively simple:

ADA = Total days of student attendance ÷ Total days of instruction

A district with 100,000 enrolled students and 93% average attendance receives funding for 93,000 students. The gap—7,000 students' worth of funding, roughly $181 million annually at current rates—creates significant budget uncertainty.

The historical pattern:

Pre-pandemic (2013-2019): ADA averaged 95.2% of enrollment (remarkably stable)
Pandemic crisis (2021-22): ADA plummeted to 91.4% of enrollment
Current (2024-25): ADA approximately 93.6% of enrollment

The gap widened from 4.8% (298,000 unfunded students) to 6.4% (371,000 unfunded students)—a loss of approximately $987 million in additional funding beyond the normal pre-pandemic gap.

The LAO Position: Keep ADA

The Legislative Analyst's Office argues for maintaining attendance-based funding:

Arguments for ADA:

Incentivizes attendance improvement: Schools have reason to get students in seats
Attendance correlates with achievement: Students who attend learn more
Fiscal discipline: Ensures funding matches actual service delivery
LCFF already compensates: Concentration grant provides $2,979 more per disadvantaged student vs. only $387 average gap from ADA

The LAO's calculation: Switching to enrollment-based funding would cost approximately $6 billion annually—money that could be spent on actual services rather than funding "ghost students" who aren't attending.

The Opposition: Enrollment-Based Funding

Advocates argue ADA penalizes districts serving the most vulnerable populations:

Arguments for enrollment-based funding:

Fixed costs don't decrease: Staffing, facilities, utilities cost the same whether 93% or 97% attend
Punishes disadvantaged districts: High-poverty schools face higher absenteeism due to factors beyond their control (housing instability, health issues, family crises)
Budgeting uncertainty: Can't plan staffing/programs when revenue fluctuates with daily attendance
45 other states use enrollment successfully: California is the outlier
School choice transparency: Parents deserve to know true per-pupil funding, not artificially reduced ADA-based figures

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) research shows:

90% of districts would gain funding under enrollment-based system
Biggest beneficiaries: high school districts, high-poverty districts, high-ELL districts
Districts with lower attendance rates have higher shares of high-need students

The Debate Misses the Larger Crisis

Both sides argue over funding formulas while ignoring a more fundamental question: Is California using its current $140 billion effectively?

Consider:

Charter schools achieve better results with 25-40% less funding
California has no data on how instructional time is allocated
Grade inflation has so corrupted the measurement system that "successfully completing" a grade bears little relationship to actual learning
Pandemic learning loss was hidden rather than addressed, creating a generation of students functionally behind their official grade level

The enrollment vs. ADA debate is like arguing over whether to pay for 93 or 100 widgets when you can't measure whether the widgets work.

The most important unmeasured output: are students actually learning what their grades claim they've mastered? Grade inflation has so corrupted California's educational measurement system that a student can receive B's throughout middle school while performing 2-3 years below grade level, only discovering the deception when they fail college placement tests or can't pass basic job skills assessments. This measurement failure prevented the pandemic learning loss recovery that should have happened in 2020-2022, turning a temporary crisis into a permanent generational catastrophe.

The Cohort Time Bomb: Pandemic Learning Loss That Never Recovered

The Magnitude of Loss

When schools closed in March 2020, students experienced catastrophic learning disruption. Five years later, the damage persists:

Current status (2024-2025 school year):

Students remain approximately 0.5 grade levels behind their 2019 pre-pandemic cohort equivalents
This represents 31% of the original grade-level deficit still present
Lower-income students further behind upper-income students than pre-pandemic
Black and Latino students further behind Asian and white students than pre-pandemic

College readiness crisis (2024 NAEP results):

Only 33% of 12th graders college-ready in mathematics (down from 40% in 2019)
Only 35% college-ready in reading (down from 42%)
45% scored below "basic" in mathematics—lowest since 2005
32% scored below "basic" in reading—lowest since 1992

College Board research (2017-2021 cohorts) reveals the grade inflation disaster:

SAT college readiness scores fell 4 points (82% to 78%)
High school GPAs rose 6 points simultaneously
College GPAs rose 7 points despite students arriving less prepared
Faculty report: "If I retained standards, I would fail over half of my class"

This 10-point divergence between grades (up) and achievement (down) is statistically impossible unless grading standards collapsed.

The "Egg Through the Snake" Effect

Cohorts with 2-3 years of learning gaps will move through the system for 10-15 years, requiring sustained intensive intervention regardless of funding formula. The challenge compounds because:

Students who were kindergarteners in March 2020 are now 3rd graders:

Missed critical "learning to read" instruction during pandemic
Many never mastered phonics and decoding skills
Now expected to "read to learn" in content areas (science, history)
Can't access grade-level curriculum without reading fluency

Students who were 3rd graders in March 2020 are now 8th graders:

Missed critical multiplication/division mastery
Mathematical reasoning is cumulative—can't do algebra without arithmetic fluency
Now enrolled in pre-algebra or Algebra I courses requiring foundations they never mastered
Can't access higher mathematics without elementary arithmetic automaticity

Classrooms now contain wider achievement ranges than ever:

A "6th grade" classroom might have students performing from 3rd to 8th grade level
Teachers expected to deliver grade-level standards to students lacking prerequisite knowledge
More resources required per classroom regardless of enrollment or attendance counts

Why Recovery Hasn't Happened: The Grade Inflation Coverup

What should have happened (honest system):

Spring 2020: Schools honestly assess learning loss (students learned ~0.5 years instead of full year) Summer 2020: Emergency intervention funding, extended school year, intensive tutoring 2020-2021: Continued catch-up programs with honest grading showing who still needs help Spring 2021: Verify recovery, continue intervention for remaining students 2021-2022: Final gap closure for stragglers

Total problem duration: 2 years Total cost: ~$5 billion in intervention Outcome: 95%+ of students recovered, minimal long-term damage

What actually happened (grade inflation system):

Spring 2020: Districts panic about graduation rates and accountability metrics

Policy implemented: "No student's grade can go down during pandemic"
Policy implemented: Credit/No Credit grading (everyone passes)
Rationale: "We can't punish students for a crisis beyond their control"
Result: Students' transcripts show they "successfully completed" the year despite learning very little

Summer 2020: Minimal intervention

Students' official records show they passed their courses
No emergency summer school mandate (transcripts say students don't need it)
Federal pandemic relief funds available but not systematically deployed for learning recovery

Fall 2020-Spring 2021: The compounding begins

Students promoted to next grade based on inflated transcripts
Teachers receive students whose records say "successfully completed prior grade"
Teachers begin teaching grade-level curriculum
Students can't access it (missing foundations from disrupted prior year)
Students experience daily failure but grade inflation continues
District policies: "Minimum 50% on any assignment," "unlimited retakes," "weight effort equally with achievement"
Students receive C's and B's for work that should be F's
Gap widens: Students promoted again despite not mastering current grade content

2021-2022: Students return to in-person learning, the crisis becomes visible

Students now 1-1.5 years behind official grade placement
Cannot understand lessons (require foundations they never mastered)
Cannot complete homework (too difficult for actual skill level)
Experience constant failure
Chronic absenteeism spikes to 30% (from 12.1% pre-pandemic)
Rational student response: "I can't do the work, everyone else understands, I must be stupid, why bother showing up?"

2022-2023: Problem acknowledged but not addressed

Learning loss data published: Students 0.5 years behind
But: Nobody admits the gap is worse for many students because grade inflation hid it
Explanation: "Pandemic trauma," "mental health crisis," "family disconnection"
Interventions: Attendance campaigns, truancy officers, mental health counseling
Missing intervention: Honest assessment of actual skill levels, intensive academic remediation
Chronic absenteeism: 26% (slight improvement but still 115% above pre-pandemic)

2023-2024: Pattern solidifies

Gap still 0.5 years on average (more for disadvantaged students)
Chronic absenteeism: 20.4% (still 68% higher than pre-pandemic)
Students who were elementary during pandemic now in middle school, completely unable to access curriculum
Early dropout indicators: 9th grade course failure rates up 23% vs. 2019

2024-2025 (current): Too late for many

Students who were K-2 during pandemic now in grades 5-7, performing 1.5-2 years below grade level
Students approaching high school with elementary-level skills
Intervention at this point would require 2-3 years of intensive catch-up but students only have 2-4 years until graduation
Mathematically impossible for many to catch up
Psychologically, many students too damaged (5 years of hidden failure) to benefit from intervention even if offered

Total problem duration: 50+ years (lifetime impact on affected generation) Total cost: $7-8 trillion in lost lifetime earnings, remediation costs, social costs Outcome: 2.5-3 million California students permanently damaged

The Student Experience: Why They Stop Coming

Consider Marcus, a typical student trajectory:

March 2020: Marcus is a 3rd grader when schools close

Family has limited internet, shares devices among siblings
Mother works essential job, can't supervise distance learning
Marcus logs in sporadically, completes ~40% of work
Actually learns: ~0.3 years (should be 0.5 for spring semester)

Spring 2020 Report Card:

District policy: "No student's grade can go down"
Marcus receives: B- (inflated from what should have been D or F)
Transcript: "Successfully completed 3rd grade"
Reality: Marcus at 2.8 grade level, should be 3.5
Nobody knows this—transcript is false

Fall 2020-Spring 2021: 4th Grade

Teacher receives Marcus with transcript showing successful 3rd grade completion
Begins teaching 4th grade curriculum
Marcus can't access it:
- 4th grade math requires fluent multiplication (Marcus never mastered times tables)
- 4th grade reading requires mid-3rd grade fluency (Marcus reads at early 3rd grade)
Marcus experiences failure daily: lessons incomprehensible, homework impossible, tests failed
But: Grade inflation continues (minimum 50% policy, "growth mindset grading")
End of year: Marcus receives C- (inflated from F)
Reality: Marcus now at 3.3 grade level (learned only 0.5 years because material too hard), should be 4.5
Gap widened from 0.7 years to 1.2 years

5th Grade:

Marcus at 3.3 grade level, being taught 5th grade curriculum
Understands perhaps 20% of instruction
Homework incomprehensible, tests impossible
Psychological impact: "I'm stupid. Everyone else gets it. What's wrong with me?"
Behavioral response: Acting out (distract from failure) or withdrawal (head down, don't participate)
Starts missing school: stomach aches, "I don't feel good"
Parents get truancy letters
Nobody assesses Marcus is 1.5 years behind
Nobody provides intervention
End of year: Another inflated C-
Reality: Marcus at 3.8 grade level, should be 5.5. Gap: 1.7 years

6th Grade: Middle School Breakdown

Multiple classes, different teachers, more independence required
Marcus at 4th grade level doing 6th grade work
Complete academic breakdown:
- Can't understand any subject (all require grade-level reading)
- Math completely incomprehensible (pre-algebra requires arithmetic he never mastered)
- Writing assignments impossible
Marcus becomes chronically absent: Misses 2-3 days per week
When present: mentally checked out
Internal reasoning (perfectly rational): "Why bother showing up to fail?"
School response: Truancy intervention, parent meetings, legal threats
Missing response: Academic assessment, remediation, honest acknowledgment he's 2 years behind

8th Grade: Marcus attends ~40% of time

Reading at 5th grade level, doing 8th grade work
Math at 4th grade level, enrolled in Algebra
Impossible situation
Marcus has two choices:
1. Keep showing up for daily humiliating failure (psychologically unbearable)
2. Stop attending (rational response)
Marcus chooses option 2

9th Grade: Marcus drops out, age 15

Can't handle high school coursework
Five years of frustration and failure
Reading at 6th grade level, math at 5th grade level
Official record: "Dropout due to chronic absenteeism, lack of engagement, family issues"
Reality: Marcus never recovered from pandemic learning loss that grade inflation hid

The 2-year problem (missed 3rd-4th grade content) became a 13-year problem (dropout at age 15), which became a 50-year problem (lifetime reduced earnings, limited opportunities).

And this was completely preventable.

The Scale: 700,000 "Marcus" Stories

California students who were K-5 during pandemic (2020-2021): ~2.8 million

Students who fell significantly behind (conservative 30%): ~840,000

Students who never caught up due to grade inflation hiding gaps: ~700,000

These 700,000 students are currently experiencing:

Constant academic failure hidden by inflated grades
Psychological damage ("I'm stupid, I can't keep up")
Rational disengagement from curriculum they can't access
Chronic absenteeism or eventual dropout

Projected outcomes:

150,000-200,000 will drop out before high school graduation
350,000-400,000 will graduate with diplomas but elementary-level skills (functionally illiterate/innumerate)
150,000-200,000 will struggle through, graduate marginally prepared

Total functionally undereducated: 500,000-600,000 students from ONE pandemic cohort

Multiply by 5 cohorts (students in grades K-4 during 2020-2021): 2.5-3 million California students permanently damaged

The Data Proves the Cascade

The correlation between learning loss and chronic absenteeism is unmistakable:

Groups with largest pandemic learning loss = highest chronic absenteeism (2023-24):

Foster Youth: 36-37% chronically absent (most disrupted during pandemic, least family support)
Homeless Youth: 32.7%
Black/African American: 31.3% (largest learning loss by demographic group)
Native American: 30.6%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged: 23.4%
Latino: 21.7%
Asian: 7.5% (smallest learning loss, often had family tutoring/enrichment support)

The pattern is clear: Students who fell furthest behind are attending least frequently.

This isn't a "motivation problem" or "cultural shift in attendance norms." Students are rationally disengaging from educational experiences they can't access because they were promoted beyond their actual skill level.

The Timeline Proves Causation

Pre-pandemic (2018-2019): 12.1% chronic absenteeism (baseline)

Pandemic year (2020-2021): Attendance measurement suspended, learning loss occurs, grade inflation begins

Post-pandemic return (2021-2022): Chronic absenteeism spikes to 30% as students discover they can't keep up with grade-level work

2022-2023: 26% (slight improvement as some students adapt or receive help)

2023-2024: 20.4% (improvement stalls—core group permanently behind, won't recover without intervention)

If chronic absenteeism were caused by "pandemic trauma" or "family disconnection," we'd expect:

Gradual improvement back to baseline as trauma heals and schools re-engage families
Return to ~12-13% within 3-4 years

What we actually see:

Spike when students returned to in-person learning (when curriculum mismatch became apparent)
Improvement that stalls at 68% above pre-pandemic baseline
Pattern strongly suggests structural problem, not temporary trauma

Why Standard Interventions Fail

Districts have spent billions on attendance interventions:

Attendance awareness campaigns ("Every Day Counts!")
Truancy officers and legal interventions
Parent engagement programs
Transportation assistance
Incentive programs (prizes, rewards for attendance)

Result: Minimal sustained impact

Why these interventions fail:

They address attendance as the problem when attendance is the symptom.

The actual problem: Students are 1-2 years behind grade placement but grade inflation hid this, so they were promoted anyway. Now they can't access curriculum that requires foundations they never mastered.

You cannot bribe or threaten a student into attending school where they experience failure every day.

The rational response to an impossible situation (curriculum you can't access, daily experience of incompetence) is disengagement.

Until you fix the curriculum mismatch (student actual level vs. official grade level), attendance won't improve.

The intervention that would work:

Honest assessment: Determine students' actual skill levels (not what transcript says)
Appropriate placement: Provide curriculum students can access
Intensive catch-up: Close gaps systematically with extended time, tutoring, summer programs
Honest grading: Track actual mastery, don't inflate
Then students can engage successfully and will attend

This intervention is not happening because it would require:

Admitting grade inflation was dishonest
Acknowledging system failed students
Massive investment ($10-15 billion for intensive multi-year intervention)
Political courage to tell truth

So instead: Districts keep running ineffective attendance campaigns while the underlying problem compounds.

The Dropout Time Bomb

Students who were in elementary school during the pandemic are now reaching the traditional dropout years (9th-11th grade).

Early indicators from 2024-2025:

9th grade course failure rates: Up 23% vs. 2019
Course completion rates: Down 15%
Students dropping out mid-year: Up 31%

California's graduation rate (currently 87.9%, itself inflated by lowered standards) is projected to begin falling sharply 2025-2027 as pandemic cohorts reach high school dropout decision points.

Students who are currently 2+ years behind cannot handle high school coursework requiring foundations they never mastered. They will face two options:

Continue experiencing failure (psychologically unbearable)
Drop out (rational response)

Many will choose option 2.

Predicted graduation rate for cohort that was kindergarten in 2020 (graduating 2032): 60-70% (vs. 88% pre-pandemic)

This represents 80,000-120,000 additional dropouts from a single cohort compared to pre-pandemic baseline.

The Cost of the Cover-Up

The $5 billion California chose not to spend on intervention in 2020-2022 has created:

For 700,000 severely affected students in ONE cohort:

Lost lifetime earnings: 700,000 × $1.6M average loss = $1.12 trillion
Lost tax revenue: 700,000 × $450K = $315 billion
Added social costs: 700,000 × $200K (unemployment, healthcare, justice system) = $140 billion

Total economic cost: $1.575 trillion for ONE cohort

Five affected cohorts (K-4 in 2020): $7-8 trillion

Return on non-investment: -160,000%

This may be the worst cost-benefit ratio in American education policy history.

We "saved" $5 billion in 2020-2022 intervention costs and created $8 trillion in generational damage.

Funding Formula Implications

Neither enrollment-based nor ADA-based funding accounts for:

1. Dramatically different resource requirements when students at vastly different levels occupy same grade

A "6th grade" classroom with students performing from 3rd to 8th grade level requires far more resources than a classroom where all students are at 6th grade level
Current formulas assume normal achievement distribution
Pandemic created abnormal distributions that persist

2. Cohort effect requiring sustained multi-year intervention

Students need 2-3 years of intensive catch-up instruction
This isn't a one-time cost
Neither funding formula provides for this sustained intervention need

3. Grade inflation corruption of the measurement system

When students' transcripts bear little relationship to actual competency, the system can't even identify who needs resources
Funding formulas assume grades indicate mastery
That assumption is now false

The enrollment vs. ADA debate is irrelevant when:

You don't know students' actual skill levels (grade inflation)
You can't measure whether instruction is effective (no instructional time allocation data)
You have a generation of students permanently damaged by hidden learning gaps

California needs to:

Stop grade inflation (honest assessment of actual competency)
Identify actual gaps (students' real skill levels vs. official grade placement)
Provide intensive intervention ($10-15 billion for 2-3 years to address pandemic cohorts)
Only then can any funding formula work effectively

Without fixing the measurement system, no amount of funding—enrollment-based or ADA-based—will produce better outcomes.

Charter School Performance and the Operational Efficiency Question

Academic Performance Data

CREDO Institute (Stanford University) 2023 study of California charter schools:

Overall results:

Charter students gained equivalent of 11 additional days of learning in reading vs. similar students in traditional public schools
Charter students gained equivalent of 4 additional days in math

Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) performance:

Students in CMO-operated charters: 19 additional days of reading gains
32 CMOs designated "gap-busters": Historically disadvantaged students showed growth equal to or stronger than non-disadvantaged peers

Methodology addresses cherry-picking criticism:

CREDO study found charter schools actually "enroll students who are disproportionately lower achieving than the students in their former traditional public school," then measured individual student growth over time using matched comparison groups.

This means:

Charters aren't selecting the best students
They're achieving better results with initially lower-performing students
The gains represent actual value-added, not selection effects

Performance categories (2024-25 school year):

Total California charter schools: 1,349
"High" performing: 210 schools (18.3%)
"Middle" performing: 842 schools (73.3%)
"Low" performing: 97 schools (8.4%) - face presumption of non-renewal

The Funding Gap

Charter schools receive 25-40% less funding than traditional public schools:

National data (University of Arkansas):

Charter schools receive 30% less funding on average
$7,147 less per student nationally

California specific data:

Los Angeles: Charter schools receive $5,226 less per pupil than LAUSD
Oakland: Charter schools receive $7,103 less per pupil than OUSD

What charters don't receive:

10% less general fund revenue
No access to facilities funding (must pay for buildings from operating funds)
No access to local bonds (can't benefit from voter-approved facility bonds)
Limited access to certain federal programs

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

University of Arkansas study findings:

Charter schools demonstrate approximately 40% higher cost-effectiveness than traditional public schools
Achieve similar or better outcomes with significantly less funding
Cost per student achievement gain substantially lower

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) research:

Charter spending patterns:

23% less on instruction
50% less on pupil support services
Higher spending on: Consulting services and operations
Suggests: Different operational model, not simply "doing more with less"

Why Charters Achieve More With Less: The Operational Differences

1. Staffing Flexibility

Can hire less experienced (cheaper) teachers
Can use part-time consultants vs. full-time specialists
Not bound by district salary schedules
Can staff based on actual need vs. contractual requirements

2. Performance Accountability

Face closure for poor results (only 8.4% rated "Low" but those face non-renewal)
Cannot hide behind grade inflation (must produce actual results or shut down)
Creates urgency for continuous improvement

3. Enrollment-Based Planning

Charters already budget on enrollment, not attendance
Demonstrates enrollment-based funding is operationally viable
Provides budget certainty traditional districts lack under ADA

4. Mandate Flexibility

Can ignore legislative mandates that don't serve learning
Not required to implement every state-mandated program
Can focus instructional time on core academics vs. compliance

5. Targeted Spending

California data: Achievement grew more in districts spending pandemic relief on academic interventions vs. general staffing/facilities
Charters more likely to target spending on direct instructional improvement
Less administrative overhead

6. Honest Grading During Pandemic

Many charter networks maintained honest grading during pandemic
Identified gaps immediately
Intervened quickly
Students not experiencing same chronic absenteeism rates as traditional districts (because students can access curriculum at their actual level)

The Natural Experiment

California has inadvertently run a controlled experiment:

Control group: Traditional districts

Full resources ($26,000 per student)
Compliance-focused systems
Political mandate burden
Grade inflation culture
ADA funding uncertainty

Treatment group: Charter schools

Reduced resources ($15,000-$19,000 per student)
Outcome-focused systems
Mandate flexibility
Performance accountability (honest grading)
Enrollment-based planning

Result: Treatment group achieves superior outcomes with 40% fewer resources

Conclusion: The problem is systemic design, not resource levels.

Traditional districts could achieve charter-level outcomes if they adopted:

Operational flexibility
Performance accountability (honest grading)
Focus on measured learning outcomes vs. compliance
Elimination of low-value mandates
Enrollment-based budgeting for stability

Cost to implement these changes: Probably $0 (may even reduce spending by eliminating waste)

Benefit: 40% improvement in cost-effectiveness = $5-10 billion annual savings at current outcomes, or much better outcomes at current spending levels

The Political Threat

Charter success demonstrates that:

Current system is dysfunctional (same teachers achieve better results in different system)
Mandates are wasteful (charters succeed by ignoring them)
Grade inflation hides failure (charters maintain standards, students still succeed)
Resources aren't the constraint (better outcomes with 40% less funding)

This threatens the political coalition that benefits from current opacity:

Teachers unions (charters often non-union, demonstrate union rules aren't essential)
Legislative mandate creators (charters prove mandates don't improve learning)
District administrators (charters demonstrate bureaucracy isn't necessary)
Politicians (educated, analytical graduates might demand accountability)

An educated electorate empowered by school choice would ask dangerous questions:

"Why are we spending $26,000 per student for worse results than charters achieve with $18,000?"
"Why do we keep adding mandates without measuring their impact?"
"Which legislators voted for requirements that waste instructional time?"

These questions threaten incumbents.

Solution: Maintain dysfunctional system that produces undereducated voters who won't ask these questions.

The charter school lesson: Quality management principles (honest measurement, continuous improvement, outcome accountability, waste elimination) work in education just as they work in manufacturing. California's traditional system violates these principles. That's why it fails.

The Gap Is Radically Unequal Across Districts

Pre-Pandemic Attendance Distribution

Before COVID-19 (2014-2019 average):

50% of districts: ≥95% attendance
87% of districts: ≥93% attendance
13% of districts: <93% attendance (serving only ~3% of students, ~190,000)

The system was remarkably stable. Most districts consistently achieved high attendance rates. The ADA gap was small and predictable.

Post-Pandemic Chronic Absenteeism by Demographics (2023-24)

Chronic absenteeism is defined as missing 10% or more of school days (~18 days in a typical 180-day year).

Rates by student group:

Foster Youth: 36-37% chronically absent (average ~19-20 days missed)
Homeless Youth: 32.7% (~19-20 days)
Black/African American: 31.3% (~17-19 days)
Native American: 30.6% (~17-19 days)
Pacific Islander: 32.6% (~17-19 days)
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged: 23.4% (~13 days)
Latino: 21.7% (~12 days)
White: 14.8% (~9 days)
Asian: 7.5% (~5 days)
Statewide Average: 20.4% (~13 days)

The Funding Differential Created by ADA

Asian students' districts:

Average attendance: ~97.5%
Funded at ~97.5% of enrollment

Foster youth districts:

Average attendance: ~90% (accounting for chronic absenteeism impact)
Funded at ~90% of enrollment

Funding gap: 7.5 percentage points = approximately $900+ per student annually

For a district with 10,000 students, 30% foster/homeless:

3,000 high-need students with low attendance
Funding loss: ~$2.7 million annually vs. enrollment-based funding
This is exactly when the district needs MORE resources, not less

Major Urban Districts (2021-22 worst point)

Los Angeles Unified:

Pre-pandemic attendance: ~96%
Pandemic low: ~77.5%
Unfunded students: ~96,750
Funding loss: ~$1.3 billion annually (at 2022 rates)

San Francisco Unified:

Pre-pandemic attendance: ~94%
Pandemic low: ~82%
Attendance decline: 11.4 percentage points

Oakland Unified:

Pre-pandemic attendance: ~93%
Pandemic low: ~80%
Major urban districts hit hardest

Typical suburban districts:

Maintained 93-96% attendance throughout
Minimal funding impact from ADA

Schools with High/Extreme Chronic Absence by Poverty Level (2023-24)

Schools with 75-100% socioeconomically disadvantaged students:

Pre-pandemic: ~270 schools with high/extreme chronic absence
2023-24: ~700 schools
Increase: 159%

Schools with 0-25% disadvantaged students:

Pre-pandemic: ~85 schools with high/extreme chronic absence
2023-24: ~525 schools
Increase: 518%

Pattern analysis:

Wealthier districts saw larger percentage increases (pandemic affected everyone)
But high-poverty districts have higher absolute rates (and those rates aren't returning to baseline)
Suggests: Wealthy districts recovering, poor districts facing structural problem (students can't access curriculum)

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) Research

Key findings on enrollment vs. ADA:

90% of districts would gain funding under enrollment-based system

Biggest beneficiaries:

High school districts: Tend to have higher chronic absenteeism (older students, more autonomy)
High-poverty districts: Higher absence rates due to factors beyond school control
High-ELL districts: Language barriers, family instability create attendance challenges

Attendance-achievement correlation:

Districts with lower attendance rates have higher shares of:
- High-need students
- Black and Latino students
- Students requiring special services
Districts with higher attendance rates have higher shares of:
- Asian students
- Affluent students
- English-proficient students

Equity implication of enrollment-based funding:

Example high-poverty district:

Current funding: 90% of enrollment (ADA)
Enrollment-based funding: 100% of enrollment
Funding increase: 11.1%

Example affluent district:

Current funding: 95% of enrollment (ADA)
Enrollment-based funding: 100% of enrollment
Funding increase: 5.3%

Enrollment-based funding benefits disadvantaged districts 2.1x more than affluent districts.

This is progressive—helps most those who need it most.

But the Fundamental Problem Remains

The gap won't close by changing funding formulas alone because:

1. Students are disengaging due to curriculum mismatch, not funding

Throwing money at attendance campaigns doesn't help students who are 2 years behind access 6th grade curriculum
Need honest assessment + intensive remediation, not incentive programs

2. Grade inflation prevents identifying who needs help

Districts can't target resources when they don't know students' actual skill levels
Inflated transcripts hide the students who need intervention most

3. Demographic complexity creates unpredictable needs

Homeless students (numbers surging): Attendance inherently unstable
Immigrant students (diverse needs): Require specialized support
Both enrollment and ADA struggle to address rapid changes in these populations

Enrollment-based funding would help by providing budget stability and directing more resources to high-need districts.

But without fixing the underlying instructional crisis (pandemic learning loss, grade inflation, unmeasured time allocation), the improved funding won't translate to improved outcomes.

Demographic Complexity: The Unmeasured Challenge

Homeless Students: A Surging Crisis

Current scale (2024-25):

230,000 students (approximately 4% of California K-12 enrollment)
Experienced housing instability during the school year
9.3% increase from prior year
37% surge over the past decade

Housing situations:

84% "doubled up" (temporarily living with other families/friends)
Only 4% unsheltered (living on streets, cars, campgrounds)
Remainder: Shelters, transitional housing, hotels/motels

Academic outcomes:

77% graduation rate (vs. 88% statewide)
Higher chronic absenteeism (32.7% vs. 20.4% overall)
Significantly more likely to be behind grade level

Funding challenge:

Federal pandemic support:

ARP-HCY (American Rescue Plan - Homeless Children and Youth): $98.76 million for California
Expired January 2025 with no equivalent replacement

Per-pupil cost for homeless students:

Estimated $5,000-8,000 additional per student (transportation, social services, school supplies, liaison staff)
For 230,000 students: $1.15-1.84 billion annually
Current dedicated funding: ~$100 million (federal) + minimal state
Gap: $1-1.7 billion annually

Neither enrollment nor ADA funding accounts for:

Sudden influx of homeless students (family loses housing)
Mid-year enrollment changes (high mobility)
Intensive support services needed
Attendance instability inherent to housing instability

Immigrant Students: Diverse and Growing

Current enrollment (2022-23):

165,293 immigrant students enrolled in California K-12
From dozens of countries, speaking dozens of languages
Diversity: Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras (Central America); China, Philippines, Vietnam (Asia); Middle East; Africa

Top source countries:

Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador: 62,811 students combined (38% of immigrant total)
Wide variance in:
- Prior educational background (some have strong schooling, others minimal)
- English proficiency levels
- Cultural adjustment needs
- Family support structures

Estimated cost:

$3.8 billion annually at California's average $23,500 per student
Title III ESL funding provides: Only $150.83 additional per English Learner
Gap: Massive shortfall between actual support needs and funding

Additional context:

~100,000 K-12 students are undocumented (arrived as minors, no legal status)
Almost half of all California students have at least one immigrant parent
Multigenerational support needs (parents may also need ESL, job training, social services)

Funding formula challenges:

Enrollment-based funding:

Provides budget certainty for immigrant-heavy districts
But doesn't differentiate by support needs (newly-arrived student needing intensive ESL vs. 2nd generation fluent English speaker)

ADA-based funding:

Penalizes districts serving immigrants if cultural/language barriers affect attendance
Creates disincentive to enroll high-need students

Neither accounts for:

Mid-year arrivals (family immigration patterns don't align with school calendars)
Rapid changes in immigrant populations (political instability abroad creates surges)
Varying intensity of service needs

English Learners: Declining Numbers, Persistent Needs

Enrollment trend:

Fell by 380,000 over past decade
Accounts for most of California's overall K-12 enrollment decline
But: Remaining EL students often have more intensive needs (long-term ELs who haven't reclassified, recent arrivals)

Service requirements:

Intensive language instruction
Content-area support (teaching math/science while students learn English)
Assessment accommodations
Family engagement in multiple languages

Funding:

LCFF provides supplemental funding for EL students
Title III federal funds (minimal ~$150/student)
But: Funding doesn't scale with intensity of need

The challenge: Students requiring intensive support that doesn't scale linearly with either enrollment counts or attendance rates.

Example:

District A: 1,000 EL students, mostly long-term, conversational English
District B: 1,000 EL students, mostly newcomers, zero English
Same enrollment/attendance, vastly different resource needs

Instructional Time Implications

Students with complex needs (homeless, immigrant, EL) require:

More one-on-one attention
More intervention time
More social-emotional support
More family engagement

But California's instructional time is already compromised by:

15-20% consumed by legislative mandates beyond academics (estimated)
8-12% lost to testing and transitions (estimated)
Unknown actual allocation (California doesn't measure)

Result: Districts serving high percentages of homeless/immigrant/EL students have:

Most intensive support needs
Least actual instructional time available (same mandate burden as all districts)
Most unstable funding (ADA penalizes their students' attendance patterns)
Perfect storm of resource constraints

Three-Year Averaging: The "Dead Cap" Effect

California implemented three-year ADA averaging post-pandemic to cushion attendance decline impacts.

How it works:

District's funding ADA = Average of current year + prior 2 years
Smooths year-to-year fluctuations
Prevented catastrophic funding drops when attendance tanked 2020-2022

The approaching problem:

2019-2020 ADA: High (pre-pandemic) 2020-2021 ADA: Very low (pandemic) 2021-2022 ADA: Improving but still low

Three-year average 2022-2023:

Includes high 2019-2020
Cushions impact of low pandemic years
Districts funded above current attendance

Three-year average 2024-2025:

2019-2020 drops out of calculation
Now averaging 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 (all lower than pre-pandemic)
Districts face "cliff" as old high year exits calculation

This creates fiscal crisis for districts just as:

Federal pandemic relief funds expire
Homeless student populations surge
Chronic absenteeism remains 68% above pre-pandemic

It's a "dead cap" effect: Past high attendance artificially inflating current funding, but that artificial support disappearing just when districts need stability most.

The Unmeasured Scandal: What California Refuses to Track

Instructional Time: Standards vs. Mandates

Total annual minutes required by California Education Code §46207:

Kindergarten: 36,000 minutes (600 hours)
Grades 1-3: 50,400 minutes (840 hours)
Grades 4-8: 54,000 minutes (900 hours)
Grades 9-12: 64,800 minutes (1,080 hours)

Core academic subjects required:

English/Language Arts
Mathematics
Science
History-Social Science
Physical Education
Health
Visual & Performing Arts
Foreign Language (high school)

Critical gap: California Education Code specifies these subjects "shall be included" but mandates NO specific time allocations.

Legislative Mandates Beyond Academic Standards (Partial List)

Over decades, California legislators have added dozens of required curriculum topics:

Mandated instructional content (all must be "included"):

Ethnic Studies (AB 101, 2021): Full semester course required for high school graduation starting 2029-30
Financial Literacy
Holocaust and Genocide Education
Human Trafficking Awareness
Opioid and Fentanyl Prevention
Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Prevention
Firearm Safety Instruction
Earthquake and Disaster Preparedness
CPR Training
Water Safety and Drowning Prevention
Organ Donation Education
Agricultural Career Awareness
Media Literacy
Contributions of specific groups: African Americans, Mexican Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, LGBTQ+ individuals, women, labor movement, entrepreneurs
Anti-Bullying and Harassment Prevention
Cyberbullying Awareness

Each mandate passed with best intentions. Nobody wants students ignorant about organ donation, earthquake safety, or human trafficking.

But nobody tracks the cumulative time burden.

Critical flaw: None of these mandates specify required hours. None mandate what gets removed to make room. The legislature simply adds, never subtracts.

Estimated High School Instructional Time Breakdown

These are educated estimates based on educator reports and limited time-use studies from other states. California has NO official data.

High school annual instructional time: 1,080 hours

Standards-based core academics: ~70-75% (756-810 hours)

Mathematics: ~160-180 hours
English/Language Arts: ~160-180 hours
Science: ~160-180 hours
History-Social Science: ~160-180 hours
Physical Education (mandated): ~60-90 hours

State-mandated additions beyond standards: ~10-15% (108-162 hours)

Ethnic Studies: ~72 hours (when implemented)
Health/safety mandates: ~30-50 hours
Special observances/assemblies: ~15-25 hours
Compliance training: ~10-20 hours
Anti-bullying/SEL programs: ~15-25 hours

Time lost to non-instruction: ~5-10% (54-108 hours)

Standardized testing: ~20-30 hours
Test preparation: ~15-25 hours
Emergency drills: ~8-12 hours
Assemblies/events: ~15-25 hours
Transitions/disruptions: ~20-30 hours

Electives/local discretion: ~5-10% (54-108 hours)

Varies by school and student choice

If the high end of mandate time (15%) is accurate:

162 hours annually consumed by legislative mandates
This equals an entire semester of mathematics instruction
Lost across 5.8 million students: 940 million student-hours annually
Equivalent to 1.04 million student-years of instruction consumed by politically-driven mandates

The "Studies" Problem

Particularly problematic: Courses mandated by name without rigorous academic content standards.

Example: Ethnic Studies Requirement (AB 101, 2021)

Required for high school graduation starting 2029-30
Full semester course (~72 hours minimum)
Model curriculum emphasizes "critical consciousness" and "social justice"
Minimal mathematics, science, or evidence-based historical analysis required
No standardized assessment of academic content mastery
Explicitly ideological rather than analytically rigorous

Contrast with legitimate interdisciplinary academic fields:

American Studies at major universities:

Rigorous analysis drawing from history, literature, sociology, economics
Requires evidence, primary sources, analytical frameworks
Students assessed on mastery of content and analytical skills
Produces scholarship published in peer-reviewed journals

Ethnic Studies mandate in California K-12:

Often focuses on identity, activism, perspective-taking
Limited emphasis on evidence-based analysis or content mastery
No required assessment beyond course completion
Consumes instructional time for political rather than educational purposes

The distinction isn't the topic (ethnic history is legitimate scholarship when done rigorously). The distinction is absence of academic accountability.

If a course doesn't require students to:

Master verifiable content
Analyze evidence
Demonstrate analytical skills through rigorous assessment

Then it's consuming instructional time without delivering education.

The Instructional Continuity Problem

Beyond curriculum mandates, California casually interrupts instructional flow:

State-mandated or common interruptions:

Minimum 175-180 instructional days required
Professional development days: 6-10 days annually (varies by district)
Mandated holidays and observances
Teacher in-service requirements
Required emergency drills (fire, earthquake, active shooter lockdown)
Standardized testing windows (SBAC, ELPAC, etc.)
District-level assemblies, events, special programs

Impact on learning:

Research consistently shows learning requires continuity and repetition.

Breaking instructional sequences with frequent interruptions particularly harms:

Students recovering from pandemic learning loss (need intensive, sustained intervention)
English Learners (need consistent language exposure and practice)
Students with learning disabilities (need routine, structure, predictable patterns)
Disadvantaged students (often lack educational support at home during breaks)

Yet California tracks:

Days of instruction (annually)
Minutes of instruction (annually)

California does NOT track:

Instructional continuity (how often sequences interrupted)
Cumulative time lost to interruptions
Impact of interruptions on learning retention

What the Missing Data Would Reveal

If California conducted honest instructional time audits, findings would likely show:

Actual high school instructional day (realistic estimate):

8:00 AM - School starts (CA law requires HS start after 8:00 AM, many start 8:00-8:30)
8:00-8:15 - Attendance, announcements, transitions (15 min lost)
8:15-9:00 - Period 1: English (45 min actual instruction)
9:05-9:50 - Period 2: Mathematics (45 min)
9:55-10:40 - Period 3: Advisory/SEL mandated period (45 min non-academic)
10:40-11:00 - Nutrition break (20 min)
11:00-11:45 - Period 4: Science (45 min)
11:50-12:35 - Period 5: History (45 min)
12:35-1:15 - Lunch (40 min)
1:15-2:00 - Period 6: Elective (45 min - could be academic or not)
2:05-2:50 - Period 7: PE/Health mandates (45 min)
2:50-3:00 - Dismissal procedures, announcements (10 min lost)

Total scheduled instruction: ~405 minutes (6.75 hours)

Weekly time theft (typical):

2 fire/safety drills: 30 minutes
1 assembly on mandated topic: 45 minutes
Standardized testing prep (during testing season): 1-3 hours/week
State compliance presentations: varies

Annual time actually available for core academics: Possibly 60-65% of mandated hours, not the 70-75% optimistic estimate

This means:

Students officially receiving 1,080 hours of instruction
Actually receiving perhaps 650-700 hours of core academic instruction
380-430 hours annually lost to mandates, compliance, testing, transitions
Equivalent to losing an entire semester every year

The Cost of Ignorance

California spends $140 billion annually on K-12 education.

The state mandates approximately 6.3 billion student-hours of instruction annually (5.8 million students × average 1,080 hours).

Yet California has no systematic data on how those 6.3 billion hours are actually used.

This is management malpractice.

Financial cost:

$6 billion debate over enrollment vs. ADA funding
Can't optimize spending without knowing if instructional time is well-used
Charter schools prove 25-40% efficiency gains are possible (partly through avoiding mandate waste)

Academic cost:

Half-year pandemic learning loss persists 5 years later
Can't recover what you won't make instructional time for
"Mandates" crowd out "mastery"

Political cost:

Every interest group demands curriculum time
No mechanism to force prioritization
Legislature adds, never subtracts
Result: Curriculum incoherence, instructional time fragmentation

What SHOULD Be Measured

From an engineering/systems perspective, California should track:

Student-level instructional time allocation:

Minutes per subject per week (actual delivered, not just scheduled)
Core academic vs. mandated non-academic vs. elective
Instructional time vs. testing/transitions/disruptions
Time on grade-level content vs. remedial vs. advanced
Direct instruction vs. independent work vs. assessment

Teacher time allocation:

Instructional time vs. administrative compliance requirements
Planning time vs. mandatory training attendance
Student interaction vs. documentation/reporting
Core content delivery vs. mandated add-on topics

System efficiency metrics:

Cost per actual instructional hour delivered (not just cost per enrolled student)
Learning gains per instructional hour
Mandate compliance burden quantification (time, cost, learning impact)
Instructional time optimization opportunities

Interruption impact:

Days/hours lost to testing, drills, assemblies, events
Instructional continuity measurements
Learning retention across interruption periods
Cost-benefit analysis of each interruption type

This data exists nowhere in California's education system.

The Political Economy of Non-Measurement

California's refusal to measure instructional time allocation serves specific political interests:

Benefits of ignorance:

Legislators can add mandates without visible trade-offs ("We're just requiring schools to teach X—who could oppose that?")
Interest groups can demand curriculum time without competing directly with academics ("Just add our 20-hour module!")
Districts can claim resource constraints without proving efficient use of existing time
Unions can resist accountability by pointing to unmeasured "additional requirements" burdening teachers
Education bureaucracy expands through mandate administration without measuring impact on actual learning

Costs of knowledge:

If California tracked instructional time use, hard questions would emerge:

"Why are students getting only 45 minutes of daily mathematics instruction when we mandate 900 hours annually?"
"What academic content did we displace to add the 72-hour ethnic studies requirement?"
"How many hours annually go to political compliance versus actual learning?"
"Which legislative mandates show measurable academic benefit versus which show zero impact?"
"Why is instructional time being consumed by assemblies, compliance training, and administrative theater?"

Not measuring avoids these questions.

The Charter School Lesson

Charter schools' demonstrated ability to achieve better results with significantly less funding becomes explicable when you understand instructional time:

Charter operational advantages:

Flexibility to ignore legislative mandates that don't serve learning
Performance accountability (closure for poor results) rather than compliance accountability (mandate box-checking)
Operational autonomy to allocate time based on student needs rather than political demands
Focus on measurable outcomes (actual learning) rather than process compliance (completing required topics)
Can optimize instructional time without legislative interference

Traditional districts may be drowning in mandated curriculum requirements that consume instructional time nobody tracks—creating exactly the inefficiency charter operational models avoid.

The Bottom Line

California mandates approximately 6.3 billion student-instructional-hours annually.

California spends approximately $140 billion annually delivering those hours.

California has NO systematic data on how those hours are actually used.

This is as if an aerospace program:

Tracked the cost of components (inputs)
Tracked the weight of the final aircraft (outputs)
Deliberately refused to measure whether the engines produce thrust (the process that turns inputs into outputs)

The debate over enrollment-based versus attendance-based funding obsesses over whether to fund 5.4 million or 5.8 million student-units while ignoring whether instructional time for ANY of those students is being used effectively.

Until California measures how instructional time is actually allocated, every funding debate is arguments about inputs while deliberately ignoring the process that turns those inputs into outcomes.

That's not education policy. It's accountability theater designed to avoid hard questions about how schools actually spend the time they have.

Recommendations and Conclusions

Immediate Actions (Year 1)

1. Conduct Comprehensive Instructional Time Audits

Sample 200+ representative schools across California
Measure actual time allocation: core academics, mandates, testing, waste
Track teacher time: instruction vs. compliance vs. administration
Cost: $10-15 million (one-time)
Deliverable: First-ever data on how 6.3 billion annual instructional hours are used

2. Emergency Pandemic Learning Loss Assessment and Intervention

Stop grade inflation immediately: Honest assessment of students' actual skill levels
Identify gaps: Which students are actually behind regardless of what transcripts claim
Intensive remediation: Extended day, summer programs, tutoring for students significantly behind
Cost: $10-15 billion annually for 2-3 years (still far less than $8 trillion long-term cost of inaction)
Goal: Close pandemic learning gaps before more students reach dropout years

3. Mandate Annual Instructional Time Reporting

All districts report time allocation data publicly
Include: core academics %, mandate %, testing %, lost time %
Create transparency: Parents and taxpayers see how time is actually used
Enable optimization: Districts can identify and eliminate waste

Medium-Term Reforms (Years 2-5)

4. Eliminate Low-Value Legislative Mandates

Based on time audit data, identify mandates consuming most time with least learning benefit
Sunset review: Every mandate must demonstrate measurable learning impact or expire
Time budgeting: New mandates must specify what they replace (zero-sum time allocation)
Estimated impact: Recover 100-150 hours annually per student for core academics

5. Transform Professional Development

Shift from compliance training to instructional quality improvement
100+ hours annually focused on: subject matter mastery, evidence-based pedagogy, data-driven instruction
Reduce mandate/compliance training to minimum necessary
Model: High-performing countries (Singapore, Finland) and successful charter networks

6. Implement Process Accountability

Measure instructional quality during delivery (classroom observations, student engagement, curriculum fidelity)
Real-time feedback loops: Teachers get immediate data, adjust instruction continuously
Move beyond end-stage inspection (annual testing) to continuous quality improvement

7. Address Enrollment vs. ADA Funding

Transition to enrollment-based funding over 3-year period
Provides budget stability, benefits high-need districts most
Maintain equity protections: Higher funding for disadvantaged students through LCFF concentration grants
Estimated cost: $6 billion annually, but offset by:
- Eliminating "hold-harmless" provisions (~$4 billion)
- Efficiency gains from better resource allocation

Long-Term Transformation (Years 6-10)

8. Build Continuous Improvement Culture

All stakeholders engaged: Teachers identify problems, test solutions, share successes
Transparent data: Instructional quality metrics public at school level
Systematic problem-solving: PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycles throughout system
Deming principles: Honest measurement, waste elimination, system optimization

9. Restore Grading Integrity

Ban grade inflation policies: No "minimum 50%," no unlimited retakes without remediation
Require grade-objective test correlation: Schools where grades don't match standardized measures must explain discrepancy
Independent verification: External assessments confirm grade validity
Transparency: Report grade inflation indices by school

10. Scale What Works

Study charter operational practices: Identify specific factors producing better results with less funding
Pilot in traditional districts: Operational flexibility, performance accountability, mandate relief
Measure results: Verify improvements before scaling
Replicate systematically: Spread successful practices based on evidence

The Stakes

If California acts decisively now:

Recover 2.5 million students from pandemic learning loss trajectory
Save $7-8 trillion in long-term societal costs
Restore instructional time to actual learning (vs. mandate compliance)
Rebuild grading system integrity
Prove democratic governance can solve hard problems

If California continues current path:

2.5-3 million students permanently damaged (functionally illiterate/innumerate despite diplomas)
$8 trillion in lost lifetime productivity
College remediation crisis (80%+ needing remedial courses)
Workforce crisis (graduates lacking basic skills)
Democratic governance crisis (civically illiterate electorate)
Generational catastrophe that may take 50+ years to recover from

The Ultimate Question

California spends $140 billion annually on K-12 education—6th highest per-pupil in the nation.

Yet:

Pandemic learning loss persists 5 years later
Chronic absenteeism remains 68% above pre-pandemic
Grade inflation has corrupted the measurement system
Nobody knows how instructional time is actually used
Charter schools achieve better results with 40% less funding

This is not a resource problem. This is a systems management problem.

W. Edwards Deming transformed American manufacturing by applying:

Honest measurement
Continuous improvement
Waste elimination
Statistical process control
Systems thinking

These same principles could transform California education.

But it requires:

Political courage to acknowledge current system failure
Willingness to measure honestly (even when results are uncomfortable)
Commitment to multi-year transformation (quality improvement takes time)
Focus on students' long-term welfare over adults' short-term political interests

The choice is clear:

Option A: Continue current trajectory

Keep adding mandates without measuring impact
Keep inflating grades to hide failures
Keep funding debates while ignoring instructional quality
Accept generational catastrophe as inevitable

Option B: Apply quality management principles

Measure instructional time use
Eliminate waste
Fix pandemic learning loss before it's too late
Build system capable of continuous improvement
Achieve world-class results California's resources should produce

California chose Option A in 2020 when it hid pandemic learning loss with grade inflation.

That choice turned a 2-year, $5 billion problem into a 50-year, $8 trillion catastrophe.

The state can choose differently now. But the window is closing.

Students who were kindergarteners in 2020 are now 5th graders, 2+ years behind, approaching the dropout years. In 3-4 years, intervention will be too late for most of them.

The cost of continued inaction: An entire generation.

The cost of action: $10-15 billion over 3 years and the political courage to tell the truth.

California invented the future once. Can it do so again? Or will the state that pioneered American innovation be remembered for managing the decline of an entire generation through willful blindness and political cowardice?

The data is clear. The stakes are existential. The choice is California's.

SOURCES

California Legislative Analyst's Office. "The 2024-25 Budget: Funding California's K-12 Schools." February 2024. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4820
California Department of Education. "DataQuest - Enrollment, Demographics, Attendance." Accessed January 2025. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
CREDO Institute, Stanford University. "Charter School Performance in California 2023." https://credo.stanford.edu/publications/california-charter-school-performance
University of Arkansas, Department of Education Reform. "Charter School Funding: Inequity Expands." 2023. https://www.uaedreform.org/charter-funding-inequity-expands/
Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). "California's K-12 Funding Debate." 2024. https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-k-12-funding-debate/
Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). "Learning from the Pandemic." 2023. https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/learning-pandemic
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). "2024 Results." National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
College Board. "SAT Suite Annual Report 2024." https://reports.collegeboard.org/
NWEA Research. "The State of Student Learning After Multiple Years of Pandemic Disruption." 2024. https://www.nwea.org/
California Department of Education. "California Education Code Section 46207 - Minimum Instructional Time." https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
EdSource. "California's Chronic Absenteeism Crisis." Various articles 2022-2024. https://edsource.org/
CalMatters. "California School Attendance and Funding." Various articles 2022-2024. https://calmatters.org/education/
Annie E. Casey Foundation. "2024 Kids Count Data Book - California." https://www.aecf.org/
National Center for Education Statistics. "Digest of Education Statistics 2023." https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/
UC Davis Center for Poverty & Inequality Research. "California Poverty Measure." 2024. https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/
National Center for Homeless Education. "Federal Data Summary: School Years 2020-21 to 2022-23." https://nche.ed.gov/
Migration Policy Institute. "State Immigration Data Profiles: California." 2024. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/
California School Dashboard. "Academic and Climate Indicators by District and School." https://www.caschooldashboard.org/
Legislative Analyst's Office. "The 2023-24 Budget: Analysis of the CalWORKs Program." Various education-related analyses. https://lao.ca.gov/
Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. "High School Grade Inflation Trends." 2024. https://cew.georgetown.edu/

[END OF ARTICLE 1]

California School Funding Crisis: