  |










| Once you've read through Quality Counts 2002, we'd like to know what you think.
Please give us your feedback by taking this short survey. |
|
 |
 |
|
Summary
of Grades
For
more information about these measures, see our 50-state Summary
of Grades by State data table.
NOTE: ? Indicates state did not participate in the national
assessment.
1School climate was not graded this year.
2Because the District of Columbia does not have a state
revenue source, it did not receive a grade for adequacy or equity.
3Hawaii has a single statewide district.
|
|
California
|
STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT
(Percent scoring at or above "proficient") |
| 4th grade NAEP math (2000) |
15 |
| 8th
grade NAEP math (2000) |
18 |
| 4th
grade NAEP science (2000) |
14 |
| 8th
grade NAEP science (2000) |
15 |
| 4th
grade NAEP reading (1998) |
20 |
| 8th
grade NAEP reading (1998) |
22 |
| 8th
grade
NAEP writing (1998) |
20 |
| STANDARDS
AND ACCOUNTABILITY |
B |
| IMPROVING
TEACHER QUALITY |
C |
| SCHOOL
CLIMATE1 |
76 |
| RESOURCES:
Adequacy |
F |
| RESOURCES:
Equity |
C+
|
|
|
Student Achievement
For
more information about these measures, see our 50-state Student
Achievement data table.
NOTE: States are ranked by percent at or above proficient,
then by percent basic; ties are ranked alphabetically.
? Indicates state did not participate in national
assessment.
1Statistically significant gain in the percent scoring
at or above proficient since the last administration of the test.
Data were not available for the 4th grade science.
|
|
California
|
MATH
(all figures in percents)
4th grade performance on the 2000
NAEP mathematics exam |
| At
or above proficient |
15 |
| Basic |
38 |
| Below
basic |
48 |
MATH
(all
figures in percents)
8th grade performance on the 2000
NAEP mathematics exam |
| At
or above proficient |
18 |
| Basic |
34 |
| Below
basic |
48 |
SCIENCE(all
figures in percents)
4th grade performance on the 2000 NAEP science exam |
| At
or above proficient |
14 |
| Basic |
33 |
| Below
basic |
53 |
SCIENCE
(all
figures in percents)
8th grade performance on the 2000 NAEP science exam |
| At
or above proficient |
15 |
| Basic |
25 |
| Below
basic |
60 |
| UNGRADED:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION |
| Percent
of public high schools offering Advanced Placement courses
(2001) |
84 |
| Percent
of 8th graders taking Algebra I, Algebra II, or geometry
(2000) |
37 |
| Percent
of high school students taking upper-level ... |
mathematics
courses (2000) |
34 |
| science
courses (2000) |
18 |
| Percent
of 16- to 19-year-olds not in school who had not graduated
(1998) |
9 |
| Percent
of 9th to 12th graders who dropped out of school (1999) |
? |
|
|
Standards
and Accountability
For more information
about these measures, see our 50-state Standards
and Accountability data table.
NOTE: States are ranked by number grade to the
nearest whole number; ties are ranked alphabetically.
HS = High school level; MS = Middle school
level; ES = Elementary school level.
|
|
|
|
Improving
Teacher Quality
For
more information about these measures, see our 50-state Improving
Teacher Quality data table.
NOTE:
States are ranked by number grade to the nearest whole number; ties
are ranked alphabetically.
1State requires test, but not for beginning license.
These states do not receive credit or count in the U.S. total.
2State holds teacher-training programs accountable instead
of requiring specific coursework.
3State requires a noneducation major, but not in the
subject taught.
4State requires a noneducation minor, but not in the
subject taught.
5State requires subject concentration on elementary certificate if used in middle school.
|
|
|
|
School
Climate
For more information
about these measures, see our 50-state School
Climate data table.
?Indicates state did not participate in national
assessment or survey.
1Education Week could not verify information for
the District of Columbia on school-crisis-management plans, class-size
reduction, school construction capital outlay, or the assessment
of school facilities. |
|
California
|
| STUDENT
ENGAGEMENT |
| Percent
of 8th graders where a school-level
official reports that ... |
absenteeism
is not a problem or is a minor problem (2000) |
76
|
| tardiness
is not a problem or is a minor problem (2000) |
72
|
| classroom
misbehavior is not a problem or is a minor problem (2000) |
68
|
| PARENT
INVOLVEMENT |
|
Percent of students in schools where a school-level official
reports that ... |
lack
of parent involvement is not a problem or is a minor problem
(2000) |
4th
grade |
57
|
| 8th
grade |
38
|
| more
than half of parents participate in parent-teacher conferences
(2000) |
4th
grade |
95
|
| 8th
grade |
59
|
| SCHOOL
SAFETY |
| State
requires that school safety information be included on school
report cards (2001) |
|
| State
requires all schools to have crisis plans coordinated with local
authorities (2001) |
|
| Percent
of students reporting that they feel very or moderately safe
in school (2000) |
4th
graders |
92
|
| 8th
graders |
90
|
| Percent
of students in schools where a school-level official reports
that physical conflicts are a serious or a moderate problem
(2000) |
4th
grade |
14
|
| 8th
grade |
17
|
| Percent
of high school students who... |
felt
too unsafe to go to school during the past 30 days (1999)
|
?
|
| carried
a weapon on school property during the past 30 days (1999) |
?
|
| were
threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the
past year (1999) |
?
|
| were
in a physical fight on school property in the past year (1999) |
?
|
| CHOICE
AND AUTONOMY |
| State
has a public school open-enrollment program (2001) |
limited
|
| State
law allows charter schools (2001) |
|
| Strength
of charter school law (2001) |
3.0
|
| Number
of charter schools (2001) |
350
|
| CLASS
SIZE |
| State
has implemented a class-size-reduction program and/or limits
class size by statute (2001) |
|
| Average
number of students per teacher in the state (2001) |
20.8
|
| SCHOOL
FACILITIES |
| State
provides grants/debt service for capital outlay or construction
(2001) |
|
| State
funding dedicated to capital outlay or construction for FY 2002
(2001) |
$2,000,000,000
|
| State
tracks condition of all school facilities (2001) |
|
|
Resources:
Adequacy
For more information
about these measures, see our 50-state Resources:
Adequacy data table.
NOTE: States
are ranked by number grade to the nearest decimal.
1Because the District of Columbia does not have a state
revenue source, it did not receive a grade for adequacy.
2Figures adjusted to reflect regional cost differences
and weighted for student needs. Students in poverty equal 1.2, and
students in special education equal 2.3.
3Data on special education used to adjust spending figures
were missing for nearly 30 percent of the districts analyzed in
Vermont. |
|
California
|
| Overall
grade for adequacy |
F |
59 |
| 40%
of grade |
| Education
spending per student, adjusted for regional cost differences
(2001) |
State
average |
$5,603
|
| Percent
of U.S. Average |
79.1
|
| Percent
change from 2000 |
1.8
|
| 40%
of grade |
| Percent
of students in districts with per-pupil expenditures at or above
the U.S. average2 ($5,281) |
1.7 |
| Adequacy
index2 (1999) |
078.66% |
| 15%
of grade |
| Percent
of total taxable resources spent on education (1999) |
3.0 |
| 5%
of grade |
| Average
annual rate of change in expenditures per pupil, adjusted for
inflation (1990-2000) |
0.3% |
| ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION |
| Percent
of students in districts with per-pupil expenditures2
at or above ... (1999) |
National median ($5,083)
|
2.4 |
|
$6,000
|
0 0.5 |
|
$7,000
|
0 0.1 |
| Unadjusted
education spending per student (2001) |
$6,255 |
| Percent
of annual education expenditure spent on instruction (1999) |
61.0 |
| Instructional
dollars per student (1999) |
$3,539 |
| Teachers
as a percentage of total staff (1999) |
53.9 |
| Percent
of education expenditures devoted to teachers (2000) |
39.2 |
|
|
Resources:
Equity
For more information
about these measures, see our 50-state Resources:
Equity data table.
NOTE: States are ranked by number grade to the nearest decimal.
1Because the District of Columbia does not have a revenue
source, it did not receive a grade for equity.
2The targeting score is derived using multiple regression
techniques to determine the extent to which district property wealth
influences state aid, controlling for other factors that influence
state funding, including student enrollment, physical size of districts,
and the number of students in low-income families or in special
education.
3Hawaii has a single statewide district.
4Data on property wealth used to compute state equalization
effort, wealth-neutrality score and implicit foundation level were
missing for about 20 percent of the districts analyzed in California.
5Data on special education used to adjust spending figures
were missing for nearly 30 percent of the districts analyzed in
Vermont.
6Figures adjusted to reflect regional cost differences
and weighted for student needs. Students in poverty equal 1.2 and
students in special education equal 2.3.
7The District of Columbia is a single district.
|
|
California
|
| OVERALL
GRADE FOR EQUITY |
C+
|
78
|
| 50%
of grade |
| State
equilization effort (1999) |
Overall
score
|
71.3% |
|
Targeting score
|
-0.1224 |
|
State
share of funding
|
63.5% |
| 25%
of grade |
| Wealth-neutrality
score6 (1999) |
0.032 4 |
| 12.5%
of grade |
| McLoone
Index6 (1999) |
094.27%
|
| 12.5%
of grade |
| Coefficient
of variation6(1999) |
10.7%
|
| ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION |
| Restricted
range6 (1999) |
$1,227 |
| Restricted
range ratio6 (1999) |
30.3%
|
| Average
state funding per pupil6 (1999) |
$3,293 |
| Average
state and local funding per pupil6 (1999) |
$5,183 |
| Implicit
foundation level6 |
$3,694 |
|
© 2002 Editorial
Projects in Education Vol. 21, number
17, Page Web- only
|