The 2022 PACE/USC Rossier Poll
Published

Summary

The 2021-22 academic year in California was challenging for public education due to eight issues that threaten student learning, schools, and public education itself, including gun violence, declining enrollment, and long-term funding inadequacy. These issues also have a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities and highlight long-standing systemic inequities. In July 2022, PACE and USC Rossier School of Education conducted a poll of California voters to determine their views and priorities on public education.

Views from the 2021 PACE/USC Rossier Poll
Published

Summary

Growing inequities and lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic together with billions of dollars in new funding present an opportunity to make substantial changes to K–12 education to better serve all students in California. In May 2021, PACE and USC Rossier School of Education fielded our annual poll of California voters, which sought to gain clarity about voters’ priorities on public education issues during this period in which Californians are beginning to look towards a postpandemic future. The following are 10 key findings from the poll.
Views from the 2020 PACE/USC Rossier Poll
Published

Summary

In the run-up to 2020 elections, where do California voters stand on key education policy issues? This report examines findings and trends from the 2020 PACE/USC Rossier poll. Key findings include rising pessimism about California education and elected officials, continued concern about gun violence in schools and college affordability, and negative opinions about higher education. However, there is substantial support for increased spending, especially on teacher salaries.

Publication authors
Published

Summary

This report updates previous research on California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) using a 2019 poll of California voters. Despite increased awareness, over half of voters are unfamiliar with LCFF. Support for the policy remains high but has decreased. Participation in LCFF engagement has increased but remains low, particularly among low-income voters. Low-income communities may not be meaningfully engaged in LCFF decision-making.