Timeline of California Standards-Based Reform

[Note: The following page has been saved as a historical document and has not been updated since 2010. However, it still contains useful information for research purposes.]

Since 1996, the California Department of Education and schools throughout the state have focused on improving student achievement by implementing world-class academic standards and a statewide system of accountability.

This Timeline illustrates how far our education system has advanced in developing and implementing high standards, and in holding our schools accountable for student improvement. Teachers and administrators work diligently to meet these high standards, and students truly benefit from the changes that have occurred. This progress has been made despite the deep cuts to education funding that have resulted from the state's ongoing fiscal crisis. Schools have had to do more with less, and have risen to the challenge.

In the coming years, federal reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the implementation of the internationally competitive Common Core State Standards—including aligned instructional materials, professional development, and assessments—will be central to the standards and accountability movement.

Educators, parents, businesses, policymakers, and students are partners in this movement, and are critical to its success. With a continuing commitment to hard work and collaboration among these partners, California will close the achievement gap and prepare the next generation for success in the global economy.

Reform: Standardized Testing and Assessment

Assessment: Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)

Significant Events

• 1997: Authorized STAR program (SB 376). SB 376 required students in grades 2–11 to be tested in English with State Board of Education–approved, norm-referenced tests in reading, writing, and mathematics, with spelling added in grades 2–8, and history–social science and science added in grades 9–11.
• 1999: STAR program results first used for calculating Academic Performance Index (API) for school accountability.
• 2001: Reauthorized STAR program (SB 233).This reauthorization bill moved the California Standards Tests in history–social science and science from grade 9 to grade 8, eliminated the Golden State Examinations (GSEs), created the grade 8–9 general mathematics California Standards Test, and directed an increasing emphasis of the California Standards Tests over the norm-referenced test.
• 2004: Reauthorized STAR program (SB 1448).
• 2007: Standards-based tests in Spanish for reading/language arts and mathematics administered in grades 2–4, replacing Aprenda 3 for those grades as the designated primary language test for the STAR program.

Assessment: Norms Reference Test (NRT)

Significant Events

• 1997: State Board of Education (SBE) designated Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition (Stanford 9), as the statewide pupil assessment.
• 1998: Stanford 9 first administered in grades 2–11.
• 2002: SBE designated California Achievement Test, Sixth Edition Survey (CAT/6 Survey), as Norm-Referenced Test (NRT).
• 2003: CAT/6 Survey first administered in grades 2–11.
• 2005: CAT/6 testing reduced to grades 3 and 7 only.
• 2009: NRT eliminated.

Assessment: California Standards Test (CST)

Significant Events

• 1998: State Board of Education (SBE) authorized development of standards-based tests in English– language arts and mathematics as augmentations to the Stanford 9.
• 1999: Standards- based test items established as augmentations to Stanford 9 for English– language arts and mathematics in grades 2–11.
• 2000: SBE authorized development of standards-based writing tests in grades 4 and 7, and California Standards Tests in history–social science and science in grades 9–11.
• 2001: California Standards Tests in history–social science and science administered in grades 9–11. California writing tests administered in grades 4 and 7.
• 2002: Mathematics standards-based tests (augmented items) in grades 8–11 separated from the Norm-Referenced Test; became stand-alone tests.
• 2003: First administration of all California Standards Tests as stand-alone tests. California Standards Test in history–social science moved from grade 9 to grade 8.
• 2004: First administration of California Standards Test in grade 5 science completed.
• 2005: California Standards Tests in science field-tested for grades 8 and 10.
• 2006: California Standards Tests in science added to grades 8 and 10.
• 2007: California Standards Test for world history became an end-of-course test in grades 9–11 (previously given only in grade 10).

Assessment: California Modified Assessment (CMA)

Significant Events

• 2007: The State Board of Education (SBE) adopted the California Modified Assessment (CMA) participation criteria for students with an Individualized Education Program. SBE adopted CMA blueprints that align with California grade-level content standards for grades 3–8 in English–language arts (ELA), including a writing test for grades 4 and 7; grades 3–7 in mathematics; and grades 5 and 8 in science.
• 2008: First administration of the CMA in grades 3–5 in ELA and mathematics, and in grade 5 science, for students who met the eligibility criteria. SBE adopted proficiency levels for the CMA in grades 3–5 in ELA and mathematics, and in grade 5 in science. SBE adopted CMA blueprints that align with California grade-level content standards for grades 9 and 10 in ELA; for Algebra I; and for grade 10 science.
• 2009: CMA ELA added in grades 6–8, mathematics grades 6 and 7, and science grade 8. First administered the CMA writing test for students in grades 4 and 7 taking the CMA ELA test. SBE adopted proficiency levels for the CMA in grades 6–8 ELA, grades 6 and 7 mathematics, and grade 8 science. SBE adopted blueprints that align with California grade-level content standards for grade 11 ELA and geometry.
• 2010: CMA ELA added in grade 9, Algebra I, and life science grade 10. SBE is in the process of adopting proficiency levels for grade 9 in ELA and for Algebra I.

Assessment: California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA)

Significant Events

• 2002: State Board of Education (SBE) approved development of the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) for students with significant cognitive disabilities to meet federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requirements.
• 2003: First administration of the CAPA completed.
• 2005: CAPA science tasks field-tested for grades 5, 8, and 10.
• 2006: SBE approved new CAPA blueprints.
• 2008: CAPA revised to be more closely aligned with selected California content standards for each grade tested. Science added to the CAPA in grades 5, 8, and 10.

Assessment: Primary Language Test

Significant Events

• 1997: State Board of Education (SBE) designated Spanish Assessment of Basic Education, Second Edition (SABE/2) for English learners.
• 1999: SABE/2 first administered in grades 2–11.
• 2002: SBE redesignated SABE/2.
• 2005: Aprenda 3 designated as the primary language test to replace SABE/2. SBE approved Standards- based Test in Spanish (STS) blueprints in reading/ language arts (RLA) and mathematics for grades 2–4.
• 2006: SBE approved STS blueprints for RLA and mathematics, grades 5–7.
• 2007: STS first administered in grades 2–4. Aprenda 3 administered in grades 5–11. SBE approved blueprints for RLA and mathematics for grades 8–11, and for Algebra I and geometry.
• 2008: STS administered in grades 2–4, and first administered in grades 5–7. Aprenda 3 administered in grades 8–11.
• 2009: STS administered in grades 2–7, and first administered in grades 8–11. SBE adopted performance levels for the RLA and mathematics in grades 2–4. Aprenda 3 discontinued and replaced by the STS.
• 2010: SBE adopted performance levels for the STS in RLA and mathematics in grades 5, 6, and 7.

Assessment: California English Language Development Test (CELDT)

Significant Events

• 1997: Authorized development of English-language development (ELD) standards, and identification of tests aligned with ELD students (AB 748).
• 1999: California English Language Development Test (CELDT) development and administration authorized by SB 638. State Board of Education (SBE) adopted ELD standards.
• 2001: Annual assessment of English learners and Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) required for federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), Title III.
• 2002: Second annual administration completed.
• 2003: Third annual administration completed. SBE adopted annual AMAO targets for districts and schools.
• 2004: Fourth annual administration completed.
• 2005: Fifth annual administration completed.
• 2006: Sixth annual administration completed. Standard setting was conducted and new Performance Level Cut Scores were set (approved by SBE).
• 2007: Seventh annual administration completed. AMAO targets were reset based on changes to CELDT Cut Scores. SB 80 mandated that an early literacy assessment results report be completed by January 2, 2013.
• 2008: Eighth annual administration completed. Development of K–1 early literacy assessment began.
• 2009: Ninth annual administration completed. K–1 reading and writing operational for the first time.
• 2010: SBE approved performance levels for K–1. The definition of the English-proficient level on the CELDT was updated for K–1.

Assessment: California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)

Significant Events

• 1999: Legislation by then-senator Jack O'Connell authorized the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) (SB 2X).
• 2000: State Board of Education (SBE) adopted test blueprints/items.
• 2001: Test administered to volunteer 9th graders (class of 2004). Assembly Bill 1609 removed 9th-grade option, required a study of exam, and provided option to delay the exam based on the study.
• 2002: Test administered to 10th graders (class of 2004) who did not take or pass the CAHSEE in 2001. Senate Bill 1476 moved to the local level the waiver process for students using modifications.
• 2003: First 10th-grade census administration given to class of 2005. SBE postponed CAHSEE requirement to class of 2006. Required assessment of alternatives to CAHSEE requirement for students with disabilities.
• 2004: Test as 10th-grade census administration given to students in class of 2006.
• 2006: SB 517 provided an exemption from the CAHSEE requirement for students with disabilities (class of 2006 students only). July and December administrations added for a total of 7 administrations per school year. AB 1802 allowed CDE to allocate $5.5 million to districts to purchase SBE-approved intervention materials for students who still needed to pass CAHSEE. Over $69 million in CAHSEE Intensive Instruction Services Funding was provided to districts for students in grades 12 and 11 who needed to pass CAHSEE.
• 2007: SB 267 provided an exemption from the CAHSEE requirement for students with disabilities (class of 2007 students only). Intervention Compendium added to CDE's CAHSEE resource page to assist districts with information on aiding first-time test takers. Over $72 million in CAHSEE Intensive Instruction Services Funding was provided to districts for students in grades 12 and 11 who needed to pass CAHSEE.
• 2008: 2008 budget bill allowed 12th-grade students to take CAHSEE up to five times in 2008–09 school year. Request for Proposals released to study students with disabilities who have met all graduation requirements except for CAHSEE, and to make recommendations to CDE regarding alternative means of assessment for this student population. Over $72 million in CAHSEE Intensive Instruction Services Funding was provided to districts for students in grades 12 and 11 who needed to pass CAHSEE.
• 2009: Over $58 million in CAHSEE Intensive Instruction Services funding was provided to districts for students in grades 12 and 11 who needed to pass CAHSEE. Funding for CAHSEE remediation based on participation in 2008–09 and added to categorical flexibility program. Budget bill provided an exemption from meeting the CAHSEE requirement as a condition for receiving a diploma—for eligible students with disabilities, class of 2009–10.
• 2010: For eligible students with disabilities, SBE extended through July 1, 2012, the exemption from meeting the CAHSEE requirement as a condition for receiving a diploma.

Assessment: Early Assessment Program

Significant Events

• 2003: Early Assessment Program (EAP) initiated to assess high school students for college readiness in math and reading.
• 2004: Nearly 40 percent of 11th-grade students participated in EAP.
• 2005: 46 percent of students taking grade 11 California Standards Test in English– Language Arts (CST ELA) participated in EAP English. 67 percent of students taking Summative High School Mathematics or Algebra II in grade 11 participated in EAP math.
• 2006: 75 percent of students taking grade 11 CST ELA participated in EAP English. 74 percent of students taking Summative High School Mathematics or Algebra II in grade 11participated in EAP math.
• 2007: 78 percent of students taking grade 11 CST ELA participated in EAP English. 70 percent of students taking Summative High School Mathematics or Algebra II in grade 11 participated in EAP math. First time that individual EAP results were included on the back of the STAR Student Report for the CSTs for students in grade 11, if the student took one or both parts of the voluntary exam.
• 2008: 79 percent of students taking grade 11 CST ELA participated in EAP English. 70 percent of students taking Summative High School Mathematics or Algebra II in grade 11 participated in EAP math.
• 2009: 82 percent of students taking grade 11 CST ELA participated in EAP English. 77 percent of students taking Summative High School Mathematics or Algebra II in grade 11 participated in EAP math.
• 2010: 84 percent of students taking grade 11 CST ELA participated in EAP English. 77 percent of students taking Summative High School Mathematics or Algebra II in grade 11 participated in EAP math. SB 946 authorized participation of California Community Colleges (CCC) in EAP results. The 2010 testing will be made available to the CCC.

Reform: Accountability

Assessment: Academic Performance Index (API)

Significant Events

• 1999: California's Public Schools Accountability Act created the Academic Performance Index (API) to measure the performance of schools and students (SB 1X).
• 2000: API base rankings released for first time. API consisted solely of Norm-Referenced Test (NRT).
• 2001: API added California Standards Test in English–language arts (ELA) to base with NRT.
• 2002: API added California Standards Tests in math and history–social science, as well as the California High School Exit Exam, to base. 53 percent of schools met their growth targets. 20 percent of schools at or above the API target of 800.
• 2003: Changed NRT to California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition, and added the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) and California Standards Test in science, grades 9–11, to API base. 90 percent of schools had an increased schoolwide API between 2002 and 2003. 76 percent of schools met their growth targets. 21 percent of schools at or above the API target of 800.
• 2004: Added California Standards Test in science, grade 5, and California Standards Test in history–social science, grade 8, to API base. 62 percent of schools made progress, and 48 percent of California schools met their growth targets. 23 percent of schools at or above the API target of 800.
• 2005: Added English learners and students with disabilities as subgroups; added five new demographics characteristics for similar-schools ranks to API base. 83 percent of schools increased schoolwide API, and 68 percent of schools met all of their growth targets. 27 percent of schools at or above the API target of 800.
• 2006: Added California Standards Test in science, grades 8 and 10, to API base. Implemented new, more challenging growth targets for subgroups to address narrowing of the achievement gap. 70 percent of schools increased schoolwide API, and 53 percent of schools met all of their growth targets. 30 percent of schools at or above the API target of 800.
• 2007: Adjusted the 2007 Base API to prepare for the addition of the California Modified Assessment (CMA) in ELA and math, grades 2–5, and science, grade 5, into the API. 59 percent of schools increased schoolwide API, and 45 percent of schools met their growth targets. 31 percent of schools at or above the API target of 800.
• 2008: Included the CMA for ELA and math for grades 3–5, and for science, grade 5, into the 2008 Base API. Adjusted the 2008 Base API to prepare for the addition of the CMA in ELA, grades 6–8, and mathematics, grades 6 and 7, into the API. 53 percent of schools met all of their growth targets. 36 percent of schools at or above the API target of 800.
• 2009: Added the CMA in ELA and math for grades 3–5, and in science, grade 5, into the 2009 Growth API. Added the CMA in ELA in grades 6–8; in math, grades 6 and 7; and in science, grade 8, into the 2009 Base API. Adjusted the 2009 Base API to prepare for the addition of the CMA in ELA, grade 9; Algebra I; and life science, grade 10. 58 percent of all schools met API growth targets. 42 percent of schools at or above the API target of 800.
• 2010: Added the CAPA results for science in grades 5, 8, and 10 into the 2010 Growth API. Added the CMA in ELA, grades 6–8; math, grades 6 and 7; and science, grade 8, into the 2010 Growth API. Added the CMA in ELA, grade 9; Algebra I, grades 7–11; and life science, grade 10, into the 2010 Base API. Adjusted the 2010 Base API to prepare for the addition of the CMA in ELA, grades 10 and 11, and in geometry. 57 percent of all schools made API growth targets. 46 percent of schools at or above the API target of 800.

Assessment: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

Significant Events

• 2001: Congress reauthorized ESEA as No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
• 2002: President George W. Bush signed NCLB into law January 8, 2002. Base year for NCLB's Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in math and English– language arts (ELA).
• 2003: Results of California Standards Tests in math and ELA, and the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA), used for reporting AYP, for NCLB requirements.
• 2004: State Board of Education (SBE) authorized development of science tests in grades 8 and 10 for NCLB requirements. SBE adopted Program Improvement (PI) criteria for local educational agencies (LEAs). 65 percent of all schools made AYP.
• 2005: AYP targets increased for all schools and districts. PI identification criteria revised for districts. 65 percent of all schools and 60 percent of all districts made AYP.
• 2006: PI identification criteria revised for schools. 66 percent of all schools and 64 percent of all districts made AYP.
• 2007: 67 percent of all schools and 54 percent of all districts made AYP.
• 2008: AYP targets increased for all schools and districts. Students who took the California Modified Assessment (CMA) in ELA and math in grades 3–5 were included in the AYP. 52 percent of all schools and 39 percent of all districts made AYP.
• 2009: AYP targets increased for all schools and districts. Students who took the CMA in ELA, grades 6–8, and math, grades 6 and 7, were included in the AYP for the first time. 51 percent of all schools and 36 percent of all districts made AYP.
• 2010: AYP targets increased for all schools and districts. Students who took the CMA in Algebra I in grades 7 and 8 were included in the AYP for the first time.

Standards Aligned Curriculum and Instructional Materials

Significant Events

• 1997: State Board of Education (SBE) adopted standards for what every student should learn in every grade in English–language arts (ELA) and mathematics.
• 1998: State law passed requiring that instructional materials be aligned with standards. SBE adopted standards for what every student should learn in every grade in history, social science, and science. Schiff-Bustamante Program began providing $1 billion ($250 million per year for 4 years) for purchase of standards-aligned instructional materials.
• 1999: SBE adopted standards-aligned instructional materials for history–social science, and conducted a special adoption for reading/ language arts (RLA) and mathematics. $429.2 million provided to purchase materials.
• 2000: SBE adopted standards-based history–social science framework. SBE adopted standards-aligned instructional materials for science. Mathematics and RLA frameworks adopted.
• 2001: SBE adopted standards-aligned instructional materials for mathematics. History–social science and foreign language frameworks adopted.
• 2002: SBE adopted standards-aligned instructional materials for RLA and English-language development. Science framework adopted. LEAs provided $378.3 million from Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program, one-time instructional materials funds, and Proposition 20 Lottery funds.
• 2003: SBE adopted standards-aligned instructional materials for foreign language; $246.9 million provided to purchase materials.
• 2004: SBE adopted standards-aligned instructional materials for health; $446.8 million provided to purchase materials. Visual and performing arts framework adopted.
• 2005: Mathematics framework approved. Physical education standards approved. History–social science adoption of instructional materials. Career technical education standards approved. The Instructional Materials Online Distribution System (IMODS) was deployed on the CDE Web site so educators can order and download books online.
• 2006: RLA framework approved. Science adoption of instructional materials.
• 2007: SBE approved new regulations for framework development and instructional-materials adoptions. Mathematics adoption of instructional materials.
• 2008: Physical education framework approved. Health education standards approved. RLA and English-language development adoption of instructional materials.
• 2009: World language standards approved. State Budget Act suspended curriculum-frameworks development and instructional-materials adoption until 2013.
• 2010: Library standards approved. Common Core Standards approved for ELA and math. Model curriculum for Education and the Environment approved.

Professional Development

Significant Events

• 1996: Major reading initiative implemented in K–3 (AB 3482). Required any person entering a program of professional preparation to satisfactorily complete comprehensive reading instruction to meet the minimum requirements for a multiple-subject teaching credential or a single-subject teaching credential (AB3075). California Subject Matter Project began.
• 1997: Teacher reading-instruction development program established for grades 4–9. Required that contract providers of reading-staff development be approved by State Board of Education before they sell their services to districts for state-funded reading training (AB 1086). Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) system adopted to provide beginning teachers with focused induction support (SB 1422). California Subject Matter Project continued.
• 1998: California Subject Matter Project continued. BTSA continued.
• 1999: California's Reading Professional Development Institutes, Governor's Reading Award Program, Principal Leadership Institute, and Governor's Teacher Scholars Program established and funded to improve quality of both reading and reading instruction in elementary schools, and to address needs of English learners (AB 2X). BTSA continued. Approximately 93 percent retention rates in the profession for first- and second-year BTSA teachers across all programs. California Subject Matter Project continued.
• 2000: English-language development Professional Development Institutes established to provide 120 hours of intensive, standards-based training to teachers of English learners. Provided $29 million to train 15,000 teachers serving English learners in grades 4–8. California Subject Matter Project continued. BTSA continued.
• 2001: Teachers of reading and math provided with intensive professional development in academic content standards(AB 466).Training for principals and vice principals established to focus on building leadership, improving accountability, standards-based instruction, curriculum frameworks, instructional materials, and use of pupil assessment data (AB 75). BTSA funded at $104.6 million, providing 29,000 teachers with instruction and support. California Subject Matter Project continued. BTSA expanded and funded at $104.6 million, providing 29,000 teachers with instruction and support.
• 2002: California Reading First plan approved by the U.S. Department of Education; intended to ensure that all students can read by the end of the 3rd grade. AB 466 teacher training and AB 75 administrator training continued. California Subject Matter Project continued. BTSA continued. Federally funded California Math and Science Partnership Project established.
• 2003: Reading First implementation continues. Professional development block grants provide local education agencies flexibility in offering professional development programs.
• 2004: Reading First implementation continued. Professional development block grants provided local educational agencies (LEAs) with flexibility in offering professional development programs. AB 466 teacher training and AB 75 administrator training continued. California Subject Matter Project continued. BTSA continued. California Math and Science Partnership Project continued.
• 2005: AB 430 reauthorized the Administrator Training Program for an additional 6 years. Reading First program continued. AB 466 teacher training continued. California Subject Matter Project continued. BTSA continued. California Math and Science Partnership Project continued.
• 2006: SB 472 reauthorized the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program for an additional 6 years; also provided an additional $25 million per year to train teachers of English learners on comprehensive strategies for supporting English-language acquisition and development. SB 1209 created the Certified Staff Mentoring Program, providing funding for experienced teachers to support beginning teachers or interns at "staff priority schools" to raise student academic achievement. AB 2117 established the English Language Learners Best Practices pilot program to identify existing best practices regarding topics including, but not limited to, curriculum, instruction, and staff development for teaching English learners and for promoting academic English-language acquisition and development. Reading First program continued. California Subject Matter Project continued. BTSA continued.
• 2007: Reading First program continued. AB 430 administrator training and SB 472 teacher training programs continued. Certificated Staff Mentoring Program continued. California Subject Matter Project continued. BTSA continued. English Language Learners Best Practices program continued.
• 2008: Reading First program continued; special education component added. AB 430 administrator training and SB 472 teacher training programs continued. Certificated Staff Mentoring Program continued. California Subject Matter Project continued. BTSA continued. English Language Learners Best Practices program continued.
• 2009: All state-funded teacher and principal training programs added to categorical flexibility spending program, including Reading First, BTSA, AB 430, SB 472,and Certificated Staff Mentoring program. Funding can be used for any educational purpose. California Subject Matter Project continued. English Language Learners Best Practices program continued.
• 2010: All state-funded teacher and principal training programs remain in categorical flexibility spending program. California Subject Matter Project continued. English Language Learners Best Practices program ended.

Assistance for Struggling Schools

Significant Events

• 1999: Created the Immediate Intervention/ Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) as part of the Public Schools Accountability Act. Gave 1,290 voluntary schools $200 per student for either 2 or 3 years.
• 2000: Continued II/USP.
• 2001: Continued II/USP. Introduced the High Priority School Grant Program (HPSGP) for lowest-performing schools, giving schools $400 per student for 3–4 years.
• 2002: First cohort of II/USP schools that failed to meet API targets identified to become state-monitored. School Assistance and Intervention Teams (SAITs) assigned to some schools in II/USP to help improve student performance. HPSGP continued.
• 2003: Second cohort of II/USP schools that failed to meet API targets became state-monitored. SAITs assigned to some schools in II/USP. HPSGP continued.
• 2004: Third cohort of II/USP schools that failed to meet API targets became state-monitored. SAITs assigned to some schools in II/USP. HPSGP continued.
• 2005: Fourth cohort of II/USP schools that failed to meet API targets became state-monitored. SAITs assigned to some schools in II/USP. HPSGP continued. First cohort of districts not meeting federal student achievement targets entered Program Improvement (PI) Year 1.CDE provided federal grants for local educational agencies (LEAs) to contract for technical assistance to improve student achievement.
• 2006: Fifth, and final, cohort of II/USP schools that failed to meet API targets became state-monitored. SAITs assigned to some schools in II/USP. HPSGP continued. First cohort of districts not meeting federal student achievement targets advanced to PI Year 2. District Assistance and Intervention Team (DAIT) pilot project funded by CDE, CSSESSA, and the Gates Foundation was established to help improve student performance at LEAs in PI that were nominated by county offices of education.
• 2007: The last funded, state-monitored school in II/USP exited the program. HPSGP continued. First cohort of districts advanced to PI Year 3 corrective action and received funding for technical assistance. Some districts were selected to work with a DAIT based on severity and pervasiveness of achievement problems. Quality Education Improvement Act (QEIA) established; funding distributed to eligible schools.
• 2008: HPSGP funding added to categorical flexibility spending program. Funds can be used for any educational purpose. First cohort of districts not meeting federal student achievement targets advanced to PI Year 3+. QEIA funding distributed to eligible schools. Federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) program funds distributed to eligible schools in QEIA and PI.
• 2009: HPSGP program ended. First cohort of schools and districts not meeting federal student achievement targets advanced to PI Year 5. QEIA funding distributed to eligible schools. Federal SIG program funds distributed to eligible schools in QEIA and PI.
• 2010: First cohort of schools and districts not meeting federal student achievement targets remain in PI Year 5. QEIA funding distributed to eligible schools. Federal SIG funds distributed to schools defined as persistently lowest-achieving.

Class Size Reduction

Significant Events

• 1996: Created class-size reduction for grades 1–3, allocating nearly $1 billion for facility accommodations and teacher training, and $650 per student in those classes. Added 18,400 new classrooms with 20 students or fewer (AB 354 and SB 1777).
• 1997: 99 percent of all 1st graders and 95 percent of all 2nd graders were enrolled in smaller-sized classes.
• 1998: Program expanded to reduce class sizes in two grade 9 courses.
• 2000: Small-School District flexibility enacted for one-school districts.
• 2004: Instituted three tiers of reduced funding for the Class-Size Reduction (CSR) program—classes in excess of 20:1 but less than 21.9:1.
• 2009: K–3 CSR program closed to new entrants; participation capped at 2008–09 funding levels. High School CSR closed to new entrants; participation capped at 2007–08 funding levels. CSR funding added to categorical flexibility spending program and can be used for any educational purpose.
• 2010: CSR funding remains in categorical flexibility spending program.

Education Funding

Significant Events

• 1996: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $27 billion. Funding per student: $4,894. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $36 million.
• 1997: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $29 billion. Funding per student: $5,223. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $36 million.
• 1998: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $32 billion. Funding per student: $5,748. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $36 million.
• 1999: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $36 billion. Funding per student: $6,308. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $44 million.
• 2000: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $38 billion. Funding per student: $6,678. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $59 million.
• 2001: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $39 billion. Funding per student: $6,618. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $60 million.
• 2002: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $39 billion. Funding per student: $6,593. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $48 million.
• 2003: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $42 billion. Funding per student: $7,023. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $39 million.
• 2004: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $42 billion. Funding per student: $7,047. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $42 million.
• 2005: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $47 billion. Funding per student: $7,822. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $49 million.
• 2006: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $49 billion. Funding per student: $8,238. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $52 million.
• 2007: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $50 billion. Funding per student: $8,464. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $55 million.
• 2008: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $43 billion. Funding per student: $7,227. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $48 million.
• 2009: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $44 billion. Funding per student: $7,391. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $36 million.
• 2010: K–12 Proposition 98 funding: $44 billion. Funding per student: $7,342. General Fund support for CDE State Operations: $33 million.