Passed in 2013, LCFF provided school districts with more discretion in how to spend state funding and tied certain grant revenue streams to a district’s concentration of English language learners and low-income students. The changes also provided a boost to state education spending to the tune of $18 billion by the next fiscal year, according to the study.

“A $1,000 increase in district per-pupil revenue from the state” in grades 10-12 led to a 5.3 percent increase in overall high school graduation rates, according to the study. For poor children and African-American children, the improvement in graduation rates was even more significant: 6.1 percent and 5.3 percent, respectively. 

“These changes closely track with the staggered timing of LCFF implantation,” according to the study.

LCFF’s effect was also borne out by standardized testing scores, with “average gains in mathematics and, to a smaller extent, in reading for all children.” And again, these improvements were more significant among “children from low-income families.”

And students were not the only beneficiaries of LCFF. Increases in district funding from LCFF resulted in lower student-to-teacher ratios and “significant increases in per-pupil expenditures, average teacher salaries and instructional expenditures.” For example, the study found that a 10 percent increase in “district per-pupil revenue” led to a 2.7 percent increase in average teacher salary, which “may enable the school and district to attract and retain a higher quality teaching workforce.”

Additionally, the study has good news for those worried that LCFF would result in administrative bloat. “We did not see evidence that the increase in district revenue disproportionately increased administration salaries,” wrote the authors. They concluded that “overall levels of spending have increased roughly proportional to their pre-LCFF proportions.”

Nevertheless, some critics of LCFF aren’t sold. Bill Lucia, president and CEO of EdVoice, labeled the study “fake news,” arguing in the Mercury News that the study’s standardized testing data essentially amounted to an invalid apples-and-oranges comparison. He also noted that “the vast majority of poor students are ‘below proficient’ with little or no change over the past several years.”

In Brea, residents started researching fracking, gathering information about polluted water wells and increased seismic activity in other areas across the country, such as Oklahoma, where scientists have linked wastewater injection wells with an increased number of earthquakes.

Initially, Fujioka – the Brea fracktivist – didn’t even know fracking was happening near homes and schools, but she soon found out using online mapping tools.

So, Fujioka scheduled a meeting before the City Council. It transformed into a presentation by the main driller in the region, LINN Energy.

At an alternative meeting, 100 residents showed up seeking information on fracking. Another meeting followed, this one sponsored by Cal State Fullerton and paneled by academics and industry representatives, at which 500 residents sought information.

Residents in other Orange County cities are joining the movement. At the very southern end of the hills, Yorba Linda activists are just getting started. Karen Hill, an active member of Brea Congregational United Church of Christ, an anti-fracking hotspot, believes fracking will contaminate groundwater near her community, even though most water is imported.

Given that the California media still refuse to report that the Obama administration considers fracking safe, this alarmism isn’t that surprising.

But what’s also interesting is that the international and national media increasingly have figured out that fracking has been profoundly good for the U.S. economy. This is from a Financial Times analysis of how cheaper energy was helping U.S. exporters:

The price gap has led to a 6 per cent average increase in US manufactured product exports, the IMF wrote in its twice-yearly World Economic Outlook. […]

Lower prices for natural gas favour energy- and gas-intensive industries, such as steelmaking, oil refining, and nitrogen fertiliser production. The International Energy Agency has previously warned that Europe will lose a third of its share of global energy-intensive exports over the next two decades because its energy prices will remain stubbornly higher than those in the US.

And then there’s this remarkable development. At a time when international opinion of the U.S. seems to be largely negative and even baffled — a president sending mixed messages for years will do that — fracking has created a positive aura around the U.S.

New York Times: Fracking ‘gust’ lifts U.S. reputation

Who says so? Lots of analysts and academics, including the Harvard professor who popularized the idea that nations wield not just military might but “soft power” that influences global opinion. This is from the New York Times:

It has become fashionable to note a decline of American global power and influence, but don’t tell that to the energy experts.

Many see increased domestic production of oil and gas as driving more muscular United States energy diplomacy, power that exists in curious tandem with the Obama administration’s efforts to wean the world off fossil fuels.

“The rapid rise in U.S. oil and gas production, together with the decline in oil consumption and the elevation of climate change as a priority, is completely scrambling the way policy makers think about energy diplomacy,” said Michael A. Levi, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Joseph S. Nye Jr., the Harvard professor who articulated the notion of “soft power” in international affairs, sees a “shale gale” propelling America’s status: “If you are attracted to a country or any leader, a lot has to do with the feeling, ‘Do they have momentum? Is the wind in their sails or are their sails flapping?’ We’ve got a gust.”

Carlos Pascual, a former senior American diplomat, agrees. Increased energy production “strengthens our hand.” he said.

Will California’s vast Monterey Shale ever be tapped to add to this U.S. momentum? I’m not optimistic. But if it does happen, it would produce more middle-class jobs for California than any dozen government initiatives.

And it would also yield vast new revenue. Which state has seen the sharpest percentage increase in education spending in recent years? The state that has the lowest unemployment and the fastest economic growth.

That would be North Dakota, global ground zero for the fracking revolution.