BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | ACR 54|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: ACR 54
Author: Brownley (D), et al
Amended: 7/15/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-3, 7/8/09
AYES: Romero, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Padilla, Simitian
NOES: Huff, Maldonado, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-29, 5/11/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Education finance
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This resolution resolves that it is the
Legislature's intent that California generate and allocate
sufficient funds to bring the per pupil spending up to or
into the top half of the national average and to a level
that accounts for the actual cost of educating California
pupils.
ANALYSIS : Under existing law, there are several
components that determine the level of funding provided to
a local school district including:
1. Revenue limits (base revenue funding) . Revenue limit
funding for school districts is, in part, based on
average daily attendance (ADA), where ADA is calculated
by dividing the number of days of attendance for all
CONTINUED
ACR 54
Page
2
pupils enrolled in the district by the number of
instructional days in the district; a day of attendance
is generally defined as a minimum number of
instructional minutes (specific to grade level) in a
classroom setting with a certificated employee of school
district present. This funding computation uses the
annual ADA reported by each district in the last
attendance year, or the current or prior fiscal year,
whichever is greatest. Total Revenue Limit (local
property taxes plus state General Fund) funding for a
district is then calculated by multiplying the
district's set (per pupil) revenue limit by ADA.
2. Equalization funding . This is a mechanism for
equalizing school district revenue limit funding by
increasing the base revenue limit for some set of low
revenue limit districts.
3. Categorical funding . This is "targeted" funding that
focus resources and/or compliance requirement on
specified classes of students, schools or programs as
specified by the Legislature.
4. Other funding . In addition, local districts are
authorized to raise funds locally (e.g. local voter
approved tax increases). They may also receive federal
funds, private grants and/or other specialized sources
of funding (loans, bail-outs, legal settlements, etc.).
This resolution:
1. States legislative intent that California generate and
allocate sufficient funds to education so that per pupil
spending:
A. Is brought up to or beyond the national average.
B. Accounts for the actual cost of educating
California's diverse pupil population so that all
pupils are prepared for college, careers and
successful participation in our democratic
institutions.
2. Includes a variety of findings and declarations
ACR 54
Page
3
regarding California's current education finance system.
Comments
Education Week published a ranking that showed California
as 47th among the states and District of Columbia in per
pupil expenditures on K-12 education when cost-of-living
differences across the states are taken into account. The
National Education Association ranks California as 34th
among the 50 states and District of Columbia in per pupil
expenditures in 2007-08. The United States Census Bureau
reported in 2008, that California was 29th among the 50
states and District of Columbia in per pupil expenditures
by public schools in 2005-06, with per pupil spending on
education approximately eight percent below the national
average.
Prior Legislation and Initiatives
SB 90 (Dills), Chapter 1406, Statutes of 1972, established
a ceiling (revenue limit) on the amount of general purpose
money that each district could receive per unit of ADA, and
required the state to reimburse local governments,
including schools, for new mandates.
AB 65 (Greene), Chapter 894, Statutes of 1977, responded to
the Serrano decision and allowed districts to raise a
minimum amount per pupil from local property taxes. For
districts unable to raise the minimum amount, the state
paid the difference as equalization aid.
Proposition 13 (1978), limited property tax rates, which
were historically the main funding source for schools, and
other tax increases.
AB 8 (Greene), Chapter 282, Statutes of 1979, provided a
response to Proposition 13 that established a formula for
dividing property taxes among cities, counties, and school
districts (ERAF), and created the current "revenue limit"
entitlement system, which replaced property taxes as the
main funding source for schools.
Proposition 98 (1988) guaranteed a minimum funding level
for schools.
ACR 54
Page
4
Proposition 111 (1990), changed the inflation index for
Proposition 98 calculations to the change in per capita
personal income, effectively raising the limit and the
guarantee, and added Test 3 to the Proposition 98
calculation for low revenue years.
SB 727 (Rosenthal), Chapter 855, Statutes of 1997,
increased base revenue limits to offset the exclusion of
excused absences from average daily attendance counts.
FISCAL EFFECT : Fiscal Com.: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/15/09)
Association of California School Administrators
California ACORN
California Adult Education Administration Association
California Association of School Business Officials
California Association of Suburban School Districts
California Federation of Teachers
California School Boards Association
California School Employees Association
California State PTA
California Teachers Association
Californians for Justice
Californians Together
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Pajaro Valley Federation of Teachers
Public Advocates, Inc.
Riverside County Schools Advocacy Association
San Francisco Community College Faculty Union-AFT Local 21
Small School Districts' Association
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/15/09)
California Taxpayers' Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The California State PTA "believes
that public education provides a common experience for
building and maintaining a commitment to the basic values
of a democratic system of government and that a strong
public education system is vital to California's well being
ACR 54
Page
5
in a global society. Adequate funding is a key component
in restoring excellence to our public schools and closing
the achievement gap that exists among our students." They
believe it is "important to memorialize the insufficient
levels of funding for education in California, as well as
the causes and impacts related to that funding, and to
recognize the obligation of elected officials to ensure
that funding is sufficient to provide optimum educational
opportunity for all students."
The California Association of Suburban School Districts
(CALSSD)states: "According to Education Weekly, California
currently ranks 47th among the states and District of
Columbia in per pupil expenditures on K-12 education when
cost of living differences across the states are taken into
account. There is no question that California's schools
are underfunded if the goal is to ensure that our students
meet the world-class standards we have set. CALSSD
strongly believes that the State of California needs to
become more proactive in support of public school funding
and the return to being a first class school system. ACR
54 is a critical step to ensuring that all children have
access to an appropriate education that meets the needs of
our diverse population and leads to quality jobs as our
children graduate."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The opposition states that "ACR
54 is a resolution relating to education finance that
directly attacks Proposition 13 in one of its clauses by
saying 'WHEREAS, Proposition 13, which unfairly restricts
corporate property tax increases, has limited the ability
to raise the additional revenues necessary to provide the
high quality education that Californians expect and to
support academic success for all of the state's pupils.'
By advocating for a split roll property tax system and more
education funding, this resolution seeks to advance an
unwarranted attack on both Proposition 13's two-thirds vote
requirement and property tax protections. Moreover,
blaming Proposition 13 for the sorry state of California
education makes no sense. California currently spends 30%
more in inflation adjusted dollars than it did just prior
to Proposition 13's passage back in 1978."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
ACR 54
Page
6
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez,
Hill, Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, John A. Perez, V. Manuel
Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana,
Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,
Yamada, Bass
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson,
Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman,
Harkey, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran,
Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Galgiani, Huber
DLW:mw 7/15/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****