BILL ANALYSIS
AB 339
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 339 (Torres) - As Introduced: February 18, 2009
SUBJECT : Education finance: county offices of education
SUMMARY : Makes county offices of education (COEs) eligible for
any state allocation of federal funds for which school districts
are currently eligible and eligible for any state funding
available to school districts, unless explicitly excluded by
statute. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes findings and declarations regarding the purposes for,
the contributions made by, and the treatment of COEs.
2)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
ensure that each COE is eligible for any funding opportunity
that would benefit pupils, parents or caregivers, or educators
and that would be available to a school district in
circumstances that are substantially similar to those
pertaining to that COE, unless the exclusion of a COE would be
required by statute.
3)Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to include COEs in
any application for federal aid to education, any allocation
of federal funds currently made to school districts, and in
any rules and regulations adopted governing the allocation of
those funds.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides base funding by requiring the SPI to make prescribed
calculations for the apportionment of state aid to COEs.
2)Establishes and funds categorical programs that focus
resources and/or compliance requirements on specific classes
of students or schools, or on specific uses of funds,
identified by the Legislature as priorities.
3)Authorizes the allocation and apportionment of federal funds
to recipients and for uses as specified in federal and state
law.
AB 339
Page 2
4)Requires the SBE to make timely application for federal
education funds and to direct the allocation of federal funds
to local education agencies.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown, but potential costs and cost pressure if
COEs become eligible for funding that they were previously
ineligible for or that they would be ineligible for in the
future.
COMMENTS : This bill makes two related proposals with respect to
changing COE eligibility for funding that may otherwise be
available to school districts. The first proposal requires the
SPI to make COEs eligible for all funding for which a school
district in substantially similar circumstances is eligible,
unless COEs are excluded by statute. This proposal suffers from
three problems:
1)Overly broad scope: As an example, since COEs are not
explicitly exempted in current law, this proposal could be
interpreted to mean that COEs should be eligible for school
district revenue limit funding (even though COEs currently
receive their own base funding separate from districts) or
other funding clearly targeted at school districts (e.g., the
Targeted Instruction Improvement Block Grant, where the
majority of the funds tie back to court-ordered desegregation
programs and any voluntary desegregation programs historically
implemented in school districts). In the first example,
providing COEs access to district revenue limit funding would
effectively lead to a double funding of the base program for
COEs; in the second example, COEs would receive funding
despite not having the historical rationale for receiving
these funds.
2)Ambiguity with respect to funding source creates a statutory
conflict: This proposal seems to have the intent of requiring
that COEs would be eligible for all funding opportunities
available to districts, and does this by placing a mandate on
the SPI to ensure this. While the SPI is authorized to
administer the California Department of Education (CDE) in its
duties allocating and apportioning state education funds, the
authority to apply for and administer the allocation and
apportionment of federal funds is granted to the SBE. By
requiring the SPI to "ensure" COEs are "eligible for any
funding opportunity", this bill creates a conflict between the
authority granted to the SPI and the SBE over state and
AB 339
Page 3
federal funds, respectively. The question that is raised is,
"How can the SPI ensure that eligibility, when determining
that eligibility, within the constraints of statute, is placed
under the regulatory authority of the SBE?" In addition, this
requirement on the SPI potentially places the SPI at odds with
Congressional intent with respect to the allocation of federal
funds.
3)Asking the legislature to make appropriations of funds by
default: Section 6 of Article IX of the California
Constitution reads:
"The entire State School Fund shall be apportioned in
each fiscal year in such manner as the Legislature may
provide, through the school districts and other agencies
maintaining such schools, for the support of, and aid to,
kindergarten schools, elementary schools, secondary
schools, and technical schools?"
Thus the Constitution requires state funding for education to
be apportioned according to provisions annually specified by
the Legislature. Those provisions might take the form of an
explicit exclusion of some party from eligibility for
receiving those funds, or may take the form of a listing of
eligible recipients to the implicit exclusion of other
parties. This latter approach is foreseen by the usual rules
of statutory construction that presume that any action taken
by the Legislature in a bill, including an act that leaves
something out (such as an ineligible party), is taken with
full intent. This proposal effectively directs the SPI to add
COEs to the Legislature's action by default whenever the
Legislature creates an appropriation to school districts but
does not explicitly exclude COEs; this proposal not only
reverses the presumption that the Legislature intentionally
takes the actions that it does, but also encroaches on the
Legislature's Constitutional authority and responsibility to
apportion education funds according to provisions that it
specifies. This proposal could be interpreted as an
invitation to the SPI to violate the Constitutional separation
of powers between the legislative and executive branches.
For these reasons Committee staff recommends that this first
proposal be deleted from the bill.
The second proposal made by this bill requires the SBE to
include COEs in any application for federal aid to education, in
AB 339
Page 4
any allocation of federal funds currently made to school
districts, and in any rules and regulations adopted governing
the allocation of those funds. This proposal has pointed out
inconsistencies in statute. In the code sections amended by this
bill, regarding the SBE making applications for federal funds or
allocating those funds, there are references to "school
districts", "local education agencies", and "local school
districts and other agencies entitled to receive federal funds
for the support of schools." These different references do not
appear to be related to any substantive difference in the
treatment of those agencies in terms of the application for or
allocation of federal funds. Five observations can be made
about this issue: i) these terms are used in an ambiguous and
interchangeable manner in these sections of code; ii) these code
sections exist the context of the authorization of the state's
full participation in Federal Programs and Interstate
Agreements; iii) the federal government generally focuses
education funding on schools and students rather than on school
districts, county, or regional education agencies (note that the
federal government has to take a one-size-fits-all approach to
local education governance, since there are many organizational
models across the states); iv) according to the CDE, there are
no instances where federal education funds are currently made
available to school districts, but not to COEs, unless there is
federal or state statute requiring that differentiation; and v)
these sections of the code were enacted by AB 3100 (Greene),
Chapter 1010, Statutes of 1976, which implemented a complete
revision of the education code and have not been clarified
since. Given these observations, it could be concluded that the
proposal made in this bill, to have the students and schools
under the administration of COEs included in applications and
eligible for the receipt of federal funds, unless specifically
excluded, is consistent with the intent of the Legislature as
stated in the Education Code sections amended by this bill. If
the Committee chooses to make this conclusion, then the second
proposal in this bill is of a technical nature in that it would
serve to clarify that COEs be considered eligible for federal
education funds during application or allocation, unless
excluded by statute.
According to the Los Angeles County Office of Education, the
sponsor of this bill, "Over the past several years, county
offices of education have been excluded from funding
opportunities which greatly impact the students they serve. For
example, most recently county offices of education were excluded
AB 339
Page 5
from the Middle and High School Supplement Counseling Program
which provided for additional counselors. Students served by
county offices are at risk students and are the very students
the program was intended to serve, yet they have been excluded."
The example cited by the bill's sponsor is relevant. AB 1802
(Laird), Chapter 79, Statutes of 2006, established the Middle
and High School Supplemental Counseling Program to increase
counseling services provided to students in school districts in
grades 7-12, especially for students who may find it difficult
to pass the high school exit examination. The Legislature
explicitly provided these funds for school districts alone (and
this action must be interpreted as intentional); COEs are not
eligible to apply for funds under this program. In 2007 AB 131
(Beall) would have extended eligibility for this program to
COEs, however, that bill failed to pass out of the Legislature.
COEs offer a variety of programs for students, including county
community schools, community day schools, and juvenile court
schools. As this bill's sponsor indicated, most students
participating in these programs are considered at-risk of
dropping out of school; at-risk students also require higher
cost educational services, such as lower class sizes and more
remediation services. However, as the Senate Appropriations
Committee commented in its 2007 bill analysis of AB 131 (Beall),
"it is also the case that these programs are funded at higher
rates than are district programs, earning apportionments between
$9,500 and $11,500 per pupil"; those per pupil funding rates are
well above the per pupil revenue limits earned by school
districts. Supporters of this bill suggest that COE programs
that receive this higher level of funding require much smaller
class sizes and additional support that is not typical of
education programs in traditional schools. To the extent that
it is true that COEs provide a unique set of programs, it
suggests that a targeted restructuring of state funding for COEs
is called for; instead this bill, specifically the first
proposal, calls for increasing state funding to COEs by
providing funding at the same level and for the same programs as
school districts.
Committee amendments: Committee staff recommends, and the
author has accepted, the following amendments to this bill:
1)Uncodify the findings and declarations, so that these
statements remain in the legislation and would appear in the
statutes of 2009, but would not be placed in the Education
Code.
AB 339
Page 6
2)Delete the proposal made in subdivision (b) of Section 1 of
this bill requiring the SPI to ensure that each COE is
eligible for any funding opportunity.
3)Make ambiguous and seemingly interchangeable references to
"school districts" and "local education agencies" in Section 2
and 3 of the bill, read "school districts" in each instance,
and define school districts for the purposes of this article
to include both school districts and county offices of
education. "Local education agencies" is not a generally
defined term in statute; therefore this approach satisfies the
intent of the author without creating additional ambiguity.
Previous legislation: AB 131 (Beall), would have authorized COEs
to participate in the Middle and High School Supplemental
Counseling program; this version of the bill was held in the
Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill was later amended to
a different subject, and enacted as Chapter 487, Statutes of
2008. AB 1802 (Laird), Chapter 79, Statutes of 2006,
established the Middle and High School Supplemental Counseling
Program. AB 3100 (Greene), Chapter 1010, Statutes of 1976,
implemented a complete revision of the education code, including
the statute related to which educational entities would be
included by the SBE in any applications for or allocations of
federal education funds.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alameda County Office of Education
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
California Association of School Business Officials
California County Superintendents Educational Services
Association
California Teachers Association
Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools and 18 School
District Superintendents
Los Angeles County Office of Education (Sponsor)
Riverside County Office of Education
San Diego County Office of Education
Santa Clara County Office of Education
AB 339
Page 7
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087