BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1298
AUTHOR: Hancock
AMENDED: April 7, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 14, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
SUBJECT : Regional Occupational Centers and Programs
SUMMARY
This bill: (1) prohibits a school district from withdrawing
from a joint powers agency (JPA) that operates a Regional
Occupational Center or Program (ROCP) if doing so would
negatively impact students of other member school districts
or charter schools in the region and, (2) requires ROCP funds
to be used to meet specified statutory requirements.
BACKGROUND
Regional Occupational Centers and Programs
Existing law establishes various career technical education
(CTE) programs for public schools including Regional
Occupational Centers and Programs that allow students from
multiple schools or districts to participate in career
technical training programs regardless of the geographical
location of their residence in a county or region. Existing
law authorizes the following types of ROCPs operational
models: (Education Code 52300 et. seq.)
County ROCP: Existing law authorizes county
superintendents, with the consent of the State Board of
Education (SBE) to establish and maintain a ROCP to
provide education and training in career technical
courses.
(EC 52301(a))
Joint Powers Agency ROCP: Existing law authorizes two
or more school districts to form a joint powers agency
(JPA) for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a
ROCP for students who are enrolled in those districts.
SB 1298
Page 2
(EC 52301(a)(2))
Single District ROCP: Existing law authorizes certain
very large districts, who do not wish to be part of a
county ROCP, to apply to the SBE through their county
superintendent for permission to establish and maintain
a ROCP for students enrolled in the district. The
county superintendent may supervise the establishment of
the ROCP. ( EC 52301(b))
Existing law authorizes school districts who do not meet the
enrollment criteria specified in EC 52301(b) to apply to
the State Board of Education through the county
superintendent for permission to establish a single-district
ROCP. The SBE may deny the application based on criteria
that includes hardship on (a) school districts operating
ROCPs that are contiguous to the applicant school district
and hardship on (b) students of school districts operating
ROCPs that are contiguous to the applicant school district.
(EC 52301(c))
Existing law requires ROCPs to do all of the following:
Offer courses in accordance with a regional plan and
ensure that at least 90 percent of state-funded training
courses offered by an ROCP are part of occupational
course sequences that target comprehensive skills.
(EC 52302)
Ensure that ROCP courses meet documented labor market
demand.
(EC 52302.3)
Ensure that ROCP training and resources are primarily
focused on the needs of pupils enrolled in high school.
(EC 52302.8)
Categorical Flexibility
SB 4 (Chapter 12, 3rd Extraordinary Session, 2009), reduced
funding for ROCPs and various other categorical programs for
the 2008-09 fiscal year through the 2012-13 fiscal year. To
help mitigate these reductions, SB 4 authorized school
districts to use funding for those programs during that time
for any educational purpose to the extent permitted by
federal law (EC 42605). Pursuant to SBX3 4:
SB 1298
Page 3
For the 2008-09 to the 2012-13 fiscal years, local
education agencies that use the flexibility provisions
are deemed to be in compliance with program and funding
requirements contained in statutory, regulatory, and
provisional language for the categorical programs.
As a condition of receipt of funds, governing boards of
a school district or county office of education must, at
a regularly scheduled open public hearing, take
testimony from the public and take action on the
proposed use of funding and make explicit the purposes
for which the funds will be used.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Prohibits, for fiscal years 2008-09 to 2012-13
inclusive, a school district that receives funding for
its participation in a JPA-operated regional
occupational center or program from withdrawing from
that JPA if the State Board of Education (SBE)
determines the withdrawal would negatively impact career
technical education services offered by that center or
program to high school pupils of other school districts
or charter schools in the region.
2) Notwithstanding EC 42605, requires school districts or
county offices of education that receive ROCP funding to
expend the funds allocated for CTE services as follows:
a) In accordance with the regional plan for
occupational course sequences.
b) In order to meet documented labor market
demand.
c) To focus on the needs of high school pupils.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : According to the author's office,
categorical flexibility has created unique challenges
for Regional Occupational Centers and Programs (ROCPs).
While it appears that most local education agencies are
continuing to support ROCPs and ensure that programs are
comprised of sequenced courses, some are utilizing the
flexibility provisions of SBX3 4 to redirect their ROCP
SB 1298
Page 4
funding to meet other educational needs. When that
happens in a JPA-operated ROCP, the impact of that loss
of funding on the regional program can create a hardship
on the remaining school districts and students in the
ROCP. By limiting the ability of JPA-member districts
to withdraw from a JPA, the author hopes SB 1298 will
protect student access to workforce development
programs.
2) Regional Occupational Centers & Programs . The
regionalization of career technical training programs
enables local education agencies to make efficient use
of resources to provide students with a broad array of
training opportunities that often require expensive
technical equipment or specially trained instructors.
According to the California Department of Education,
there are approximately 74 ROCPs offering approximately
100 career pathways and programs to more than 450,000
students across the state.
JPA-operated ROCPs are governed by a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) that specifies the terms of the
agreement between participating districts and a
governing board that is comprised of elected
representatives from each of the participating school
district governing boards. JPA-operated ROCPs receive
funds from each of the participating school districts,
an amount per unit of average daily attendance (ADA)
equal to the revenue limit received by those districts
for each unit of ADA generated in the ROCP.
3) Local issue ? In December 2009, the Shasta Union High
School District (SUHSD) provided notice to the governing
board of the Shasta-Trinity Regional Occupational
Program (STROP) of its intent to withdraw from the STROP
JPA effective for the 2010-11 school year. While it
appears that categorical flexibility provided an
opportunity for SUHSD to use ROCP funds to enhance
existing CTE programs and expand the number of career
pathway programs, it also appears that SUHSD provided
notice in accordance with the termination requirements
specified in the JPA MOU, which specifies that the
agreement is deemed to be renewed annually unless "one
or more component districts give notice of their intent
to terminate their participation in the Agreement by
January 1 of any school year." The sponsors of this
bill maintain that the departure of SUHSD will reduce
SB 1298
Page 5
STROP resources by 55% and create a significant adverse
impact on students who are enrolled in this program.
Notwithstanding the impact on other member districts, if the
action to withdraw from the JPA follows the terms of the
MOU, is approved by the district's governing board, and
is accepted by the governing board of the JPA, is it
appropriate for the state to second guess that local
decision? Can or should the state compel a district to
maintain its participation in a JPA when it is no longer
in the best interest of its students?
Regardless of flexibility, if a district's intent in
withdrawing from a JPA-ROCP is to establish a
single-district ROCP, should the district be required to
submit a waiver application to the State Board pursuant
to EC 52301(c) as districts do when they withdraw from
a county ROCP?
4) Inconsistent with flexibility granted by the
Legislature . Under the provisions of SBX3 4, local
education agencies have been granted temporary funding
and program flexibility from 2008-09 through 2012-13.
SBX3 4 effectively suspended statutory and funding
requirements for ROCP through 2012-13. In 2013-14, the
funding formulas and program requirements that were in
place prior to 2008 will be reinstated.
By limiting the ability of a district participating in a JPA
to withdraw from the JPA and by requiring local
education agencies receiving ROCP funds to continue to
meet certain program requirements, this bill alters the
flexibility provisions of SBX3 4 for ROCPs. Does this
bill reduce the ability of local education agencies to
manage their funding reductions by restricting how these
categorical funds may be used? Notwithstanding the
merits of preserving workforce development programs and
opportunities for students or assuring that ROCPs
provide occupational course sequences, is it appropriate
to take away the flexibility the Legislature has already
granted with respect to ROCP funding?
5) More to come ? If the Committee chooses to pass this
bill, could that encourage other groups to petition to
be excluded from categorical flexibility in order to
preserve funding for specific programs or ensure that
programs continue to operate as they did prior to
SB 1298
Page 6
2008-09?
6) Could CTE flexibility change in the budget year ? The
Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) has recommended
streamlining funding for CTE by consolidating all high
school CTE funding ($427 million) and eliminating
programmatic requirements in favor of monitoring related
student outcomes. Should SB 1298 be considered in the
context of budget discussions about categorical
flexibility?
7) Temporary policy . This bill establishes a state-level
approval process that applies only to JPA-member
districts during the [temporary] categorical flexibility
period. SBX3 4 already requires governing boards to
hold public meetings when they determine how categorical
funding will be used, is SBE review necessary?
Presumably these public hearings would provide an
opportunity for affected parents, teachers, or the JPA
governing board to voice their concerns about any
adverse impact on their pupils. On the other hand, it
is unclear what will happen to ROCPs in these districts
after the categorical flexibility period ends in July
2013. Will former JPA-member districts want to return
to the JPA, become a member of a different JPA, or seek
the "safe haven" of their local county ROCP? Would it
make sense for school district governing boards to
address how ROCPs will be provided after categorical
flexibility ends?
As written, the bill imposes the additional review process
retroactively to 2008-09. If it is the desire of the
Committee to pass this bill, staff recommends amendments
to limit the review requirement to the last two years of
the flexibility period (2011-12 and 2012-13).
8) Previous and related legislation :
AB 2448 (Hancock, Chapter 572, Statutes of
2006) phased out the number of adults that can be
served through ROCPs and required that classes are
part of occupational course sequences targeting
high skill occupations that are in need and
required that courses be sequenced toward
certification.
SB 1197 (Alquist, Chapter 519, Statutes of
SB 1298
Page 7
2008) streamlined the allocation of revenue limit
funding to joint powers agencies that operate an
ROCP, by allowing the JPA to receive funding
directly from the county in which it is located.
SBX3 4 required the Superintendent of Public
Instruction to apportion funds for ROCPs based on
the same relative proportion local education
agencies received in 2008-09, in effect making the
funding formula specified in SB 1197 inoperative
until 2012-13.
SB 307 (Alquist, 2009) restored the
funding process granted by SB 1197. This measure
was passed by this Committee on a 9-0 vote and was
later held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
SB 81 (Alquist, 2009), which was not heard
by this Committee, would also have restored the
funding process granted by SB 1197. This measure
was vetoed by the Governor with this message:
I am concerned that this bill runs counter to the
intent of recently enacted K-12 categorical
flexibility provisions that were part of the
2009-10 state budget agreement. Those provisions
were included to assist K-12 schools in meeting
their highest priorities in an environment of
significant funding constraints. For this reason,
I am unable to sign this bill.
1) Policy arguments .
Proponents indicate that small school
districts are often able to provide their students
with a wider array of CTE courses and programs when
they participate in a JPA-operated ROCP. If larger
school districts are able to withdraw, the result
could be fewer opportunities for students from
smaller districts.
Opponents argue that this bill reduces local
control and indicate that in the current economy,
districts need to have the broadest local authority
possible to maintain basic aspects of their
educational program and meet payroll. Opponents
further argue that this bill restricts the ability
SB 1298
Page 8
of school districts to set their own priorities and
establishes CTE programs as more valuable than all
other educational services, regardless of local
need.
SUPPORT
California Association of Regional Occupational Centers and
Programs (CAROCP)
California Association of Leaders of Career Preparation
California Business Education Association
California Charter Schools Association
California Federation of Teachers
California Industrial and Technology Education Association
(CITEA)
California Teachers Association
Capistrano-Laguna Regional Occupational Program
Coastline Regional Occupational Program
North Orange County Regional Occupational Program
Small Business California
Small Schools Districts' Association
OPPOSITION
California Association of School Business Officials
Centralia Valley Union High School District
Ontario-Montclair School District
Riverside County Schools Advocacy Association
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools