BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1298
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 1298 (Hancock) - As Amended: April 21, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 28-3
SUBJECT : Regional occupational centers and programs
SUMMARY : Prohibits, for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 fiscal years, a
school district from withdrawing from a regional occupational
center or program (ROC/P) established and maintained by a joint
powers agency (JPA), unless the State Board of Education (SBE)
determines that the withdrawal does not negatively impact career
technical education (CTE) services offered by that ROC/P to
pupils of other member school districts or charter schools in
the region, and requires ROC/P funds to be used to meet
specified statutory requirements. Specifically, this bill :
Requires, notwithstanding budget flexibility language, local
educational agencies that receive ROC/P funding to expend the
funds allocated for CTE services as follows:
1)In accordance with the regional plan for occupational course
sequences that achieve the specified requirements.
2)In order to meet documented labor market demand and terminate
courses or programs that do not meet the specified
requirements.
3)To focus on the needs of high school pupils and limit the
number of adults that participate in ROC/P programs, as
specified in law.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes the county superintendent of schools of each
county, with the consent of the SBE, to establish and maintain
at least one ROC/P in the county to provide education in CTE
courses, and allows for two or more districts to establish a
JPA for the operation of ROC/Ps.
2)States the intent of the Legislature that ROC/Ps provide
career technical and occupational instruction related to the
attainment of skills so that trainees are prepared for gainful
SB 1298
Page 2
employment in the area for which training was provided.
3)Establishes the following schedule for purposes of reducing
adult enrollment at ROC/Ps:
a) For the 2008-09 fiscal year, a ROC/P may claim no more
than 50% of the state-funded average daily attendance (ADA)
for which the center or program is eligible, for services
provided to adult students.
b) For the 2009-10 fiscal year, a ROC/P may claim no more
than 30% of the state-funded ADA for which the center or
program is eligible, for services provided to adult
students.
c) For the 2011-12 fiscal year and every fiscal year
thereafter, a ROC/P may claim no more than 10% of the
state-funded ADA for which the ROC/P is eligible, for
services provided to adult students, and up to an
additional 5% for CalWORKs, Temporary Assistance Program,
or Job Corps participants and participants under the
federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
4)Requires ROC/Ps to offer courses in accordance with a regional
plan and ensure that at least 90% of state-funded training
courses offered by a ROC/P are part of occupational course
sequences that target comprehensive skills.
5)Requires every CTE course or program offered by a school
district or districts or county superintendent(s) sponsoring a
ROC/P shall be reviewed every two years to assure that each
course meets specified requirements, including that ROC/P
courses meet documented labor market demand.
6)Provides local educational agencies (LEAs), from the 2008-09
through the 2012-13 fiscal years, flexibility to spend funds
appropriated for 43 categorical programs, including funding
for ROC/Ps.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, while this bill does not create any new state costs -
districts will receive the same funding as they would absent the
bill - it does, for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 fiscal years,
restrict the flexibility provided through SBX3 4. A district
that desired to shift funds from this program to stabilize other
SB 1298
Page 3
programs, to provide career technical education in a more
efficient manner locally, or simply to meet payroll, would only
be allowed to do so if the SBE determined that services offered
to pupils in other districts would not be impacted.
COMMENTS : ROC/Ps are established as regional programs or
centers to provide high school students CTE opportunities to
acquire skills and competencies to enter the workforce and
pursue advanced training after high school. According to
information on the California Department of Education's (CDE)
Internet Web site, currently there are 74 ROC/Ps operating in
the state and approximately 460,000 students enroll in ROCPs
each year. ROC/Ps fall under one of three organizational
structures: school districts participating in a county office of
education operated ROC/P; school districts participating under a
JPA; or single school district ROC/P. There are currently 42
county-operated ROC/Ps, 6 single district ROC/Ps, and 26 JPA
ROCPs.
This bill, for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 fiscal years, prohibits
districts from withdrawing from ROC/Ps that operate as JPAs,
unless the SBE determines that the withdrawal would not
negatively impact the career technical education services
offered by that ROC/P to pupils of other districts or charter
schools in the region. Additionally, this bill requires funding
received for ROC/Ps to be expended in accordance with existing
program requirements governing the operation of ROC/Ps, and thus
essentially exempting ROC/Ps from the budget flexibility
provisions.
Budget flexibility : In February 2009, SB 4 X3 (Ducheny), Chapter
12, Statutes of 2009 Third Extraordinary Session, amended in
July by AB 2 X4 (Evans), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009 Fourth
Extraordinary Session, implemented categorical flexibility for
the 2008-09 fiscal year through 2012-13 fiscal year. The budget
flexibility allows recipients to use restricted educational
funding from 43 categorical programs, including ROC/P funding,
for any discretionary educational purpose. Essentially, LEAs
have the option to allocate funds from ROC/P and other programs
for any educational purpose during the specified time period and
LEAs that use the flexibility provisions are deemed to be in
compliance with program and funding requirements contained in
statutory, regulatory, and provisional language, applicable to
ROC/Ps and all other programs.
SB 1298
Page 4
This bill is inconsistent with action taken by the Legislature
through the budget process to provide flexibility to LEAs in the
use of specified funds, including ROC/P funds, in an effort to
provide LEAs a tool to manage the budget cuts they have
experienced. This bill limits the ability of a district
participating in a JPA to withdraw from the JPA and essentially
ensures that those districts continue to direct the funds to the
JPA. As a result, this bill could potentially limit the ability
of LEAs to manage their budgets in light of the recent cuts as
this bill places restrictions on how specific categorical funds
should be spent. If a district chooses to shift funds from
ROC/P to stabilize other programs, or possibly to provide CTE
differently or more efficiently, that district would only be
allowed to do so if the SBE determined that services offered to
pupils in other districts would not be impacted.
This bill also alters the flexibility provisions by requiring
recipients of ROC/P funds to continue to adhere to ROC/P
statutes specifically those related to course sequences,
requirement for the programs to meet labor market demand, and to
limit the number of adults that participate in ROC/P programs.
Relaxing the flexibility for one program creates a precedent
contrary to the legislative intent of giving school districts
flexibility in the use of specified funds. These two changes
together essentially exempts ROC/Ps from the budget flexibility
granted to school districts last year. Advocates of various
other programs that are among the 43 categoricals in the
flexibility category have argued and advocated for specific
programs to be exempt from the categorical flexibility. Passage
of this bill could encourage similar bills seeking to preserve
funding to continue operating specific programs as they did
prior to 2008-09.
Regional program : Proponents of this bill argue that ROC/Ps are
a unique program that provides regionalized services and that
the action of one school district to take advantage of the
flexibility provisions could really impact the CTE opportunities
for pupils in other school districts. The author states, "Among
the programs included in categorical flexibility, ROCPs is the
only program that provides regional services, but the
flexibility decisions are divided across the various
participating agencies. This creates the potentially chaotic
situation where most of the districts want to maintain a
service, but one district, in isolation, can make a decision
that negatively impacts the other districts." Furthermore,
SB 1298
Page 5
proponents argue that this bill would protect small school
districts from being impacted should a large school district
choose to withdraw from a JPA and take with it a large amount of
funding from the JPA.
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. In most cases the MOU should include
and specify a locally-agreed upon process for member districts
to withdraw from the JPA. An argument can be made that because
these are local agreements the state should not get involved to
interfere with the terms of such agreements.
Shasta Unified School District : 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
ROC/P 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 STROP resources by 55% and create a significant
adverse impact on students who are enrolled in this program.
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, this Committee may
consider whether it is appropriate for the state to get
involved, via the SBE, in local decisions and whether is it
appropriate for the state to compel a district to maintain its
participation in a JPA when that district has made the
determination that it is no longer in the best interest of its
students to remain in the JPA and that the district, independent
of the JPA, can provide a good CTE program to its students. On
the other hand, an argument can be made that by virtue of
entering into an agreement to provide regional CTE services to
students, all member districts should have a responsibility to
SB 1298
Page 6
all the students being served by that ROC/P. It can further be
argued that some form of intervention is desirable in order to
preserve access to high quality programs and avoid disruption to
the educational services provided to all students participating
in a JPA.
Role of the SBE : This bill establishes a state-level process by
which the SBE would make a determination to approve or
disapprove the withdrawal of a district from a JPA. This
provision would essentially allow the SBE to become involved in
local level issues for which there may be local agreements in
place and thus potentially interfering with or overriding those
local agreements. If districts have processes in place that
have been agreed upon by the member districts through the MOU,
is it appropriate for the SBE to have a say in these local
decisions? Currently the SBE has the authority to approve a
petition for a district to establish a single-district ROP but
outside of this, the SBE currently does not have the authority
to influence local decisions in the manner that this bill
authorizes the SBE to do. Giving the SBE the authority to make
a determination whether a school district can or cannot withdraw
from a JPA appears to give the SBE undue influence over local
issues and intervene in local level decisions. Should this
Committee wish to pass this bill, staff recommends an amendment
to instead specify that the county board of education of the
county where the JPA ROC/P operates shall make the determination
of whether the withdrawal would negatively impact CTE services
to students of other districts. In this manner, the decision is
made at the local, rather than at the state, level. In
instances in which a JPA operates in more than one county, the
SBE would be allowed to make the determination. According to
information provided by the author, most JPA ROC/Ps operate in
one county with the exception of two. This amendment is an
attempt to maintain the decision-making process at the local
level as much as possible.
That this policy would only be operative for two years and would
only apply to districts that wish to withdraw from a JPA ROC/P
in 2011-12 and 2012-13. Districts that have already withdrawn
or are currently in the process of doing so, would not be
impacted.
Course sequences : The author argues that maintaining the
requirement for ROC/Ps to continue providing sequences of
courses is particularly important for occupational sequences of
SB 1298
Page 7
courses that lead to industry certification and typically
involve several districts, and states, "These programs are
difficult and expensive to establish and will be extremely
difficult to rebuild if they are dismantled. For example, to
maintain a quality automotive technology program requires
equipment and other costs that most districts cannot afford by
themselves. If one district uses the flexibility to pull out of
the program, it leaves the other districts with the choice of
spending more to maintain the program or closing the program."
Prior legislative proposals have sought, similar to this bill,
to essentially protect JPA ROC/Ps from the budget flexibility
provided in SB 4 X3. Previous bills, namely SB 307 (Alquist)
and SB 81 (Alquist) of 2009, require a JPA ROC/P to receive its
operating funds directly from the county office of education of
the county in which it is located in a manner consistent with
the apportionments for those school districts that comprise the
JPA; effectively providing a protected status for JPA ROC/Ps in
that funding apportioned to JPA member school districts would be
required to be spent on the ROC/P activities and thus limiting
the opportunity for the member school district to put those
funds to another discretionary use.
Arguments in support : The Small School Districts' Association
(SSDA) writes, "Because small school districts are not able to
offer a broad spectrum of ROC/P classes, small school districts
rely upon ROC/Ps for the provision of Career Technical Education
(CTE) classes through joint powers agreements usually operated
by county offices of education. If the larger school districts
are able to withdraw from the ROC/P, the result will be fewer
opportunities for students from smaller school districts. SSDA
is concerned that the budget flexibility provided for ROC/P
funding could have an unintended consequence of larger school
districts withdrawing from such programs and smaller districts
not being able to have access to a broad range of CTE programs."
Arguments in opposition : The Kern County Superintendent of
Schools writes, "At the current time, local education agencies
must have the broadest local authority possible to survive both
programmatically and fiscally. To impose the mandate embodied
in SB 1298 would immediately begin the erosion of the local
decision-making authority provided to local school boards as a
critical tool to manage the devastating budget reductions of the
past two years. Moreover, the increased restrictions that will
be imposed on local school boards through this measure sends
SB 1298
Page 8
[sic] a clear message that the state does not trust locals to
make the best decisions for their communities. SB 1298
suggests, once again, that a one-size-fits-all state requirement
is the best way to meet the educational needs of a diverse
population of 6 million students in over 1000 districts. It
signals a return to an input-based system that measures
education effectiveness by compliance with state requirement
rather than by the real achievement needs and outcomes of
students."
Prior legislation : SB 307 (Alquist) of 2009 requires, for the
2009-10 to the 2012-13 fiscal years, a ROC/P maintained by a
JPA, to receive its operating funds directly from the county
office of education (COE) of the county in which it is located,
as specified and specifies that this measure does not prohibit
any school district or COE from utilizing ROC/P funding
allocated in the annual budget act for any educational purpose,
as specified in SB 4 X3 (Ducheny), Chapter 12, Statutes of 2009.
SB 307 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 81 (Alquist) of 2009 requires, for the 2009-10 through the
2012-13 fiscal year, that a ROC/P established and maintained by
school districts acting as a JPA, receive its operating funds
directly from the county office of education of the county in
which it is located as specified and specifies that nothing in
these provisions prevents any school district or county office
of education from using ROC/P funding for any educational
purpose. SB 81 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger with the
following veto 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."
SB 4 3X (Ducheny) Chapter 12, Statutes of 2009 Third
Extraordinary Session implemented categorical flexibility for
the 2008-09 through 2012-13 fiscal year, and allows recipients
to use restricted educational funding from 43 categorical
programs, including ROC/P funding, for any discretionary
educational purpose.
SB 1197 (Alquist), Chapter 519, Statutes of 2008, requires,
SB 1298
Page 9
commencing with the 2009-10 fiscal year, ROC/P JPAs to receive
funding directly from county office of education in which it is
located, instead of receiving funds from each of the school
districts participating in the JPA.
AB 2448 (Hancock), Chapter 572, Statutes of 2006, implements
several reforms to the ROC/P delivery system such as ensuring
the courses are part of occupational course sequences, and
shifts the targeted student population for ROC/Ps from adults to
high school students. Establishes a goal of reducing, by the
2011-12 fiscal year, adult student participation to 10% of each
ROC/P's total enrollment.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Association of Leaders of Career Preparation
California Association of Regional Occupational Centers and
Programs
California Charter Schools Association
California Federation of Teachers
California Teachers Association
Santa Lucia Regional Occupational Program
Small School Districts' Association
One individual
Opposition
California Association of School Business Officials
California County Superintendents Educational Services
Association
Centinela Valley Union High School District
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Riverside County Schools Advocacy Association
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi?a / ED. / (916) 319-2087