BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1298
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 4, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1298 (Hancock) - As Amended: August 2, 2010
Policy Committee: Education Vote:5-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill for the 2011-12 to the 2012-13 fiscal year (FY),
authorizes school districts that receive funds for the regional
occupational center or programs (ROC/Ps) maintained by a joint
powers authority (JPA) to withdraw from operating these programs
only if the county board of education (CBE) determines the
withdrawal does not negatively impact career technical education
(CTE) services offered by the center or program to high school
pupils of other school districts or charter schools in the
region. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the State Board of Education (SBE), if the ROC/P JPA
operates in more than one county, to determine whether or not
the center or program may cease operation.
2)Requires ROC/P funding recipients to expend monies for CTE
services as follows: (a) in accordance with the regional plan
for occupational course sequences; (b) in order to meet labor
market demand; and (c) for the needs of high school pupils, as
specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
To the extent this bill limits the local education agencies'
(LEAs) ability to backfill budget reductions or causes them to
implement additional programmatic requirements, there is
potential GF/98 cost pressure, likely less than $200,000, to
LEAs operating ROC/P programs.
As part of the February 2009 budget package, SB 4 X3 (Ducheny),
Chapter 12, Statutes of 2009, provided LEAs with policy and
fiscal flexibility for all ROC/P programs funded in the budget
SB 1298
Page 2
act, including those operated by JPAs. This bill is contrary to
these provisions because school districts participating in the
ROC/P JPA will not have the sole discretion to utilize their
program funds in a flexibility manner to withdrawl from the JPA.
Likewise, this measure requires all ROC/Ps to adhere to
specific program requirements that they may not be implementing
given Chapter 12's flexibility provisions.
The governor's proposed January 2010 budget provides $335
million for ROC/Ps, which includes a 20% reduction.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . ROC/Ps provide high school students 16 years of age
and older, and also adult students, with valuable CTE so
students can: (a) enter the workforce with skills and
competencies to be successful; (b) pursue advanced training in
higher educational institutions; and/or (c) upgrade existing
skills and knowledge. According to the most recent SDE data,
there are 74 ROC/Ps in the state serving approximately 470,000
students in secondary schools. Of this number, 26 are operated
by a JPA.
SB 4 X3 (Ducheny), Chapter 12, Statutes of 2009, provided LEAs
with unprecedented fiscal and policy flexibility related to
over 40 categorical programs between the 2008-09 FY to the
2012-13 FY. Specifically, any LEA that received funding for
specified categorical programs, including ROC/Ps, in the
2008-09 FY is authorized to use this funding for any other
educational purpose until the 2012-13 FY. The LEA may choose
to continue operating the categorical program that it received
funding for or redirect it for any other educational purpose
it deems appropriate. Also, if the LEA chooses to continue
operating the categorical program, it is not required to abide
by statutory requirements associated with the program. For
example, the LEA may choose to continue operating an ROC/P
program, but it is not required to review each course it
offers every two years, as required in statute prior to
Chapter 12.
According to the author, "When the Legislature approved the
categorical flexibility provisions in February 2009,
apprenticeship programs, agricultural vocational incentive
SB 1298
Page 3
grants, and partnership academies were excluded from the
flexibility provisions-meaning that school districts are
required to continue using those funds for those categorical
purposes. By far the largest of the CTE programs are ROC/Ps.
Funding for this program is approximately ten times the
combined funding for the three CTE programs excluded from
flexibility. If the state intends to protect CTE programs,
legislation is needed to require that ROCP funding continue to
be used for CTE purposes."
2)Governance of ROC/Ps and categorical flexibility . ROC/Ps fall
under one of three distinct organizational structures: (a)
school districts participating in a county office of education
(COE)-operated ROC/P; (b) school districts participating under
a joint powers authority (JPA); or (c) a single school
district.
Proponents for this measure argue that the high cost of
operating ROC/Ps necessitates several LEAs to participate in
one center or program, which leads to the establishment of
JPAs. For example, many course offerings involve purchasing
automotive equipment, other machinery, and computers. As
such, if one LEA ends its participation in the ROC/P
maintained by the JPA, the viability of the program suffers
because funding is lost.
As referenced above, SB 4 X3 established policy and fiscal
flexibility for all ROC/P programs funded in the budget act,
including those operated by JPAs. Presumably, the statutory
flexibility allows school districts who receive ROC/P funding
to do one of two things: (a) continue operating their programs
or (b) redirect a portion or all funding for another education
purpose during the time period established in statute.
For the 2011-12 FY to the 2012-13 FY, this bill allows school
districts participating in a ROC/P JPA to withdraw from this
program (pursuant to the categorical flexibility) only if the
CBE or SBE determines there is not a negative impact on CTE
services, as specified.
SB 1298
Page 4
In essence, this bill limits a school districts local
flexibility to determine how to expend its ROC/P funds. Also,
this measure requires ROC/Ps to adhere to specific program
requirements, which is contrary to current law established by
the categorical flexibility provisions in SB 4 X3.
According to a Legislative Analyst Office May 2010 survey of
school districts' implementation of categorical flexibility,
"Most districts also indicated that they were relying heavily
on their newly granted authority to shift funds away from the
"flexed" categorical programs, [including ROC/Ps]. In
particular, districts reported shifting some funds away from
flexed programs that did not support direct K-12 classroom
instruction (such as adult education, deferred maintenance,
professional development, and school safety) as well as from
flexed programs that might be considered enrichment or
supplemental student support (such as art and music, gifted
education, supplemental instruction, and counseling). Few
districts reported shifting funds into flexed programs. Thus,
the majority of districts generally appear to be using
freed-up categorical funds to support core classroom
instruction."
The committee may wish to consider whether it is appropriate
to limit school district's local flexibility to determine the
expenditure of ROC/P funds during the state's severe fiscal
crisis.
3)Previous related legislation . SB 307 (Alquist) required, for
the 2009-10 FY to the 2012-13 FY, a ROC/P JPA, to receive its
operating funds directly from the county office of education
of the county in which it is located, as specified. This bill
was held on this committee's suspense file.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081