ACA 2, as introduced, Nestande. Education finance: payment of state apportionments.
Existing law establishes the public elementary and secondary schools and the system of public community colleges in this state, and provides for a system for their funding. Provisions of the California Constitution require that a minimum amount of aggregate funding, calculated as specified, be allocated to school districts and community college districts. Pursuant to existing statutes, school districts, community college districts, and other local educational agencies receive a portion of their funding through apportionments of state funds made in accordance with payment schedules.
This measure would require that the total amount due for allocation to school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and community college districts pursuant to the constitutional minimum funding requirement described above for a fiscal year, as estimated at the time of enactment of the annual Budget Act for that fiscal year, be apportioned pursuant to statute during that fiscal year, unless that minimum funding requirement is suspended for that fiscal year pursuant to an existing constitutional provision authorizing that suspension. The measure would require this estimate to be set forth in the Budget Bill passed by the Legislature.
The measure would require apportionments of state aid to school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and community college districts to be made no later than the times specified by the statutory payment schedule that was in effect during the 2000-01 fiscal year, except that the Legislature may require by statute that these apportionments be made earlier in the fiscal year.
Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.
P2 1Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the
2Legislature of the State of California at its 2013-14 Regular
3Session commencing on the third day of December 2012,
4two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby
5proposes to the people of the State of California that the
6Constitution of the State be amended as follows:
The people of the State of California find and declare all
8of the following:
9(a) Beginning in the 2001-02 school year as a small and
10temporary budget solution, and increasing significantly in the
112008-09 school year, California has excessively relied on deferring
12state apportionments to school districts and community college
13districts to balance the state budget. Over ten billion dollars
14($10,000,000,000) is now used as a budget mechanism to fund
15other government programs by withholding funds for our public
16schools and community colleges and not paying what is owed to
17them under constitutional K-12 and community college funding
18guarantees, misleading Californians as to the true amount of cuts
19and the actual funding available to operate
our public schools and
20community colleges.
21(b) The fact that one dollar ($1) out of every five dollars ($5)
22owed to K-12 schools and community colleges is not paid until
23after the end of the academic school year has taken a demoralizing
24toll on the teaching professions of both systems by contributing
25to education program uncertainty and unprecedented educator
26layoffs. Programs for K-12 pupils have been reduced or eliminated,
27including all of the following: career, vocational, and technical
28education; university preparation; afterschool programs; sports,
29arts, and music; counseling services; libraries; and even core
P3 1academic programs. Community colleges have reduced access to
2courses that students need to graduate on time.
3(c) California’s increasing reliance on the budget practice of
4deferring state payments to school districts and community college
5districts results in broken
promises to voters, students, and
6educators because money arrives too late to be used during the
7school year and is never recovered for the education of the students
8for whom the money was intended.
9(d) Because state revenue limit funding is reduced according to
10the amount of property taxes collected at the local level,
11low-property-tax-wealth school districts suffer more than
12high-property-tax-wealth districts, in that state funding represents
13a greater portion of their overall budget. As a result of these
14property tax differentials, for some school districts the amounts
15deferred represent only a relatively small amount of money, while
16for other school districts the moneys deferred are a much larger
17part of their budget. This practice ultimately violates the Equal
18Protection Clause of the California Constitution with respect to
19California’s funding of public education.
20(e) Cross-year deferrals have directly resulted in reduced local
21school district and community college district control over the
22maintenance of sound education practices, and have led to
23inadequate course offerings, unreasonable class sizes, the
24deterioration of education facilities for lack of maintenance
25funding, and the depletion of reserves for economic uncertainty
26because of accumulated annual funding losses. To make ends meet,
27school districts and community college districts have suffered
28increased borrowing costs and increased layoffs, and have been
29forced to take emergency actions that jeopardize their long-term
30financial health.
31(f) Eliminating the practice of the deferral of state
32apportionments to school districts and community college districts
33will improve our children’s education by improving school district
34and community college district financial health, and reducing the
35risk of school district or community college
district insolvency or
36the disruption of services from emergency budget cuts to school
37programs.
38(g) This measure will force the Legislature and the Governor
39to account for state funding shortfalls in an open way so that voters
40can accurately judge what is actually spent on public education
P4 1without the mask of budget manipulation. If cuts are made to public
2education because of lack of funding, those cuts should be done
3openly and based on the projection of revenue for that year, and
4without deferrals that suggest that a promised payment will be
5made on some future date that has nothing to do with the current
6school year.
That Section 8.7 is added to Article XVI thereof, to
8read:
(a) The total amount due for allocation to school
10districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and
11community college districts to meet the minimum funding
12requirement of Section 8 for a fiscal year, as estimated at the time
13of the enactment of the Budget Act for that fiscal year, shall be
14apportioned pursuant to statute during that fiscal year, unless that
15minimum funding requirement is suspended for that fiscal year
16pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 8. That estimate shall be set
17forth in the Budget Bill passed by the Legislature.
18(b) Apportionments of state aid to school districts, county offices
19of education, charter schools, and community college districts shall
20be made no later than the times specified by the statutory
payment
21schedule that was in effect during the 2000-01 fiscal year, except
22that the Legislature may require by statute that these
23apportionments be made earlier in the fiscal year.
O
99