BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 97
Page 1
( Without Reference to File )
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 97 (Budget Committee)
As Amended June 13, 2013
Majority vote. Budget Bill Appropriation Takes Effect
Immediately
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(May 13, 2013) |SENATE: |38-0 |(June 14, |
| | | | | |2013) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: BUDGET
SUMMARY : Replaces the existing revenue limit and categorical
funding structure with the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF),
beginning in the 2013-14 fiscal year. The formula is comprised
of a base grant, supplemental grant and concentration grant for
school districts, charter schools and county offices of
education. Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt
regulations governing the expenditure of supplemental and
concentration grant funds. Includes an "Economic Recovery
Target" with the goal of restoring districts back to their
2007-08 funding levels.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill,
and instead:
District Formula Summary
1)Establish a Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) for school
districts, charter schools, and county offices of education
(COEs).
2)Provide target base grant amounts per unit of average daily
attendance (ADA), adjusted by grade level as follows:
a) Grades kindergarten through 3: $6,845
b) Grades 4 to 6: $6,947
c) Grades 7 and 8: $7,154
AB 97
Page 2
d) Grades 9 to 12: $8,289
3)Establish an eight-year phase-in timeline, as specified, to
incrementally close the gap between actual funding and the
target level of funding.
4)Establish a supplemental grant equal to 20% of the base grant
for every pupil identified as either an English learner (EL),
eligible for a free or reduced price meal (FRPM), or in foster
care; and use an "unduplicated count" meaning that pupils who
fall into more than one category are counted only once.
5)Establish a concentration grant equal to 50% of the base grant
for every unduplicated pupil above the threshold of 55% of
enrollment.
6)Require the pupil-to-teacher ratio in grades K-3 to be no more
than 24 to 1, when the formula is fully implemented, unless a
higher ratio is negotiated through collective bargaining, and
require a gradual reduction to the 24 to 1 ratio during the
phase-in period.
7)Cap funding for Home-to-School transportation funding (HTS)
and the Targeted Instructional Improvement Program (TIIG) at
their 2012-13 levels and continues to provide this funding to
school districts currently receiving it in addition to their
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) base grant.
8)Require that HTS funds to be spent for purposes of pupil
transportation.
9)Maintain funding and program requirements for the following
categorical programs:
a) Special education;
b) After School Education and Safety Program;
c) State Preschool;
d) Quality Education Investment Act;
e) Assessments;
f) American Indian Education Centers;
AB 97
Page 3
g) Early Childhood Education Programs;
h) Partnership Academies;
i) Agricultural Vocational Education;
j) Specialized Secondary Programs;
aa) Foster Youth Services Programs; and
bb) Adults in Correctional Facilities.
10)Repeal funding and program requirements for all other
categorical programs and redirect their monies to the
supplemental and concentration grant portions of the LCFF.
11)Require school districts that spent funds on Regional
Occupational Centers/Programs and Adult Education in 2012-13
to spend the same level of funding on those programs in
2013-14 and 2014-15.
12)Establish a hold harmless provision to maintain total revenue
limit and categorical program funding for each district and
charter school at its 2012-13 level, unadjusted for changes in
ADA or cost-of-living adjustments (COLA).
13)Provide, for basic aid districts, that local property tax
revenues be used to offset the entire LCFF allocation.
However, as part of the hold harmless approach, basic aid
districts will continue to receive the same level of state aid
as allocated in 2012-13.
14)Specify that Necessary Small Schools (NSS) funding will be
the same as current law for geographically isolated
schools/districts going forward. However, for those NSS that
are "single school, school districts" and that cannot meet the
miles traveled, and other criteria, as specified, a "hold
harmless" (guarantee of same funding level as 2012-13)
provision will be in effect, even if their funding level
exceeds their LCFF target.
15)Repeal the requirement that districts receiving state general
obligation bond funding for facilities set aside 3% of the
general fund expenditures in a routine maintenance account.
AB 97
Page 4
County Office of Education (COE) Formula
16)Replace the existing funding model for COEs with a two-part
formula based on the cost of providing regional services and
alternative education.
17)Provide that the regional services component of the COE
funding formula consist of the following:
a) A base operations grant of $655,920 per county;
b) An additional amount of $109,320 per school district in
the county;
c) An additional $70 per ADA in the counties with up to
30,000 ADA; $60 per ADA for counties with ADA between
30,000 and 60,000; $50 per ADA in counties with ADA between
60,000 and 140,000; and $40 per ADA in counties with ADA
above 140,000.
18)Provide that the alternative education component of the COE
funding formula include:
a) An unspecified base grant, per eligible pupil, equal to
the sum of the 2012-13 per-pupil undeficited statewide
average juvenile court school base revenue limit (eligible
pupils are incarcerated, on probation, probation-referred,
or mandatorily expelled);
b) A supplemental grant of 35% for unduplicated pupils who
are ELs, receiving free or reduced price meals, or in
foster care.
c) A concentration grant of 35% for each unduplicated pupil
above 50% of enrollment.
School District and COE Accountability
1)Require school districts and COEs, on or before July 1, 2014,
(with annual updates beginning in 2015), to adopt a local
control and accountability plan (LCAP) using a template
adopted by the SBE. Further require the LCAP to be effective
for three years.
AB 97
Page 5
2)Require the LCAP to include annual goals for pupils (including
each subgroup of pupils) to be achieved for state and local
priorities and the specific actions the school district, or
COE will take during each year of the plan to achieve
specified goals.
3)Authorize school districts and COEs to establish local
priorities for inclusion in the LCAP and require the following
state priorities to be included in the LCAP:
a) Priorities related to the Williams v. State of
California settlement agreement (2004) - fully credentialed
teachers, instructional materials, and school facilities.
b) Implementation of the academic and performance
standards, including English language development standards
(ELD).
c) Parental involvement, as specified.
d) Pupil achievement, as measured by statewide assessments,
the Academic Performance Index (API), percentage of pupils
meeting A-G graduation requirements, percentage of ELs
making progress toward English proficiency, the EL
reclassification rate, the percentage of pupils who have
passed the advanced placement exams, and the percentage of
pupils demonstrating college preparedness.
e) Pupil engagement, as measured by attendance, dropout and
graduation rates, and pupil expulsions/suspensions.
f) School climate as measured by suspensions/expulsion
rates, and other local measures, as specified.
g) The extent in which pupils (including ELs and special
needs) have access and are enrolled in a broad course of
study, as specified.
h) Pupil outcomes, if available, for non-state assessed
courses of study in grades 1-12 (e.g., other history-social
science, visual performing arts, physical education, etc.).
COEs are required to include outcomes specific to pupils
in alternative programs, as specified.
4)Require a school district and COE, as part of the annual
AB 97
Page 6
update of the LCAP, to include a listing and description of
the expenditures in the fiscal year implementing the specific
information included in the LCAP, as specified.
5)Require the superintendent of the school district and COE to
present the LCAP, prior to its adoption, to the public and
parent advisory committees (including the EL parent advisory
committee) for review and comment and requires the
superintendent to respond in writing to these comments, as
specified and review the schoolsite plans for student
achievement required under current law, ensuring the LCAP in
consistent with the schoolsite plans, as specified.
6)Establish a public process for the review and adoption of
LCAPs and require a school district and COE to establish a
parent advisory committee, including one specific to EL
parents, as specified.
7)Require the SBE, on or before October 1, 2015, to adopt
evaluation rubrics for all of the following purposes:
a) To assist a school district, COE, or charter school in
evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that
requirement improvement.
b) To assist a COE in identifying school districts and
charter schools in need of technical assistance, as
specified.
c) To assist the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI)
in identifying school districts for which intervention is
warranted, as specified.
8)Establish the California Collaborative for Educational
Excellence (CCEE) to advise and assist school districts, COEs,
and charter schools in achieving its goals established in its
LCAP or charter petition. Further require the SPI to contract
with individuals, local education agencies (LEAs), or
organizations with expertise, experience, and a record of
success to carry out the CCEE's mission of providing technical
assistance to LEAs and charter schools, as specified.
9)Require a school district to file its LCAP with the COE.
Further establish a process for the COE to review and submit
recommendations to the district and adopt the LCAP, as
AB 97
Page 7
specified. This process includes provisions for the COE to
ensure the LCAP adheres to the SBE template and includes
"expenditures sufficient to implement the specific actions and
strategies included in the LCAP."
10)Require a COE to file its LCAP with the SPI. Further
establish a process for the SPI to review and submit
recommendations to the COE and adopt the LCAP, as specified.
This process includes provisions for the SPI to ensure the
LCAP adheres to the SBE template and includes "expenditures
sufficient to implement the specific actions and strategies
included in the LCAP."
11)Require the COE or SPI, if it does not approve a school
district or COE's LCAP or if the district/COE requests
technical assistance, to provide the assistance to the
district/COE, including any of the following:
a) To assist in identifying strengths and weaknesses with
regard to the state priorities, as specified.
b) Assignment of an academic expert or team of academic
experts to assist in identifying and implementing effective
programs that are designed to improve outcomes for pupil
subgroups, as specified.
c) The assignment of the CCEE to provide advice and
assistance to the school district/COE, as specified.
12)Authorize the SPI to identify school districts and COEs in
need of intervention and require the SPI to only intervene in
districts and COEs that meet both of the following criteria:
a) The school district or COE did not improve outcomes for
three or more pupil subgroups in regard to more than one
state or local priority in three out of four consecutive
school years.
b) The CCEE has provided advice and assistance to the
district or COE and submits findings to the SPI, as
specified.
13)Authorize the SPI, for districts and COEs in need of
intervention and with SBE approval, to do one or more of the
following:
AB 97
Page 8
a) Make changes to the district or COE's LCAP.
b) Develop and impose a budget revision the SPI determines
would allow the district or COE to improve the outcomes for
all pupil subgroups in regard to state and local
priorities.
c) Stay or rescind an action, if that action is not
required by a local collective bargaining agreement that
would prevent the district or COE from improving outcomes
for all pupil subgroups in regard to state and local
priorities.
d) Appoint an academic trustee to exercise the powers and
authority specified in this measure on behalf of the SPI.
Charter School Accountability
14)Require a charter school petition to include a description of
the school's annual goals for all students and for each
subgroup of students to be achieved in applicable state
priority areas as defined above and the specific annual
actions to achieve these goals, as specified. Further
authorize the petition to establish additional priorities and
goals in the same manner as districts and COEs.
15)Require a charter petition, as part of describing pupil
outcomes, to include outcomes related to the applicable state
priorities defined above, as specified.
16)Require a charter school, beginning in 2015, to provide an
update to its petition no later than July 1 of each year and
requires the update to use the SBE template and include the
following:
a) A review of the progress toward the goals included in
the charter, an assessment of the effectiveness of the
specific actions of the charter school in meeting its
schools, as specified.
b) A list and description of the expenditures for the
subsequent year implementing the specific actions included
in the charter, as specified.
AB 97
Page 9
17)Require charter schools to consult with teachers, principals,
other schoolsite staff, parents, and pupils in the annual
update to the charter plan referenced above.
18)Authorize the SBE, whether or not it is the chartering
authority, to revoke a charter school's charter if it finds
the charter school failed to improve pupil outcomes across
multiple state and local priorities, as specified.
19)Specify if a charter school fails to improve pupil outcomes
for pupil subgroups in regard to more than one state or local
priority in three out of four consecutive school years, all of
the following apply:
a) The chartering authority shall provide technical
assistance to the charter school, using the SBE evaluation
rubric, as specified.
b) The SPI may assign, at the request of the chartering
authority and approval of the SBE, the CCEE to provide
technical assistance to the charter school, as specified.
37)Require a chartering authority to consider the revocation of
any charter school to which the CCEE has provided advice and
assistance and has made either of the following findings:
a) The charter school has failed to implement, or is unable
to implement, the recommendations of the CCEE.
b) The inadequate performance of the charter school is
either so persistent or so acute as to require revocation.
38)Require a chartering authority to consider the increases in
pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils served by
the charter school as the most important factor in determining
whether to revoke a charter. Further prohibit a charter
school from appealing a revocation determined based on the
provisions of this measure.
Economic Recovery Target (ERT)
39)Calculate an Economic Recovery Target (ERT) for each school
district. The ERT will be a per-pupil rate consisting of:
a) The district's revenue limit in 2007-08-regardless of
AB 97
Page 10
the mix of state aid and local property tax (LPT) revenue
that funded the revenue limit. (The ERT does not count a
basic aid district's "excess" local property tax revenue in
the per-pupil rate.)
b) Revenue limit cost-of-living adjustments for 2008-09
through 2020-21.
c) The district's categorical funding in 2007-08 (before
Control Section 12.42 or "fair share" reductions to
categorical programs were implemented).
SBE regulations and other provisions
39)Require the SBE, no later than January 31, 2014, to adopt
regulations governing the expenditure of supplemental grant
funds, including concentration grant funds. Require the
regulations to:
a) Require a school district, COE, or charter school "to
increase or improve services for unduplicated pupils in
proportion to its increase in funds apportioned on the
basis of the number and concentration of unduplicated
pupils in the district, COE, or charter school"; and
b) Create authorization for the use of funds for schoolwide
or districtwide purposes in a manner that is no more
restrictive than federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Title I funds (poor and needy pupils).
41)Require the SBE, on or before March 31, 2014, to establish
templates for use by school districts, COEs, and charter
schools to complete the LCAP, as specified.
42)Require school districts, COEs, and charter schools to
establish local policies and procedures to implement a
complaint process in accordance with the current Uniform
Complaint process, as specified.
43)Prohibit the SBE or the SPI from waiving any part of the
Local Control and Accountability Plans.
44)Require the Department of Education and Department of Social
Services to enter into a memorandum of understanding to share
disaggregated information on foster youth so that districts,
AB 97
Page 11
charter schools and county offices of education can identify
pupils in foster care.
45)Make various technical and conforming changes to, among other
things, replace statutory references to the revenue limit with
references to the LCFF.
46)Contain an appropriation allowing this bill to take effect
immediately upon enactment.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriates $2.1 billion from the General Fund
for the following purposes:
1)$2.067 billion to the SPI for allocation to school districts
and charter schools for first year implementation of the LCFF;
and
2)$32 million to the SPI for allocation to COEs for the County
Local Control Funding Formula, as specified.
The budget bill also provides $10 million for CCEE activities
and $2 million to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research
in order for the SBE to develop and adopt regulations, as
specified, develop and adopt evaluation rubrics, and develop and
adopt LCAP templates.
COMMENTS : The Governor's January Budget proposed the Local
Control Funding Formula (LCFF) with the goal of allocating
funding to school districts, charter schools, and county offices
of education more equitably than under the current revenue limit
and categorical program structure.
According to the Administration, "California's school finance
system has become overly complex, administratively costly, and
imbalanced. There are many different funding streams, each with
their own allocation formula and spending restrictions. Many
program allocations have been frozen and are no longer
reflective of current demographics, administrative costs, and
legislative intent. The fiscal flexibility that has recently
been provided to schools is not permanent and excludes some
significant programs. Scholarly research and practical
experience indicate that low-income students, foster children,
and English learners come to school with unique challenges and
often require supplemental instruction and other support in
order to be successful in school. These challenges are most
AB 97
Page 12
extreme in communities with high concentrations of poverty and
non-English speakers."
According to the Administration, the plan would allocate an
estimated $25 billion over the next eight years to restore the
significant funding reductions local educational agencies have
experienced, including forgone cost-of-living adjustments to
their existing revenue limits and ongoing cost-of-living
adjustments for LCFF grants.
Transition to the LCFF would be based on Proposition 98 growth
and provide school districts, charter schools, and county
offices of education with a guarantee that no school district,
charter school, or county office of education would receive less
funding in 2013-14 and into the future than it did in 2012-13
relative to current law. The LCFF ensures a uniform base grant
for all students and provides local educational agencies with
supplemental funding to support students that come to school
with additional needs.
Economic Recovery Target . Most school districts will receive
the greater of the LCFF target or ERT. For the vast majority of
school districts, the LCFF target for 2020-21 will be higher
than the ERT for 2020-21. For about 230 districts, the ERT,
however, will be higher. Over the next eight years, roughly 130
of these districts will receive additional payments in equal
increments in excess of their LCFF payments to restore them to
their ERT by 2020-21. (Districts that have an ERT above the
90th ERT percentile will receive no additional funding in excess
of the 90th percentile. Approximately 96 districts have rates
that are this high-more than $14,500 per pupil.) This
calculation is intended to ensure that nearly all districts,
with the exception of those with unusually high levels of
historical per-pupil funding, are restored to their 2007-08
funding levels.
Analysis Prepared by : Misty Feusahrens / BUDGET / (916)
319-2099
FN: 0001188
AB 97
Page 13