BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 69
AUTHOR: Liu
AMENDED: April 25, 2013
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: May 1, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : School finance: new pupil funding formula.
SUMMARY
This bill replaces the existing revenue limit
(discretionary) and categorical school funding structure
and establishes a Local Control Funding Formula, beginning
in the 2014-15 fiscal year, comprised of a base grant and a
supplemental grant for school districts, charter schools
and county offices of education. The bill provides
supplemental grant funding equal to 35 percent of the base
grant for every pupil identified as either an English
learner (EL), eligible for a free or reduced price meal, or
in foster care. The formula uses an unduplicated count,
meaning that pupils that fall into more than one category
are counted only once.
BACKGROUND
The California K-12 public school system is supported
predominantly with state funds. Of the state funds that are
provided to K-12 schools, there are two major types of
funding: discretionary funds and categorical funds.
Discretionary funds comprise approximately two-thirds of
the funds the state provides to school districts and
categorical funds comprise approximately a third.
Discretionary Funds are provided to school
districts to support the general costs of operating
schools. The revenue limit is the general purpose
money school districts receive for each student.
Established in 1972, the per student average daily
attendance (ADA) revenue limits varies slightly
between districts. The district revenue limit income
is a combination of local property taxes and state
SB 69
Page 2
general fund support as determined statewide through
the Proposition 98 funding formula. Any increase in
local property taxes is offset by a reduction in state
funds (except for basic aid districts). In some
school districts the amount of property taxes exceeds
their revenue limit. Historically, these districts
keep all of their property tax revenues and received
approximately $120 per pupil or a minimum of $2,400
per district consistent with the State Constitution.
Funding is provided on a continuous appropriation
basis, meaning that the funds are provided on an
ongoing basis and are not subject to the annual budget
act. Funding is provided to school districts and
county offices of education based on a formula that
takes their average daily attendance (ADA) over the
course of the year and multiplies it by their
individual funding rate (also known as a "revenue
limit"). Each district has its own unique revenue
limit based on historical spending. The end result is
a school district's "apportionment funding."
Although this funding does not require an annual
appropriation in the budget, the State can still
affect the amount of total funding that is provided
for this purpose by increasing or decreasing the rates
(revenue limits) that are used to calculate
apportionments. In addition, the Legislature's ability
to approve or deny a cost-of-living adjustment for
revenue limits also affects the total amount of
funding that is provided in discretionary funds.
Under current law, when state General Fund is
insufficient to fully fund revenue limits statewide, a
deficit factor is created to reduce funding to all
schools by the same percentage. The deficit factor
keeps track of reductions to school district revenue
limits which will be restored when sufficient funding
is available in the future. The deficit factor
reflects both the cumulative loss of purchasing power
due to inflationary cost increases that occurred in
the years where the statutory cost-of-living
adjustment (COLA) was not funded and the cuts to base
funding that were imposed on schools as the state
struggled to balance its Budget. Below is a table of
the estimated undeficited revenue limits by school
SB 69
Page 3
district type. In terms of "real" funding each of the
revenue limits below would need to be reduced by
approximately 22.5 percent to reflect actual cash a
school district would expect to receive.
-------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
| Undeficited Statewide Average Revenue Limit |
| |
-------------------------------------------------------
|-----------------+-------------------+-----------------|
|District Type |2012-13 |2013-14 |
|-----------------+-------------------+-----------------|
|Elementary |$6,449 |$6,555 |
|-----------------+-------------------+-----------------|
|High School |$7,747 |$7,875 |
-------------------------------------------------------
|Unified |$6,748 |$6,859 |
|-----------------+-------------------+-----------------|
| | | |
-------------------------------------------------------
Categorical Funds have been created over the years
to provide school districts funding for specific
purposes, such as improving school safety or improving
the academic achievement of struggling students.
Unlike discretionary funds, categorical funds (also
known as "categorical programs") are all funded
through the annual budget act. They are usually
accompanied by regulations that require that they be
spent in specific ways or for specific purposes.
As part of the February 2009 budget package, most
categorical programs were placed into three categories
or "Tiers." School districts with categorical
programs in "Tier III" were allowed to use the funding
associated with about 40 categorical programs for any
education purpose. This change essentially made
roughly $4.5 billion in restricted funding
discretionary. About 20 state-funded categorical
programs totaling roughly $7.5 billion were excluded
from this flexibility. Categorical flexibility has
been authorized through the end of 2014-15. The
SB 69
Page 4
following provides an explanation of each tier.
Tier I. Tier I programs remained intact, that is,
no reductions were made to their allocation, no
programmatic changes were made, and no flexibility
granted. These programs included: Child Nutrition,
Economic Impact Aid (EIA), Charter EIA, K-3 Class Size
Reduction, Special Education, After-school programs,
and Child Development (Pre-K only in 2011-12).
Tier II. Programs in this tier were subject to
program cuts but the program requirements were kept in
place, that is, they were not "flexible". These
programs included: Apprenticeship programs, County
Office Oversight (FCMAT), Home-to-School
transportation, Student assessments, Foster Youth
Programs, Adults in Correctional Facilities,
Partnership Academies, Agricultural Vocational
Education, K-12 Internet, Charter School Facility
Grants, and Year Round Schools.
Tier III: The majority of categorical programs were
included in this category. Funding for roughly 40
programs was reduced and then made flexible, that is,
all program requirements were removed, and the funding
associated could be used for any educational purpose.
ANALYSIS
This bill replaces the existing revenue limit
(discretionary) and categorical funding structure and
establishes a Local Control Funding Formula, beginning in
the 2014-15 fiscal year, comprised of a base grant and a
supplemental grant for school districts, charter schools
and county offices of education. The bill provides
supplemental grant funding equal to 35 percent of the base
grant for every pupil identified as either an English
learner (EL), eligible for a free or reduced price meal, or
in foster care. The formula uses an unduplicated count,
meaning that pupils that fall into more than one category
are counted only once. More specifically, this bill:
1) Establishes a Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) for
school districts, charter schools, and county offices
of education (COEs).
SB 69
Page 5
2) Specifies legislative intent to:
a) Phase-in implementation of the LCFF in a
manner and on a timeline that allows the state to
restore local educational agency funding levels
to those that existed prior to the past budget
cuts.
b) Redirect funds that were proposed for
concentration grants to instead increase both
base grants and supplemental grants, in
proportions to be determined.
c) Require that funding adjustments for grades
9 to 12 be spent on programs that prepare pupils
for college and career, and consider other
incentives for schools to continue successful
career preparation programs, including the
possible maintenance of existing categorical and
competitive grant programs.
d) Require funds allocated for home-to-school
transportation (HTS) be spent accordingly. And as
funding allows adjust those allocations,
equitably, at a percentage of allowable costs to
be determined.
e) Consider remedies for other funding
allocations that are distributed according to
inequitable, historically-based formulas.
f) Provide some level of supplemental support
for English learners (EL) beyond the five-year
limit and ensure greater transparency of
instruction and services for EL pupils, such that
strong local-and state-level oversight and
accountability are supported.
3) Provides an unspecified base grant that is based on
the statewide average undeficited revenue limit per
unit of average daily attendance (ADA).
4) Provides that the unspecified base grant per ADA shall
be adjusted by grade level as follows:
a) Grades kindergarten through 3;
SB 69
Page 6
b) Grades 4 to 6;
c) Grades 7 and 8; and
d) Grades 9 to 12.
5) Establishes a phase-in formula, as specified, to
gradually close the gap between actual funding and the
target level of funding.
6) Establishes a supplemental grant equal to 35 percent
of the base grant for every pupil identified as either
an EL, eligible for a free or reduced price meal
(FRPM), or in foster care; and uses an "unduplicated
count" meaning that pupils who fall into more than one
category are counted only once.
7) Specifies that a pupil cannot be classified as an EL
for more than five years in total.
8) Requires 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 requires a gradual
reduction to the 24 to 1 ratio during the phase-in
period.
9) Caps funding for HTS and the Targeted Instructional
Improvement Program (TIIG) at their 2013-14 levels and
continues to provide this funding to school districts
currently receiving it in addition to their Local
Control Funding Formula (LCFF) base grant.
10) Maintains 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; and
g) Early Childhood Education Programs.
11) Repeals funding and program requirements for all other
categorical programs and redirects their monies to the
supplemental grant portion of the LCFF.
SB 69
Page 7
12) Establishes a hold harmless provision to maintain
total revenue limit and categorical program funding
for each district and charter school at its 2013-14
level, unadjusted for changes in ADA or COLA.
13) Provides, for basic aid districts, that local property
tax revenues be used to offset the entire LCFF
allocation.
14) Repeals 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.
15) Requires school districts and county offices of
education to adopt an annual Local Control and
Accountability Plan (LCAP) using a template adopted by
the State Board of Education (SBE)
16) Requires each LCAP to identify goals and describe the
specific actions and strategies they will use to
achieve all of the following:
a) Implement the Common Core content standards
for all pupils;
b) Increase the Academic Performance Index
(API) for each school
and for each numerically significant pupil
subgroup and reduce gaps in the API and other
measures of pupil achievement between numerically
significant pupil subgroups;
c) Improve pupil achievement of the content
standards adopted by the
State Board of Education (SBE);
d) Increase high school graduation rates and
reduce dropout rates;
e) Increase the percentage of pupils who have
successfully completed
courses that satisfy the University of California
SB 69
Page 8
and California State University entrance
requirements, Advanced Placement courses, and CTE
programs;
f) Identify and address the needs of pupils,
and schools
predominately serving pupils, who are English
learners (El), qualify for free and reduced-price
meals, in foster care, or enrolled in a juvenile
court school operated by a county superintendent
of schools;
g) Remedy deficiencies in any school in the
areas of textbooks and
instructional materials; safe, clean, and
adequate school facilities; and qualified
teachers; and
h) Provide meaningful opportunities for parent
involvement, including, at a minimum, supporting
effective schoolsite councils or other structures
at each school and advisory panels to the
governing board or, if parents so choose,
creating other structures, such as an ombudsman
for parents, to address complaints and other
issues raised by parents.
17) Specifies legislative intent to strengthen the
accountability provisions in the following ways:
a) Ensure supplemental funds generated by low
income, EL pupils,
and foster pupils are used to improve services to
those pupils, and not supplant existing resources
dedicated to those pupils.
b) Provide authority of state entities, county
entities, or both to
intervene and support school districts that do
not demonstrate improvements, as specified.
c) Rescind flexibility provisions for school
districts that do not
demonstrate improvements, as specified.
d) Ensure more robust data collections for
SB 69
Page 9
purposes of state
accountability and state and local
oversight.
e) Ensure that the majority of funds allocated
through any funding formula are spent on services
and programs with direct benefits to pupils.
18) Requires the county offices of education plan to also
describe specific actions and strategies to:
a) Conduct effective fiscal oversight of school
districts;
b) Provide support to school districts in the
county, as specified; and
c) Coordinate instruction for expelled pupils.
19) Requires the annual audit of school district and
county offices of education (COE) expenditures to
ascertain and verify whether funds have been spent in
accordance with the Local Control and Accountability
Plan (LCAP).
20) Requires the COE review of school district budgets to
verify that funds will be spent in accordance with the
district's LCAP.
21) Requires charter schools to submit an annual LCAP to
their chartering authorities and COEs.
22) Replaces the existing funding model for COEs and
replaces it with a two part formula based on the cost
of providing regional services and alternative
education.
23) Provides that the regional services component of the
COE funding formula consist of the following:
a) A base grant;
b) An additional unspecified amount per school
SB 69
Page 10
district in the county;
c) An additional unspecified amount per ADA in
the county (based on a sliding scale, with less
populated counties receiving a higher amount per
ADA).
24) Provides that the alternative education component of
the COE funding formula include:
a) An unspecified base rate per eligible pupil
(pupils who are
incarcerated, on probation, probation-referred,
or mandatorily expelled); and
b) A weight of 35% for pupils who are English
learners, receiving free or reduced price meals,
or in foster care.
25) Makes various technical and conforming changes to,
among other things, replace statutory references to
the revenue limit with references to the LCFF.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Administration's proposal . As part of the proposed
2013 budget, the administration proposes a new K-12
school finance system - the Local Control Funding
Formula - beginning in 2013-14. The new funding
formula provides significant and permanent additional
flexibility to local districts by consolidating the
vast majority of state categorical programs and
revenue limit apportionments into a single source of
funding. Notably, the Governor proposes an additional
$1.6 billion in Proposition 98 funding to begin
implementation of the new formula in 2013-14. The
formula will distribute these combined resources to
schools using base grants and funding supplements that
account for the variability in costs of educating
specific student populations.
The underlying premise of the administration's
proposal should be commended for (1) emphasizing
greater fiscal resources to pupil populations in need
of narrowing academic achievement gaps,
(2) providing a somewhat less complicated way of
SB 69
Page 11
funding schools,
(3) creating greater emphasis on local decision-making
on educational approaches, and (4) establishing the
beginnings of an accountability structure.
However, because of the numerous implementation
implications on not only education finance, but
education policy, the Legislature strongly encouraged
the administration to pursue this proposal through the
legislative policy process to provide a deliberative
mechanism that includes public input. The
administration, however, continues to pursue
implementation of their proposal through the annual
budget process.
A few examples of the many issues, though not
exhaustive, include:
a) No supplemental funding for
English learners (EL) pupils beyond five years -
is this a new "reclassification" of EL pupils for
purposes of education and language acquisition?
What happens if a pupil has not acquired
necessary educational and language skills? With
no more supplemental funding, do we assume no
more educational service obligation?
b) Shouldn't supplemental funding actually be
spent on supplemental
services for the pupils that generated the
funding?
c) Should parents and local governing boards be
provided capacity
building capability / options in order understand
and take advantage of presumed enhanced local
control? All communities are not the same.
d) Does this proposal provide too much county
office authority over
local school governing board programmatic
decision-making? If not, then are county
offices ultimately responsible for school
districts success and failure?
e) Does the state have any formal oversight
SB 69
Page 12
role beyond what is
envisioned in the LCFF, particularly given that
the State Constitution makes public education
uniquely a fundamental concern of the State? How
should the state provide guidance and assistance?
Are there clear consequences / interventions for
failing schools?
2) According to the author , the Senate approach agrees
with the fundamental goals and concepts behind the
Governor's proposal:
a) A more equitable, streamlined, transparent
funding structure.
b) A funding structure that puts greater focus
and financial resources on educationally
disadvantaged students.
c) A funding structure that provides permanent
flexibility to school districts to address local
needs.
However, the Senate approach finds that the Governor's
proposal is lacking in several areas and needs
modification. The major issues that need to be
addressed in the proposal related to:
d) Funding adequacy for all school districts.
e) Modifications to the funding distribution
formulas to ensure that no low income and English
learners students are made "invisible" under the
formula.
f) Stronger provisions on local school district
accountability to ensure that additional funds
generated by numbers of educationally
disadvantaged students (low income, English
learners, and foster youth) are actually spent to
improve their educational outcomes.
g) Ensuring that school districts continue to
focus on reducing the high school dropout rate,
maintain educational options for young adults,
training the workforce of tomorrow.
SB 69
Page 13
3) Senate Education Committee April 3, hearing . On April
3, this committee passed SB 223 (Liu) on a 9-0 vote.
SB 223 connects fiscal flexibility over categorical
funding with an accountability system. SB 223 made
the connection between providing school districts
greater fiscal discretion with funds from over 40
categorical programs, while insuring sound
accountability approaches are adhered to, and that any
local plan is developed with input from parents and
teachers. School districts must apply for the
"flexibility," the State Superintendent must ensure
local plans meet agreed to pre-conditions in order for
the district to participate in obtaining maximum
flexibility, and a school district that obtains
flexibility must agree to demonstrate various goals,
including but not limited to, significant progress
toward pupil proficiency in the state standards,
narrowing of achievement gaps, fiscal solvency, and
improvement in career technical preparedness.
In addition, SB 223 excluded specific programs from
being "flexed" for example, Economic Impact Aid, adult
education, regional occupational centers and programs
(ROCPs), partnership academies, and specialized
secondary education grants.
Furthermore, SB 223 requires school districts
participating in the new flex and accountability
program to agree to demonstrable goals, including but
not limited to:
a) Significant progress toward accelerating
pupils' progress toward proficiency of the
state's academic standards over a three-year
period;
b) Narrowing of the achievement gaps for the
school district's federally recognized subgroups
as measured by annual assessments, as specified;
SB 69
Page 14
c) Fiscal solvency, as specified;
d) Positive growth on the state's Academic
Performance Index; and
e) Improved rates for high school graduation
and college entrance, and increases of pupils who
enter technical school after graduation or who
graduate prepared to enter high-wage, high skill
occupations.
f) Pupil progress in passage of common core
standards.
1) Fails to restore all districts to their 2007-08
purchasing power . The Local Control Funding Formula
(LCFF) uses the current level of funding as the
starting point for the allocation of funds. The
current level of funding is more than 20% below the
level provided in 2007-08. Pinning each district's
target level of funding to the statewide average
undeficited revenue limit means that districts with
above average revenue limits will have a target that
is below their 2007-08 funding level.
The underlying research paper, that the LCFF is based
on specifically, argues that "Reforms should apply to
new money going forward, without reducing any
district's current allocation." Consistent with that
principle, and since all districts shared equally in
the cuts that have occurred since 2007-08, the
committee may wish to consider whether all districts
should be restored to that level of funding, either
before a new formula is enacted or concurrently with
the phase-in of a new formula.
Was there a presumption on the part of the public with
the passage of Proposition 30 that school funding
SB 69
Page 15
reductions would be stopped and restoration of past
funding cuts occur? For example, a statewide average
"undeficited" unified school district revenue limit
for 2012-13 is $6,747 / ADA. This is the amount
school districts would have been getting in the
absence of the state withholding COLA and imposing
revenue limit reductions. According to the Department
of Finance the actual funded unified school district
revenue limit is $5,244. This is a gap of
approximately $1,500 (or about 22 percent less) per
ADA than is currently required under law.
2) Base grant . The target level of funding for the
proposed base grant is based on the statewide average
undeficited revenue limit. Monies for all of the
categorical programs-other than the ones excluded from
the LCFF-would be shifted to the weighted portion of
the formula. This raises three inter-related
questions: How large should the base be? How large
should the weight be? And what is the relationship
between the base and the weight. Providing that the
base should be comprised only of the undeficited
revenue limit assumes that this level of funding is
sufficient to adequately serve the needs of the
general pupil population.
This bill by eliminating the concentration factor
attempts, in part, to raise the base grant to a more
appropriate level of funding and increase the
supplemental grants to spread resources more evenly
across similarly needy pupils. But certain
categorical program funding that were supplements to
the base revenue limits are no longer available and
are reprioritized for the benefit of the targeted
supplemental grant populations.
3) Local Control and Accountability Plans . Funds
received through the LCFF would be unrestricted and
available for any locally-determined use. However,
governing boards would be required to adopt an annual
Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) to
describe the specific actions and strategies the
district will use to achieve specified objectives.
One of the eight requirements of the plan is to
identify and address the needs of pupils, and schools
predominately serving pupils, who are English
SB 69
Page 16
learners, qualify for free and reduced-price meals, in
foster care, or enrolled in a juvenile court school
operated by a county superintendent of schools.
In addition, the proposal requires that the
supplemental grant funds be used to substantially
benefit the targeted pupils as provided for in the
local control and accountability plan. This language
provides no guarantee that funds generated by targeted
pupil populations are expended on programs / services
for these populations.
A school district's LCAP is subject to review and
approval by the county superintendent of schools as
part of the AB 1200 financial oversight process.
County superintendents would be required to disapprove
a district's budget if he or she determines that the
plan is not consistent with the LCAP template adopted
by the SBE or that it does not reflect the costs
necessary to implement the LCAP. This goes beyond the
current responsibilities that county superintendents
have with respect to school district oversight. In
addition, the annual external audit must include a
determination of whether funds were expended in
accordance with the LCAP. The committee may wish to
consider whether this goes beyond the scope of normal
audits and whether auditors have the training and
expertise to make this determination.
4) At what point does the local control outweigh
statewide policy objectives and priorities ?
Categorical programs have been adopted in part to
ensure that state policy objectives and priorities are
addressed at the local level. For example, the EIA
program was established to ensure districts address
the needs of low income pupils and English learners.
The Mentally Gifted Minor program was changed to
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) to ensure that
districts went beyond culturally biased IQ tests to
identify more traditionally underrepresented pupils of
color for the program. By eliminating categorical
programs, the LCFF eliminates the lever by which the
Legislature seeks to ensure that state priorities are
addressed. The Principle of Subsidiarity assumes that
school districts are the best entities for
establishing policies and setting priorities, but that
SB 69
Page 17
may not always be the case. For example, if the
benefit of a program accrues more to the state at
large than to an individual school district, such as
citizenship courses for adults or regionalized
programs for career-technical education (such as
programs offered through Regional Occupational
Programs and Centers), then districts would have
little incentive to offer that program, even if it is
a high priority for the state.
5) Senate bills that merit consideration as discussion on
funding flexibility and accountability continue. The
following measures link specific pupil populations or
programs with preconditions and accountability and
warrant consideration as part of any LCFF or
independent of an LCFF.
a) SB 344 (Padilla). This bill, commencing with
the 2014-15 fiscal year, would require, as a
condition for receiving supplemental funds for
English learners under the Limited English
Proficient Student Program, a school district
that applies to the State Department of Education
for these funds to adopt a master plan for how
those supplemental funds will be spent. The bill
would require the master plan to cover
expenditures of these supplemental funds by the
school district and at each affected school
within the district. The bill would require
school districts, in developing or renewing
master plans under the bill, to seek input from
teachers, principals, administrators, English
learner advisory committees, schoolsite councils,
and parents, both districtwide and from each
school.
b) SB 660 (Hancock). This bill preserves
funding provided in the annual budget for the
following career technical education (CTE)
programs: Regional Occupational Centers and
Programs (ROCPs), Partnership Academies,
Specialized Secondary Programs, and the
Agricultural Career Technical Education Incentive
program. This bill also establishes an
accountability system for these CTE programs
based upon the eleven criteria currently used to
SB 69
Page 18
assess the effectiveness of programs receiving
federal Carl Perkins funds.
6) If it is the desire of the committee to move the bill ,
staff recommends the following amendments:
a) Consistent with action taken by this
committee on April 3, maintain the following
categorical programs and strike from the "pool"
of categorical programs that get placed into the
LCFF - ROCPs (6110-105-0001), specialized
secondary program grants (6110-122-0001), adult
education (6110-156-0001), partnership academies
(6110-166-0001), and agricultural vocational
education (6110-167-0001). Further, re-insert
language requiring audits of ROCPs. Finally, also
strike from the "pool" foster youth programs
(6110-119-0001) - maintaining FYPs would be
consistent with the intent of providing essential
services for this targeted population.
b) Make implementation of this measure
contingent upon enactment of legislation (i.e.,
SB 344, Padilla) in the 2013-14 Regular
Legislative Session that deals with more expanded
accountability for the use of Economic Impact Aid
funding or supplemental funding pursuant to this
measure and for the implementation of a
standards-based curriculum for EL pupils that is
cognitively complex, coherent, comprehensive, and
standards aligned.
c) Make implementation of this measure
contingent upon enactment of legislation (i.e.,
SB 660, Hancock) in the 2013-14 Regular
Legislative Session that deal with at a minimum,
as a condition of receipt of CTE type funds,
require programs receiving funds to collect and
report data as required by the department to
prepare and update accountability measures to
determine the quality and effectiveness of a
career technical education course of study or
sequence of career technical education courses
including a uniform accountability metric based
on any career-ready standards adopted pursuant to
the federal Elementary and Secondary Education
SB 69
Page 19
Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.)
d) In a distinct paragraph, require any COE,
school district, or charter school that receives
supplemental funding to expend these funds to
serve and assist English learners, economically
disadvantaged and foster youth pupils. In
addition, add language that clearly states,
supplemental funding received by COEs, school
districts shall supplement and not supplant
existing resources expended on English learners,
economically disadvantaged, and foster youth.
e) Strike out provisions that limit English
learner classification for purposes of funding
for five years. On page 12, strike lines 1 and
2; and on page 64, strike lines 26 and 27.
f) Add a new paragraph requiring the COEs,
school districts, and charter schools to develop
and offer at a minimum, twice a year during the
phase-in of the LCFF, information to parents and
governing boards to enhance their understanding
and familiarity with the presumed enhanced local
control. And must include how COEs, school
districts and charter schools will provide
meaningful opportunities for parent involvement,
including support for effective schoolsite
councils and English learner advisory committees.
g) Require that a local control and
accountability plan must be developed in
conjunction with parents and teachers, to
accelerate pupils' progress to academic
proficiency. The plan shall include measurable
metrics to improve pupil performance, close the
achievement gap, increase college entrance rates,
and increase career readiness. And that COEs,
school districts, and charter schools shall agree
to demonstrate (to the extent not clearly
articulated in the current Local Control and
Accountability Plan (LCAP)) all of the following
goals (consistent with legislation already passed
by this committee), starting with a baseline of
student achievement at the time the LCAP is
SB 69
Page 20
adopted:
i) Significant progress toward
accelerating pupils' progress toward
proficiency in California's academic
standards over a three-year period, as
measured by the annual assessments
administered pursuant to Article 4
(commencing with Section 60640) of Chapter 5
of Part 33 and any other local, state, or
national assessments.
ii) A narrowing of the achievement gap
in the school district's federally
recognized subgroups, as measured by the
annual assessments administered pursuant to
Article 4 (commencing with Section 60640) of
Chapter 5 of Part 33 and any other local,
state, or national assessments.
iii) Fiscal solvency, as measured by
the standards and criteria adopted by the
state board pursuant to Section 33127 and
implementing regulations.
iv) Positive growth, as measured by
the school district's Academic Performance
Index score, the annual assessments
administered pursuant to Article 4
(commencing with Section 60640) of Chapter 5
of Part 33, and any other local, state, or
national assessments.
v) An increase in the school
district's graduation rate, as measured by
the California Longitudinal Pupil
Achievement Data System and the school
district level data system.
vi) Improvement in the school
district's college entrance rate, as
measured by the National Student
Clearinghouse or other state-approved pupil
data tracking system.
vii) Improvement in the number of
SB 69
Page 21
pupils who enter a technical school after
graduation, as measured by the National
Student Clearinghouse or other
state-approved pupil data tracking system,
or who graduate prepared to enter high-wage,
high-skill occupations.
viii) Pupil progress in passage of
common core standards.
h) Require the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) to develop and the State Board
of Education to approve, by July 1, 2015, a
system of assistance and interventions to be
implemented when COEs, school districts, and
charter schools (1) request information and
technical and programmatic assistance, and / or
(2) fail over a consecutive two year period to
meet pupil achievement goals as defined in the
Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP).
The system of interventions shall be available
for implementation no later than July 1, 2017,
and include meaningful incentives and
consequences, which may include loss of local
governing and policymaking authority. Any
element of the system of assistance and
interventions requiring statutory changes shall
be submitted for consideration to the appropriate
policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature
no later than January 1, 2015. Assistance and
interventions may include but not be limited to,
development of a carefully selected and trained
statewide and / or regional group of experts and
practitioners to help COEs, school districts and
charter schools develop local capacity to meet
the educational needs of all pupils.
I) Require all COEs to include all LCAPs under
their jurisdiction be posted on county websites,
and the SPI to make all LCAPs available on the
SDE website by adding this requirement on page
140, after line 32.
SUPPORT
None on file.
SB 69
Page 22
OPPOSITION
Californians Together