BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 344
AUTHOR: Padilla
AMENDED: April 17, 2013
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: May 1, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Kathleen
Chavira
SUBJECT : English learners: supplemental funding.
SUMMARY
This bill would establish conditions to be met for
receiving state supplemental funding for English learners.
BACKGROUND
Current law provides economic impact aid funding to school
districts based on the number of economically disadvantaged
pupils and English learners (ELs) enrolled in the school
district, and requires the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) to perform specified calculations to
determine the amount of this funding to be received by a
district each fiscal year. Districts that have a higher
concentration of these pupils receive additional funding.
The school district is required to expend these funds or
specified programs and activities to support programs and
activities designed to assist ELs achieve proficiency in
their English language as rapidly as practicable and to
support programs and activities designed to improve the
academic achievement of ELs and economically disadvantaged
pupils. The district is prohibited from expending these
funds at school sites that do not have ELs or economically
disadvantaged pupils. These funds must supplement, and not
supplant, existing resources at the school site. (Education
Code � 54020-54028)
Current law specifically requires, as a condition of the
receipt of economic impact aid funds, that a school
district post online and in an easily accessible location
the amount of economic impact aid allocated to the
district, the amount used for administrative costs, the
SB 344
Page 2
amount expended for EL students and the amount expended for
compensatory education in the current and in the prior
fiscal year by the district and by each school in the
district, and the amount of unexpended aid along with an
explanation of why these fund have not been expended.
(EC � 54029)
Current law provides that if the Legislature does not enact
legislation that continues the bilingual education program
(which sunset on June 30, 1987), the funding for that
program is required to continue for the general purposes of
that program as specified in the sunsetted statutes.
Current law requires that funds be disbursed according to
identification criteria and allocation formulas for the
program in effect on the sunset date and that these funds
be used for the intended purposes of the program. Current
law also requires the continuation of parent advisory
committees and school site councils and specifically
provides that any school receiving Economic Impact Aid
(EIA) or Bilingual Education Aid subsequent to the sunset
of these programs is required to establish a school site
council and that the functions and responsibilities of such
advisory committees and school site councils continue. (EC
� 62000-62005.5)
Current law defines a program of "compensatory education"
as an undertaking which is over, above, and in addition to,
regular educational programs with the purpose of providing
positive stimulation of the intellectual abilities of
disadvantaged minors and that embodies a positive plan for
the identification of such minors. (EC � 54403)
ANALYSIS
This bill , beginning with the 2014-15 fiscal year,
establishes conditions to be met by school districts in
order to receive state supplemental funding to serve
English learners. Specifically, it requires that a
district:
1) Adopt a Masterplan that is:
a) Developed with the input of
teachers, principals, administrators, English
learner advisory committees, school site councils
and parents both district wide and from each
SB 344
Page 3
school.
b) Outlines how these supplemental
funds will be spent at each affected school site
and at the district level.
2) Include, but not be limited to, the following in the
Masterplan:
a) A requirement that the district
comply with existing law that requires the
posting of specified EIA information on the
district's internet website.
b) A listing of services and
instructional materials categorized by
proficiency levels.
c) The names, position, credential
and authorizations for each district and school
site staff member assigned to English learners.
d) A professional development plan
for district and school site staff and
volunteers.
e) A plan for engaging and involving
parents of English learners in their children's
education.
f) A calendar for release of data, a
plan for monitoring reclassified and long term
English learners, benchmarks for progress, and a
plan for the collection and publication of
relevant data.
3) Renew the Masterplan annually, with input from
teachers, principals, administrators, English learner
advisory committees, school site councils and parents,
both district wide and from each school.
4) Make the Masterplan easily available to and accessible
by the public.
5) Establish an English learner advisory committee (ELAC)
at each school and at the District level (DELAC) and
SB 344
Page 4
that the district level committee be composed of
members from the schools' ELACs.
6) Require that each school's contribution to the
masterplan be submitted to, reviewed, and approved by
the school ELAC and that the proposed masterplan be
submitted to the DELAC for review and approval.
7) Include parents and teachers of English learners on
its school site council.
8) Makes a number of technical and conforming changes.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Economic Impact Aid (EIA) . EIA is a state categorical
program that provides supplemental funds to support
additional programs and services for ELs/limited
English proficient (LEP) pupils and compensatory
education services for educationally disadvantaged
students. The EIA/LEP support programs and activities
to assist ELs achieve proficiency in the English
language as rapidly as practicable and to support
programs and activities to improve the academic
achievement of English learners. EIA/State
Compensatory Education (EIA/SCE) support programs and
activities designed to assist educationally
disadvantaged students achieve state standard
proficiency.
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 flexibility is extended
through the 2014-15 fiscal year. The EIA program is
one of only six categorical programs that was not
provided this flexibility.
This bill proposes conditions for receipt of state
supplemental funding (like EIA) for the purpose of
serving EL students, but additionally makes reference
to services, materials and staff for purposes of
serving compensatory education students.
Notwithstanding the importance of ensuring the
SB 344
Page 5
appropriate use of EIA funds for purposes of
compensatory education, and the likely overlap between
these student populations, these references seem to
confuse the intent of the bill.
Staff recommends the bill be amended to delete the
references to compensatory education. However,
deletion should not be interpreted to prohibit the
expansion of the bill to be amended in the future to
include conditions for receipt of supplemental funds
for the purpose of serving compensatory education
students.
In addition, while it may be reasonable to request
information on the types and training of school site
staff designated to support English learners (ELs),
it's unclear what purpose is served by requiring the
names of these individuals. Could this information be
used in a manner that goes beyond ensuring that ELs
are being served to potentially compromising sensitive
personnel matters or decisions? Staff recommends the
bill be amended to delete the requirement that the
plan include the names of individuals.
2) Clarification of intent . As currently drafted, the
bill refers to supplemental funding but does not
specifically refer to Economic Impact Aid (EIA) funds.
According to the author, it is the intent that the
conditions and accountability outlined in the bill
apply to the use of EIA funding, but also that these
conditions be met regardless of the funding formula
adopted by the state for distributing funds to serve
English learners. In order to accomplish the author's
intent, staff recommends the bill be amended on Page
3, line 5, to clarify that these conditions apply to
the receipt of any state supplemental funding for
purposes of serving English learners, including, but
not limited to, Economic Impact Aid.
3) Governor's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) . As
part of the 2013-14 Governor's Budget, the
administration proposes to restructure the existing
K-12 finance system and eliminate over 40 existing
programs while also repealing, what the administration
determines are countless "discretionary" provisions of
statute, while implementing a new formula known as the
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).
SB 344
Page 6
The LCFF would consolidate the vast majority of state
categorical programs and revenue limit apportionments
into a single source of funding (12 categorical
programs, including Special Education, Child
Nutrition, Preschool, and After School programs, would
be excluded). The LCFF proposal would also eliminate
the statutory and programmatic requirements for almost
all existing categorical programs - the programs would
be deemed "discretionary" and programs in any of these
areas would be dependent on local district discretion.
To the extent that the LCFF or a modified version of
it is adopted as part of the budget, the majority of
currently required categorical activities would be
left to local districts' discretion. Therefore, the
changes proposed by this bill could be diluted,
eliminated, rendered obsolete or discretionary at the
local level.
4) LCFF and ELs . In lieu of EIA, the Governor's proposal
specifically provides for a supplemental grant equal
to 35 percent of the base grant provided for each EL,
economically disadvantaged or foster youth pupil, and
for schools with ELs, economically disadvantaged and
foster youth enrollment in excess of 50 percent of
their total enrollment, a concentration grant equal to
35 percent of the base grant for each student above
the 50 percent threshold. The Governor's proposal
would cap the amount of time an English learner (EL)
student could generate supplemental funds at five
years.
According to a Legislative Analyst's Office analysis,
the Governor's proposal provides districts with
greater discretion over how to use these funds
compared to current requirements for Economic Impact
Aid (EIA) funds. Districts would be required to use
the supplemental funds to meet the needs of their ELs
and low-income student groups, but they would have
broad flexibility in doing so. Current law is more
stringent in that the state requires and monitors that
districts use EIA funds to provide supplemental
services for the targeted student groups beyond what
other students receive.
This bill proposes even more extensive accountability
SB 344
Page 7
for the existing system of state supplemental funding
for EL students. As amended by staff comment #2,
these more extensive accountability measures would be
applicable to any funding formula adopted by the
state.
5) Existing accountability for EL specific funding .
Federal and state laws require the California
Department of Education to monitor implementation of
categorical programs operated by local educational
agencies. LEAs are responsible for creating and
maintaining programs which meet requirements and are
monitored for compliance with federal and state
categorical programmatic and fiscal requirements as
well as instructional services and programs provided
to ELs, physical education, and educational equity.
a) Compliance Monitoring. The Federal Program
Monitoring (FPM) office at CDE coordinates
reviews through a combination of data and
document review and on-site visits. LEAs are
assigned to one of four review cycles. LEAs may
be selected for an on-site or online monitoring
every two years. In identifying LEAs for reviews,
several factors are considered, including
compliance history, academic achievement, program
size, and fiscal analysis. At the end of each
review, the state will complete a report of
findings that informs the school, district, or
county office how to correct the findings.
b) Title III. Federal funding is provided under
Title III for the purpose of ensuring that EL
students attain English proficiency and meet the
same challenging academic content and achievement
standards that other students are expected to
meet. LEAs are required to use these funds to
implement language instruction educational
programs designed to help limited English
proficient students achieve the standards and
school districts are required to hold EL students
to the same academic content and achievement
standards established for all children. Funds
must be used to provide high-quality language
instruction educational programs that are based
on scientific research that demonstrates the
SB 344
Page 8
effectiveness of the programs in increasing
English proficiency and student academic
achievement in the core academic subjects, and
must also provide high-quality professional
development to staff. Additional, local
educational agencies (LEAs) must implement an
effective means of outreach to parents and inform
them how they can be active participants in
assisting their children to learn English,
achieve at high levels in core academic subjects,
and meet the same standards that all children are
expected to meet. Recipients of these funds are
accountable for meeting three annual measurable
achievement objectives (AMAOs) for English
learners. The first AMAO relates to making
annual progress on the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT), the second
relates to attaining English proficiency on the
CELDT, and the third AMAO relates to meeting
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) by the English
Learner subgroup at the LEA level. If a Title III
recipient fails to meet the growth targets for
two consecutive years, the LEA must develop an
improvement plan that specifically addresses the
factors that prevented the LEA from achieving the
AMAOs. If the LEA fails to meet the AMAOs for
four consecutive years, the state is required to
require the LEA to modify its curriculum,
program, and method of instruction or determine
whether the recipient will continue to receive
these funds.
6) Does this bill go far enough ? In spite of the
existing accountability requirements outlined in staff
comment #4 recent events demonstrate a disturbing
pattern of questionable implementation of services to
support English learners. Among these are:
a) Most recent lawsuit. In April 2013, the
ACLU filed suit against the state of California
to require the state to ensure the delivery of
English learner services to children who need it.
The ACLU alleges that, based on a data posted to
the California Department of Education website in
January 2013, 251 districts collectively reported
that more than 20,000 EL students receive no
SB 344
Page 9
English language instructional services and that
the state has disbursed EIA funds to districts
that report denying English language
instructional services to EL students.
b) PPIC Report 2012. In a September 2012
report, California's English Learner Students,
researchers noted that state funding for
supplemental services to ELs is not predicated on
meeting annual accountability targets and that
improving the efficiency of EL spending requires
a clear understanding of how EL dollars are spent
within districts and schools, and then linking
spending to outcomes.
c) Doe 1 et al. v. State of California et al.
On May 30, 2012, the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) filed suit against the Dinuba
Unified School District and the State of
California, charging that the school district and
state were violating students' fundamental right
to equal educational opportunity. The lawsuit on
behalf of Dinuba parents and teachers "sought to
stop this Central Valley school district from
denying basic instruction in reading to 1st and
2nd grade English learners and from using a
fundamentally flawed and unproven method of
teaching English to them." A settlement
agreement with the Dinuba Unified School District
was reached in August 2012.
This bill begins the expansion of accountability by
focusing on expanded efforts to develop and
demonstrate a specific plan for serving ELs with
supplemental state funds that include the engagement
of parents, teachers and staff. But should
accountability go further? Is requiring plans and
local advisory and approval structures sufficient for
meeting the state's obligations under federal, state,
and case law? Should the state require specific
outcomes be reported and outside intervention be
required, similar to that outlined under Title III, if
plans are not implemented or outcomes are not
achieved?
The committee may wish to consider whether the bill
SB 344
Page 10
should be amended to provide more extensive
accountability for the use of these funds to
effectively serve English learners (ELs) than is
currently contained in the bill.
7) Related legislation
SB 223 (Liu) heard and passed by this committee by a
vote of 9-0 on April 3, 2013, proposes the
continuation of the current flexibility extended to
districts beyond 2014-15, but requires that districts
apply for this flexibility and agree to preconditions
and 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. Consistent with the
current flexibility structure, Economic Impact Aid
(EIA) is excluded from flexibility and districts are
still required to spend this supplemental funding on
ELs and low-income students. In addition, the
preconditions to be met by districts for districts
includes that the standards based curriculum for ELs
is cognitively complex, coherent, comprehensive, and
standards aligned. This bill would complement SB 223
in that it proposes a separate, more expanded
accountability structure for the use of EIA funding
that builds upon existing state and federal
requirements for meeting the needs of ELs.
SB 69 (Liu and others) also on the committee's agenda
today, proposes an alternative Local Control Funding
Formula (LCFF) funding model based upon the Governor's
proposal. It is unclear how this bill would interact
with the provisions of SB 69.
SUPPORT
American Civil Liberties Union
California Federation of Teachers
Californians Together
Families in Schools
OPPOSITION
None received.
SB 344
Page 11