BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 344
Page A
Date of Hearing: August 21, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 344 (Padilla) - As Amended: August 15, 2013
Policy Committee: Education Vote:7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill adds several requirements to the Local Control Funding
Formula (LCFF) related to parental involvement and programmatic
and fiscal accountability for the purpose of ensuring the
academic needs of English learner (EL) pupils are being met.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires each local education agency's (LEA) fiscal audit to
determine whether LCFF expenditures were in compliance with
State Board of Education (SBE) adopted regulations regarding
supplemental and concentration grant funds. Further requires
county offices of education (COEs), as part of their review of
an LEA's adopted budget, to determine whether LCFF
expenditures were in compliance with SBE adopted regulations.
2)Prohibits SBE adopted regulations concerning schoolwide LCFF
supplemental and concentration grant funds from being more
restrictive than the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Title
I (poor/needy pupils) requirements governing schoolwide funds.
3)Requires LEAs to expend carryover state Economic Impact Aid
(EIA) program funding (poor/needy and EL pupils) only for the
purposes required under the EIA program.
FISCAL EFFECT
SB 344
Page B
Increased annual GF/98 state reimbursable mandated costs, likely
in excess of $3 million, to LEAs to implement the requirements
of this measure, including providing EL specific information in
each LEA's Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) -
expenditure, instructional, and achievement information. This
cost may be offset if the requirements of this measure are
determined to be consistent with federal law and therefore, are
not eligible for reimbursement.
The costs associated with this measure are in addition to the
annual GF/98 state reimbursable mandated costs LEAs will incur
for the accountability requirements under LCFF - developing
plans, reporting data, convening committees for comment and
input, etc. In the initial years of LCFF implementation, the
GF/98 state reimbursable mandated costs will likely be in
millions to tens of millions to LEA to meet the accountability
requirements. These costs will likely be reduced in future
years as LEAs will only likely be revising plans.
SUMMARY CONTINUED
4)Adds the following requirements to an LEA LCAP:
a) A program budget implementing the specific actions of
the LCAP's goals for the initial fiscal year covered by the
plan, including a budget specific to services provided to
pupils eligible for free/reduced price meals, EL pupils,
foster youth pupils, and pupils redesigned as fluent
English proficient (FEP).
b) The expenditures necessary to implement the goals
identified in an LEA LCAP.
c) Requires information on the extent to which teachers,
administrators, and staff receive professional development
or participate in induction programs be added to LCFF state
priorities. Further requires LEAs to include schoolsite
information on expenditures and how pupils are meeting
state priorities as part of the annual update to their
LCAPs.
5)Requires the districtwide EL parent advisory committee to
advise the governing board of a school district on specified
SB 344
Page C
tasks related to EL pupils, including the development of an EL
master plan, instructional objectives, and administration of
the annual language census.
6)Adds the following elements to the SBE adopted template to be
used by LEAs in developing their LCAP:
a) The NCLB requirements related to the single plan for
student achievement, including the requirements of federal
Title III: Language Instruction for EL pupils.
b) A description of how the LCFF supplemental and
concentration grant funds will be used to meet annual
measurable objectives (AMOs), Common Core Standards and ELD
standards.
c) A listing of services and programs providing access to a
full curriculum for EL pupils, as specified, including a
description of the ELD program and instructional materials
used.
d) A description of how professional development programs
assist in meeting federal Title III AMOs and the monitoring
procedures used for FEP pupils.
7)Requires the SPI to provide training to individuals reviewing
an LEA's LCAP for compliance with expenditure requirements.
Further requires the expenditures included in an LEA's annual
budget to implement the specific actions/strategies included
in the LCAP for EL pupils, foster youth pupils, and FEP
pupils.
8)Requires an LEA to implement a remedy to a complaint filed
regarding the LCFF to be implemented by the beginning of the
school year or during the school year, as specified.
9)Adds the subgroup of FEP pupils to the Academic Performance
Index (API) and requires parents to be included in the
development of fiscal standards and criteria used LEAs to
develop their annual budgets.
COMMENTS
1)Background . The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), enacted
SB 344
Page D
as part of the 2013 Budget [AB 97 (Budget Committee), Chapter
47, Statutes of 2013], established a new funding formula for
K-12 education to be phased in over seven years. The formula
consists of three major components: (a) base grant (general
purpose funding), (b) supplemental grant (funding for English
learner (EL) poor/needy pupils, and foster youth -
approximately $1,500<1> per pupil), and (c) a concentration
grant (additional funding for those LEAs with a high number of
EL, poor/needy pupils, and foster youth).
The LCFF is intended to provide LEAs with maximum flexibility
and as such, there are minimal expenditure requirements tied
to the funding LEAs receive. Therefore, the LCFF
consolidated the funding for the majority of the state's
categorical programs, including the EIA program, which
provided school districts with additional funding for EL and
poor/needy pupils. The rationale for this program
consolidation was to allow LEAs to make their own decisions
based on their pupils' needs regarding which programs to
establish that enable pupils to succeed academically. For
example, if a school district chose to provide specialized
training to teachers of EL students in grades K-3, it can do
so without regard to programmatic or funding requirements.
Under LCFF, LEAs are no longer tied to program requirements in
exchange for funding they receive.
2)Purpose . There are 1.4 million EL pupils enrolled in
California schools. This represents 22.3% of all children
enrolled in school. According to SDE, 35% of ELs are enrolled
in kindergarten. Overall, EL pupils academically underperform
most other pupil subgroups. For example, the 2012 API
statewide average score for all subgroups (i.e., poor/needy,
African American, Caucasian, etc.) and all grade levels was
791 out of 800. In comparison, the statewide average for EL
pupils was 719.
---------------------------
<1>The supplemental per pupil amount equals 20% of a LEAs base
grant. This number is based on an average base grant of $7,557
for grades K-3. The supplemental per pupil grant amount may
increase or decrease depending on the grade level base grant
amount.
SB 344
Page E
Supporters of this measure argue the state has a legal and
moral responsibility to ensure EL pupils have access to
quality educational programs, particularly given the higher
rate of funding (approximately $1,500 per EL pupil) provided
to LEAs based on the number of EL pupils enrolled in their
schools under LCFF. Specifically, supporters argue federal
and state law requires educational opportunities, including
those related to language proficiency, are afforded to EL
pupils and the state is required to provide programs that
reduce the language barriers for these pupils.
According to the author, " In 2013, the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Asian Pacific American Legal
Center found that more than 20,000 [ELs] across 251 school
districts, more than a quarter of California school districts,
have not been receiving any services to help them learn
English. The ACLU asserted that the lack of services violates
legal mandates and is counter to studies showing that [EL
pupils] denied those services are more likely to fail or drop
out of school.
"In 2012, the Public Policy Institute of California released a
report on the status of California's English Learner system.
The report notes that the federal funding for [EL pupils]
comes with accountability requirements. However, state funding
for supplemental services [ELs] is not based on meeting annual
accountability targets."
This bill adds several requirements to the LCFF related to
parental involvement and programmatic and fiscal
accountability for the purpose of ensuring the academic needs
of EL pupils are being met.
3)LCFF Accountability for EL pupils . Under LCFF, LEAs are
required to develop and adopt LCAPs, which require the
reporting of detailed pupil achievement data and information
related to the expenditure of their LCFF allocations. Statute
also requires the SBE to adopt a template for use by LEAs in
developing LCAPs. With regard to EL pupils, an LEA is
required to include the following information/data in their
LCAP:
SB 344
Page F
a) The annual goals to be achieved according to state
priorities for EL pupils.
b) The programs and services established that will allow EL
pupils to access the Common Core Standards and the English
language development standards.
c) How the LEA will promote parental involvement for EL
pupils.
d) The percentage of EL pupils who make progress toward
English proficiency, as specified.
e) The EL reclassification rate.
Likewise, a school district is required to establish an EL
parent advisory committee to provide advice on the
requirements of LCFF, if their enrollment includes at least
15% EL pupils and the district enrolls at least 50 EL pupils.
This committee is required to review and comment on an LEA's
LCAP prior to its submission to the county superintendent of
schools for approval, as specified.
This bill proposes to expand and add to the LCFF
accountability requirements referenced above. For example,
the bill proposes to require information on the types of
instructional programs being provided to EL pupils.
4)Expenditure requirements of LCFF supplemental grant funds .
Statute requires an LEA or charter school to increase or
improve services for EL pupils, poor/needy pupils, and foster
youth "in proportion to the increase in funds apportioned on
the basis of the number and concentration of [these pupils] in
the LEA or charter school." Existing law also authorizes an
LEA to use these funds for districtwide, countywide, or
charterwide purposes in a manner that is no more restrictive
than federal NCLB Title I: poor/needy pupils. Current law
also authorizes the SBE to adopt emergency regulations for the
purposes of implementing this section.
Prior to the enactment of LCFF, the EIA program allocated
approximately $950 million GF/98 annually to LEAs based on the
number of EL and poor/needy pupils - approximately $330 per
pupil. LEAs were required to expend EIA funding on these
SB 344
Page G
pupils and statute required LEAs to demonstrate how this
expenditure requirement was met.
Supporters of this measure argue LCFF does not contain
sufficient expenditure reporting information with regard to an
LEA's use of supplemental and concentration grant funds. This
bill attempts to address this concern.
5)Opponents . Opponents of this measure (California School
Boards Association, California School Administrators
Association, California Teachers Association, etc.) are
concerned this measure predisposes that accountability issues
related to EL pupils will not be sufficiently addressed by the
SBE. Essentially, they argue this measure is premature in
establishing new requirements before the SBE has had time to
act. The SBE is required to develop an LCAP template by March
31, 2014.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081