BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 428
AUTHOR: Anderson
AMENDED: June 13, 2013
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: January 15,
2014
URGENCY: Yes CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : School Safety.
SUMMARY
This bill, an urgency measure, establishes the Safe
Classrooms Act and appropriates $850 million from the
General Fund to the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) to fund projects that address classroom and school
facility safety improvements, as specified.
BACKGROUND
Current law provides for a variety of grants and funding to
support school districts in selecting from a variety of
options to promote school safety. These options can
include the addition of personnel, school safety
infrastructure projects, training for school staff,
instruction and curriculum for students, and cooperative
agreements with local law enforcement and community groups.
These include:
The inclusion of hard-wired phone connections to a
public telephone network in new or modernized
classrooms, with the authorization to meet this
requirement through the use of wireless technology.
(EC § 17077.10)
The required development of a comprehensive school
safety plan relevant to the needs and resources of the
particular school. (EC § 32280)
The Carl Washington School Safety and Violence
Prevention Act, which creates a grant program to fund,
among other things, effective and accessible on-campus
SB 428
Page 2
communication devices and other school safety
infrastructure needs. (EC § 32228)
The School Safety Violence Prevention Act which
provides for competitive grants for school districts
that demonstrate a collaborative and coordinated
approach for implementing a comprehensive school
safety and violence prevention strategy. (EC §
35294.10)
The School Safety Consolidated Grant Program. (EC §
41510)
ANALYSIS
This bill , an urgency measure:
1) Establishes the Safe Classrooms Act.
2) Appropriates $850 million from the General Fund to the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) for
allocation to school districts and charter schools to
fund projects that address classroom and school
facility safety improvements.
3) Outlines eligible projects to include, but not be
limited to:
a) School facility safety
improvements that control physical access to
school sites, as specified, parking lot and
access pathway improvements, main entrance access
improvements, emergency lighting system
improvements, improvements to fences and gates
and camera or surveillance system improvements
and installations.
b) Lock and key mechanisms.
c) Communications systems and equipment.
d) Security threat assessment surveys.
e) Emergency training and
SB 428
Page 3
reevaluation of administrative policies and
procedures.
4) Requires the SPI to establish an application process
for school districts and charter schools to apply for
funding.
5) Requires the SPI, in approving applications, to
consider pupil enrollment in the applicant school
district or charter school and the equitable
distribution of funds among applicants in urban and
rural areas.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Rationale for the bill . According to the author, now
that California has recovered from the worst of the
economic downfall, there is additional revenue
available to schools for increasing security and
preventing future tragedies. The author contends that
most school buildings lack basic security features
such as inside locks, security monitors, or panic
buttons. This bill would provide one-time grant
funding to increase the safety of classrooms in
California.
2) Recent history of school safety funding . In response
to budget shortfalls, SBX3 4, Chapter 12, Statutes of
2009 (which was extended by SB 70, Chapter 7, Statutes
of 2011) was enacted to authorize local educational
agencies to use funding for approximately 40
categorical programs for any educational purpose to
the extent permitted by federal laws through the
2014-15 fiscal year. (Education Code § 42605)
Categorical programs were divided into three levels:
a) Tier I programs had no reductions to their
allocation, no programmatic changes, and no
flexibility was granted.
b) Tier II programs received funding reductions
but the programmatic requirements remained
unchanged.
c) Tier III program allocations were reduced
SB 428
Page 4
and districts were allowed to spend these on any
educational purpose as long as the school board
publicly discussed those purposes at a regularly
scheduled board meeting.
As noted in the background of this analysis, current
law provides for three school safety grant programs
(the School Safe Block Grant, the School Safety
Consolidated Competitive Grant and the School Safety
Violence Prevention Act). These categorical programs
were designed to provide funding for some of the same
types of projects specified in this bill. All three
of these grant programs were "Tier 3" categoricals.
Districts receiving these funds could choose to
suspend the requirements specified in law for these
school safety grants.
3) Local Control Funding Formula . In July 2013, the
Governor and Legislature enacted AB 97 (Assembly
Budget Committee, Chapter 47, Statutes of 2013) which
established the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)
to replace the existing revenue limit and categorical
funding structure for school districts, charter
schools and county offices of education beginning in
the 2013-14 fiscal year. Under the new formula,
districts receive uniform, grade-span base rates (with
early elementary and high school adjustments) based
upon average daily attendance, supplemental funding
for English learner (EL) and low-income (LI) students,
and concentration funding for districts with higher EL
and LI populations.
AB 97 also eliminated almost three fourths of
categorical programs, including the School Safety
Grant programs. Funding and program requirements were
maintained for a limited set of categorical programs,
including:
a)
Special Education;
b)
After School
Education and Safety
Program;
c)
State Preschool;
SB 428
Page 5
a) Quality Education Investment Act;
b) Assessments;
c) American Indian Education Centers;
d) Early Childhood Education
Programs;
e) Partnership Academies;
f) Agricultural Vocational Education;
g) Specialized Secondary Programs;
h) Foster Youth Services Program; and
i) Adults in Correctional Facilities.
Additionally, for purposes of transparency and
accountability, AB 97 requires districts to adopt
Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) which
must include a school district's annual goals in each
of eight specified areas of state priority (Student
Engagement, Student Achievement, School Climate, Basic
Services, Implementation of Common Core State
Standards, Course Access, Parental Involvement, and
Other Student Outcomes).
4) A step backwards ? The newly established Local Control
Funding Formula (LCFF) eliminates funding for almost
all existing categorical programs. As a result, the
categorical activities previously prescribed by these
programs are now left to local districts' discretion.
According to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO),
full implementation of the LCFF in 2013-14 would cost
$18 billion more than the state spent on K-12
education in 2012-13. Considering both the costs and
the projected growth in Proposition 98 funding, the
LAO anticipates that fully implementing the new system
will take 8 years. Additionally, the LAO reports that
the vast majority of districts will see increases in
funding under the LCFF and no district will receive
less state aid than it received in
2012-13.
This bill establishes and appropriates $850 million in
GF to a new "categorical" program, dedicated to school
safety projects. The committee may wish to consider
the following:
SB 428
Page 6
a) Should a new categorical program be created
just six months after the elimination of 40+
programs and, if so, is this the priority
categorical program to create?
b) Given the LAO's projection that it could be
8 years before full implementation of the LCFF
will be realized, should $850 million of GF be
redirected for the purposes outlined in the bill,
or would these funds be better used as a means of
accelerating full implementation of the LCFF?
c) Current law does not prohibit a district's
use of funding received under the LCFF for
school safety improvements. Why is it necessary
to enact a bill that prescribes that districts
use these funds for this purpose?
d) Would it be more consistent with the
principles underlying LCFF to provide general
increases to school districts and allow districts
to determine the best use of these funds?
5) Appropriate funding source ? Typically, school
facility improvements have been funded with long term
financing mechanisms such as general obligation bonds.
In light of growing debt service costs, the Governor's
recently issued Budget Summary for 2014-15 proposes to
continue a dialogue on the future of school facilities
funding, including consideration of what role, if any
the state should play in the future of school
facilities funding. Among other things, the Governor
opines that a future program should avoid an
unsustainable reliance on state debt issuance.
This bill proposes the appropriation of General Fund
monies for facility safety improvements and various
safety related activities, some of which would
traditionally have been funded through general
obligation bonds. The committee may wish to consider
whether funding sources and the programs proposed by
the bill would be more appropriate topics in a broader
discussion on the future of the state's role in school
facilities.
6) Similar legislation . Other recent legislation to
SB 428
Page 7
promote school safety includes the following:
SB 316 (Block, 2013) required modernization projects
submitted to the Division of the State Architect (DSA)
under the State School Facility Program to include
locks that allow classrooms and rooms with an
occupancy of five persons or more to be locked from
the inside as a condition for receipt of state bond
funds beginning in 2016, and required, if federal
funds become available for purposes of school safety,
that school districts first consider using these funds
to install locks in every classroom and room with an
occupancy of five persons or more. SB 316 was heard
and passed by this committee on May 2, 2013 by a vote
of 9-0, but was subsequently held under submission by
the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 1076 (Olson, 2013) authorized the governing board
of each school district and each county superintendent
of schools to equip the interior of every classroom,
cafeteria, theater, gym, and any other regularly used
space, except a parking lot, in a public school
serving pupils in any of grades K-12 with a panic
button to be used to alert local law enforcement in
the event of a violent incident, if federal funding
becomes available for this purpose. AB 1076 is
currently being held under submission by the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
San Diego Schools Police Officers Association
Two letter from individuals.
OPPOSITION
Association of California School Administrators
SB 428
Page 8