BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 480
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 480
(Harper) - As Amended March 26, 2015
SUBJECT: School districts: reorganization: study of benefits
and impacts of unification
SUMMARY: Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to
conduct a study of the potential benefits and impacts of school
district unification. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the LAO to conduct a study of the potential benefits
and impacts of school district unification.
2)Requires the study to include discussion of all of the
following topics:
a) the benefits of school district unification for purposes
of matriculation
b) the benefits of having a uniform school calendar for all
grade levels
AB 480
Page 2
c) the benefits of combined maintenance and operation of
schools within a unified school district
d) the benefits of school district unification for purposes
of facilities management
e) the impact of school district unification on overall
costs, including the impacts on certificated salary
schedules, classified salaries and positions, and
certificated administrative positions
f) the impact on the application of the Local Control
Funding Formula
g) the short-term and long-term benefits of school district
unification over periods of 5, 10, and 15 years
EXISTING LAW:
1)Prescribes procedures for school district reorganization,
depending on the type of reorganization (transfer of
territory, unification, etc.) and the method by which the
AB 480
Page 3
reorganization was initiated (petition, school board
resolution, etc.).
2)Requires each county to establish a County Committee on School
District Organization (CCSDO), made up of county school board
members or their designees.
3)Establishes a process whereby locally developed reorganization
petitions dealing with a transfer of territory are reviewed by
the CCSDO for approval or disapproval in a public hearing, and
allows for the county committee decision on a petition dealing
with a transfer of territory to be appealed to the SBE for
review and consideration.
4)Establishes a process whereby locally developed reorganization
petitions dealing with all other district organizational
issues are reviewed by the county committee in public hearing
and submitted with a recommendation to the SBE, and requires
the SBE to hear such petitions in public hearing, receive a
recommendation from California Department of Education (CDE)
staff, and formally approve or disapprove those petitions.
5)Subjects these petitions to review under California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
6)Requires the return of approved petitions to the local
jurisdiction, where the county superintendent of schools is
required to call for an election at which the petition is put
to a vote of the affected electorate.
AB 480
Page 4
7)Authorizes a CCSDO to approve petitions to create new school
districts without having to submit the proposal to the State
Board of Education when the governing boards of the affected
districts consent and the county superintendent(s) with
jurisdiction over the affected districts approve, and where
there is an agreement to share the costs of complying with the
requirements of the CEQA.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has been keyed non-fiscal by the
Office of Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS:
Need for the bill. The author's office states that the intent
of this bill is to examine ways in which school districts can
reduce costs through unification. The author's office offers as
examples of possible cost savings bulk ordering, textbook
purchasing, administrative services, food services, and
credential and assignment monitoring. The author's office also
notes that unification might reduce the need for administrative
staff and the election of governing board members, and that
unification might provide more uniformity in curriculum across
schools.
2011 LAO study answers some questions raised by this bill. The
Supplemental Report of the 2010-11 Budget Act directed the LAO
to study school district consolidation and determine whether the
state should more actively promote consolidating small districts
into larger districts.
AB 480
Page 5
This report addressed the merits of consolidation, spending
patterns, student performance, incentives and disincentives to
consolidate, and concluded that "neither the academic research
nor our own review offers persuasive evidence that consolidating
small districts would necessarily result in substantial savings
or notably better outcomes for students."
The report noted that the state has about half as many districts
as it did fifty years ago (963 in 2009-10 compared to 2,091 in
1950-51), largely as a result of state policies to encourage
consolidation. The LAO noted that throughout the 1950's and
1960's the state provided a number of fiscal incentives for
consolidation, including increasing the funding rates for
unified districts and funding transportation costs associated
with unifications.
The LAO found that small districts currently tend not to pursue
consolidation because the state provides fiscal incentives for
districts to remain small and disincentives for consolidation.
The report found that these incentives are strongest in very
small school districts, which on average receive more than twice
as much funding per pupil compared to middle and large sized
districts. The LAO also found that "certain state laws,
including those related to environmental reviews and district
staffing, coupled with community preferences for small
districts, serve as disincentives for districts to consolidate."
The report recommended eliminating fiscal advantages provided
for districts to remain small.
The LAO has indicated to staff that it does not view additional
analysis of this topic a priority, and does not have more to
report on this topic. In view of the work that the LAO has
already done, and their lack of further comment on the issue,
staff recommends that the bill be amended to make an agency
other than the LAO responsible for this report. The Fiscal
AB 480
Page 6
Crisis Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), which is charged with
providing management and fiscal advice and assistance to school
districts, may be the more appropriate agency to conduct this
study.
Unification under the LCFF. The Local Control Funding Formula
(LCFF) enacted in 2013 changed the allocation of K-12 funding by
creating base, supplemental, and concentration grants in place
of most previously existing K-12 funding streams, including
revenue limits and most state categorical programs. Base grants
vary by grade span, supplemental grants are allocated based on
the number of "unduplicated pupils" who are low income, English
learners, and in foster care, and concentration grants are
provided to school districts with unduplicated students
comprising more than 55% of their enrollment.
The LAO report was completed before the LCFF was enacted, and
the new funding system may alter some of the factors involved
school district unification. This may pose some interesting
questions for research, especially with regard to fiscal
incentives and disincentives for unification.
Recommended amendments. Staff recommends the following
amendments to address issues discussed above:
1. Change the agency responsible for producing the study
from the LAO to the FCMAT.
2. Focus the requirements of the study around two topics
involved in school district unification: management and
finance. Related amendments are recommended to focus the
topics outlined in the bill around issues the FCMAT can
adequately address given the data available to it.
AB 480
Page 7
3. Make the implementation of the bill contingent upon
appropriation of funding for this purpose.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087