BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1226
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
1226 (Chávez) - As Amended April 20, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Education |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY: This bill expands the state priorities under the local
control and accountability plans (LCAPs) to include the degree
to which the certificated instructional personnel of the school
district are offered opportunities for professional development
and growth.
AB 1226
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT:
Proposition 98/GF cost pressure, potentially in the hundreds of
millions of dollars, to dedicate funding for professional
development activities.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. In 2013, the state implemented a new funding formula
for schools known as the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).
The new law replaces most previously existing K-12 funding
streams (revenue limit and categorical programs) with per
pupil grade span funding. Additionally, the new formula
provides targeted funding for low income, English learner and
foster youth students.
With the elimination of most state categorical programs, the
LCFF also shifts many spending decisions from the state to the
local level. To this end, local education agencies (LEAs)
are required to produce an LCAP in consultation with parents,
teachers and the broader community. The LCAP ties decisions
about the use of resources to annual educational goals. Each
LCAP must address the following eight state priorities:
a) The degree to which teachers are appropriately assigned;
b) Implementation of the academic content and performance
standards adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE);
c) Parental involvement;
d) Pupil achievement;
AB 1226
Page 3
e) Pupil engagement;
f) School climate;
g) The extent to which pupils have access to and are
enrolled in a broad course of study; and
h) Pupil outcomes.
This bill adds as a ninth priority the degree to which the
district offers opportunities for professional development and
growth.
1)Funding for Professional Development. Prior to the enactment
of the LCFF, the annual budget appropriated approximately $400
million for specific professional development programs and
activities. In 2009, in response to the state budget crisis,
the Legislature reduced funding for approximately 40
categorical programs, including professional development
programs. Along with the funding reduction, the state made
program requirements flexible, allowing LEAs to spend funding
for any educational purpose. This flexibility was continued
under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) enacted in
2013.
The 2013-14 Budget Act provided $1.25 billion (one-time/P98)
to LEAs to support the transition to the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS). Allowable activities included professional
AB 1226
Page 4
development, instructional materials, and technology.
The 2014-15 Budget Act appropriated $400 million to reduce
K-12 education mandate claims backlog and expressed
Legislative intent that the funding be used for activities
associated with implementation of the CCSS, including
professional development.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081