BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 416
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Huff |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 6, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: April 8, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lenin Del Castillo |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Public schools: repeal of funding programs
SUMMARY
This bill repeals numerous provisions of the Education Code
for categorical programs that are considered obsolete or
unnecessary in light of the passage of recent Local Control
Funding Formula (LCFF) legislation.
BACKGROUND
The LCFF, enacted as part of the 2013-14 Budget Act, was a
significant reform to the state's system of financing K-12
public schools. It replaces the prior system of revenue
limits and restricted funding for a multitude of categorical
programs with a new funding formula that provides base funding
for the core educational needs of all students and
supplemental funding for the additional educational needs of
low-income students, English learners, and foster youth.
Because the LCFF funds have limited spending restrictions,
local education agencies (LEAs) have considerable flexibility
to direct LCFF resources to best meet their students' needs.
Although local education agencies have considerably more
flexibility in how they spend their resources under LCFF
compared to the previous funding system, the law requires a
school district, county office of education, or charter
SB 416 (Huff) Page 2 of ?
school:
"...to increase or improve services for unduplicated
pupils [low-
income students, English learners, and foster youth]
in proportion to
the increase in funds apportioned on the basis of
the number and
concentration of unduplicated pupils in the school
district, county
office of education, or charter school."
Under the old system, revenue limits provided LEAs with
discretionary (unrestricted) funding for general education
purposes, and categorical program (restricted) funding was
provided for specialized purposes, with each program having
unique allocation and spending requirements. Revenue limits
made up about two-thirds of state funding for schools, while
categorical program funding made up the remaining one-third
portion. For some time, that system was criticized as being
too state-driven, bureaucratic, complex, inequitable, and
based on outdated allocation methods that did not reflect
current student needs.
To ensure accountability for Local Control Formula Funds
(LCFF), the state also mandated that each local education
agency (LEA) develop a local control and accountability plan
(LCAP) that identifies locally determined goals, actions,
services, and expenditures of LCFF funds for each school year
in support of the state educational priorities that are
specified in statute, as well as any additional local
priorities. School district LCAPs are subject to review and
approval by county offices of education. Statute established
a process for districts to receive technical assistance
related to their LCAP. The Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) is authorized to intervene in a struggling
school district under certain conditions.
ANALYSIS
This bill would repeal numerous provisions of the Education
Code for categorical programs that are considered obsolete or
unnecessary in light of the passage of the LCFF. Below are
SB 416 (Huff) Page 3 of ?
the bill sections and the general subject matter of the
proposed changes.
1. Youth conservation program (SEC. 1)
2. Technical, agricultural, and natural resource
conservation schools (SEC. 2)
3. Cosmetology courses (SEC. 3)
4. Arts work visual and performing arts education (SEC.
4)
5. Schoolbus clean fuel and efficiency demonstration
(SEC. 5)
6. School safety block grant (SEC. 6)
7. School safety violence protection (SEC. 7)
8. Foster children educational services (SEC. 8)
9. Revenue limit adjustments for State Teachers'
Retirement and unemployment insurance (SEC. 9)
10. National board certification incentives (SEC. 10)
11. Education technology staff development (SEC. 11)
12. Education technology (SEC. 12)
13. Bilingual education (SEC. 13)
14. Mathematics improvement programs (SEC. 14)
15. Single gender academies program (SEC. 15)
16. State instructional materials (SEC. 16)
STAFF COMMENTS
1. Need for the bill. According to the author's office,
this bill would remove various Education Code Sections
that remain on the books despite being rendered obsolete
SB 416 (Huff) Page 4 of ?
by the enactment of the Local Control Funding Formula
(LCFF). The LCFF removed funding for a number of
categorical programs which still remain codified in the
Education Code.
2. Previous LCFF clean-up legislation. SB 587 (Emmerson,
2013) was the genesis for Chapter 923, Statutes of 2014
(SB 971, Huff). SB 587 was amended at the end of session
in 2013 to incorporate changes to the Education Code in
light of the passage of LCFF. According to Senator
Emmerson's office at the time, SB 587 was to begin the
discussion amongst all parties, to achieve consensus,
about sections of the Education Code that could possibly
be repealed or modified. The elements of SB 587 were
originally drafted by the Department of Finance (DOF),
and were a first attempt to "clean up" the Education
Code; however, these provisions were viewed through the
prism of DOF's perspective on the implementation of LCFF
(from DOF's perspective almost everything was
discretionary), and not on the merits of each statute and
the underlying intent.
In the Fall of 2013; the Department of Finance,
California Department of Education, and Senate
legislative staff met multiple times to discuss elements
that could be part of SB 587 through a consensus
approach. The discussions were intended to ascertain (1)
whether the actions proposed were consistent with LCFF,
(2) the bill does not impede pending legislation or
legislative discussions, (3) the bill did not impact past
or pending judicial actions, and (4) determine whether
any of the proposed changes could lead to any unintended
consequences at either a programmatic, budget or auditing
level. SB 587 was never heard by this Committee.
SB 971 was originally introduced by Senator Cannella in
2014 and subsequently authored by Senator Huff. The
measure included many of the provisions from SB 587.
While the process for determining what sections should
remain in law in light of LCFF will likely take multiple
pieces of legislation over a period of time, SB 971 was a
solid first step in this regard.
3. Committee amendments. Building on the efforts with SB
SB 416 (Huff) Page 5 of ?
587 and SB 971 and also based on recent discussions with
various stakeholders, staff recommends an amendment to
remove the following sections from the bill: SEC. 8
(Foster children educational services), SEC. 10 (National
board certification incentives), and SEC. 16 (State
instructional materials). Staff also recommends an
amendment to SEC. 13 (Bilingual education) to provide
that only Article 1 of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
52130) regarding the Impacted Languages Act of 1984 is
repealed.
SUPPORT
California School Boards Association (sponsor)
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --