BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 460
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 19, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
SB 460
(Allen) - As Amended June 2, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Education |Vote:|6 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires, until July 1, 2019, or whenever the state
SB 460
Page 2
adopts statewide English learner redesignation standards, local
educational agencies (LEAs) continue to receive a percentage of
supplemental and concentration grant funding under the Local
Control Funding Formula (LCFF) for two additional years after an
English Learner (EL) student has been reclassified as Fluent
English Proficient (RFEP). Specifically, this bill:
1)Expands the definition of "unduplicated pupil" to include a
pupil who is redesignated as RFEP and provides that the pupil
be counted only once for funding purposes.
2)Requires, to the extent that funding is specifically provided
for this purpose in the annual budget act, that a county
office of education, a school district, or a charter school
receive 50 percent and 25 percent of supplemental and
concentration grant funds calculated for a pupil who is
redesignated as RFEP for the first and second fiscal years,
respectively, after the redesignation.
3)Expands local control accountability plan (LCAP) state
priority reporting requirements regarding ELs, to include
identification of any specialized programs or services
provided to RFEPs in order for these pupils to maintain
proficiency in English and access the common core academic
content standards, and also include a broad course of study
that includes specified subject areas.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)General Fund/Proposition 98 cost pressure, in the range of $80
to $120 million annually through 2019 or when the adoption of
statewide reclassification criteria occurs, whichever occurs
first. Actual costs of this bill will vary each year, based
on the number of RFEP pupils that are in their first two years
after reclassification that are not low-income and whether
they attend school in districts that qualify for concentration
grant funding. These costs are contingent upon funding in the
SB 460
Page 3
annual budget act. The 2015-16 Budget Act does not include
funding for this purpose.
2)One-time General Fund costs of approximately $49,000 for the
California Department of Education (CDE) to make necessary
revisions to the LCAP template and to provide technical
assistance. This estimate does not include costs for any
travel or stakeholder input meetings needed.
3)Additional unknown, potentially significant costs to LEAs to
report reclassified student enrollment, for county offices of
education to verify the data, and for LEAs to include
additional information on redesignated pupils in their LCAPs.
These activities could be deemed a reimbursable state mandate.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. In 2013, the state implemented a new funding formula
for schools known as the Local Control Funding Formula. The
new law replaces most previously existing K-12 funding streams
(revenue limit and categorical programs) with per pupil grade
span funding and targeted funding for low income, English
learner and foster youth students.
This bill intends to allow local education agencies (LEAs) to
continue receiving a percentage of supplemental and
concentration grant funding under the LCFF for two additional
fiscal years after an EL has been reclassified as Fluent
English proficient (RFEP). The bill is intended to highlight
the importance of reclassifying EL pupils into mainstream
academic programs while, at the same time, ensuring they have
continued resources to maintain proficiency.
2)Concerns. Currently, LCFF establishes an "unduplicated"
percentage of students that meet certain criteria
(EL/LI/Foster) and the state provides additional funding based
SB 460
Page 4
on that single unduplicated percentage. The unduplicated
percentage means a child counts only once, regardless of how
may criteria they meet. This bill adds RFEP students as an
additional category for determining if a child can be included
in the unduplicated count. According to CDE, funding
calculation issues occur when trying to pull RFEP students out
of the unduplicated count to fund them differently than other
unduplicated categories. This goes against the concept of
having a single unduplicated count. Presumably, the bill will
create three separate counts that are used in the formula, and
three calculations for each entity for supplemental funding
and 3 separate calculations for concentration funding. The
CDE suggests technical amendments to streamline the
calculation and ensure RFEP students counted correctly.
3)Opposition. The California Teachers Association is opposed to
this bill as they believe that school districts should have
transitional time to implement existing LCFF regulations and
allocations. Therefore, any substantive changes to LCFF within
the transitional years should be held off.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081