BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1211
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Huff |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 18, 2016 Hearing |
| |Date: March 30, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lenin Del Castillo |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Educational programs
SUMMARY
This bill repeals numerous provisions of the Education Code for
categorical programs that are outdated or considered obsolete in
light of the passage of recent Local Control Funding Formula
(LCFF) legislation.
BACKGROUND
Existing law continues implementation of the LCFF, which was
enacted as part of the 2013-14 Budget Act. The LCFF 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 targeted base funding
levels tied to four grade spans 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. (Education Code § 42238.03)
ANALYSIS
This bill would repeal numerous provisions of the Education Code
for categorical programs that are outdated or considered
SB 1211 (Huff) Page 2
of ?
obsolete in light of the passage of the LCFF. Below are the
bill sections and the general subject matter of the proposed
changes.
1) Community Policing and Mentoring for School Safety Pilot
Program (SEC. 1)
2) Study of schools qualifying for federal severe need meal
reimbursement (SEC. 2)
3) Nell Soto Parent/Teacher Involvement Program (SEC. 3)
4) Tom Hayden Community-Based Parent Involvement Grant
Program (SEC. 4)
5) Nuclear Age Education Curriculum (SEC. 5)
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 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 a related piece of clean-up
legislation, SB 971 (Huff, Chapter 923, Statutes of 2014).
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) in an 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
SB 1211 (Huff) Page 3
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 and was chaptered into law.
SB 416 (Huff, Chapter 538, Statutes of 2015) continued this
effort and repealed additional provisions of law rendered
obsolete by the enactment of LCFF.
3) Additional background on the LCFF. Although local
educational 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 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."
SB 1211 (Huff) Page 4
of ?
Under the old system, revenue limits provided local educational
agencies (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 Funding Formula
(LCFF) entitlements, the state also mandated that each 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.
SUPPORT
California School Boards Association
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --