BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1211|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: SB 1211
Author: Huff (R)
Introduced:2/18/16
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 8-0, 3/30/16
AYES: Liu, Block, Huff, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hancock
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Educational programs
SOURCE: California School Boards Association
DIGEST: 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Code for categorical programs that are outdated or considered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.
ANALYSIS: 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 educational agencies (LEAs) have
considerable flexibility to direct LCFF resources to best meet
SB 1211
Page 2
their students' needs. (Education Code § 42238.03)
This bill repeals numerous provisions of the Education Code for
categorical programs that are outdated or considered obsolete in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)
Comments
Need for this bill. According to the author's office, this bill
removes various Education Code Sections that remain on the books
despite being rendered obsolete by the enactment of the LCFF.
The LCFF removed funding for a number of categorical programs
which still remain codified in the Education Code.
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
SB 1211
Page 3
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 DOF, 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)
that the bill did not impede pending legislation or legislative
discussions, (3) that 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 died in, but was
never heard by, the Senate Education 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.
Additional background on the LCFF. Although LEAs 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
SB 1211
Page 4
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 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 is
authorized to intervene in a struggling school district under
certain conditions.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified4/11/16)
California School Boards Association (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified4/11/16)
SB 1211
Page 5
None received
Prepared by:Lenin DelCastillo / ED. / (916) 651-4105
4/13/16 15:19:22
**** END ****