BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Jack Scott, Chair
2005-2006 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 756
AUTHOR: Goldberg
AMENDED: June 22, 2006
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 28, 2006
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:James Wilson
NOTE: This bill has been amended to replace its contents
and this is the first time the bill is being heard in its
current form.
SUBJECT : School Finance: Local Flexibility
SUMMARY
This bill establishes the Flexible Funding for Pupil
Achievement Program to allow school districts that have
been identified as in need of improvement by state or
federal law to utilize specified categorical funding
without state restriction.
BACKGROUND
Chapter 276 of 2005 (SB 1053, Scott) established the Local
Improvement Program as a pilot project to provide
participating schools with flexibility in the development
and implementation of instructional programs to support and
improve pupil learning, with provision to sunset the pilot
program in 2010. Participation in this pilot project is
limited to no more 15 school districts and not more than
five percent of the total number of schools.
Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 school
districts that do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
for each of two consecutive years are identified for
Program Improvement.
ANALYSIS
This bill:
1) Establishes the Flexible Funding for Pupil Achievement
AB 756
Page 2
Program (Program) to be administered by the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI).
2) Provides that a school district may participate in the
Flexible Funding for Pupil Achievement Program if the
district meets one or more of the following criteria:
a) The district has been identified for program
improvement pursuant to the federal No Child Left
Behind Act.
b) The district has at least half of its pupils
enrolled in schools that are ranked in deciles 1-
3 of the Academic Performance Index (API).
c) The school district is participating in the
Local Improvement pilot program established by SB
1053 of 2005.
3) Provides that a school district that participates in
the program is exempt from the program requirements
and regulations for the following programs:
a) English Language Acquisition Program.
b) Home-to-school transportation programs.
c) Year-Round School Grant Program.
d) Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment.
e) California Peer Assistance and Review.
f) Teacher dismissal apportionment.
g) Class Size Reduction for Grade 9.
h) Class Size Reduction Program for grades K -
3.
i) Bilingual Teacher Training Assistance
Program.
j) Regional Occupational Centers and Programs.
aa) Agricultural Career Technical Education
Incentive Program.
bb) International Baccalaureate Diploma Program.
cc) Partnership Academies Program.
dd) Supplemental grants.
ee) Specialized secondary programs.
ff) At-risk youth programs.
gg) Apprentice programs.
hh) Intersegmental Programs.
ii) Civic education program.
jj) School safety programs.
AB 756
Page 3
4) Provides that the Program does not amend, abrogate, or
render unenforceable the provisions of any collective
bargaining agreement.
5) Commencing with 2007-08, requires the SPI to apportion
categorical block grant funds to school districts
participating in the program by:
a) Determining the amount of funds allocated to
each school district in 2006-07 for the programs
specified.
b) Adjust that amount by the increase in
average daily attendance and for the cost of
living adjustment applied to revenue limits.
6) Requires participating districts to provide
expenditure plans for the funds to the SPI for
approval prior to receiving funds. Further requires
the SPI to only approve plans that demonstrate how the
resources will be allocated to schools attended by the
pupils for which funding was received.
7) Requires the SPI to request private foundation funding
to conduct independent evaluations of the planning,
implementation, operation, and effectiveness of the
Program.
8) Provides that the measure becomes inoperative July 1,
2012, and repeals on January 1, 2013.
STAFF COMMENTS
Related legislation. AB 2152 (Goldberg) in 2004 would have
created a similar program of local flexibility, but AB 2152
was vetoed with the following message:
While I understand the authors intention to address
categorical programs, this bill actually limits the
flexibility in the allocation of funds to best meet
the needs of schools at the local level. The bill
dictates an allocation formula to local districts,
instead of allowing school boards the ability to
determine the allocation based
on their specific needs.
AB 756
Page 4
SUPPORT
None received.
OPPOSITION
None received.