BILL ANALYSIS
AB 756
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 756 (Goldberg)
As Amended August 28, 2006
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(May 26, 2005) |SENATE: |23-12|(August 30, |
| | | | | |2006) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY : Establishes the Flexible Funding for Pupil Achievement
Program as a 10-year pilot program to provide additional
flexibility and accountability for the use of existing resources
at the school site in participating elementary, junior high and
high schools.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill,
and instead:
1)Establish a pilot program to provide participating schools
with the flexibility to use revenues from existing fund
sources to best meet the needs of the pupils of the school,
and state legislative intent to provide participating schools
the freedom to organize the most appropriate education
delivery structures to meet the goals of participating schools
and school districts.
2)Limit participation in the program to no more than 5% of the
public schools (about 400) from no more than 25 school
districts. Require the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) to monitor the number of schools participating and
ensure a balanced representation of schools by school type and
geographic setting. Require school districts to report to the
SPI the intent of a school in the district to participate, and
require the SPI to notify the school district of the
availability of the program for the school.
3)Provide schools with the flexibility to expend funds allocated
for the benefit of the schools, notwithstanding provisions of
law governing fund source expenditures, for any purpose
consistent with and that furthers the goals of the school's
achievement plan and participation agreement, as specified
AB 756
Page 2
below.
4)Require the governing board of a school district to adopt a
five-year participation agreement with a school electing to
take part in the program, and specify the minimum elements
that must be in the agreement, including the following:
a) Goals and objectives of the school;
b) The amount of per pupil funding to be allocated to the
school by the school district;
c) Schedule for submitting an annual school budget;
d) Community involvement goals of the district; and,
e) Requests for bargaining unit agreement waivers and
waivers of board policies.
5)Require that the staff of each participating school annually
adopt an achievement plan for the school to ensure that the
school meets the goals and objectives specified in its
participation agreement.
6)Require the district superintendent to notify a participating
school if it fails to comply with provisions of the
participation agreement, and require the principal of a
participating school to submit a plan to remedy the lack of
compliance. Authorize the governing board of a school
district to revoke a participation agreement if a school fails
to meet its goals as established in its annual achievement
plan for three consecutive years.
7)Require a school district to adopt a distribution formula to
allocate specified district revenues to an account or accounts
established for a participating school. Specify that the
formula shall allocate funds to participating schools from the
following sources:
a) The revenue limit per pupil enrolled, weighted by grade
spans served by the participating school, with weighting
factors of 1.00 for grades K-5, 1.04 for grades 6-8, and
1.20 for grades 9-12.
b) The amount per eligible pupil received by the school
AB 756
Page 3
district for each of the following categorical programs
multiplied by the number of eligible pupils in the school:
i) Pupil Retention Block Grant;
ii) Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant;
iii) School and Library Improvement Block Grant;
iv) Grade 9 class size reduction program;
v) K-3 class size reduction program; and,
vi) Economic Impact Aid.
c) The amount per certificated teacher received by the
school district for the Professional Development Block
Grant multiplied by the number of certificated teachers at
the participating school.
d) The amount per enrolled pupil in instructional materials
funding of the school district multiplied by the number of
pupils enrolled at the participating school.
8)Require a school district to annually allocate an amount
calculated according to the formula to one or more accounts
for each participating school.
9)Authorize a school district to retain up to 10% of the funds
allocated pursuant to the formula for administrative and
support services costs incurred by the district on behalf of
participating schools. Require the school district to provide
technical budgeting assistance to participating schools, and
to administer the accounts of the schools, and require that
school districts use funds from the 10% set-aside for these
purposes.
10)Require the principal to annually create a budget for the
school, in collaboration with the certificated staff of the
school and in consultation with schoolsite and parent
councils.
11)Require the SPI to develop regulations, as he or she deems
necessary, to implement the calculation of the allocation of
AB 756
Page 4
funds to participating schools and related fiscal provision.
12)Require the principal and certificated staff of a
participating school to annually prepare and adopt an
achievement plan to ensure progress toward the goals and
objectives of the school. Require the plan to address the
organization of the school, staffing, curriculum and classroom
schedules for the school day.
13)Require the principal to prepare a report annually to the
district superintendent and board on the achievement plan of
the school.
14)Require each teacher at a participating school to establish
academic growth goals for each pupil at the beginning of the
school year and require measurement of progress toward meeting
those goals throughout the year.
15)Require the principal to promote parent involvement in the
education of their children.
16)Authorize school staff to request approval for limited
waivers of compliance with selected provisions of the
certificated staff collective bargaining agreement and board
policies by the parties to the agreement and the board.
17)Require the SPI to seek private foundation support for an
evaluation of the pilot program. Specify that the program may
not be implemented until resources for the required evaluation
have been secured.
18)Sunset the program after 10 years, as of July 1, 2017.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill prohibited the State Board
of Education (SBE) and the governing board of any local
education agency from adopting any instructional material that
exceeds 200 pages in length, and encouraged the use of
technology and multimedia materials to create higher interest
and more up-to-date information from varied sources.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, no new state costs; potential redirection of program
revenues between schools within a school district; up to $100
thousand in initial costs to the SPI to track school
participation and to adopt a distribution formula.
AB 756
Page 5
COMMENTS : This bill was substantially amended in the Senate and
the Assembly-approved provisions of this bill were deleted.
Related legislation: SB 1053 (Scott), Chapter 276, Statutes of
2005, establishes 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 student learning. The program is limited to
15 school districts and sunsets in 2010. The SB 1053 workgroup
timeline includes issuing a letter of interest and application
to the field by October 1, 2006. Approval of applications by
SBE is not scheduled until January 2007.
The goals of this bill are similar to AB 2152 (Goldberg) of 2004
which was vetoed by the Governor with the following message:
While I understand the author's 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 flexibility to
determine the allocation based on their specific
needs.
AB 2152 granted school districts flexibility in the use of
categorical funds for specified programs, but required that
school districts receiving the categorical funds ensure that
specified percentages of those funds be spent for direct
services to students enrolled in schools ranked in deciles 1-3
on the Academic Performance Index. The Governor's veto of that
measure expressed concern that AB 2152 was too prescriptive in
its allocation of funds to individual schools.
While this bill also prescribes a formula for allocating
specified school district revenues to the accounts of
participating schools, it addresses the concern of reduced
governing board discretion in two ways: First, once schools are
accepted into the pilot program established by this bill, they
are required to work in partnership with their school districts
to create a plan that outlines the goals and objectives of the
school and the manner in which the funds will be spent to
achieve those objectives. Instead of reducing the authority and
flexibility of the school district, this bill actually opens up
AB 756
Page 6
a forum for dialogue between schools and their districts to
determine the specific needs of their pupils and how best to
meet those needs. It creates a structure for a workable
partnership, with clear expectations and accountability, between
a school district governing board, administration and school
site leadership team.
Second, school districts are authorized by the bill to revoke
the participation agreement if a school fails for three
consecutive years to meet its goals as established in its annual
achievement plan. Furthermore, because school administrators
and staff are employees of the district, they are held
accountable to the district not only in terms of their
achievement plan but also to meet the goals of their own
employment agreements.
This bill does not decrease the flexibility of school districts
to allocate funds to their schools. Rather, it creates an
opportunity and a structure for increased discussion between a
school district and a school to determine how best to allocate
resources to meet both school goals and the specific needs of
the school's pupils. The same funds that should already be
directed to the schools through existing categorical grant
programs will also, under this bill, continue to go to the
schools, but with the added bonus of direct discussion between
school districts and schools in determining a schools' program
goals and expectations, and clear authority and accountability
for the use of resources at the school site.
Analysis Prepared by : Michael Ricketts / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0017487