BILL ANALYSIS
AB 60
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 1, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 60 (Coto) - As Introduced: December 9, 2009
SUBJECT : Education finance: study relating to weighted pupil
funding formulas
SUMMARY : Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI)
to enter into an agreement for the completion of a comprehensive
study of key factors to be considered in the creation of weights
within a weighted student funding formula for California.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes Legislative findings and declarations related to
California's academic ranking relative to other states, the
Getting Down to Facts research studies, and the necessity of
replacing California's education finance system.
2)States the Legislature's intent to simplify the funding
system, equalize per pupil funding while accounting for
geographic and student cost differences, and focus per pupil
funding.
3)Requires the SPI to select a non-profit entity or institution
of higher education with extensive experience working in
California education by issuing a request for proposals that
includes priorities, parameters, criteria and a clear
definition of the work expected.
4)Requires the comprehensive study to include a set of
recommendations for a weighted student formula, based on
differing student need and on objective and thorough research.
5)Requires the SPI to select the entity performing the study not
later than March 1, 2010, and the completed study to be
submitted to the SPI for distribution to the Legislature by
December 31, 2010.
6)Prohibits the amount paid for completion of this study from
exceeding $150,000.
7)Requires the study to include, but not be limited to, an
AB 60
Page 2
examination and discussion of:
a) Weighted student formulae in other states and nations.
b) Relevant scholarly literature.
c) Data on current funding levels and the relation to
student success.
d) The availability of data for use in implementing new
funding formulae.
e) Current California weighted funding levels when
considered in terms of categorical allowances and other
supplemental programs serving specific student populations.
f) Appropriate funding weighted factors deemed to meet the
needs of special need student populations, including, but
not limited to English learners, special education pupils,
and pupils from low-income households.
g) Appropriate funding defined to meet the educational
needs of all students with added weighted factors to take
into account special need.
h) Recommendations for demonstrating and ensuring
accountability for pupil achievement under the new funding
formulae.
i) The possibility of incorporating existing state mandated
cost obligations into the new formulae without eliminating
prior-year payments owed to local education agencies.
j) A proposed 'best course of weighted student formula'
action based on and supported by an extensive body of
research.
8)Makes this statute inoperative on July 1, 2011 and repealed as
of January 1, 2012 unless a later enacted statute deletes or
extends that date.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for Revenue Limit (base discretionary) funding for
school districts that is, in part, based on average daily
AB 60
Page 3
attendance (ADA), where ADA is calculated by dividing the
number of days of attendance for all pupils enrolled in the
district by the number of instructional days in the district's
fiscal year, and a day of attendance is generally defined as a
minimum number of instructional minutes (specific to grade
level) in a classroom setting with a certificated employee of
the school district present. The funding computation uses the
annual ADA reported by each district in the last attendance
report of the fiscal year, for the current or prior fiscal
year, whichever is greater. Total Revenue Limit (local
property taxes plus state General Fund) funding for a district
is then calculated by multiplying the district's set (per
pupil) base revenue limit by ADA.
2)Provides, historically in specific years, funding and a
mechanism for equalizing school district revenue limits by
increasing the base revenue limit for some set of low revenue
limit districts.
3)Establishes and funds categorical programs that focus
resources and/or compliance requirements on specific classes
of students or schools, or on specific uses of funds,
identified by the Legislature as priorities. Each of these
categorical programs has a mechanism for allocating or
apportioning program funds; those mechanisms can be formulaic,
application driven, or competitive in nature.
4)Consolidates a number of historical categorical programs into
a smaller set of block grants, where a block grant gives
funding recipients the flexibility to spend the funds across
any of the previously individual programs consolidated into
that block grant.
5)Allows for limited transfers of funds between specific
categorical programs.
6)Provides for temporary flexibility to spend the funds
appropriated for nearly all categorical programs in order to
relieve local budget pressure created by the current economic
downturn.
FISCAL EFFECT : Places a maximum of $150,000 for completion of
the required study; creates minimal General Fund state
operations costs to the California Department of Education (CDE)
for contract development and oversight.
AB 60
Page 4
COMMENTS : According to the author, "The current K-12 funding
process is overly complicated and the result of years of
make-shift pieces. It is neither a coherent nor an equitable,
nor a transparent plan." The author also states that, "Some
students are funded at nearly twice the rate of others. Often,
the neediest students receive fewer dollars. This inequity and
lack of transparency is generally considered a factor in
California's achievement gap in student performance."
In March 2007, the Institute for Research on Education Policy
and Practice released Getting Down to Facts: School Finance and
Governance in California, a research project intended to provide
policymakers and the public with comprehensive information about
the status of the state's school finance and governance systems.
Getting Down to Facts consists of several research reports
addressing issues of school finance, governance, charter
schools, and special populations of pupils (English language
learners (ELs), special education, etc.). In the area of school
finance, the reports argue that the current funding formula for
K-12 education is not meeting student outcomes goals, especially
for students in poverty. Likewise, the reports also conclude
that more money in the current finance system is unlikely to
dramatically improve student achievement to meet expectations,
unless accompanied by significant policy reforms. Specially,
one report states, "the current distributions of spending per
pupil across school districts is not well-correlated with
factors that increase costs and decrease performance, such as
students living in poverty or ELL pupils."
One conclusion that has been made from these studies is that a
move to a weighted student funding formula is called for; this
point was echoed in 2008 by the Governor's Committee on
Education Excellence, that recommended that the state should
"Provide a base level of resources for every student and then
provide additional resources for students who need the most help
- particularly those from low-income families and those who are
English learners." This bill directs the SPI to contract for a
study to further examine a weighted student funding model,
including an examination of the processes whereby the weights in
such a model would be determined. This study will provide
information that will be necessary should the Legislature choose
to move toward a weighted student funding model in the future.
If the Committee chooses to pass this bill, then Committee staff
AB 60
Page 5
recommends that the author, as the bill moves forward, keeps
Committee staff informed and continue to work on providing
further clarification as to the specific approaches to
determining funding weights that should be examined in this
study.
Committee amendments: Committee staff recommends, and the author
has accepted, the following amendments to this bill:
1)Convert the findings and declarations in this bill to
uncodified language; this will include the findings and
declarations in the bill, but not amend that language into the
Education Code.
2)Add "gifted and talented pupils" to the list of special needs
populations for which the study is required to discuss
appropriate funding weighting factors.
Related legislation: AB 8 (Brownley), pending in Assembly
Education, creates a working group to develop a plan for
restructuring California's school finance system; that plan
might include, but is not limited to, a weighted student
approach. If both AB 8 and AB 60 are enacted, then the AB 8
working group would make use of any information produced in the
course of the AB 60 study, in the same way that the AB 8 working
group is designed to build upon the GDTF and GCEE research and
findings.
Previous legislation: A number of bills have recently proposed
to further planning for education finance reform. AB 2159
(Brownley), held in the Senate Rules Committee in 2008, would
have established a commission to develop a plan for reforming
the school finance system. AB 2394 (Coto), held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee in 2008), was substantially similar to
AB 60. AB 586 (Coto), held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee in 2008, would have stated Legislative intent to
replace the funding mechanisms for kindergarten through twelfth
grade education with a weighted student funding formula that
also included adjustments for grade level and geographic cost
differences, and would have directed the SPI to convene a
working group to develop the statutory language that would enact
this intent. SB 146 (Scott), vetoed in 2008, would have
directed the SPI to make calculations that would inform a future
change from attendance to enrollment based funding. AB 1782
(Mullin), held in the Senate Education Committee in 2006, would
AB 60
Page 6
have distributed multi-state lottery revenues allocated to K-12
education on a weighted per pupil formula.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
California Association of School Business Officials
California State PTA
San Francisco Unified School District
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087