BILL ANALYSIS
AB 60
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 60 (Coto) - As Amended: April 14, 2009
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:11-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) to enter into an agreement for a comprehensive study of
key factors to be considered in the creation of weights within
the concept of a weighted formula for funding pupil learning.
This measure further requires the study to be completed no later
than December 31, 2010 and sunsets this provision on July 1,
2011. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the study to be completed by an entity selected
through a request for proposal process and requires the SPI to
select the entity no later than March 1, 2009. This measure
further requires the completed study to be submitted to the
SPI for distribution to the Legislature no later than December
31, 2010.
2)Requires the study to include, but not be limited to, an
examination of weighted pupil formulas used in other states,
pertinent scholarly research, data related to current funding
levels, availability of data for use in instituting new
formulae, and appropriate funding weighting factors deemed to
meet the needs of specific pupil populations (i.e., special
needs students, English language learners (ELLs), gifted and
talented pupils, and socio-economically disadvantaged
students), as specified.
3)Requires the study to include recommendations on a rollout
timeline that ensures that local education agencies will not
AB 60
Page 2
experience year-over-year reductions in funding when the new
formula becomes effective.
4)Requires the study to include a proposal for the best course
of action to achieve a weighted pupil formula. This bill also
requires the amount paid to the entity or institution
performing the study not exceed $150,000.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time GF administrative costs to the SPI, likely in excess
of $250,000, to complete the study, as specified. The bill
specifies that the cost of the study not exceed $150,000.
However, the requirements specified in this measure will
likely create costs beyond this amount. For example, a
request-for-proposed process, as required in this measure,
will incur staff time to prepare and review the proposals.
Likewise, the study must include information related to other
states' funding models and scholarly literature. In order to
meet these requirements, the entity selected will need to
conduct meetings with stakeholders, etc.
2)GF/98 cost pressure, likely between $7 billion and $12
billion, to enact a weighted pupil funding model. The 2009
Budget Act allocates a total of $54.9 billion GF/98 for K-14
education. Of this amount, approximately $48.3 billion is for
K-12 education. These amounts reflect an $8.4 billion
reduction to Proposition 98 over a 17 month period.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . In March 2007, the Institute for Research on
Education Policy & Practice released Getting Down to Facts:
School Finance and Governance in California (Loeb, Bryk, and
Hanushek), 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 (ELLs, special education, etc.).
AB 60
Page 3
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."
2)The Governor's Committee on Education Excellence , established
in April 2005, is a non-partisan, privately funded group
charged with examining K-12 education in California and
recommending steps to improve the performance of public
schools. The 15-member committee focused on four interrelated
issues: the distribution and adequacy of education funding,
the functioning and effectiveness of governance structures,
teacher recruitment and training, and the preparation and
retention of school administrators.
In April 2008, the committee released its report entitled
Students First: Renewing Hope for California's Future. The
report provides a blue-print and specific proposals on how to
reform the state's educational system, including funding
formulas.
3)Related legislation .
a) AB 8 (Brownley), pending in this committee, requires the
Director of Finance and the Legislative Analyst to convene
a working group to make findings and recommendations to the
Legislature and the Governor regarding the implementation
of a restructured California school finance system, as
specified. This measure further requires the working group
to present its findings and recommendations on or before
December 1, 2010.
b) AB 2394 (Coto) was virtually identical to this measure
and was held on this committee's suspense file in May 2008.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
AB 60
Page 4
319-2081