BILL ANALYSIS
ACR 54
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACR 54 (Brownley)
As Introduced March 23, 2009
Majority vote
EDUCATION 8-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, | | |
| |Arambula, Buchanan, | | |
| |Carter, Eng, Solorio, | | |
| |Torlakson | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Nestande, Miller | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Recognizes the need for the state to generate
sufficient funds for, and allocate sufficient funds to,
education. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes findings as to the insufficient levels of funding for
education in California, including the causes and impacts
related to that level of funding.
2)Resolves that it is the intent of the Legislature to generate
sufficient funds for, and allocate sufficient funds to,
education, so as to bring per pupil spending up to or beyond
the national average and to a level that accounts for the
actual cost of educating California's diverse pupil population
so that all pupils are prepared at the end of their elementary
and secondary education experiences for college, careers, and
successful participation in our democratic institutions, no
matter where they live or what economic, racial, or ethnic
background they have.
3)Resolves that the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies
of this resolution to the Governor, to the Superintendent of
Public Instruction, to the Chairs of the Assembly Committees
on Budget and on Education, the Chairs of the Senate
ACR 54
Page 2
Committees on Budget and Fiscal Review and on Education, to
the Secretary for Education, and to the President of the State
Board of Education.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for Revenue Limit (base discretionary) funding for
school districts that is, in part, based on average daily
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : This resolution states the intent of the Legislature
to provide sufficient funding for education to bring per pupil
spending up to or beyond the national average and to a level
that accounts for the actual cost of educating California's
diverse pupil population; in short, to provide an adequate level
of school funding.
For the last four decades California school finance has been
driven by a combination of ballot initiatives and court cases
concerned with expenditure and education service equity. These
ACR 54
Page 3
court cases were all based on the same basic premise, that the
state constitution requires parity in education spending and
education services between rich and poor school districts and
students. This sort of legal argument was not invented in
California. For example in 1819 in Commonwealth v. Dedham, 16
Mass. 141, Massachusetts courts held that schools must "be
maintained for the benefit of the whole town," and that it is
not "in the power of the majority to deprive the minority of
this privilege." California courts ruled that education is a
fundamental constitutional right in California, and that the
wealth-related differences in school support, that were inherent
in the state's early education funding mix, needed to be
eliminated. This ruling was made by the California Supreme
Court in 1971 when it remanded Serrano v. Priest, 487 P.2d 1241,
for trial, and again in 1976, in Serrano v. Priest (Serrano II
), 557 P.2d 929, when it affirmed a lower court's finding. A
state superior court more recently reaffirmed these decisions in
1999 in Williams v. State, which dealt with substandard school
facilities and services related to low levels of funding. The
courts called for a more equitable system for funding public
schools, and the result has been a system in which school
revenues are controlled at the state level.
Over the last two decades litigation in the area of education
finance in other states shifted from concern over equity alone
toward the issue of adequacy. The decisions from earlier cases,
that education is a fundamental right under state constitutions
have led many courts to rule that states are required to provide
the resources necessary for an "adequate" level of education to
prepare students for citizenship and work. Since 1989,
plaintiffs have won over two-thirds of these cases.
Peter Schrag, in his book entitled Final Test, discussed this
litigation, "Described most simply, the suits merely demand that
the states, which have the ultimate responsibility under their
own constitutions for public education, meet their
constitutional duties. If the states are making the schools and
students accountable, then surely the states have a reciprocal
duty to make certain that the students have an opportunity to
learn and thus a chance to succeed. Instead of allocating
school funding in the great annual political contest among
competing claimants on state resources, the adequacy principle
asks the states to determine the actual cost of providing decent
educational resources for each child and to use that as the
ACR 54
Page 4
gauge for school spending." Schrag adds that, "Ultimately, the
suits contend, the state is responsible for everything because
state constitutions say so: the buck stops in Albany, in
Concord, in Trenton, in Columbus, and in Sacramento."
Education Week recently published a ranking that showed
California as 47th among the states and District of Columbia in
per pupil expenditures on K-12 education when cost-of-living
differences across the states are taken into account. The
National Education Association ranks California 34th among the
50 states and the District of Columbia in per pupil expenditures
by public schools in 2007-08. The U.S. Census Bureau reported
in 2008, that California was 29th among the 50 states and the
District of Columbia in per pupil expenditures by public schools
in 2005-06, with per pupil spending on education approximately
8% below the national average.
According to the California Taxpayer's Association (Cal-Tax),
"California's most significant [budget] difference from other
states is in education spending, where the average other state
spends 24% of total state and local budgets on K-12 schooling
compared to California's 20.4%." Cal-Tax also ranks California
10th among the 10 western states in the percent of state and
local government spending directed to K-12 education.
As part of the Getting Down to Facts: School Finance and
Governance in California project, requested jointly by the
Speaker of the California Assembly, President Pro Tempore of the
California Senate, the Governor of California and the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction and released by Stanford
University's Institute for Research on Education Policy in 2007,
researchers defined adequate funding to be that level necessary
to meet the state goal of an Academic Performance Index of 800
for all schools in California, and found that over $17 billion
(in 2003-04 dollars), more than a 40% increase, would be
required to start California's climb towards adequacy.
Previous legislation and initiatives: SB 90 (Dills), Chapter
1406, Statutes of 1972, established a ceiling (revenue limit) on
the amount of general purpose money that each district could
receive per unit of ADA; also required the state to reimburse
local governments, including schools, for new mandates. AB 65
(Greene), Chapter 894, Statutes of 1977, responded to the
Serrano decision and allowed districts to raise a minimum amount
ACR 54
Page 5
per pupil from local property taxes; for districts unable to
raise the minimum amount, the state paid the difference as
equalization aid. Proposition 13 (1978), limited property tax
rates, which were historically the main funding source for
schools, and other tax increases. AB 8 (Greene), Chapter 282,
Statutes of 1979, provided a response to Proposition 13 that
established a formula for dividing property taxes among cities,
counties, and school districts (ERAF); also created the current
"revenue limit" entitlement system, which replaced property
taxes as the main funding source for schools. Proposition 98
(1988) guaranteed a minimum funding level for schools.
Proposition 111 (1990), changed the inflation index for
Proposition 98 calculations to the change in per capita personal
income, effectively raising the limit and the guarantee; also
added Test 3 to the Proposition 98 calculation for low revenue
years. SB 727 (Rosenthal), Chapter 855, Statutes of 1997,
increased base revenue limits to offset the exclusion of excused
absences from average daily attendance counts.
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0000347