BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   AB 673|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 673
          Author:   Carter (D)
          Amended:  4/22/09 in Assembly
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE  :  9-0, 7/8/09
          AYES:  Romero, Huff, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Maldonado,  
            Padilla, Simitian, Wyland

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  Senate Rule 28.8

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  77-0, 5/21/09 (Consent) - See last page  
            for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Regional occupational centers or programs:   
          apportionments

           SOURCE  :     California Association of Regional Occupational  
          Centers and 
                      Programs


           DIGEST  :    This bill provides that when the state budget  
          calls for a negative funding adjustment to be applied to  
          Regional Occupational Centers and Programs (ROC/Ps), that  
          adjustment shall be implemented as a uniform percentage  
          reduction of each ROC/P's limit of funded average daily  
          attendance.

          ANALYSIS  :    ROC/Ps provide career/ technical education to  
          high school students 16 years of age and older, and adult  
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                AB 673
                                                                Page  
          2

          students with the objectives of allowing graduates to  
          either enter the workforce with the necessary skills to be  
          successful; upgrade existing schools or pursue advanced  
          training in postsecondary education.  ROC/Ps may be  
          operated by single school districts, county offices of  
          education or joint powers authorities (JPA) comprised of  
          multiple districts and county offices.  According to the  
          California Department of Education, 74 ROC/Ps served  
          478,623 students in 2007-08.   

          Each ROC/P receives funding from the state in the form of a  
          revenue limit, which is multiplied by an average daily  
          attendance (ADA) count generated by the hourly attendance  
          of pupils.  For the 2008-09 fiscal year, the average ROC/P  
          revenue limit is estimated at $3,047 per unit of ADA.  Each  
          year, ROC/Ps are required to generate at least as much ADA  
          as was funded in the previous year, and if the ROC/Ps fail  
          to do this, the unused capacity is redistributed to other  
          ROC/Ps by means of a formula that is intended to allocate  
          capacity, called "growth ADA"  to those programs with the  
          greatest need.  The state pays for growth ADA by  
          multiplying it by the statewide average ROC/Ps revenue  
          limit and the entire process directs growth funding towards  
          ROC/Ps with low participation while it tends to equalize  
          the ADA capacity of all ROC/Ps.  

          The current growth oriented allocation formulas for ROC/Ps  
          pose a problem for years when statewide funding is reduced.  
           The current statute directs the Superintendent of Public  
          Instruction to treat negative numbers as "zero" in all  
          calculations, so a negative adjustment to funding may not  
          be used to reduce the ADA capacity limits of the ROC/Ps.   
          With funding in decline, the capacity limits don't act as  
          limits on the funding that may be earned, but become  
          requirements specifying the minimum ADA that ROC/Ps must  
          generate in order to hold onto their (reduced) level of  
          funding.  The programs end up reducing the revenue limit  
          dollars available per pupil, and potentially reducing the  
          quality of instruction, because they cannot reduce  
          quantity, or number of ADA served.

          This bill:

          1. Provides that, as of the 2009-10 fiscal year, if the  







                                                                AB 673
                                                                Page  
          3

             budget act calls for a negative growth adjustment to  
             ROC/Ps ADA funding, then statutory instructions for the  
             allocation of growth ADA will not be followed and the  
             negative adjustment will be made as a percentage  
             reduction to the cap on the average daily attendance of  
             each ROC/P.

          2. Provides a method of calculating a negative ADA  
             adjustment for ROC/Ps in the 2009-10 fiscal year which  
             provides that each program's 2008-09 fiscal year ADA  
             will be reduced by the percentage reduction applied to  
             ROC/P funding in the Budget Act of 2008.  This  
             adjustment would not make an additional funding  
             reduction for 2008-09, but would recognize the reduction  
             that was already made in 2008-09 for purposes of  
             calculating ROC/P funding for 2009-2010.

           Comments  

           Need for the bill  .  Prior to this bill, reductions to the  
          budget act appropriation in support of ROC/Ps are allocated  
          as percentage reductions to ROC/Ps per pupil revenue  
          limits, potentially reducing the quality of instruction.   
          This bill authorizes each ROC/P to choose to maintain the  
          quality but serve fewer pupils.  The reduction in the  
          number of pupils served could not be greater than the  
          reduction of funding, so that an ROC/P could not reduce  
          pupils served in order to increase per pupil funding, but  
          it could match the number of pupils served to the funds  
          available.
           
          Categorical flexibility  .  The education trailer bill to the  
          budget package adopted in February 2009 [SB 4 (Ducheny),  
          Chapter 12, Statutes of 2009-10, Third Extraordinary  
          Session], allowed school districts and county offices to  
          redirect most state categorical funding for any educational  
          purpose through at least the year 2012-13.  Districts and  
          counties may choose to continue operating programs, but  
          they may also redirect program funding for any other  
          educational purpose that the local board, after public  
          hearing, deems appropriate.  ROC/Ps are among the programs  
          over which districts have total control.  The funding  
          formulas for all of the programs remain in statute however,  
          and the issue addressed by this bill relates to the ROC/P  







                                                                AB 673
                                                                Page  
          4

          funding formula that presumably will be used for the  
          allocation of ROC/P funding in the future.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  7/20/09)

          California Association of Regional Occupational Centers and  
            Programs (source)
          Association of California School Administrators 
          California County Boards of Education
          California School Boards Association
          Los Angeles County Office of Education
          Metropolitan Education District 
          Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
          San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools 


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :
          AYES:  Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill  
            Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,  
            Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,  
            Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,  
            DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,  
            Fong, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick,  
            Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,  
            Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu,  
            Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning,  
            Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, John A. Perez, V. Manuel  
            Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Silva, Skinner,  
            Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson,  
            Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, Bass
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Fuentes, Nava, Saldana


          DLW:mw  7/20/09   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****