BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1673
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 24, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1673 (Mendoza) - As Amended: March 17, 2010
SUBJECT : Adult Education
SUMMARY : Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to,
subject to an appropriation in the annual Budget Act or another
statute, provide a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2012
on specified issues related to adult education programs.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes declarations and findings regarding the benefits of
adult education programs that are administered by school
districts, including the provision of adult basic skills,
enabling the acquisition of high school diplomas, education
for immigrants, basic skills development for parents and
caregivers, and postsecondary and career technical education.
2)Finds and declares that given the state's budget crisis and
the ability of school
districts to use categorical program funds in a flexible
manner, the Legislature is interested in better understanding
how adult education programs have been funded in the prior two
fiscal years, and to better understand how reductions in
existing adult education programs have affected adult
education students.
3)Requires the LAO to, subject to an appropriation in the annual
Budget Act or another statute, submit a report to the
Legislature by January 1, 2012 on all of the following for the
2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 fiscal years, and where
available, projected school district budget actions for the
2011-12 fiscal year:
a) The aggregate amounts and percentage of categorical
funds from adult education that have been diverted for
purposes other than adult education, and the total amount
of categorical funds diverted from adult education for the
purposes of supporting the school district's general fund;
b) Which, if any, adult education course offerings have
been reduced or eliminated due to diversion of adult
AB 1673
Page 2
education funds;
c) The number of adult students, by district, and a
demographic breakdown of these students, that were unable
to enroll in adult education courses due to a reduction of
program offerings or increased fees, or both;
d) The number of adult programs that have been discontinued
in the 2009-10 or 2010-11 fiscal year, or are projected to
be discontinued in the 2011-12 fiscal year due to adult
education program funds being transferred;
e) In the case of an adult education program that has been
discontinued, the location of any federal Perkins loan
funds and Workforce Investment Act of 1998 funds are being
used by school districts;
f) Whether school districts are charging fees for courses
to replace funds that have been diverted from adult
education, and which courses are now fee-based;
g) A comparison of the ratio of programmatic increases in
community college credit programs to community college
noncredit programs;
h) A comparison of the ratio of programmatic decreases in
community college credit programs to community college
noncredit programs;
i) Growth in private technical schools, by geographic
region, and a measurement, if applicable, of the equivalent
reduction in adult education career technical programs;
and,
j) The impact on local employers resulting from fewer adult
education students receiving training from career programs
in adult schools due to program cuts, if applicable.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes the establishment of adult school programs and
specifies eligibility criteria, programmatic requirements, and
the manner in which school districts' adult education revenue
limit per unit of average daily attendance (ADA) shall be
determined.
AB 1673
Page 3
2)Authorizes a county office of education (COE) to administer an
adult education program and authorizes each eligible school
district within its jurisdiction to participate in the
program. Authorizes a COE to report the ADA of each school
district participating in the adult education program for the
purpose of receiving revenue limit apportionments.
3)Provides that a school district that fails to serve enough
pupils to meet its cap in both of the two prior years shall
have its authorized adult education ADA reduced by one-half of
the lowest level of unused ADA in either of the two prior
years.
4)For the 2008-09 to 2012-13 fiscal years, authorizes recipients
of specified categorical program funds to use those funds for
any educational purpose.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Background . Adult education is provided by a number
of delivery systems, including community colleges, public
libraries, nonprofit and faith-based organizations, prisons, and
county offices of education, but the largest providers are
school districts. In 2007-08, adult education programs enrolled
1.2 million adult learners in almost 300 adult schools
throughout California. Prior to 2009-10, school districts'
funding levels were based on what they received in 1977-78 and
grew by a cap of 2.5% from the previous year's funding level.
The revenue limit in 2007-08 for each unit of ADA (comprised of
525 hours of accumulated seat time) was $2,645.30.
Adult education schools offer the following ten programs:
1)Adult Basic Education;
2)English as a Second Language;
3)High School Diploma or Adult Secondary Education, including
General Education Development certification;
4)Citizenship Preparation;
5)Career Technical Education;
6)Adults with Disabilities;
7)Health and Safety;
8)Parent Education;
9)Home Economics; and,
10)Older Adult.
AB 1673
Page 4
The 2009-10 budget had an important impact on categorical
programs. The budget agreement imposed a 20% reduction on 39
programs and gave local education agencies (LEAs) that received
funds in 2007-08 the flexibility to use these funds for any
educational purposes for fiscal years 2008-09 through 2012-13
(SBX3 4 (Ducheny), Chapter 12, Statutes of the 2009-10 Third
Extraordinary Session). This reduction and flexibility
provision is commonly known as "Tier 3" flexibility. Tier 1
protected four categorical programs from cuts and flexibility
while 11 categorical programs sustained reductions but were
given no flexibility under Tier 2. Adult education program was
in Tier 3 with a budget reduction from $772.6 million in 2008-09
to $634.8 million in 2009-10. School districts receive their
allocations for five years based on the applicable percentage
the programs received in 2007-08. As a result, until 2013,
districts are not required to justify or report ADA in order to
receive adult education program funds.
This bill requires the LAO to conduct a study of the impact of
the reduction and flexibility provision on adult education
programs to evaluate the extent to which school districts
diverted adult education funds for other purposes, including
general fund uses, and the impact any reduction may have on
adult learners, private technical schools, and employers.
According to the author, "There is anecdotal evidence that adult
education programs are being cut significantly and that these
funds are be [sic] redirected to other programs. Given that the
community college non-credit programs are also being flexed, it
is important for legislators to know what the programmatic
impacts are of these fund shifts before they are required to
make a decision in 2012-13 about whether the flexibility should
end. The study that is required in this bill will provide the
Legislature with this valuable information."
Is the LAO equipped to conduct such a report without readily
available data ? This bill requires the LAO to obtain data on a
district by district basis. Since districts are not required to
request funding based on the level of service provided, the
California Department of Education (CDE) may not have the data
available for the LAO to conduct the analysis. It is unclear
whether the LAO is able to get such data without conducting
extensive research that includes a large-scale survey and
interviews.
AB 1673
Page 5
Can a direct causation be concluded between reduced access to
adult education programs and increased demand in private
technical schools or employer difficulty in finding workers ?
The bill requires the LAO to identify growth in private
technical schools, by geographic region, and a measurement, if
applicable, of the equivalent reduction in adult education
career technical education programs; and whether there is an
impact on local employers as a result of fewer adult education
students receiving training from career programs. There could
be a number of explanations for increased demand for private
technical schools. Individuals who have lost jobs may wish to
learn new skills and advertisements promising financial aid and
job placements may be factors. It is also unclear how a
conclusion on the impact on employers solely from possible
reductions in adult school career programs can be made.
The Committee may wish to consider whether the Legislature may
be interested in and would benefit from an evaluation that
studied the impact of the budget reduction and flexibility
provision on all other categorical programs, for example,
Regional Occupational Centers/Programs, deferred maintenance,
professional development block grant, summer school programs,
grades 7-12 counseling and instructional materials block grant.
The LAO conducted a short electronic survey of district budget
officers last fall asking them to report the categories from
which they shifted funds and to which programs or general fund
items those funds went to. The report is projected to be
released within the next couple of months. The LAO intends to
conduct the survey once a year for the next few years.
Additionally, SBX3 4 and ABX4 2 (Evans), Chapter 2, Statutes of
the 2009-10 Fourth Extraordinary Session, require districts to
report expenditures of funds through the CDE's Standardized
Account Code Structure (SACS) reporting process. This will
provide some indication of how districts actually expended all
categorical funds. The CDE is required to provide the
information to the Department of Finance and appropriate
legislative policy and budget committees by April 15, 2010. The
LAO also intends to issue a report based on the SACS
information.
Suggested committee amendments :
1)Supporters indicate that the intent of the bill is to identify
the amount of cuts to adult education program and to identify
the programs for which these funds were diverted. While the
AB 1673
Page 6
bill requires the LAO to determine the aggregate amount of
funds diverted from adult education programs, the bill does
not require the LAO to identify the recipients of those funds,
except the general fund. Staff recommends clarifying this
provision.
2)To enable the LAO in obtaining data, require the CDE and the
Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges to
provide available data or work with the LAO in obtaining the
data.
3)Insert a provision that the LAO is only required to study the
requirements for which it is able to obtain valid data and
information.
4)Strike page 5 lines 2 - 4 requiring the LAO to study the
impact on local employers.
Arguments in Support . The California Adult Education
Administrators Association states, "Adult education is not like
any of the other 38 programs in the Tier III flexibility program
and is being hit the hardest by fund transfers. This is the
reason why it is critical to student [sic] the real impacts of
the cuts to these programs and their impact on our state's
economy. Frankly, we do not believe that our communities cannot
afford to marginalize the needs of an under-skilled workforce.
California's adult schools are a critical part of what it will
take to drive the state's economic recovery."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Adult Education Administrators Association
California Council for Adult Education
California Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087