BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1683
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 7, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1683 (Torres) - As Introduced: January 26, 2010
SUBJECT : Education: finance
SUMMARY : Makes two separate changes to the Education Code.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Expands priority for openings that become available in
state-funded preschool programs to children who have a
biological parent who is, or who has been within the previous
six months, a dependent or ward of the juvenile court.
2)Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to include school
districts, county offices of education (COEs), and other
agencies deemed eligible pursuant to state and federal law, in
any application for federal aid to education, in any
allocation of federal funds made pursuant to law, and in any
rules and regulations adopted governing the allocation of
those funds.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
administer state preschool programs, including part-time day
and preschool appropriate programs for prekindergarten
children three to five years of age.
2)Provides base funding by requiring the SPI to make prescribed
calculations for the apportionment of state aid to local
educational agencies.
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.
4)Authorizes the allocation and apportionment of federal funds
to recipients and for uses, as specified in federal and state
law.
5)Requires the SBE to make timely application for federal
AB 1683
Page 2
education funds and to direct the allocation of federal funds
to local education agencies.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill makes separate proposals related to state
funded pre-school programs and to the inclusion of county
offices of education in federal funding. Each of these
proposals was made in a bill (AB 769 and AB 339, respectively)
introduced by the author in 2009. Both AB 769 and AB 339 were
passed by this Committee and by the Legislature; both bills were
subsequently vetoed by the Governor.
No background material on this bill was received from the
author's office, although background material on AB 769 and AB
339 was available to Committee staff.
State Funded Pre-school Programs:
The state provides funding for both part-day and full-day state
preschool programs. The part-day state preschool programs
provide comprehensive developmental programs for three- to
five-year-old children from low-income families. The programs
emphasize parent education and encourage parent involvement. In
addition to preschool education activities that are
developmentally appropriate for the children served, the state
preschool programs (part-day and full-day) provide meals or
snacks to children, referrals to health and social services for
families, and staff development opportunities to employees. AB
2759 (Jones), Chapter 308, Statutes of 2008, consolidated
preschool programs, including the portions of general child care
programs that serve three and four-year-olds, into one program
called the California State Preschool Program. In fiscal year
(FY) 2009-10, the State Preschool Program received $439 million.
Preschool Programs Eligibility: Existing law and regulations
give eligibility priority for State Preschool Program services
to neglected and abused children who are recipients of child
protective services, upon written referral from a legal,
medical, or social services agency, or recipients who are at
risk of being neglected or abused, followed by four-year-old
children and three-year-old children. Families with the lowest
adjusted monthly income are admitted first, with an income
ceiling of 75 percent of the state median income based on family
size. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office in 2009,
there were 110,000 state preschool slots for children between
AB 1683
Page 3
the ages of three through five who met the income eligibility
threshold of 75 percent of the state median income. According
to the county centralized eligibility list, as of June 30, 2009,
there were almost 200,000 children on the waiting list for
subsidized child care, 83,078 of which were between three to
five years of age.
This bill adds children who have a biological parent who is, or
who has been within the previous six months, a dependent or ward
of the juvenile court, to the priority for enrollment. The
author provided the following statement for last year's AB 769,
"Children of youth who are in custody, on probation or in the
foster system are at high risk of developmental delays and other
cognitive, social and emotional difficulties. Even if these
children are not being raised by their biological parents, there
is sufficient evidence to suggest that stressful prenatal
experiences--and even the physical and mental condition of
parents prior to conception--impact brain development and future
well-being."
The author also added that, "Studies consistently show that
early childhood education has a positive impact on pupils'
future educational success. [This bill] would go a long way in
furthering successful education opportunities for the state's
at-risk youth."
Delinquency Court: When a minor (under 18) commits a crime, the
minor can be admitted to a juvenile center, where an
investigation takes place and a recommendation can be made to
the District Attorney to file charges. The Delinquency Court
can dismiss the case, put the minor on informal probation, or
make the minor a ward of the court. When a minor is a ward of
the Court, the Court takes over all or some of the decision
making for the minor in regards to the minor's care and
treatment. The Court can send the minor home on probation with
supervision, send the minor to live with a relative, put the
minor in foster care, a group home or institution, or send the
minor to a local detention facility, ranch or county boot camp.
Juvenile Dependency Court: The Dependency Court hears cases
regarding minors who are abused or neglected and makes decisions
regarding the placement of the minors. Section 300 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code defines this population as
children who have suffered or have a substantial risk of
suffering serious physical harm or illness as a result of the
AB 1683
Page 4
failure or inability of their parents or guardians to adequately
supervise or protect them, or the willful or negligent failure
of parents or guardians to provide adequate food, clothing,
shelter, or medical treatment; children who are suffering or are
at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage;
children who have been or have substantial risk of being
sexually abused; or children freed for adoption due to the
relinquishment or termination of parental rights.
According to the California Department of Education, children of
youths who are dependents or wards of the juvenile court are
likely to be recipients of child protective services and thus
already have priority for enrollment. The Los Angeles County
Office of Education (LACOE), the sponsor of AB 769, stated that
while many of these children may already be served by the
existing structure, they are a "hidden population". In
practice, some of these youths do not receive priority because
they are not known to the Court or social services systems.
There is no data on the number of children that would have
eligibility priority for state preschool programs specified
pursuant to this bill.
Abused and neglected children have priority eligibility for both
general child care and preschool programs. Why limit the bill
to just preschool? LACOE stated last year that it recognized
the importance of general child care programs, but wanted to
prioritize preschool to ensure that these children have a chance
of success in kindergarten and beyond.
The Chief Probation Officers of California, in support of AB 769
in 2009, stated that this proposal would help "ensure that no
child is left behind by allowing children who live in unstable
home environments to receive the same educational opportunities
as others. Preschool provides many fundamental principles to
children as it prepares them for kindergarten, such as enhancing
problem solving, socialization, and other developmental skills.
These essential qualities are later improved as children
continue their education, which means they are less susceptible
of entering into the criminal justice system."
LACOE offered the following reasons for why this proposal is
important:
1)Children of incarcerated fathers are four times more likely to
go into the foster system, while children of incarcerated
AB 1683
Page 5
mothers are five times more likely to go into the foster
system.
2)These children are more likely to experience financial
instability and material hardship, residential mobility,
instability in family relationships, and behavior and school
performance problems.
3)Children who experienced the incarceration of a parent from
the age of six or younger were more than twice as likely to be
convicted of a criminal offense between the ages of 19 and 30
compared with children who did not have a parent incarcerated
during early childhood.
Alternative program: The California School Age Families
Education (Cal-SAFE) program, established by SB 1064 (Johnston),
Chapter 1078, Statutes of 1998, provides community-linked,
school-based support services and child care/development
programs for expectant mothers and teen parents. These programs
are available at school sites, including alternative schools.
While foster care youths and youths who are wards of the courts
would be eligible for this program, the revised FY 2008-09
Budget imposed two year cuts and gave districts flexibility to
spend the funds for other purposes [SB 4 X3 (Ducheny), Chapter
12, Statutes of 2009-10 Third Extraordinary Session]. The
program received $58 million for FY 2008-09 and was reduced by
15.4 percent, to $49.1 million. The FY 2009-10 allocation is
$46.4 million, reflecting a 19.8 percent reduction. It is
unclear how many districts have or will redirect these funds for
other purposes.
Related legislation: SB 244 (Wright), pending in the Assembly
Rules Committee, expands priority for openings that become
available in state-funded preschool programs to neglected or
abused children who are in family maintenance, family
preservation, and unification. AB 769 (Torres), vetoed in 2009,
made the proposals also made in this bill regarding state-funded
pre-school programs. The Governor vetoed AB 769 stating that,
"This bill results in significant Proposition 98 General Fund
costs pressures. Absent additional funding to support this
policy shift, enacting this measure would result in denying
access to state funded preschool programs to other low income
families who are currently on waiting lists for subsidized care.
Moreover, children of those under the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court system already may access child care on a
AB 1683
Page 6
priority basis under current law, to the extent that they are at
risk of abuse or neglect."
Inclusion of County Offices of Education in Federal Funding:
This bill also proposes to require the SBE to include COEs in
any application for federal aid to education, in any allocation
of federal funds currently made to school districts, and in any
rules and regulations adopted governing the allocation of those
funds. This proposal has pointed out inconsistencies in
statute. In the code sections amended by this bill, regarding
the SBE making applications for federal funds or allocating
those funds, there are references to "school districts", "local
education agencies", and "local school districts and other
agencies entitled to receive federal funds for the support of
schools." These different references do not appear to be
related to any substantive difference in the treatment of those
agencies in terms of the application for or allocation of
federal funds. Five observations can be made about this issue:
i) these terms are used in an ambiguous, but interchangeable,
manner in these sections of code; ii) these code sections exist
the context of the authorization of the state's full
participation in Federal Programs and Interstate Agreements;
iii) the federal government generally focuses education funding
on schools and students rather than on school districts, county,
or regional education agencies (note that the federal government
has to take a one-size-fits-all approach to local education
governance, since there are many organizational models across
the states); iv) according to the CDE, there are no instances
where federal education funds are currently made available to
school districts, but not to COEs, unless there is federal or
state statute requiring that differentiation; and v) these
sections of the code were enacted by AB 3100 (Greene), Chapter
1010, Statutes of 1976, which implemented a complete revision of
the education code and have not been clarified since. Given
these observations, it could be concluded that this proposal, to
have the students and schools under the administration of COEs
included in applications and eligible for the receipt of federal
funds, unless specifically excluded, is consistent with the
intent of the Legislature as stated in the Education Code
sections amended by this portion of the bill. Given this
conclusion, this proposal is of a technical nature in that it
would serve to clarify that COEs be considered eligible for
federal education funds during application or allocation, unless
excluded by statute.
AB 1683
Page 7
Effectively, this bill reconciles existing ambiguous and
seemingly interchangeable references to "school districts" and
"local education agencies" in existing law, and thus clarifies
that school districts, county offices of education, and all
other educational agencies, including charter schools and
educational joint powers authorities, deemed eligible under law
are required to be considered by the SBE when any application
for or allocation of federal funds is being made.
Previous legislation: AB 3100 (Greene), Chapter 1010, Statutes
of 1976, implemented a complete revision of the education code,
including the statute related to which educational entities
would be included by the SBE in any applications for or
allocations of federal education funds. AB 339 (Torres), vetoed
in 2009, made the proposals also made in this bill to require
the SBE to include county offices of education in federal
funding decisions. The Governor vetoed AB 339 stating that,
"This bill would redefine 'school districts' to include school
districts, county offices of education, and other agencies
deemed eligible pursuant to state and federal law, for the
purpose of allocating federal education funds. However, in its
current form, I am concerned that the bill may have unintended
consequences for charter schools and/or other educational
agencies currently eligible for these federal funds."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim and Gerald Shelton /
ED. / (916) 319-2087