BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2272
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 2272 (Block and Fletcher) - As Introduced: February 18,
2010
SUBJECT : Education: class size
SUMMARY : Makes changes to the funding deductions for exceeding
kindergarten through grade 3 (K-3) Class Size Reduction (CSR)
program required teacher to pupil ratios. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Specifies that for fiscal years (FY) 2008-09 and 2009-10, a
district may, for each grade level for which the district
receives CSR program funding, select the penalty reductions
specified in existing law for exceeding CSR required teacher
to pupil ratios or select a new option as follows:
a) No reduction if the annual average enrollment for the
class is greater than or equal to 20.5 but less than or
equal to 24;
b) 50% reduction if the annual average enrollment for the
class is greater than 24 but less than or equal to 25;
c) 75% reduction if the annual average enrollment for the
class is greater than 25 but less than or equal to 26; and,
d) 100% reduction if the annual average enrollment for the
class is greater than 26.
2)Specifies that for FY 2010-11 and 2011-12, penalty reductions
for exceeding requires teacher to pupil ratios shall be the
following:
a) No reduction if the annual average enrollment for the
class is greater than or equal to 20.5 but less than or
equal to 24;
b) 50% reduction if the annual average enrollment for the
class is greater than 24 but less than or equal to 25;
c) 75% reduction if the annual average enrollment for the
AB 2272
Page 2
class is greater than 25 but less than or equal to 26; and,
d) 100% reduction if the annual average enrollment for the
class is greater than 26.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the K-3 CSR program to provide funding to school
districts to reduce class size in kindergarten through grade 3
to not more than 20 pupils per certificated teacher.
2)Establishes the following two options under which a school
district may apply for CSR funding:
a) Option One: A school district shall provide a reduced
class size for all pupils in each classroom for the full
regular school day in each grade level for which funding is
claimed. In order to qualify for funding, each class in
CSR shall be maintained with an annual average class size
of not more than 20 pupils for the instructional time that
qualifies the class for funding. Nothing prohibits the
class size from exceeding 20 pupils on any particular day,
provided that the average class size for the school year
does not exceed 20.
b) Option Two: A school district shall provide a reduced
class size for all pupils in each classroom for at least
one-half of the instructional minutes offered per day in
each grade level for which funding is claimed. School
districts selecting this option shall primarily devote
those instructional minutes to the subject areas of reading
and mathematics.
3)Establishes penalty in the form of reduction in payments for
each class that the school district fails to maintain required
pupil-to-teacher ratios.
4)Establishes specified penalties in the form of reduction in
payments for each class that the school district fails to
maintain required pupil-to-teacher ratios, capped at 30%, for
the 2008-09 through 2011-12 school years only.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : SB 1777 (O'Connell), Chapter 163, Statutes 1996,
AB 2272
Page 3
enacted the CSR program, which provides incentive funding of
$1,071 per pupil to districts that reduce their kindergarten,
first, second, or third grade classes to an average ratio of 20
pupils per certificated teacher. A class can exceed 20 pupils
for any particular day, as long as the average class size for
the school year does not exceed 20.44. The CSR program requires
reducing grade 1 and grade 2 class sizes before reducing grade 3
or kindergarten class sizes. In 2007-08, only 14 districts did
not participate in this program. The state budget provided $1.8
billion for this purpose in FY 2008-09. Due to budget deferrals
and projected reductions of $340 million in 2009-10 and $550
million in 2010-11 as a result of districts withdrawing from the
program, the Governor proposes $693 million for FY 2010-11.
CSR has been the subject of a number of bills attempting to
provide flexibility in the areas of grades eligible for
participation, required ratios, and penalties for failing to
maintain the ratio.
Until the enactment of SB 311 (Sher), Chapter 910, Statutes of
2004, any class that failed to maintain the required ratio of 20
pupils per teacher was subject to a penalty in the form of loss
of funding for the whole class. SB 311 allowed slight increases
in class size without losing all funding. SBX3 4 (Ducheny),
Chapter 12, Statutes of the 2009-10 Third Extraordinary Session,
as part of the FY 2008-09 budget adjustments, further reduced
the penalties for not meeting required pupil-to-teachers ratios
and capped the penalties at a 30% reduction for the 2008-09
through the 2011-12 school years in order to provide districts
with additional flexibilities during a budget crisis.
This bill proposes to modify the penalty reductions in SBX3 4.
The following chart shows the differences between the reductions
in SB 311, SBX3 4, and this bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
| SB 311 | SBX3 4 (2008-09 | AB 2272 |
| (pre-flexibility) | through 2011-12) | |
| | | |
|----------------------+---------------------+--------------------|
| | | |
| Penalty | Penalty | Penalty |
| Class Size | Class Size |Class Size |
AB 2272
Page 4
|----------------------+---------------------+--------------------|
| | | |
| 20% | 5% | 0 |
| 20.45 - 20.94 | 20.5 - 21.5 | 20.5 - 24 |
| 40% | 10% | 50% |
| 20.95 - 21.44 | 21.5 - 22.5 | 24 - 25 |
| 80% | 15% | 75% |
| 21.45 - 21.84 | 22.5 - 23 | 25 - 26 |
| 100% | 20% | 100% > |
|> 21.84 | 23 - 25 |26 |
| | 30% | |
| | > 25 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Research has been mixed on whether CSR alone has strong impact
on pupil achievement, although it is widely accepted that CSR in
combination with other factors, including teacher quality,
parental involvement, and good leadership, is beneficial. There
is no magic number for the optimum class size; successful pilot
programs in other states, including Tennessee and Wisconsin,
decreased class sizes to between 15 to17. Prior to implementing
CSR, average class size in elementary schools was 29 in
California. The CDE reports that in 2007-08, average class
sizes were 20.3 for kindergarten, 19.4 for first grade, 19.3 for
second grade, and 19.8 for third grade. Since the initial
implementation of CSR, there has been movement to establish more
flexibility in the CSR program. Some proposals advocate for
establishing class size based on the Academic Performance Index,
or by requiring schools in lower deciles to maintain class size
of 20 while allowing schools in higher deciles to have larger
class sizes. Other proposals have called for establishing
districtwide averages (versus schoolwide averages). The
Legislative Analyst's Office has long suggested offering
flexibility by incorporating CSR in an academic and
instructional improvement block grant and more recently,
incorporating CSR in the 2008-09 through 2011-12 categorical
program flexibility.
CSR is costly to implement. According to School Services of
California, CSR funding represents only 80% of the total costs
to implement the program. Last year's budget agreement to allow
increases in class sizes while imposing incremental penalties
gave districts the ability to reduce teaching staff without
losing all CSR funding. The CDE does not yet have data on the
AB 2272
Page 5
number of districts that increased class sizes and by how many
students classes increased by for the 2009-10 school year. The
deadline for reporting CSR enrollment is May 14, 2010 and the
CDE anticipates having available data in June or July. The
Governor's budget anticipates savings of almost $900 million for
FY 2009-10 and 2010-11, projecting a 10% reduction in the number
of schools participating in the CSR program.
The lack of data for 2009-10 and lack of information on what
districts plan to do in 2010-11 and 2011-12 make it really
difficult to project the impact of this bill. This bill enables
districts to increase class sizes up to 24 without losing any
CSR funding and imposes hefty penalties beyond 24. Under this
proposal, districts would lose 50% of funding for class sizes
between 24 and 25, 75% for class sizes between 25 and 26, and
all funding for class sizes above 26. This proposal benefits
districts that have and plan to keep class sizes at 24 or under
and is devastating for districts that have and intend to
increase class sizes 25 or higher. Under the current penalty
structure, districts would lose 20% of funding for class sizes
of 24 but would lose no funding under this bill. Districts with
more than 25 lose 30% of funding under the current structure,
while losing 50% to 100% of funding under this bill. Under this
bill, as an incentive, districts that have class sizes at 25 may
decide to go down to 24 in order to keep 100% of CSR funding.
It could also have the effect of exponentially increasing class
sizes if districts are forced to leave the program because once
there is no CSR funding, districts can increase class sizes as
much as they need to achieve higher savings. However, current
flexibility also allows unlimited increases in class sizes while
losing only 30% of funding.
Will this bill make it harder or easier to go back to 20 once
the flexibility provision expire? The flexibility provision
expires in the 2012-13 school year. The ability to restore
class sizes to 20 depends on whether districts stay in the
program by maintaining class sizes at 24 or under or exit the
program altogether. Once a district exits the program or have
class sizes of 30 and more, it will likely be difficult to
re-establish class sizes of 20.
This bill is sponsored by the San Diego Unified School District
(SDUSD). SDUSD states, "The problem with the current class size
reduction program penalty structure is that it pushes districts
to increase class sizes to unnecessary levels. While this
AB 2272
Page 6
penalty structure was established with good intentions - namely,
to provide districts with fiscal relief - it has created
perverse incentives for districts to increase class sizes for
its youngest students to levels that in effect prohibit the
return to the 20:1 ratio. The 20:1 ratio is the standard for the
class size reduction program, and will be strictly required for
program participation once again at the start of the 2012-13
fiscal year."
According to the author, the district projects losing $20.25
million over three years as a result of increasing K-3 class
sizes to 24 students. The district argues that districts would
not have to increase classes by as much if they were able to
keep and spend their penalty money in the classroom.
The California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO)
has an opposed unless amended position. CASBO writes, "School
districts statewide have been hit hard with devastating budget
cuts over the past 18 months to the tune of more than $1200 per
ADA. In February of last year, the Legislature and the Governor
agreed to grant districts unprecedented flexibility in the use
of funds from many categorical programs and relaxed penalties to
K-3 CSR. Districts are taking advantage of the K-3 CSR
flexibility as part of their strategy to stay afloat fiscally
during this continuing season of debilitating funding reductions
and they expect the current level of K-3 CSR flexibility to be
available at least through 2011-12. AB 2272 proposes reducing
the level of flexibility being used by school districts. This
will catch school districts off guard and force them to abandon
K-3 CSR altogether and make deeper cuts to education programs
and staff." CASBO suggests adding the bill's proposal as an
option rather than a replacement and requests extension of the
CSR flexibility provisions by one year.
Rather than adding this bill's provisions as an option, staff
recommends blending this bill's proposal with existing
flexibility by deleting all penalties up to 24 and keeping the
30% penalty for class sizes greater than 24. Staff also
recommends imposing a 100% penalty for any class size 30 and
over to maintain the goal of this bill in preventing class sizes
from the inability to return to 20 to 1.
The bill currently allows districts to choose either the
existing flexibility provisions or this bill's proposal for FY
2008-09 and 2009-10 and providing only this bill's proposal for
AB 2272
Page 7
FY 2010-11 and 2011-12. Staff recommends deleting the option to
choose for 2008-09 and 2009-10. Any changes should be made
prospectively to give districts the opportunity to plan
accordingly.
Related legislation . AB 548 (Chesbro), pending in the Senate
Education Committee, allows a local educational agency to
receive funding for the same number of classes for which it had
applied to receive program funding as of January 31, 2009, or
the funding option provided under the Class Size Reduction
Program on December 31, 2008, and for the 2009-10 school year,
authorizes the Riverside Unified School District may choose to
operate each of its grade 3 classrooms that participate in the
CSR program either pursuant to the option to receive funding for
the same number of classes for which it had applied to receive
program funding as of January 31, 2009, or the funding option
provided under the CSR program on December 31, 2008.
Previous related legislation . SB 1112 (Scott), Chapter 515,
Statutes of 2008, extended by five years, the CSR penalty
reductions specified in SB 311.
SB 311 (Sher), Chapter 910, Statutes of 2004, establishes a
deduction schedule that the State Controller would be required
to follow if a school district failed to maintain the maximum
pupil-to-teacher ratio in the CSR program.
The 2003 versions of AB 42 (Daucher) allows, for the 2003-04,
2004-05 and 2005-06 school year, a school district to determine
average class size on a schoolsite basis in the same manner as
certain small school districts and requires the school district
to select the grade level or levels at a schoolsite to be
reduced and to give priority to reducing class size in the
selected grade level or levels before reducing class size in
other grade levels at the schoolsite. The bill was gutted and
amended in 2004.
AB 1129 (Goldberg), introduced in 2003, specifies the conditions
by which an individual schoolsite may qualify for the CSR
program based on the annual Academic Performance Index decile
ranking. The bill was held in the Assembly Education Committee.
The post-February 3, 2003 versions of SBX1 10 (Sher) establishes
a Class Size Reduction Flexibility Alternative program to allow
schools to meet their K-3 class size reduction targets with a
AB 2272
Page 8
schoolwide average of 20 pupils per teacher, provided that no
participating classroom exceeds 22 pupils per teacher and that
instruction is provided by fully and properly credentialed
teachers. The bill was later amended to include the same
provisions in AB 42 (Daucher). The bill failed passage in the
Assembly Education Committee.
SB 556 (Sher), vetoed by Governor Gray Davis in 2003, contained
provisions similar to SB 311 (Sher).
SB 837 (Alarcon), introduced in 2003, authorizes a school
district participating in the program to increase the
permissible class size ratio to an average class size of 25
pupils per each class if the teacher assigned to the class holds
a valid teaching credential and is not serving pursuant to a
waiver, emergency permit, preintern certificate, or an intern
certificate or credential. The bill failed in the Senate
Education Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
San Diego Unified School District (sponsor)
California Federation of Teachers
Los Angeles Unified School District
Poway Unified School District
Opposition
California Association of School Business Officials (unless
amended)
Centinela Valley Union High School District (unless amended)
Clovis Unified School District
Corona-Norco Unified School District (unless amended)
Fresno Unified School District
Ontario-Montclair School District
Redwood City School District
Riverside County Schools Advocacy Association
Santee School District
Torrance Unified School District (unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
AB 2272
Page 9