BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1380
Page A
CORRECTED - 08/24/10 Changes per consultant.
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1380 (Hancock)
As Amended August 16, 2010
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :35-0
EDUCATION 8-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Nestande, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, |
| |Ammiano, | |Bradford, Huffman, |
| |Arambula, Carter, Eng, | |Coto, Davis, De Leon, |
| |Miller, | | Gatto, Hall, |
| |Norby | |Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Torrico |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires school facilities constructed or modernized
using Career Technical Education Facilities program (CTEFP)
funds to be used for career technical education (CTE) purposes
for a minimum of five years. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the governing board of an applicant school district
to submit a resolution adopted by the governing board stating
the intent to use the facilities built or modernized with
Proposition 1D funds set aside for the CTEFP and provide
certification that the facility is being used for CTE purposes
during the first year of occupation of the school facility.
2)Authorizes the governing board of a school district to seek a
waiver of the CTE use requirement from the State Allocation
Board (SAB) if the facility or educational program of the
school district changes during the initial five years of use.
3)Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to
evaluate the waiver request and make a recommendation to the
SAB based on the following criteria:
SB 1380
Page B
a) Enrollment changes in the school district;
b) Enrollment changes in the CTE program;
c) Changes in labor market demands;
d) Inability to hire teaching staff with the proper
credentials;
e) The fiscal conditions of the school district; and,
f) Other factors presented by a local governing board
deemed appropriate and relevant by the CDE and the SAB.
4)Specifies that the provisions in the bill requiring CTE
facilities constructed or modernized with CTEFP funds to be
used for a minimum of five years apply to projects approved by
the SAB on or after January 1, 2011.
5)Encourages a school district applying for a CTE grant to
include teachers of CTE and members of the local CTE advisory
committee in the design and planning process leading to the
submission of an application that is a request for full
funding or a reservation of funds.
6)Authorizes 25% of the funds used for qualifying equipment
purchased with CTEFP funds to have a life expectancy of at
least five years instead of 10 years. Encourages a school
district to purchase energy efficient and environmentally
preferable equipment.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, potential state bond fund cost pressure, likely less
than $225,000, to allow 25% of equipment funds to purchase items
with a life expectancy of at least five years.
COMMENTS : Current law establishes the School Facility Program,
under which the state provides general obligation bond funding
for various school construction projects, including new
construction, modernization, joint-use facilities, and programs
to specifically address the construction needs of overcrowded
schools, charter schools, and CTE facilities. Proposition 1D,
authorized by AB 127 (Nunez and Perata), Chapter 35, Statutes of
2006, and approved by the voters in November 2006, provided $7.3
billion for kindergarten through grade 12 school facilities, and
established the CTEFP within the SFP, providing $500 million to
construct or modernize facilities and to purchase equipment with
an average useful life expectancy of at least 10 years for CTE
programs at existing comprehensive high schools.
SB 1380
Page C
The CTEFP authorizes a grant of $3 million per project per
schoolsite for new construction projects and $1.5 million per
project per schoolsite for modernization projects. The CTEFP
also requires a school district to contribute from local
resources a dollar amount equal to the amount of the state grant
provided and authorizes the contribution to come from private
industry groups, the school district, or a joint powers
authority. The SAB is prohibited from waiving the local
contribution on any basis, including for hardship assistance.
However, the SAB may authorize a repayment schedule and a loan
similar to that provided under the Charter School Facilities
Program.
There are two funding options for CTEFP funds. A local
educational agency may request full funding for a project that
has already received approval from the CDE and the Division of
State Architect (DSA), considered "construction ready" projects,
or request a reservation of funds and have up to 12 months to
obtain the CDE and DSA approvals.
According to the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC),
approximately $409 million of the $500 million has been
apportioned to fund approximately 455 CTEFP projects in the
first and second cycles of funding. A total of $91 million
remains in the program. The deadline for applications for the
third cycle was March 31, 2010, with applications totaling $231
million submitted. OPSC anticipates SAB approval at the end of
the year.
According to the author, "Several issues have surfaced in the
past 2 and a half years which will benefit from legislative
review. The Career Technical Education grant program is in need
of modification - more assurance that the classrooms built or
modernized with the funds are truly used for CTE in the future?"
The author further states that the equipment shelf life
requirement needs to be revised.
This bill specifies that beginning with projects approved by the
SAB on or after January 1, 2011, facilities constructed or
modernized using CTEFP funds must be used for CTE program
purposes for at least five years. None of the other programs
(e.g., charter schools, joint use) have similar requirements.
Presumably, the purpose of this requirement is to ensure that
SB 1380
Page D
districts are not applying for these funds with the real
intention of using them for regular classrooms and to ensure the
longevity of CTE programs. It is not known if any district has
converted CTE facilities funded by the CTEFP into regular
classroom use.
Supporters would argue that the CTEFP was established to
encourage and enable the establishment of CTE programs, and as
such, districts should not be allowed to drop the programs
housed in facilities constructed with bond funds dedicated for
CTE programs for other facilities uses. Research has shown that
CTE opportunities for pupils may provide relevance to the high
school curriculum and engage pupils who may be at risk of
dropping out. Existing law establishes various CTE programs for
public schools including but not limited to Regional
Occupational Centers/Programs, partnership academies, adult
education programs, agricultural programs, tech-prep programs,
and CTE courses that may be offered in secondary schools and
community colleges.
The bill requires a local governing board interested in applying
for CTEFP funds to adopt a resolution stating its intent to use
the facilities for CTE purposes and if funded, requires the
governing board to certify its use during the first year of
occupation of the facility. An argument can be made that the
value of CTE programs notwithstanding, the use of facilities
should not dictate the long-term educational program of a
school. There could be unforeseeable factors in the future that
may cause a district to discontinue a CTE program or course,
including increase or decrease enrollment, inability to secure
qualified CTE teachers, changes in the labor market and the
demand for certain types of training, or funding challenges.
To address that concern, the bill authorizes a governing board
to seek a waiver from the SAB of the requirement to use the
facility for CTE purposes for five years if the facility or
educational program of the school district changes during that
time.
The CTEFP authorizes funds to be used for equipment with a
10-year lifecycle. This requirement has been a source of
complaint since the inception of the program. Districts argue
that equipment for some CTE programs, such as broadcasting and
digital editing equipment or even specialized systems for
SB 1380
Page E
automotive repair programs, may not have a 10-year lifecycle,
but are necessary for the programs. This bill authorizes
districts to use up to 25% of the funds spent on equipment
purchases for equipment with a lifespan of at least five years.
Another issue that has arisen is the appropriate entity to
evaluate the equipment. Districts have expressed frustration
that equipment approved as part of the CDE approval process has
been rejected by the OPSC. Equipment may be an integral part of
CTE programs. The Legislature may wish to consider whether the
evaluation of equipment, including whether it meets the five or
ten-year lifecycle requirement, should be conducted by the CDE
rather than OPSC.
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0006090