BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
| SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1396|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1396
Author: Lowenthal (D)
Amended: 6/1/10
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/21/10
AYES: Romero, Huff, Alquist, Liu, Price, Simitian, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hancock, Maldonado
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-0, 5/27/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Denham, Price, Walters, Wolk,
Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cox, Corbett, Leno
SUBJECT : Education funding: maximum categorical
education
flexibility
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill (1) establishes the Maximum
Categorical Education Flexibility Pilot Program authorizing
the Superintendent of Public Instruction to select three
school districts to participate and utilize their
categorical funding for any purpose related to improving
pupil academic achievement and academic instruction, (2)
requires a school district applying for a selection as a
pilot program to meet preconditions, as specified, and (3)
requires a selected school district to demonstrate various
accountability criteria, as specified.
CONTINUED
SB 1396
Page
2
ANALYSIS :
Categorical Flexibility - February 2009 (Mid-Year
Reductions) and 2009 Budget Act . SB 4 (Ducheny), Chapter
12, Statutes of 2009, Third Extraordinary Session, reduced
funding for various categorical programs for the 2008-09
fiscal year through the 2012-13 fiscal year. Approximately
40 categorical programs are in what is described as "Tier
3." The 2009-10 programs were funded about 20 percent
lower than the 2008-09 funding level. To help mitigate
these reductions, SBX3 4 authorized school districts to use
funding for those programs during that time for any
educational purpose to the extent permitted by federal law.
The newly flexible programs total approximately $4.5
billion statewide in 2009-10. Pursuant to SBX3 4:
1.For the 2008-09 to the 2012-13 fiscal years, local
education agencies that use the flexibility provisions
are deemed to be in compliance with program and funding
requirements contained in statutory, regulatory, and
provisional language for the categorical programs.
2.As a condition of receipt of funds, governing boards of a
school district or county office of education must, at a
regularly scheduled open public hearing, take testimony
from the public and take action on the proposed use of
funding and make explicit the purposes for which the
funds will be used.
Current law provides for general purpose funding of school
districts through revenue limits. In addition, school
districts may receive per pupil funding in lieu of
"regular" revenue limits for various alternative education
programs, such as adult education or regional occupational
programs. Finally, school districts also receive funding
in the form of categorical aid that is targeted to the
provision of certain categories of services (i.e.,
education technology, instructional materials), or directed
to certain categories of pupils (i.e, economically
disadvantaged or gifted).
This bill establishes the Maximum Categorical Education
Flexibility Program authorizing the Superintendent of
SB 1396
Page
3
Public Instruction (SPI) to select three geographically
diverse school districts of varying size to participate in
the pilot program. Specifically, this bill:
1. Requires the pilot program be implemented during the
2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 fiscal years.
2. Requires a school district, in order to be eligible to
apply for selection to meet various preconditions,
including, but not limited to:
A. The school district has a plan or initiative,
developed in conjunction with parents and teachers to
accelerate pupils' progress to proficiency. The plan
shall include measurable metrics to improve pupils
performance, close the achievement gap, increase
college entrance rates, and increase career
readiness.
B. The governing board of the school district, at a
regularly scheduled meeting of the board, has
approved the plan and developed corresponding
policies in support of the plan.
C. The annual evaluation of the performance of the
superintendent of the school district is linked to
pupil performance goals, as specified.
D. The school district has surveyed parents and
legal guardians in the district to gauge support for
participation in the pilot program. At least
one-half of the permanent teachers and one-half of
the surveyed parents or legal guardians in the
district support participation in the pilot program,
and that support in demonstrated in writing.
E. The standards-based curriculum for English
learners is cognitively complex, coherent, well
articulated, meaningful, and will enable English
language learners to learn English quickly and
fluently so that they may participate fully in
grade-level academic curriculum, as specified.
3. Requires the SPI, as a minimum, to consider the quality
SB 1396
Page
4
and rigor of the preconditions outlined in #2 above.
4. Requires the program for English learners at a minimum
to provide:
A. Support for English learners who are new to the
district.
B. An English language development program that is
comprehensive and standards-aligned and that has all
of the following characteristics: actively develops
all domains of language, addresses varying degrees of
English fluency, develops age-appropriate and
context-appropriate language, including an emphasis
on academic English, includes opportunities for
English learners to interact with native English
speaking peers, creates a supportive learning
environment for language learning and recognizes the
role of primary language development.
C. Full access to a challenging curriculum.
D. High quality instruction and materials.
E. Inclusive and affirming school climate.
F. Valid, comprehensive and useful assessments.
G. Strong family partnerships.
H. A qualified educator workforce.
5. School districts selected to participate in the pilot
program agree to demonstrate:
A. Significant progress toward accelerating pupils'
progress toward proficiency on California's academic
standards over a three-year period, as measured by
the annual Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
and any other local, state or national assessments.
B. Narrowing the achievement gap in the districts'
federally recognized subgroups, and measured annually
by STAR and other assessments, as specified.
SB 1396
Page
5
C. Fiscal solvency, as specified.
D. Positive growth, as measured by the district's
Academic Performance Index score, STAR, and any other
local, state or national assessment results.
E. An increase in the districts' graduation rate, as
measured by the California Longitudinal Pupil
Achievement Data System (CALPADS) and the school
district level data systems.
F. Improvement in the district's college entrance
rate, as measured by the National Student
Clearinghouse (NSC) or other state approved student
data tracking system, or who graduate prepared to
enter high-wage, high-skill occupations.
G. The school district can demonstrate the number of
students who enter technical school after graduation
as measured by the NCS or other state approved
student data tracking system.
6. Requires the SPI to apportion to the school districts
selected for participation in the pilot program a
categorical block grant that is based on the amount of
funding for those school districts received in the
2009-10 fiscal year, for:
A. "Tier 3" categorical programs.
B. Home-to-school transportation (6110-111), Foster
Youth programs (6110-119), Economic Impact Aid
(6110-128), AVID (6110-130), Adults in Correctional
Facilities (6110-158), Partnership Academies
(6110-166), Child Development (6110-196), and Class
Size Reduction K-3 6110-234).
7. Requires the amount of categorical block grant to be
adjusted for cost-of-living and growth in fiscal years
that state funding is appropriated for those purposes.
8. Permits a participating school district to use the
categorical block grant funds for any purpose related to
SB 1396
Page
6
improving pupil achievement and academic instruction,
except for Economic Impact Aid (EIA) funding.
9. Requires a participating school district to utilize
funding for EIA to supplement the base program provided
to English learners and economically disadvantaged
pupils. In addition, the school district must continue
to designate staff to coordinate services and programs,
including the home language survey, for English learners
and continue in existence parent advisory committees and
schoolsite councils, as specified.
10 Requires a participating school district to implement an
open and transparent process that allows public input at
a regularly scheduled meeting of the governing board
when deciding on the expenditure of categorical block
grant funds.
11.Specifies that a participating school district is deemed
to be in compliance with program and funding
requirements contained in statutory, regulatory, and
provisional language for the categorical programs.
12.Requires a participating school district to submit an
annual evaluative report to the CDE, the State Board of
Education, and the Legislature that details the progress
made during the immediate prior school year, as
specified.
13.Requires a participating school district to submit an
annual expenditure report to the CDE, detailing the
expenditure of specific categorical programs funds and
the purposes for which those funds were expended. To
the extent feasible, the report shall identify the
weighting of per pupil expenditures from all funds spent
on low socioeconomic, limited-English proficient, and
special education pupils, as compared to other pupils in
the school district.
14.Requires the participating school district to provide
the following independent evaluation reports:
A. An interim report no later than 18 months after
the SPI apportions funding.
SB 1396
Page
7
B. A final evaluation report that identifies the
success and failures of the pilot program and makes
recommendations regarding improving the pilot program
and whether the program should be continued.
15.Sunsets on July 1, 2014.
Comments
Need for the Bill . According to the author's office,
school districts are facing immeasurable challenges
managing reductions in state funding and need maximum
flexibility in the ways they can utilize restricted funding
from the state. This bill gives three school districts
maximum flexibility by creating a categorical block grant
comprised of a district's existing categorical program
funding (except special education, initiative-driven
education programs and federal programs), and allow that
funding to be used for any purpose related to improving
pupil achievement and academic instruction. The goal is to
demonstrate that the state money can be managed more
efficiently and effectively by school districts.
Irrespective of the budget condition, categorical funding
flexibility has been advocated by school business officials
and non-partisan entities, including the Legislative
Analyst, for quite some time. These entities typically
reason that since California has adopted rigorous academic
standards and assessments; let pupil performance as
measured through our assessments system drive local funding
decisions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12
2012-13 Fund
Shift from categorical Millions,
depending on General*
to general purpose use
SB 1396
Page
8
participating districts
Reporting $50 to
$100, depending on General*
report specifications
SPI workload Likely minor
General
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/1/10)
Long Beach Unified School District (source)
California Association of School Business Officials
California State University, Long Beach
Centro CHA, Long Beach
Clovis Unified School District
Corona-Norco Unified School District
District Community Advisory Committee, Long Beach Unified
School District
Fresno Unified School District
Greater Lakewood Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach City College
Long Beach Community Improvement League
Long Beach District Community Advisory Committee
Los Angeles County Business Federation
Poway Unified School District
Regional Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Riverside County Schools Advocacy Association
The Torrance Parents Organization
Torrance Unified School District
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/1/10)
California Council for Adult Education
California Federation of Teachers
California Teachers Association
Public Advocates (unless amended)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents of this bill argue that
in order to improve student achievement, there must be
flexibility to direct resources toward programs and
services that have proven to raise student achievement.
SB 1396
Page
9
Additional flexibility will allow school districts to
concentrate on teaching students. The criteria in this
bill will allow an assessment of whether funding
flexibility, linked to a district-wide, locally supported
student achievement plan is resulting in student
achievement gains.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents contend that the
Legislature has acted thoughtfully by providing "Tier 3"
flexibility for over 40 programs, while protecting other
programs. However, even Tier 3 flexibility has resulted
winners and losers, programs such as ROC/Ps and adult
education have been eliminated in some areas. Finally,
even when public discussion at the local level occurs as to
what programs should remain or be eliminated, it is the
strongest parent advocates who prevail - many times the
poorest do not get programs or r4esources they need because
Their parents are not able to be present to advocate for
their children.
CPM:cm 6/1/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****