BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 754
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 754 (Padilla) - As Amended: June 19, 2012
SENATE VOTE : Not relevant
SUBJECT : School funding: economic impact aid
SUMMARY : Requires public posting of a district's economic
impact aid (EIA) budget and requires the California Department
of Education (CDE) to make specified determinations regarding
the use of such funds. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires as a condition upon the receipt of EIA funds, a
school district to post online and in an easily accessible
location the EIA budget for the school district and each
school within the school district.
2)Requires by July 1, 2017, the California Department of
Education (CDE) to determine whether each school district
receiving EIA funds is using proven methods of teaching
English learners (ELs).
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides economic impact aid funding to school districts based
on the number of economically disadvantaged pupils and English
learners enrolled in the school district.
2)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to perform
(SPI) specified calculations to determine the amount of
economic impact aid a school district receives for a fiscal
year and requires each school district to expend these funds
for specified programs and activities.
3)Requires a school district to expend EIA funds to serve and
assist ELs and economically disadvantaged pupils and prohibits
expending those funds at schoolsites that do not have ELs or
economically disadvantaged pupils.
4)Requires a school to use EIA funds to support programs and
activities designed to assist ELs achieve proficiency in the
English language as rapidly as practicable and to support
SB 754
Page 2
programs and activities designed to improve the academic
achievement of ELs and economically disadvantaged pupils.
5)Requires EIA funds received by school districts to supplement,
and not supplant, existing resources at the schoolsite.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Economic Impact Aid is a state categorical program
that provides supplemental funds to support additional programs
and services for ELs/limited English proficient (LEP) pupils and
compensatory education services for educationally disadvantaged
students.
The EIA/LEP support programs and activities to assist ELs
achieve proficiency in the English language as rapidly as
practicable and to support programs and activities to improve
the academic achievement of English learners. EIA/State
Compensatory Education (EIA/SCE) support programs and activities
designed to assist educationally disadvantaged students achieve
state standard proficiency.
Rationale for the bill : The author states, "Current law lacks
transparency in school budgets that would allow policymakers,
students, parents, teachers and communities to understand how
schools and districts provide services to English Learners."
The author further states, "Current law requires the SPI to
conduct monitoring of district English Learner programs every 3
years. Monitoring is key to holding school accountable and
ensuring they are providing the proper services to English
Learners. However, since 2009 the monitoring has been suspended.
The lack of monitoring leaves policymakers, students, parents,
teachers and communities without means of understanding the
effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a districts English Learner
services. Moreover, it leaves districts without expert feedback
about the English Learner services they provide."
Posting EIA budgets : This bill requires as a condition upon the
receipt of EIA funds, school districts to post online and in an
easily accessible location the EIA budgets for the school
district and each school within the district.
Pursuant to Title 5 Regulations, school districts receiving EIA
SB 754
Page 3
funds are required to maintain separate accounting records that
document the total amount of EIA funds spent. It shall be noted
that the purpose of EIA funds is to provide supplementary
services to ELs and economically disadvantaged students.
Without also having information about the main budget and/or
other sources of funding for the student populations that EIA is
designed for, it is unclear whether the EIA budget in isolation
will provide useful information to parents and the public.
Furthermore, the information may not necessarily be presented in
a manner or format that is easily comprehensible. For example,
one district notes that its EIA budget is on a spreadsheet that
has internal budget codes that may not be fully understandable
to the public. While posting these budgets may provide a level
of information to parents and the public, a question may be
raised as to whether that information will be truly useful and
beneficial given that some information may be lacking and/or
potentially incomprehensible. However, others may argue that
this bill takes a step towards increasing budget transparency,
which in turn will lead to a greater level of understanding on
how education dollars are spent.
There appears to be a level of parent and public involvement and
input in the development of an expenditure plan for EIA funds.
Current law requires the school site council (SSC) to develop a
Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) for consolidate
application programs, including EIA, operated at the school or
in which the school participates. The SSC must approve the
plan, recommend it to the local governing board for approval,
monitor implementation of the SPSA, and evaluate the results. At
least annually, the SSC must revise the SPSA, including proposed
expenditures of funds allocated to the school through the
consolidated application, and recommend it to the local
governing board for approval.
EIA reporting requirement on court schools : Starting with the
2010-11 Fiscal Year, juvenile court schools are also eligible
for EIA funds, and the Budget Act requires, as a condition of
receipt of funds, Juvenile County Court Schools to report on the
use of funds and the number of pupils served no later than
September 30 of each year. This existing requirement only
applies to court schools.
Compliance monitoring: Federal and state laws require the CDE
to monitor implementation of categorical programs operated by
LEAs. LEAs are responsible for creating and maintaining
SB 754
Page 4
programs which meet requirements and are monitored for
compliance with federal and state categorical programmatic and
fiscal requirements as well as instructional services and
programs provided to ELs, physical education, and educational
equity.
The Federal Program Monitoring (FPM) office at CDE coordinates
reviews through a combination of data and document review and
on-site visits. LEAs are assigned to one of four review cycles.
LEAs may be selected for an on-site or online monitoring every
two years. In identifying LEAs for reviews, several factors are
considered, including compliance history, academic achievement,
program size, and fiscal analysis. Additionally, each year, CDE
analyzes extensive data for all LEAs that receive categorical
funds in two of the four cycles. The FPM instrument for each
categorical program contains federal and state legal
requirements organized into statutory items and supporting items
arranged under seven general dimensions. At the end of each
review, the state will complete a report of findings that
informs the school, district, or county office how to correct
the findings.
This bill requires by July 17, 2017, the CDE to determine
whether each school district receiving EIA funds is using proven
methods of teaching ELs. It appears that this would require
every school district to be reviewed and/or audited to see how
EIA funds are being used. However, no definition of "proven
methods" is provided in this bill therefore it is unclear as to
how the CDE will determine what a proven method is. The state
lacks data on what methods or approaches actually improve
academic outcomes of English learners. Extensive research may
be necessary in order to identify proven methods for teaching
ELs to then make a determination as to whether each of the over
1000 school districts around the state is using those methods.
Moreover, EIA is not the only source of funding that school
districts receive to provide instruction to ELs. EIA funds are
supplemental in nature, and therefore if the intent of the bill
is to determine whether districts are using funds to ensure ELs
are receiving effective instruction, other sources of funding
should also be considered to draw such conclusions. In light of
the potential implementation challenges of this part of the
bill, staff recommends and the author has agreed to an amendment
to delete subdivision (b) from the bill.
Drafting error : The language in the bill currently reads, "As a
SB 754
Page 5
condition upon the receipt of funds a school district shall "
The language may have been intended to stipulate two different
actions: 1) to state that as a condition of receipt of funds the
district shall take the specified actions; or 2) to state that
upon the receipt of funds, the district shall take the specified
actions. Staff recommends the bill be amended to correct this
drafting error.
This bill was substantially amended in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee earlier this year, and the subject
matter of this bill has not been heard by a policy committee.
This Committee heard and passed this bill last year as a bill
dealing with the English language development test.
Arguments in support : Families in Schools writes, "Currently,
districts do not report school-level funding figures, but
instead use district averages. Parents and communities are
largely unaware of how schools spend English learner funds
because school districts are not required to report or post
them. SB 754 is a critical first step in accessing how schools
in California operate and fund their English learner program."
The California Association for Bilingual Education has a
"support if amended" position and it writes, "SB 754 (Padilla)
requires CDE to determine whether each school district receiving
economic impact aid funds is using proven methods of teaching
English learners. We believe the intent of this subdivision is
to ensure that English learners are receiving appropriate and
effective instruction. However EIA funds are supplemental in
nature and we believe the issue of appropriate and effective
instruction is broader than the EIA. Additionally, it is unclear
as to what will occur once CDE collects this information.
Lastly, the phrase "proven methods of teaching" needs to be
defined. Therefore we recommend that subdivision (b) be deleted
from SB 754 (Padilla)."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Civil Liberties Union
California Association for Bilingual Education - if amended
Californians Together - if amended
Families in schools
SB 754
Page 6
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi�a / ED. / (916) 319-2087