BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1946
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Joan Buchanan, Chair
AB 1946 (Chesbro) - As Introduced: February 19, 2014
SUBJECT : School finance: necessary small high schools
SUMMARY : Expands the definition of a necessary small high
school to include a high school maintained by a unified school
district as the only comprehensive high school if the high
school has an average daily attendance of less than 300 pupils
and the school district has 50 or fewer pupils per square mile
of school district territory.
EXISTING LAW defines a necessary small high school as a high
school with an average daily attendance (ADE) of less than 286
pupils and that meets specified requirements relating to
geographic isolation.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Necessary small schools (NSS) are funded on the
basis of a combination of ADA and the number of teachers
employed, instead of ADA only. This results in a higher level
of funding for those schools in recognition of the higher cost
of operating them. To qualify for NSS funding, a school must be
small (fewer than 97 ADA for elementary schools and fewer than
287 ADA for high schools), be in a district with fewer than
2,501 ADA, and be geographically isolated, as measured by
traveling distance to the next nearest school. (The distance
requirement varies based on the size of the school's ADA.)
Prior to the enactment of the local control funding formula
(LCFF) some high schools qualified for NSS funding even if they
didn't meet the distance requirement, as long as they were the
only high schools maintained by their district. A 2011 report
by the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) concluded, in part,
that the additional funding provided to necessary small schools
"are subsidizing very small schools that qualify not because
they are geographically isolated, but simply because the local
community has chosen to maintain a small single-school
district." The LAO also noted that small schools typically
offer limited educational programs, particularly at the high
school level.
AB 1946
Page 2
The LCFF eliminated the exemption from the distance requirement
for small high schools in single high school districts. This
bill reinstates it, with the added provision that the district
have 50 or fewer pupils per square mile of school district
territory.
According to the author's office, this bill requalifies seven
districts for NSS funding. Based on data provided by the
author's office, the table below shows the average annual
reduction in funding for the four-year period from 2013-14 to
2016-17, inclusive, due to the loss of NSS eligibility. The
table also shows the amount lost per 2012-13 ADA (the most
recent data available) and as a percentage of 2012-13 total
revenue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| | | Average Annual Reduction Due to Loss |
| | | of NSS Status over Next Four Years |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
| | | | | |
| | 2012-13 | |Per 2012-13 | As % of |
| District | Total | Total | ADA | 2012-13 |
| | Revenue | | | Revenue |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Alpaugh | $3,117,367 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Biggs | $5,215,873 | $313,949 | $605 | 6.0% |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Ferndale | $4,214,459 | $267,962 | $549 | 6.4% |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Los Molinos | $4,857,836 | $332,738 | $605 | 6.8% |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Maricopa | $3,577,243 | $420,625 | $394 | 11.8% |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Maxwell | $3,426,110 | $315,041 | $958 | 9.2% |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Princeton | $2,194,532 | $290,018 | $1,495 |13.2% |
----------------------------------------------------------------
AB 1946
Page 3
[Note: the column showing 2012-13 total revenue includes
federal revenue and home-to-school transportation aid, which the
districts will continue to receive in addition to their LCFF
funding. Alpaugh did not provide comparable data.]
The table above shows the difference between what the districts
would have received with NSS eligibility and what they will
actually get from the LCFF without NSS eligibility. In other
words, it does not show actual funding cuts. In fact, all of
these districts will see their LCFF revenue grow over this
four-year period, but it won't grow as fast as it would if NSS
eligibility is restored. The table below shows the projected
growth in LCFF funding for the six district for which data are
available.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |Projected Growth in LCFF Revenue from 2013-14 |
| | to 2016-17 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
| District | With NSS Eligibility | Without NSS |
| | | Eligibility |
|------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
|Biggs | 16% | 7% |
|------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
|Ferndale | 33% | 22% |
|------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
|Los Molinos | 25% | 18% |
|------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
|Maricopa | 24% | 10% |
|------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
|Maxwell | 21% | 12% |
|------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
|Princeton | 46% |22% |
| | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Policy question . For many years, it had been the policy of the
state to provide NSS eligibility for a high school that did not
meet the NSS distance requirements if it was the only high
school in a unified district. Repealing this exception was part
of the agreement on the LCFF that was reached between the
Legislature and the Administration last year. Part of the
rationale for repealing this exception was that these schools
AB 1946
Page 4
enroll many pupils that qualify them for the supplemental grant
and concentration factor funding increases to the LCFF basic
grant. However, the LCFF still falls short of what those
districts would receive with NSS eligibility. The policy
question before the Committee is whether to reverse last year's
agreement and restore NSS eligibility to these seven districts.
Arguments in support. According to the author's office, if this
bill is not enacted "each of these seven school districts will
lose funding necessary to maintain the operation of the only
high school in that unified school district, and will be forced
to close the school and implement other reductions that would
impact their K-8 schools." The affected districts argue that
retaining NSS funding is necessary not just to maintain the
quality of programs currently offered to their students, but to
maintain the programs themselves.
Letters from the affected districts provide the following
examples (among others) of the impact of the loss of NSS
eligibility:
The opportunity to participate in sports and other
extracurricular and co-curricular programs would be
eliminated.
Students would feel disenfranchised, ostracized, and
subjugated if forced to attend another school in a hostile
environment.
Parental involvement would diminish due to longer travel
distances to their children's schools.
Instructional aide positions would be eliminated.
Class sizes would increase, especially due to creating
combination classes that cover more than one grade level.
Districts would not be able to maintain competitive
salaries for their employees.
Recommended amendments. Should the Committee vote to pass this
bill, staff recommends three amendments. First, the bill
qualifies a high school with less than 300 pupils for NSS
funding if it "the only comprehensive high school" in the
district. This means the district could stay below the 300
pupil limit by opening specialized secondary schools or charter
schools and remain eligible for NSS funding even though the
total district high school enrollment exceeds 300 pupils. To
prevent this, staff recommends that the bill be amended to
strike the reference to "the only comprehensive high school" and
AB 1946
Page 5
replace it with "the only high school in the district."
Second, the enrollment limit for necessary small high school
designation is 286 pupils, because a higher enrollment would
generate more funding for the school under the LCFF than under
the NSS formula. To be consistent with existing law, staff
recommends that the enrollment limit in this bill be changed
from 300 to 286.
Third, this bill establishes a density limit of 50 pupils per
square mile of school district territory, but does not specify
whether "pupils" should be measured by enrollment or ADA. Staff
recommends that the bill be amended to specify pupils as
measured by enrollment, to be consistent with the
enrollment-based pupil count for the determination of NSS
status.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alpaugh Unified School District
Association of California School Administrators
California School Boards Association
City of Maricopa
Colusa County Office of Education
County of Humboldt
Ferndale Unified School District
Glenn County Superintendent of Schools
Humboldt County Superintendent of Schools
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Maricopa High School Booster Club Organization
Maricopa Parent Teacher Organization
Maricopa Unified School District
Small School Districts' Association
Tehama County Department of Education
Numerous individuals
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087
AB 1946
Page 6