BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
AB 2216 (Muratsuchi) - Regional Occupational Centers and
Programs
Amended: July 2, 2014 Policy Vote: Education 6-0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: August 4, 2014
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 2216 extends the existing maintenance of effort
(MOE) requirement for local educational agencies that operate
Regional Occupational Centers and Programs (ROCPs) from the end
of the 2014-15 fiscal year to the end of the 2016-17 fiscal
year.
Fiscal Impact: This bill requires local education agencies
(LEAs) that administer or participate in ROCPs to continue to
earmark funding ($323 million statewide) for ROCPs that could
otherwise be spent flexibly on other educational expenses and
local priorities.
Cost pressure: Approximately $323 million in Prop 98
General Fund cost pressure for the state to backfill in
local option monies the amount of funding this bill would
require LEAs to spend on ROCPs.
Background: Existing law establishes various career technical
education programs for public schools, including ROCPs that
allow students from multiple schools or districts to participate
in career technical training programs regardless of the
geographical location of their residence in a county or region.
(Education Code � 52300 et seq.)
Existing law authorizes the following types of ROCP operational
models:
1) County ROCP: Established and maintained by county
superintendents, with the consent of the State Board of
Education (SBE), to provide education and training in
career technical courses.
2) Joint Powers Agency ROCP: Established and maintained by
AB 2216 (Muratsuchi)
Page 1
two or more school districts forming a joint powers agency
ROCP to serve students who are enrolled in those districts.
3) Single District ROCP: Existing law authorizes certain very
large districts, who do not wish to be part of a county
ROCP, to apply to the SBE for permission to establish and
maintain a ROC/P for students enrolled in the district.
(EC � 52301)
In 2013, the Local Control Funding Formula was enacted. The LCFF
replaces almost all sources of state funding, including funds
for ROCPs and most categorical programs, and uses new methods to
allocate these resources and future allocations to school
districts, charter schools, and county offices of education. The
LCFF allows LEAs much greater flexibility to spend the funds
than under the prior system. This formula is designed to provide
districts and charter schools with the bulk of their resources
in unrestricted funding to support the basic educational program
for all students, plus supplemental funding, based on the
enrollment of educationally disadvantaged students (low-income
students, English Learners, and foster youth), to increase or
improve services to these high-needs students.
Existing law imposes an MOE requirement for ROCP funding, within
local LCFF funds, under which a school district, county office
of education, or joint powers agency for the 2013-14 and 2014-15
fiscal years, inclusive, must spend at least as much on ROCPs as
they did in the 2012-13 fiscal year.
Proposed Law: This bill extends the existing MOE requirement for
school districts, joint powers agencies, and county offices of
education that fund ROCPs from the end of the 2014-15 fiscal
year to the end of the 2016-17 fiscal year.
Staff Comments: Under existing law, LEAs will be able to use
money previously allocated to ROCPs for any educational purpose
under the LCFF. This bill would, instead, continue to restrict
the amount of funding an LEA spent on ROCPs in 2012-13, by
reserving that amount for continued ROCP spending.
This bill does not appropriate new state money, but it does
create cost pressure on all local funds by forcing an LEA to
spend a set minimum on ROCPs. Any LEA that is not receiving
AB 2216 (Muratsuchi)
Page 2
additional state funds through the LCFF (because it was already
receiving more than its current LCFF allocation, and is being
"held harmless"), which includes 31 counties, will (to the
extent that it is planning to redirect ROCP funds to another
purpose in 2016-17) have to reduce other planned expenditures in
order to protect ROCP funding. By functionally requiring
certain LEAs to reduce planned funding for other programs in
order to continue ROCPs as their previous level, this bill
creates cost pressure on the state to provide LEAs with
additional funding to backfill the restricted funds. The current
MOE restricts approximately $323 million in Prop 98 General Fund
held at the local level.