BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2380
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Joan Buchanan, Chair
AB 2380 (Weber) - As Amended: March 28, 2014
SUBJECT : School plans: consolidated applications for
categorical programs: single plan for pupil achievement
SUMMARY : Adds additional requirements for districts that elect
to prepare a single plan for pupil achievement. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Requires a single plan for pupil achievement to include
programs funded through the local control funding formula
(LCFF) among the programs it addresses.
2)Requires participating school districts to ensure that
schoolsite single plans for pupil achievement were developed
with the review, certification, and advice of the schoolsite
English learner advisory committees.
3)Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to review the
content of instruments that are used for onsite visits and
compliance reviews for consistency with the local control and
accountability plan (LCAP) template.
4)Requires participating school districts to develop their LCAPs
and annual updates in consultation with schoolsite level
advisory groups and ensure that the LCAP and its specific
actions are consistent with, and reflective of, the goals and
plans of the schoolsite.
5)Requires single plans for pupil achievement to be aligned with
the district's goals for English learners, pupils eligible for
free and reduced price meals, and foster youth in specified
performance areas.
EXISTING LAW
1)Authorizes school districts to use a single consolidated
application to apply for specified state and federal
categorical programs funds.
2)Requires districts that elect to use the consolidated
AB 2380
Page 2
application process to include in that application a single
plan for pupil achievement.
3)Requires the single plan for pupil achievement to do the
following:
a) Be developed and approved by a schoolsite council;
b) Be aligned with school goals for improving pupil
achievement;
c) Address how funds provided to the school will be used to
improve the academic performance of all pupils to target
levels; and
d) Identify the schools means of evaluating progress toward
accomplishing those goals and how state and federal law
governing the consolidated programs will be implemented.
4)Requires each school with more than 20 pupils of limited
English proficiency to establish a school level advisory
committee on which parents/guardians of such pupils constitute
membership in at least the same percentage as their children
represent of the total number of pupils in the school.
5)Requires the English learner advisory committee to advise the
principal and staff in the development of a detailed master
plan for bilingual education for the school and submitting the
plan to the governing board for consideration for inclusion in
the district master plan and to assist in the development of
the school needs assessment, language census, and ways to make
parents aware of the importance of regular school attendance.
6)Requires school districts to adopt a local control and
accountability plan (LCAP) by July 1, 2017, and requires the
LCAP to:
a) Be updated every year and renewed every three years;
b) Be developed in consultation with teachers, principals,
administrators, other school personnel, parents, and
pupils;
c) Include annual achievement goals for all pupils,
including specified pupil subgroups, and a description of
actions that will be taken to achieve those goals;
d) Be aligned with the district's budget and describe how
AB 2380
Page 3
the district will "increase or improve services for
unduplicated pupils in proportion to its increase in funds
apportioned on the basis of the number and concentration of
unduplicated pupils in the district;" and
e) Address the following eight state priorities:
i) Requirements related to the Williams v. State of
California settlement agreement related to fully
credentialed teachers, instructional materials, and
school facilities;
ii) Implementation of academic and performance
standards, including English language development
standards;
iii) Parental involvement;\
iv) Pupil achievement, as measured by statewide
assessments;
v) Pupil engagement, as measured by attendance, dropout
and graduation rates, and expulsions/suspensions;
vi) School climate, as measured by suspension rates,
expulsion rates, and other local measures, such as
surveys;
vii) The extent to which pupils have access to and are
enrolled in a broad course of study; and
viii) Pupil outcomes, if available, for non-state-assessed
courses of study.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : The consolidated application process was designed to
give school districts flexibility over the use of funds received
for specified state and federal categorical programs. Funds for
the state programs that were a part of the consolidated
application have been rolled into the local control funding
formula (LCFF). However, the consolidated application process
can still be used for federal categorical programs. Districts
that elect to use the consolidated application process are
required to have schoolsite councils and involve them in the
development and approval of the single plan for pupil
achievement.
According to the author's office, these provisions need to be
updated to reflect the enactment of the LCFF and the LCAP.
Specifically, this bill requires the plans developed and
approved by the schoolsite councils to address programs funded
through the LCFF and provides that those plans must also be
developed and approved by the English learner advisory
AB 2380
Page 4
committee. In addition, this bill requires the district LCAP to
be developed in consultation with the schoolsite advisory groups
and ensure that it is consistent with and reflective of the
goals and plans of the school site. Conversely, the bill
requires the schoolsite plan to be aligned with the district's
LCAP for unduplicated pupils.
The requirements of this bill apply only to districts that elect
to use the consolidated application process and develop a single
plan for pupil achievement. Gaining flexibility over the use of
state categorical funds was a major incentive for district to
elect to use this process. That incentive was eliminated with
the adoption of the LCFF. However, the ability to have
flexibility over the use of federal categorical program funding
(to the extent it does not violate federal law) may still
provide some incentive for districts to continue to use this
process. At this time, it is not known how many districts, if
any, are.
Arguments in support. Supporters argue that this bill is needed
to ensure the continued involvement of schoolsite committees (in
at least some schools) in the district's LCAP development
process. This, they say, is consistent with the Governor's
vision for the LCFF and LCAP as expressed in the 2013-14
Governor's Budget Summary:
"The new funding formulas will also greatly increase
transparency in school funding, empowering parents and
local communities to access information in a more
user-friendly manner and enhance their ability to
engage in local school financial matters. The goal is
to ensure sufficient flexibility and accountability at
the local level so that those closest to the students
can make the decisions."
Supporters argue that schoolsite councils are "those closest to
the students."
Recommended amendment. This bill requires the district's LCAP
to be developed in consultation with schoolsite advisory groups
and ensure that the LCAP and its specific actions are consistent
with, and reflective of, the "goals and plans of the
schoolsite." Staff recommends that this be changed to "goals
and plans of schoolsites," to clarify that the LCAP need not be
reflective of the (possibly incompatible) plans of each
AB 2380
Page 5
individual schoolsite.
In addition, this bill imposes the schoolsite council
requirements on districts that participate in programs funded
through the consolidated application process or through the
LCFF. The use of "or" imposes the requirements on all
districts, which is not the author's intent. Accordingly, staff
recommends that "or" be replaced by "and."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alliance San Diego
American Civil Liberties Union
Association of California School Administrators
Families in Schools
Parent Institute for Quality Education
Parent Leadership Action Network
PICO California
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087