BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2384
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Joan Buchanan, Chair
AB 2384 (Bradford) - As Amended: April 21, 2014
SUBJECT : School plans: schoolsite councils
SUMMARY : Authorizes schools to continue or establish
schoolsite councils and imposes several requirements on
schoolsite councils that are established. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires schoolsite councils to include, but not be limited
to, representatives from the following groups:
a) Teachers, to be selected by teachers at the school;
b) School employees other than teachers, to be selected by
nonteaching school employees at the school;
c) Parents of pupils at the school; to be selected by
parents of pupils at the school;
d) Community organizations that have a preexisting working
relationship with the schoolsite, that participate at the
schoolsite, and that are focused on the educational
outcomes of the school, to be selected by the principal and
other schoolsite council members; and
e) In secondary schools, pupils, to be selected by pupils
attending the school.
2)Permits the schoolsite council or governing board of the
school district to expand the composition of the schoolsite
council as follows:
a) For elementary schools, to ensure parity between school
employees (including the principal, teachers, and other
school employees, including, to the extent possible, at
least one classified employee) and parents; and
b) For secondary schools, to ensure parity between school
employees (including the principal, teachers, and other
school employees, including, to the extent possible, at
least one classified employee) and an equal number of
parents and pupils.
3)Provides that representatives of community organizations shall
not be included for purposes of ensuring parity.
AB 2384
Page 2
4)Provides that a schoolwide advisory or a school support group
may also be used as a schoolsite council.
5)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
provide several examples of selection and replacement
procedures that may be considered by schoolsite councils.
6)Requires the school district governing board to set term
limits for schoolsite members other than the principal.
7)Requires schoolsite councils to maximize public input and
other means of advancing a democratic process.
8)Provides that a school employee who is also a parent or
guardian of a pupil who attends another school in the district
may serve on both schoolsite councils.
9)Requires school districts operating a schoolsite council to do
the following:
a) Provide training to members of the council in budget and
funding;
b) Provide training to members of the council on
implementing the objectives contained in the district's
local control and accountability plan and other laws; and
c) Provide information on the schoolsite council selection
process to the general public.
10)Requires schoolsite councils to develop school plans that
include, but not be limited to, the following:
a) Curricula, instructional strategies, and materials that
address the individual needs and learning styles of each
pupil;
b) Instructional and auxiliary services to meet the special
needs of the following pupils:
i) Pupils of limited English proficiency, including
instruction in a language these pupils understand;
ii) Educationally disadvantaged pupils;
iii) Pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals;
iv) Foster youth;
v) Gifted and talented pupils; and
vi) Pupils with exceptional needs.
AB 2384
Page 3
c) A staff development program for teachers, other school
employees, paraprofessionals, and volunteers, including
those participating in special programs, that may include
the use of program guidelines that have been developed by
the SPI for specific learning disabilities, including
dyslexia and other related disorders and, strategies that
focus on successful approaches for working with pupils who
have been exposed to drugs or alcohol prenatally, suffered
trauma, as well as other at-risk pupils may also be
provided to teachers;
d) Ongoing evaluation of the educational program of the
school;
e) The proposed expenditure of funds available to the
school, including, but not limited to, salary and staff
benefits, and funds available to the school through federal
programs, including, but not limited to, the federal
Improving America's Schools Act.
f) Mechanism to ensure that the objectives in the school
district's local control and accountability plan are being
met; and
g) Other activities and objectives, as established by the
schoolsite council.
11)Requires the schoolsite council to annually review the school
plan, establish a new budget, and, if necessary, make other
modifications in the school plan to reflect changing needs and
priorities.
12)Requires the governing board of the school district to review
and approve or disapprove school plans. A school plan shall
not be approved unless it was developed and recommended by the
schoolsite council. If a plan is not approved by the
governing board, specific reasons for the disapproval shall be
communicated to the schoolsite, which shall make modifications
and resubmit the plan to the governing board.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Most of the provisions of this bill replicate
provisions contained in Section 52852 of the Education Code.
AB 2384
Page 4
Those provisions are part of the School-Based Program
Coordination Act, which gave districts flexibility over the use
of specified categorical program funds in exchange for meeting
certain requirements. One of those requirements was to
establish a schoolsite council in each participating school
along the lines required by this bill. In other words,
flexibility was the "carrot" to get districts to establish
schoolsite councils that met specified requirements. However,
that program is no longer in effect, because the categorical
programs have been replaced by the local control funding formula
(LCFF), which gives districts even more flexibility.
With that flexibility, districts are already authorized, but not
required, to do everything this bill describes. This authority
comes from the "permissive" Education Code, which provides a
blanket authorization to do anything that is not otherwise
prohibited by law. However, if districts make the threshold
decision to establish school site councils, then all of the
remaining provisions of this bill become mandates. By
structuring the bill in this manner, the mandates are not
reimbursable, because they would be triggered by the local
decision to establish schoolsite councils.
Some districts may not be able or willing to comply with each of
the requirements imposed by this bill. If that is the case,
then they would not be able to establish a schoolsite council of
any kind. Put another way, this bill effectively prohibits the
establishment of a schoolsite council that does not comply with
all of its requirements and could have the unintended
consequence of limiting, rather than expanding, parental and
community involvement. To prevent this, staff recommends that
the bill be amended to encourage, rather than require, the
following:
Including community organizations on the school site
council.
Providing a staff development program for teachers,
other school employees, and volunteers.
In addition, staff recommends the following three amendments:
Change the requirement to provide training to
schoolsite council members on the budget and funding and
the implementation of the district's LCAP to a requirement
to train council members on the role and purpose of the
AB 2384
Page 5
schoolsite council;
Delete the requirement that the schoolsite plan include
the proposed expenditure of salary and staff benefits,
because those decisions are not made at the schoolsite
level; and
Delete the requirement that information on the
schoolsite selection process be provided to the general
public (schoolsite councils are for school staff, parents,
and pupils, not the general public; it is not clear how
this requirement could be fulfilled; and schoolsite
councils already have the authority to reach out to members
of the public if they deem it appropriate).
Existing provisions for parental involvement. Last year the
Legislature enacted the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF),
which includes a requirement that each district adopt a Local
Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). The initial LCAPs must
be adopted by July 1, 2014. Each LCAP must address eight state
priorities, one of which is "Parental involvement, including
efforts the school district makes to seek parent input in making
decisions for the school district and each individual
schoolsite, and including how the school district will promote
parental participation in programs for unduplicated pupils and
individuals with exceptional needs." Pursuant to the "Principle
of Subsidiarity," which underlies the LCFF, it is left to
districts to determine how to implement this requirement, except
that districts are required to establish a parent advisory
committee to advise the governing board during the development
of the LCAP. Districts are also required to establish an
English learner parent advisory committee if their enrollment is
at least 15% English learners and they enroll at least 50
English learner pupils. Finally, federal law requires schools
with 21 or more English learners to form an English Learner
Advisory Committee (ELAC). The percentage of parents of English
learners on an ELAC must be at least equal to the percentage of
English learners in the school.
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. One of the
requirements of this bill is that the school plan developed by
the schoolsite council include the proposed expenditure of funds
available to the school through the Improving America's Schools
Act of 1994. This is a requirement from Education Code 52852
that was copied into this bill. The 1994 Act was the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act under
President Clinton. It was replaced by the No Child Left Behind
AB 2384
Page 6
Act (NCLB) of 2001, which is overdue for reauthorization. If
and when it is reauthorized, it is likely to have a different
name. Accordingly, if the Committee votes to pass this bill,
staff recommends that it be amended to replace the reference to
the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 with a generic
reference to federal funding.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Center for Public Health Policy
Californians for Justice
East LA Community Corporation
Families in Schools
Innercity Struggle
Khmer Girls in Action
Long Beach Community Hispanic Association
PICO California
Policy Link
Students First
3 individuals
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087