BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2384
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 7, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2384 (Bradford) - As Amended: May 1, 2014
Policy Committee: EducationVote:7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill repeals and reconstitutes provisions of law governing
the operation of school site councils. Specifically, this bill:
1)Repeals the School-Based Program Coordination Act that among
other things established school site councils for
participating local education agencies (LEAs) and instead
authorizes all school sites to establish a school site
council.
2)Establishes the membership of the council, including teachers,
parents and school employees, as specified, and permits the
council or governing board of the school district to expand
the composition to ensure parity between school employees,
parents and pupils. Authorizes a schoolwide advisory or
support group to also be used as a schoolsite council.
3)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
provide several examples of selection and replacement
procedures that may be considered by schoolsite councils.
4)Requires the school district governing board to set term
limits for schoolsite members other than the principal.
5)Requires schoolsite councils to maximize public input and
other means of advancing a democratic process.
6)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.
AB 2384
Page 2
7)Requires school districts operating a schoolsite council to
provide training to members of the council on the purpose and
role of the council.
8)Requires schoolsite councils to develop school plans
including, but not limited to: Curricula, instructional
strategies, and materials that address the individual needs
and learning styles of each pupil; instructional and auxiliary
services to meet the special needs of various student
populations; ongoing evaluation of the educational program of
the school; the proposed expenditure of funds available to the
school; mechanisms to ensure that the objectives in the school
district's local control and accountability plan are being
met.
9)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.
10)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 :
General Fund costs to CDE in the range of $10,000 to $14,000 to
develop materials that provide examples of selection and
replacement procedures that may be considered by schoolsite
councils.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose . The School-Based Program Coordination Act, provided
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. The School-Based
Program Coordination Act is no longer in effect because the
categorical programs have been replaced by the local control
funding formula (LCFF).
AB 2384
Page 3
This bill clarifies that districts operating school site
councils under the School-Based Program Coordination are
authorized to continue to operate. Further, the bill
authorizes any school site to establish a school site council.
The bill also imposes specific requirements on school site
councils, consistent with the enactment of the LCFF, for those
sites that choose to operate councils.
2)Opposition . The Association of California School
Administrators expressed opposition related to training
components of the bill. Those requirements were removed with
the last set of amendments. ACSA has also expressed concern
that this bill may jeopardize the existing parent and
community engagement process required under the LCFF. For
example, under the state board adopted Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP) Template, school districts are
required to explain how they have engaged their parents,
community groups, local bargaining units, stakeholder groups
representing specific student populations (i.e., foster youth,
English learners) and other appropriate organizations. The
LCAP template requires a much broader parent and community
involvement process than what is proposed in this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081