BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1346
AUTHOR: Wyland
INTRODUCED: February 21, 2014
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 2, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : Schools: accountability: local control and
accountability plans.
SUMMARY
This bill adds several requirements to the Local Control
Funding Formula / Local Control and Accountability Plans
related to parental involvement and programmatic and fiscal
accountability for the purpose of insuring the academic needs
of English learner (EL) pupils are being met.
BACKGROUND
Local Control Funding Formula. The new Local Control Funding
Formula (LCFF) combines the prior funding from revenue limits
and more than 35 categorical programs that were eliminated, and
uses new methods to allocate these resources and future
allocations to school districts, charter schools, and county
offices of education, allowing local educational agency's
(LEAs) much greater flexibility to spend the funds than under
the prior system. There is a single funding formula for school
districts and charter schools, and a separate funding formula
for county offices of education that has some similarities to
the district formula, but also some differences. 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), provided for increasing or improving services to these
high-needs students.
1 Base Grants are calculated on a per-pupil basis
(measured by student average daily attendance) according
to grade span (K-3, 4-6, 7-8, and 9-12) with adjustments
SB 1346
Page 2
that increase the base rates for grades K-3 (10.4 percent
of base rate) and grades 9-12 (2.6 percent of base rate).
2 Supplemental Grants provide an additional 20 percent in base
grant funding for
low-income students, English learners, and foster youth
(unduplicated pupil
count).
3 Concentration Grants provide an additional 50 percent above
base grant
funding for low-income students, English learners, and
foster youth that exceed
55 percent of total enrollment.
The LCFF includes new requirements for local planning and
accountability that focus on improving student outcomes in
state educational priorities and ensuring engagement of
parents, students, teachers, school employees, and the public
in the local process. In addition, the LCFF features a new
system of support and intervention for underperforming school
districts that do not meet their goals for improving student
outcomes.
Local Control and Accountability Plan . To ensure
accountability for LCFF funds, the state mandated that school
districts, charter schools, and county offices of education
adopt and update a local control and accountability plan
(LCAP). The LCAP must include locally determined goals,
actions, services, and expenditures of LCFF funds for each
school year in support of the state educational priorities that
are specified in statute, as well as any additional local
priorities. In adopting the LCAP, LEAs must consult with
parents, students, teachers, and other school employees.
The eight state priorities that must be addressed in the LCAP,
for all students and significant student subgroups in a school
district and at each school, are:
1) Williams settlement issues (adequacy of credentialed
teachers, instructional materials, and school facilities).
2) Implementation of academic content standards.
3) Parental involvement.
SB 1346
Page 3
4) Pupil achievement (in part measured by statewide
assessments, Academic Performance Index, and progress of
English-language learners toward English proficiency).
5) Pupil engagement (as measured by attendance,
graduation, and dropout data).
6) School climate (in part measured by suspension and
expulsion rates).
7) The extent to which students have access to a broad
course of study.
8) Pupil outcomes for non-state-assessed courses of study.
School district LCAPs are subject to review and approval by
county offices of education. Statute established a process for
districts to receive technical assistance related to their
LCAPs. The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) is
authorized to intervene in a struggling district, under certain
conditions.
ANALYSIS
1) Requires each local educational agency's (LEAs) fiscal
audit to determine whether LCFF expenditures were in
compliance with State Board of Education (SBE) adopted
regulations regarding supplemental and concentration
funds. Further requires county offices of education
(COEs), as part of their review of an LEAs adopted budget,
to determine whether LCFF expenditures were in compliance
with SBE adopted regulations.
2) Prohibits the SBE adopted regulations concerning
schoolwide LCFF supplemental and concentration grant funds
from being more restrictive than the federal No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Title I (poor/needy pupil) requirements
governing the use of schoolwide funds.
3) Authorize a school district or county office of education
to use the funds apportioned on the basis of the number
and concentration of unduplicated pupils, for school
districts, for districtwide purposes, or, for county
offices of education, for countywide purposes.
4) Adds reclassified ELs to the subgroups of pupils whose
SB 1346
Page 4
academic achievement must be measured by the Academic
Performance Index (API) for accountability purposes and
provides that the inclusion of reclassified ELs in the API
shall, at a minimum, be consistent with the manner in
which reclassified ELs are included in the determination
of adequate yearly progress, as required by federal law.
5) Adds the following elements to the Local Control and
Accountability Plans (LCAP) that each LEA is required to
adopt:
a A listing and description of the expenditures for
the initial fiscal year
implementing the specific actions included in the
LCAP.
b A listing and description of the expenditures for
the initial fiscal that
will serve EL pupils, low-income pupils, foster
youth, and reclassified ELs.
1) Includes within the state priority of "pupil achievement"
(which is one of eight state priorities) the
reclassification of EL pupils.
2) Adds a ninth state priority that must be addressed in an
LCAP, for all students and significant student subgroups:
a The extent to which teachers, administrators, and
staff receive
professional development or participate in induction
programs, including the type and subject areas of the
professional development provided.
1) Requires as a condition of receiving LCFF funding that a
district must establish a districtwide EL parent advisory
committee if the district enrolls at least 15 percent EL
pupils or 50 EL pupils.
2) Requires the districtwide EL parent advisory committee to
advise the governing board on the following:
a Establishing school district goals and objectives
for programs and
SB 1346
Page 5
services for EL pupils to ensure that the academic
and language proficiency needs of ELs, including
long-term ELs and ELs at-risk of becoming long-term
ELs are being met.
b Administering the home language survey.
c School district reclassification procedures.
1) Requires the LCAP template adopted by the State Board of
Education meet the requirements of the federal No Child
Left Behind Act related to the single plan for pupil
achievement and to ensure that LEAs that receive
supplemental an concentration funds include in their LCAPs
information on the instructional programs and services
provided to English learner, low-income, foster youth and
reclassified EL pupils to increase their academic
achievement. And include information on the types of
English language development instructional programs
provided to English learners, and how those programs
support the core instructional program, including, but not
limited to, the types of instructional materials provided
to pupils and the professional development provided to
schoolsite staff.
2) Requires LEAs to expend Economic Impact Aid program funds
only for purposes authorized in statute and regulations as
read on June 30, 2013.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for bill . According to the author's office, this
measure will increase accountability for English language
learner (ELL) programs by requiring LEAs to demonstrate
how they are spending money on ELL programs and by
incorporating parent involvement with school district
goals for ELL programs. Nearly 1.4 million of
California's 6.2 million students are classified as
English Learners (ELs), making California the state with
the largest EL population - with about one-third of the
country's total ELs. Sadly, 40 percent of ELs do not
graduate from high school.
2) Clarity on EL pupil expenditures and parent advisory
committees expounded in this measure, are consistent with
SB 1346
Page 6
the premise underlying LCFF that includes:
a Increase local funding and programmatic control and
reduce state
bureaucracy.
b Ensure that student needs drive the allocation of
resources.
c 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 matters.
d Ensure sufficient flexibility and accountability at
the local level so
those closest to the students can make the decisions.
1) Restrictions on LCFF Supplemental Funding . Statute that
governs the expenditure of the supplemental funding
(supplemental and concentration grant funds) requires LEAs
to increase or improve services for educationally
disadvantaged students (low-income students, English
learners, and foster youth) in proportion to the
supplemental funding LEAs receive for the enrollment of
these students. The statute also allows the supplemental
funding to be used for school-wide, district-wide,
county-wide, and charter-wide purposes, for the benefit of
a broader student population rather than restricted only
for educationally disadvantaged students, in a manner that
is no more restrictive than the provisions for spending
federal funds under Title I of the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB).
On January 16, 2014, after receiving significant
stakeholder input and public comment on its proposed
regulations, the State Board of Education (SBE) adopted
LCFF emergency regulations that include the spending
regulations and a template for the new mandated local
control and accountability plan (described below). The
emergency regulations became effective on February 6,
2014, when they were approved by the Office of
Administration Law. The board also initiated the process
SB 1346
Page 7
for adopting permanent regulations, which is expected to
be completed by the fall 2014.
The emergency regulations require LEAs to describe in
their local control and accountability plan the increased
or improved services provided to disadvantaged students
beyond the services provided to all students, in
proportion to the LEA's increase in supplemental funding.
The regulations include a specified standard methodology
for LEAs to calculate their annual LCFF funding attributed
to the supplemental funds versus base grant funds and also
to calculate the "proportionality percentage" (i.e.,
amount of supplemental funds divided by amount of base
funds) by which services to disadvantaged students must be
increased or improved beyond services provided to all
pupils.
At the same time, the regulations give LEAs broad
flexibility to spend the supplemental funding for
school-wide, district-wide, county-wide, and charter-wide
purposes. The LCFF regulations allow the supplemental
funding to be used for district-wide or school-wide
purposes even when disadvantaged students make up a small
percentage of the student enrollment. However, the
regulations include certain thresholds to distinguish the
level of justification for district-wide or school-wide
services that must be in a local control and
accountability plan.
This measure is consistent with actions advocated by
several legislators and a coalition of civil rights and
other organizations who had previously urged the board to
adopt a policy on school-wide services that is more
consistent with Title I in order to ensure that the
supplemental funding is only used on a school-wide basis
at schools where disadvantaged students make up a
significant percentage of the student enrollment.
2) The LCFF is a massive cultural change from compliance
driven to outcome driven accountability in return for
funding and programmatic flexibility. Most entities
affected by the LCFF have indicated that everyone involved
are working in good faith toward its successful
SB 1346
Page 8
implementation. With this in mind, the implementing
legislation envisioned providing schools time to acclimate
to the new funding formula, but continue with improving
modifications, both in terms of connecting budgets with
instructional programs offered, development of robust and
detailed accountability plans with required input from a
number entities, and allowing for annual review and
fine-tuning of plans to insure pupil academic success.
Consistent with the intent of this measure, staff
recommends the following amendments:
a On page 13, line 3, strike "2014-15" and insert:
2015-16. This
amendment would harmonize the enactment timing of this
measure, January 2015, with the fiscal year in which
it becomes
effective.
b On page 18, maintain current statute per Education
Code section
42238.07, but create a new section 42238.08 that
provides for the
development of SBE regulations on or before January
31, 2015, as
written in Section 3.
c On page 25, lines 21 and 24, should read?
"Beginning with the
2015-16 fiscal year and each year a local control and
accountability
plan is updated a listing?"
d On page 25, lines 21 and 24, strike "initial"
e On page 30, lines 29 and 37, each line should read
"On or before
March 31, 2015, the state board shall adopt templates
and that
beginning in the 2015-16 fiscal year and annually
thereafter shall
ensure?."
1) Previous legislation . SB 344 (Padilla, 2013) was nearly
identical to this measure. SB 344 was vetoed by the
Governor, whose veto message read:
SB 1346
Page 9
This bill interferes with the work of the State Board of
Education as it implements, through an open and
transparent process, the Local Control Funding Formula.
Moreover, it contains provisions contrary to the July
budget agreement. For these reasons, I am unable to sign
this bill.
SUPPORT
None on file.
OPPOSITION
None on file.