(1)Existing law establishes a system for public elementary and secondary education in this state. Under this system, local educational agencies throughout the state provide instruction to pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, at the schoolsites operated by these agencies. Existing law also establishes a system for providing state and federal funding for public elementary and secondary schools. Existing law authorizes school districts that apply for state funding for any of numerous specified state categorical programs to submit to the State Department of Education, for approval by the State Board of Education, a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of their funding for those programs.

This bill would delete the provision authorizing the single consolidated application for state categorical programs, and instead authorize local educational agencies, as defined to include school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, to submit to the department for approval by the state board a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of certain federal categorical programs.

(2)Existing law authorizes school districts and schools to establish school plans for categorical programs. Existing law also authorizes school districts to establish schoolsite councils and schoolsite advisory committees.

This bill would recast and revise the statutes relating to school plans and schoolsite councils. The bill would establish School Plans for Student Achievement (SPSAs), and require local educational agencies, as defined, to adopt SPSAs as a condition for receiving certain federal funds and for receiving funding for state categorical programs that are not funded through the local control funding formula. The bill would require specified data to be included in SPSAs by local educational agencies.

The bill would require schools that operate a program that requires a SPSA to establish a schoolsite council. The bill would specify requirements for the membership of schoolsite councils at elementary and secondary schools. The bill would authorize the State Board of Education to grant a waiver of any provision of the bill relating to schoolsite councils.

The bill would also make related conforming and technical changes.

(1)Existing law establishes a system for public elementary and secondary education in this state. Under this system, local educational agencies throughout the state provide instruction to pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, at the schoolsites operated by these agencies. Existing law also establishes a system for providing state and federal funding for public elementary and secondary schools. Existing law authorizes school districts that apply for state funding for any of numerous specified state categorical programs to submit to the State Department of Education, for approval by the State Board of Education, a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of their funding for those programs.

This bill would delete the provision authorizing the single consolidated application for state categorical programs, and instead authorize local educational agencies, as defined to include school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, to submit to the department for approval by the state board a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of certain federal categorical programs.

(2)Existing law authorizes school districts and schools to establish school plans for categorical programs. Existing law also authorizes school districts to establish schoolsite councils and schoolsite advisory committees.

This bill would recast and revise the statutes relating to school plans and schoolsite councils. The bill would establish School Plans for Student Achievement (SPSAs), and require local educational agencies, as defined, to adopt SPSAs as a condition for receiving certain federal funds and for receiving funding for state categorical programs that are not funded through the local control funding formula. The bill would require specified data to be included in SPSAs by local educational agencies.

The bill would require schools that operate a program that requires a SPSA to establish a schoolsite council. The bill would specify requirements for the membership of schoolsite councils at elementary and secondary schools. The bill would authorize the State Board of Education to grant a waiver of any provision of the bill relating to schoolsite councils.

The bill would also make related conforming and technical changes.

(1)Existing law establishes a system for public elementary and secondary education in this state. Under this system, local educational agencies throughout the state provide instruction to pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, at the schoolsites operated by these agencies. Existing law also establishes a system for providing state and federal funding for public elementary and secondary schools. Existing law authorizes school districts that apply for state funding for any of numerous specified state categorical programs to submit to the State Department of Education, for approval by the State Board of Education, a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of their funding for those programs.

This bill would delete the provision authorizing the single consolidated application for state categorical programs, and instead authorize local educational agencies, as defined to include school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, to submit to the department for approval by the state board a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of certain federal categorical programs.

(2)Existing law authorizes school districts and schools to establish school plans for categorical programs. Existing law also authorizes school districts to establish schoolsite councils and schoolsite advisory committees.

This bill would recast and revise the statutes relating to school plans and schoolsite councils. The bill would establish School Plans for Student Achievement (SPSAs), and require local educational agencies, as defined, to adopt SPSAs as a condition for receiving certain federal funds and for receiving funding for state categorical programs that are not funded through the local control funding formula. The bill would require specified data to be included in SPSAs by local educational agencies.

The bill would require schools that operate a program that requires a SPSA to establish a schoolsite council. The bill would specify requirements for the membership of schoolsite councils at elementary and secondary schools. The bill would authorize the State Board of Education to grant a waiver of any provision of the bill relating to schoolsite councils.

The bill would also make related conforming and technical changes.

(1)Existing law establishes a system for public elementary and secondary education in this state. Under this system, local educational agencies throughout the state provide instruction to pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, at the schoolsites operated by these agencies. Existing law also establishes a system for providing state and federal funding for public elementary and secondary schools. Existing law authorizes school districts that apply for state funding for any of numerous specified state categorical programs to submit to the State Department of Education, for approval by the State Board of Education, a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of their funding for those programs.

This bill would delete the provision authorizing the single consolidated application for state categorical programs, and instead authorize local educational agencies, as defined to include school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, to submit to the department for approval by the state board a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of certain federal categorical programs.

(2)Existing law authorizes school districts and schools to establish school plans. plans for categorical programs. Existing law also authorizes school districts to establish schoolsite councils and schoolsite advisory committees.

This bill would recast and revise the statutes relating to school plans and schoolsite councils. The bill would establish School Plans for Student Achievement (SPSAs), and require local educational agencies, as defined, to adopt SPSAs as a condition for receiving certain federal funds and for receiving funding for state categorical programs that are not funded through the local control funding formula. The bill would require specified data to be included in SPSAs by local educational agencies.

The bill would require schools that operate a program that requires a SPSA to establish a schoolsite council. The bill would specify requirements for the membership of schoolsite councils at elementary and secondary schools. The bill would authorize the State Board of Education to grant a waiver of any provision of the bill relating to schoolsite councils.

The bill would also make related conforming and technical changes.

(1)Existing law establishes a system for public elementary and secondary education in this state. Under this system, local educational agencies throughout the state provide instruction to pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, at the schoolsites operated by these agencies. Existing law also establishes a system for providing state and federal funding for public elementary and secondary schools. Existing law authorizes school districts that apply for state funding for any of numerous specified state categorical programs to submit to the State Department of Education, for approval by the State Board of Education, a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of their funding for those programs.

This bill would delete the provision authorizing the single consolidated application for state categorical programs, and instead authorize local educational agencies, as defined to include school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, to submit to the department for approval by the state board a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of certain federal categorical programs.

(2)Existing law authorizes school districts and schools to establish school plans. Existing law also authorizes school districts to establish schoolsite councils and schoolsite advisory committees.

This bill would recast and revise the statutes relating to school plans and schoolsite councils. The bill would establish School Plans for Student Achievement (SPSAs), and require local educational agencies, as defined, to adopt SPSAs as a condition for receiving certain federal funds and for receiving funding for state categorical programs that are not funded through the local control funding formula. The bill would require specified data to be included in SPSAs by local educational agencies.

The bill would require schools that operate a program that requires a SPSA to establish a schoolsite council. The bill would specify requirements for the membership of schoolsite councils at elementary and secondary schools. The bill would authorize the State Board of Education to grant a waiver of any provision of the bill relating to schoolsite councils.

The bill would also make related conforming and technical changes.

Existing law provides for the establishment and operation of various types of schools and programs within the public school system, including charter schools, individual instruction programs, alternative schools, and specialized high schools, among others.

This bill would express legislative findings and declarations related to magnet schools. The bill would establish a magnet school grant program, to be administered by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, under which an applicant school district may apply to the Superintendent for a grant, not to exceed $575,000 per school district, for the one-time costs associated with the startup of a new magnet school, as defined, in accordance with specified conditions and requirements. The bill would specify that funding provided for purposes of the program in the annual Budget Act or other legislation shall be used to allocate grants.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA2 Bill Id:AB 716

Author:(O'Donnell)

As Amended Ver:August 22, 2018

Majority vote

(ED.)

(APPR.)

Original Committee Reference: ED.

SUMMARY: Revises and recasts provisions relating to the consolidated application, the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), and schoolsite councils, and repeals the School-Based Program Coordination Act, to account for implementation of the local control funding formula (LCFF) and the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill, and instead:

1. Make the following revisions to the consolidated application:
   1. Delete the list of stare categorical programs funded by the consolidated application.
   2. Define local educational agency, for purposes of the consolidated application, to mean a county office of education, school district, or charter school.
   3. Specifies that the consolidated application shall apply for funds for the following programs:
      1. Federal funds provided to the state through the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the ESSA. These funds exclude those congressional acts funded other than ESEA or ESSA that are provided through federal acts or grants separate from ESEA or ESSA and those ESSA funds that are allocated separately from the consolidated application process.
      2. State categorical programs that are not funded through LCFF. Carryover funds from state categorical programs that have a sunset under their own provisions.
   4. Require the consolidated application to include annual certifications by the school district English learner parent advisory committee, if one has been established, that the application was developed with the review and advice of that committee.
2. Make the following revisions to the SPSA:
   1. Rename the plan the School Plan for Student Achievement.
   2. Require a local educational agency to ensure, in the consolidated application, that SPSA were developed with the review, certification, and advice of the school English learner advisory committee, if required.
   3. Require the CDE to monitor and review to ensure that the consolidated application and SPSA were developed in accordance with law and with the involvement of applicable advisory committees and schoolsite councils.
   4. Require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to monitor onsite school and district compliance review of the categorical programs and develop monitoring instruments for that purpose.
   5. Authorize a complaint that a local educational agency has not complied with the requirements of the consolidated application, the SPSA, or schoolsite council requirements to be filed with the local educational agency pursuant to the Uniform Complaint Procedures.
   6. Notwithstanding any other law, require the schoolsite council to develop the content of the SPSA.
   7. Require the development of the SPSA to include both of the following actions:
      1. Administration of a comprehensive needs assessment pursuant to the ESSA that forms the basis of the school's goals contained in the SPSA. The comprehensive needs assessment shall include an analysis of verifiable state data, consistent with all eight state priorities, and informed by all federal accountability indicators, including student performance against state-determined long-term goals. To the extent that the plan is required by the local governing board or body of the local educational agency only, the local governing board or body of the local educational agency may determine the extent to which the needs assessment is applicable.
      2. Identification of the process for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of the SPSA and progress towards accomplishing the goals set forth in the SPSA.
   8. Require the SPSA shall include all of the following:
      1. Goals set to improve pupil outcomes, including addressing the needs of pupil groups as identified through the needs assessment, which shall be consistent with the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) of the local educational agency and annual updates to the LCAP.
      2. Evidence-based strategies, actions, or services.
      3. Proposed expenditures, based on the projected resource allocation from the governing board or body of the local educational agency, to address the findings of the needs assessment consistent with the state priorities, including identifying resource inequities, which may include a review of the local educational agency's budgeting, its LCAP, and school-level budgeting, if applicable.
   9. Authorize SPSAs to serve as school improvement plans required under federal law for schools identified for targeted support or comprehensive support pursuant to the federal ESSA, as long as the SPSAs also meet requirements of the ESSA. A local educational agency may utilize the schoolsite council to meet the stakeholder requirements established by the ESSA.
   10. If a SPSA is not approved by the governing board or body of the local educational agency, specific reasons for that action shall be communicated to the schoolsite council. Modifications to any SPSA shall be developed, recommended, and approved or disapproved by the governing board or body of the local educational agency in the same manner.
   11. Require SPSAs to be reviewed annually and updated, including proposed expenditure of funds allocated to the school through the consolidated application and the LCAP, if any, by the schoolsite council.
   12. Authorize single school districts and charter schools to utilize their LCAP to serve as their SPSA, provided that the LCAP meets federal school planning requirements and state stakeholder requirements.
3. Make the following revisions to provisions relating to schoolsite council, relative to the provisions for schoolsite councils under the School-Based Program Coordination Act:
   1. State the intent of the Legislature that, to the extent possible, the members of the schoolsite council represent the composition of the school's pupil population and have representation from the school's principal, teachers, non-teaching personnel, parents, and (at the secondary school level) pupils of the school.
   2. Require parity between the specified groups that comprise a schoolsite council. Provides that a school with fewer than 300 pupils may operate a schoolsite council with at least one member of each specified group as long as parity among the groups is maintained and the local bargaining group agrees, if applicable.
   3. Delete the authority for an existing schoolwide advisory group or school support group to be utilized as the schoolsite council.
   4. Delete the requirement for the Superintendent of Public Instruction to provide examples of selection and replacement procedures that may be considered by the schoolsite councils.
   5. Authorize schools with a common site administration to operate a shared schoolsite council if the schoolsite has a combined pupil population of less than 300.
   6. Authorize up to three schools with a combined pupil population of less than 1,000 may operate a shared schoolsite council if the schools have at least one of the following characteristics:
      1. A shared campus.
      2. Geographic proximity to one another with similar pupil populations.
   7. Revise the SBE waiver provisions relating to schoolsite councils.
   8. Authorize the SBE to adopt rules and regulations as necessary to implement the provisions relating to schoolsite councils.
   9. Delete all other provisions relating to schoolsite councils not otherwise added by the provisions of this bill, and all other provisions of the School-Based Program Coordination Act.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the School-Based Program Coordination Act, which prior to the implementation of LCFF in 2013, gave school districts flexibility over the use of specified school-based coordinated categorical program funds in exchange for meeting specified requirements. As part of these requirements, participating school districts were required to establish a schoolsite council. The schoolsite councils were required, among other things, to develop a plan made up of specific criteria including, 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 certain pupil populations, a staff development program for teachers, other school personnel, paraprofessionals, and volunteers, and the proposed expenditures of funds available to the school, as specified. While the School-Based Program Coordination Act is effectively no longer operative due to the implementation of the LCFF, school districts are still authorized, but not required, to establish and/or operate schoolsite councils. (Education Code Section (EDC) 52850, et seq.)
2. Requires each school district that elects to apply for specified categorical state and federal funds to submit to the California Department of Education (CDE), for approval by the State Board of Education (SBE) a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of those state and federal categorical programs. (EDC 64000)
3. Requires, notwithstanding any other provision of law, as a condition of receiving state funding for a categorical program pursuant to the consolidated application, school districts to ensure that each school in a district consolidates any plans that are required by those programs into a single plan, authorizes schools to consolidate any plans that are required by federal programs subject to the consolidate application into this plan, unless otherwise prohibited by federal law, and specifies that the plan shall be known as the Single Plan for Pupil Achievement or may be referred to as the SPSA. (EDC 64001)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

COMMENTS:

Need for this bill. According to the author, "Federal law, the Evert Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires schools that receive federal funding under Title I to develop a school plan. However, the federal school planning requirements are not aligned to the state priorities identified in the local control and accountability plan (LCAP). Under current law, Title I schools identified for comprehensive support or technical assistance are required to submit a Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) as well as a federal school improvement plan, which creates an undue burden on local educational agencies. In addition, the requirements related to the current SPSA are anchored in the School-Based Program Coordination Act, which is no longer relevant, because the provisions it references are largely obsolete, including most state categorical programs.

"Finally, current law does not address the multilayered requirements for the SPSA and its correlations with the Consolidated Application (the funding mechanism for federal programs) and schoolsite councils in a uniform and concise manner. Further, small rural schools or schools with alternative programs often are unable to meet the requirements for schoolsite councils, due in part to population size, resulting in cumbersome waiver requests to the State Board of Education."

LCFF. The 2013-14 Budget Act restructured the existing K-12 finance system and eliminated over 40 existing programs while implementing a new formula known as the LCFF. The LCFF consolidates the vast majority of state categorical programs and revenue limit apportionments into a single source of funding. Certain categorical programs, including Special Education, Child Nutrition, Preschool, and After School programs, are excluded. In addition, the statutory and programmatic requirements for almost all categorical programs were eliminated—the programs would be deemed "discretionary" and programs in any of these areas would be dependent on local district discretion. The School-Based Program Coordination Act and the requirement for school districts to establish schoolsite councils are no longer in effect due to the implementation of the LCFF. School districts are certainly authorized to establish them, but they are not required to do so.

The consolidated application. This bill revises and recasts provisions relating to the consolidated application by deleting outdated references to repealed categorical programs and accounting for the new LCFF. According to the CDE, under existing law, the consolidated application is used by CDE "to distribute categorical funds from various state and federal programs to county offices, school districts, and direct-funded charter schools throughout California."

The SPSA. Existing law requires schools and school districts that receive state and federal funds via the consolidated application process to prepare, via the schoolsite council, a SPSA for any recipient school. The SPSA is a blueprint to improve the academic performance of all students. According to the CDE, the purpose of the SPSA is to coordinate all educational services at the school. The SPSA shall, at a minimum, address how funds provided to the school through the consolidated application will be used to improve the academic performance of all students. School goals must be based upon an analysis of verifiable state data and the SPSA must integrate the purposes and requirements of all state and federal categorical programs in which the school participates.

Analysis Prepared by: Richard Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0005139

Date of Hearing: August 29, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 716

Author:(O'Donnell) – As Amended Ver:August 22, 2018

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill revises the consolidated application and the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). Specifically, it allows local education agencies (LEAs) to use the consolidated application to apply for certain federal and state categorical programs and allows LEAs identified for assistance under federal law and the state accountability system to use the SPSA to meet federal planning requirements. In addition, this bill allows single school districts and charter schools to use their Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) to serve as the SPSA, as long as the LCAP meets federal planning and stakeholder requirements.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Minor General Fund cost pressures for the California Department of Education (CDE) to update the consolidated application and the SPSA. According to the CDE, this bill codifies existing efforts.
2. Potential Proposition 98 GF cost savings to single school districts and charter schools if they use their LCAP to serve as their SPSA. (There are over 200 single school districts and over 1,000 charter schools in California that could be eligible.)

COMMENTS:

Background. Under existing law, LEAs complete a consolidated application to apply for both state and federal categorical program funds. Although the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) eliminated the majority of state categorical programs, LEAs still use the consolidated application to apply for certain state and federal categorical program funds.

Under existing law, LEAs receiving funds through the consolidated application process are required to prepare an SPSA for any recipient school. The SPSA explains how funding will be used to improve student achievement.

In tandem with the state’s adoption of the LCFF, local education agencies are required to develop LCAPs—strategic plans local education agencies develop with stakeholders to outline how school district funding is used to improve student achievement. Unlike SPSAs, these plans are designed to describe funding and goals at a school district rather than school level.

Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 716

Author:(O'Donnell)

As Amended Ver:August 22, 2018

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: ED.

SUMMARY: Revises and recasts provisions relating to the consolidated application, the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), and schoolsite councils, and repeals the School-Based Program Coordination Act, to account for implementation of the local control funding formula (LCFF) and the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill, and instead:

1. Make the following revisions to the consolidated application:
   1. Delete the list of stare categorical programs funded by the consolidated application.
   2. Define local educational agency, for purposes of the consolidated application, to mean a county office of education, school district, or charter school.
   3. Specifies that the consolidated application shall apply for funds for the following programs:
      1. Federal funds provided to the state through the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the ESSA. These funds exclude those congressional acts funded other than ESEA or ESSA that are provided through federal acts or grants separate from ESEA or ESSA and those ESSA funds that are allocated separately from the consolidated application process.
      2. State categorical programs that are not funded through LCFF. Carryover funds from state categorical programs that have a sunset under their own provisions.
   4. Require the consolidated application to include annual certifications by the school district English learner parent advisory committee, if one has been established, that the application was developed with the review and advice of that committee.
2. Make the following revisions to the SPSA:
   1. Rename the plan the School Plan for Student Achievement.
   2. Require a local educational agency to ensure, in the consolidated application, that SPSA were developed with the review, certification, and advice of the school English learner advisory committee, if required.
   3. Require the CDE to monitor and review to ensure that the consolidated application and SPSA were developed in accordance with law and with the involvement of applicable advisory committees and schoolsite councils.
   4. Require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to monitor onsite school and district compliance review of the categorical programs and develop monitoring instruments for that purpose.
   5. Authorize a complaint that a local educational agency has not complied with the requirements of the consolidated application, the SPSA, or schoolsite council requirements to be filed with the local educational agency pursuant to the Uniform Complaint Procedures.
   6. Notwithstanding any other law, require the schoolsite council to develop the content of the SPSA.
   7. Require the development of the SPSA to include both of the following actions:
      1. Administration of a comprehensive needs assessment pursuant to the ESSA that forms the basis of the school's goals contained in the SPSA. The comprehensive needs assessment shall include an analysis of verifiable state data, consistent with all eight state priorities, and informed by all federal accountability indicators, including student performance against state-determined long-term goals. To the extent that the plan is required by the local governing board or body of the local educational agency only, the local governing board or body of the local educational agency may determine the extent to which the needs assessment is applicable.
      2. Identification of the process for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of the SPSA and progress towards accomplishing the goals set forth in the SPSA.
   8. Require the SPSA shall include all of the following:
      1. Goals set to improve pupil outcomes, including addressing the needs of pupil groups as identified through the needs assessment, which shall be consistent with the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) of the local educational agency and annual updates to the LCAP.
      2. Evidence-based strategies, actions, or services.
      3. Proposed expenditures, based on the projected resource allocation from the governing board or body of the local educational agency, to address the findings of the needs assessment consistent with the state priorities, including identifying resource inequities, which may include a review of the local educational agency's budgeting, its LCAP, and school-level budgeting, if applicable.
   9. Authorize SPSAs to serve as school improvement plans required under federal law for schools identified for targeted support or comprehensive support pursuant to the federal ESSA, as long as the SPSAs also meet requirements of the ESSA. A local educational agency may utilize the schoolsite council to meet the stakeholder requirements established by the ESSA.
   10. If a SPSA is not approved by the governing board or body of the local educational agency, specific reasons for that action shall be communicated to the schoolsite council. Modifications to any SPSA shall be developed, recommended, and approved or disapproved by the governing board or body of the local educational agency in the same manner.
   11. Require SPSAs to be reviewed annually and updated, including proposed expenditure of funds allocated to the school through the consolidated application and the LCAP, if any, by the schoolsite council.
   12. Authorize single school districts and charter schools to utilize their LCAP to serve as their SPSA, provided that the LCAP meets federal school planning requirements and state stakeholder requirements.
3. Make the following revisions to provisions relating to schoolsite council, relative to the provisions for schoolsite councils under the School-Based Program Coordination Act:
   1. State the intent of the Legislature that, to the extent possible, the members of the schoolsite council represent the composition of the school's pupil population and have representation from the school's principal, teachers, non-teaching personnel, parents, and (at the secondary school level) pupils of the school.
   2. Require parity between the specified groups that comprise a schoolsite council. Provides that a school with fewer than 300 pupils may operate a schoolsite council with at least one member of each specified group as long as parity among the groups is maintained and the local bargaining group agrees, if applicable.
   3. Delete the authority for an existing schoolwide advisory group or school support group to be utilized as the schoolsite council.
   4. Delete the requirement for the Superintendent of Public Instruction to provide examples of selection and replacement procedures that may be considered by the schoolsite councils.
   5. Authorize schools with a common site administration to operate a shared schoolsite council if the schoolsite has a combined pupil population of less than 300.
   6. Authorize up to three schools with a combined pupil population of less than 1,000 may operate a shared schoolsite council if the schools have at least one of the following characteristics:
      1. A shared campus.
      2. Geographic proximity to one another with similar pupil populations.
   7. Revise the SBE waiver provisions relating to schoolsite councils.
   8. Authorize the SBE to adopt rules and regulations as necessary to implement the provisions relating to schoolsite councils.
   9. Delete all other provisions relating to schoolsite councils not otherwise added by the provisions of this bill, and all other provisions of the School-Based Program Coordination Act.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the School-Based Program Coordination Act, which prior to the implementation of LCFF in 2013, gave school districts flexibility over the use of specified school-based coordinated categorical program funds in exchange for meeting specified requirements. As part of these requirements, participating school districts were required to establish a schoolsite council. The schoolsite councils were required, among other things, to develop a plan made up of specific criteria including, 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 certain pupil populations, a staff development program for teachers, other school personnel, paraprofessionals, and volunteers, and the proposed expenditures of funds available to the school, as specified. While the School-Based Program Coordination Act is effectively no longer operative due to the implementation of the LCFF, school districts are still authorized, but not required, to establish and/or operate schoolsite councils. (Education Code Section (EDC) 52850, et seq.)
2. Requires each school district that elects to apply for specified categorical state and federal funds to submit to the California Department of Education (CDE), for approval by the State Board of Education (SBE) a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of those state and federal categorical programs. (EDC 64000)
3. Requires, notwithstanding any other provision of law, as a condition of receiving state funding for a categorical program pursuant to the consolidated application, school districts to ensure that each school in a district consolidates any plans that are required by those programs into a single plan, authorizes schools to consolidate any plans that are required by federal programs subject to the consolidate application into this plan, unless otherwise prohibited by federal law, and specifies that the plan shall be known as the Single Plan for Pupil Achievement or may be referred to as the SPSA. (EDC 64001)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

COMMENTS:

Need for this bill. According to the author, "Federal law, the Evert Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires schools that receive federal funding under Title I to develop a school plan. However, the federal school planning requirements are not aligned to the state priorities identified in the local control and accountability plan (LCAP). Under current law, Title I schools identified for comprehensive support or technical assistance are required to submit a Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) as well as a federal school improvement plan, which creates an undue burden on local educational agencies. In addition, the requirements related to the current SPSA are anchored in the School-Based Program Coordination Act, which is no longer relevant, because the provisions it references are largely obsolete, including most state categorical programs.

"Finally, current law does not address the multilayered requirements for the SPSA and its correlations with the Consolidated Application (the funding mechanism for federal programs) and schoolsite councils in a uniform and concise manner. Further, small rural schools or schools with alternative programs often are unable to meet the requirements for schoolsite councils, due in part to population size, resulting in cumbersome waiver requests to the State Board of Education."

LCFF. The 2013-14 Budget Act restructured the existing K-12 finance system and eliminated over 40 existing programs while implementing a new formula known as the LCFF. The LCFF consolidates the vast majority of state categorical programs and revenue limit apportionments into a single source of funding. Certain categorical programs, including Special Education, Child Nutrition, Preschool, and After School programs, are excluded. In addition, the statutory and programmatic requirements for almost all categorical programs were eliminated – the programs would be deemed "discretionary" and programs in any of these areas would be dependent on local district discretion. The School-Based Program Coordination Act and the requirement for school districts to establish schoolsite councils are no longer in effect due to the implementation of the LCFF. School districts are certainly authorized to establish them, but they are not required to do so.

The consolidated application. This bill revises and recasts provisions relating to the consolidated application by deleting outdated references to repealed categorical programs and accounting for the new LCFF. According to the CDE, under existing law, the consolidated application is used by CDE "to distribute categorical funds from various state and federal programs to county offices, school districts, and direct-funded charter schools throughout California."

The SPSA. Existing law requires schools and school districts that receive state and federal funds via the consolidated application process to prepare, via the schoolsite council, a SPSA for any recipient school. The SPSA is a blueprint to improve the academic performance of all students. According to the CDE, the purpose of the SPSA is to coordinate all educational services at the school. The SPSA shall, at a minimum, address how funds provided to the school through the consolidated application will be used to improve the academic performance of all students. School goals must be based upon an analysis of verifiable state data and the SPSA must integrate the purposes and requirements of all state and federal categorical programs in which the school participates.

Analysis Prepared by: Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0004974

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 716

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/20/18

AYES: Allen, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Pan

NO VOTE RECORDED: Wilk, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 57-19, 5/31/17 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill revises and recasts provisions relating to the consolidated application, the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), and schoolsite councils, and repeals the School-Based Program Coordination Act, to account for implementation of the local control funding formula (LCFF) and the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/22/18 delete the requirement for an local educational agency (LEA) to submit a school plan for student achievement (SPSA) whenever the California Department of Education (CDE) requires a SPSA in order to effectively administer programs subject to the consolidated application. The amendments do not affect the separate requirement for an LEA to submit a SPSA as a condition of receiving funding for programs subject to the consolidated application. The amendments also increase the trigger that authorizes a school to operate a schoolsite council that has representation of at least one member of each specified group from fewer than 120 pupils to fewer than 300 pupils.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the School-Based Program Coordination Act, which prior to the implementation of LCFF in 2013, gave school districts flexibility over the use of specified school-based coordinated categorical program funds in exchange for meeting specified requirements. As part of these requirements, participating school districts were required to establish a schoolsite council. The schoolsite councils were required, among other things, to develop a plan made up of specific criteria including, 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 certain pupil populations, a staff development program for teachers, other school personnel, paraprofessionals, and volunteers, and the proposed expenditures of funds available to the school, as specified. While the School-Based Program Coordination Act is effectively no longer operative due to the implementation of the LCFF, school districts are still authorized, but not required, to establish and/or operate schoolsite councils. (Education Code § 52850, et seq.)
2. Requires each school district that elects to apply for specified categorical state and federal funds to submit to the (CDE, for approval by the State Board of Education (SBE) a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of those state and federal categorical programs. (EC § 64000)
3. Requires, notwithstanding any other provision of law, as a condition of receiving state funding for a categorical program pursuant to the consolidated application, school districts to ensure that each school in a district consolidates any plans that are required by those programs into a single plan, authorizes schools to consolidate any plans that are required by federal programs subject to the consolidate application into this plan, unless otherwise prohibited by federal law, and specifies that the plan shall be known as the Single Plan for Pupil Achievement or may be referred to as the SPSA. (EC § 64001)

This bill revises and recasts provisions relating to the consolidated application, the SPSA, and schoolsite councils to account for implementation of the LCFF and the ESSA. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes the following revisions to the consolidated application:
   1. Deletes the list of stare categorical programs funded by the consolidated application.
   2. Defines LEA, for purposes of the consolidated application, to mean a county office of education, school district, or charter school.
   3. Specifies that the consolidated application shall apply for funds for the following programs:
      1. Federal funds provided to the state through the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the ESSA. These funds exclude those congressional acts funded other than ESEA or ESSA that are provided through federal acts or grants separate from ESEA or ESSA and those ESSA funds that are allocated separately from the consolidated application process.
      2. State categorical programs that are not funded through LCFF. Carryover funds from state categorical programs that have a sunset under their own provisions.
   4. Requires the consolidated application to include annual certifications by the school district English learner parent advisory committee, if one has been established, that the application was developed with the review and advice of that committee.
2. Makes the following revisions to the SPSA:
   1. Renames the plan the School Plan for Student Achievement.
   2. Requires an LEA to ensure, in the consolidated application, that SPSA were developed with the review, certification, and advice of the school English learner advisory committee, if required.
   3. Requires the CDE to monitor and review to ensure that the consolidated application and SPSA were developed in accordance with law and with the involvement of applicable advisory committees and schoolsite councils.
   4. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to monitor onsite school and district compliance review of the categorical programs and develop monitoring instruments for that purpose.
   5. Authorizes a complaint that an LEA has not complied with the requires of the consolidated application, the SPSA, or schoolsite council requirements to be filed with the LEA pursuant to the Uniform Complaint Procedures.
   6. Notwithstanding any other law, requires the schoolsite council to develop the content of the SPSA.
   7. Requires the development of the SPSA to include both of the following actions:
      1. Administration of a comprehensive needs assessment pursuant to the ESSA that forms the basis of the school’s goals contained in the SPSA. The comprehensive needs assessment shall include an analysis of verifiable state data, consistent with all eight state priorities, and informed by all federal accountability indicators, including student performance against state-determined long-term goals. To the extent that the plan is required by the local governing board or body of the LEA only, the local governing board or body of the LEA may determine the extent to which the needs assessment is applicable.
      2. Identification of the process for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of the SPSA and progress towards accomplishing the goals set forth in the SPSA.
   8. Requires the SPSA shall include all of the following:
      1. Goals set to improve pupil outcomes, including addressing the needs of pupil groups as identified through the needs assessment, which shall be consistent with the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) of the LEA and annual updates to the LCAP.
      2. Evidence-based strategies, actions, or services.
      3. Proposed expenditures, based on the projected resource allocation from the governing board or body of the LEA, to address the findings of the needs assessment consistent with the state priorities, including identifying resource inequities, which may include a review of LEA’s budgeting, its LCAP, and school-level budgeting, if applicable.
   9. Authorizes SPSAs to serve as school improvement plans required under federal law for schools identified for targeted support or comprehensive support pursuant to the federal ESSA, as long as the SPSAs also meet requirements of the ESSA. An LEA may utilize the schoolsite council to meet the stakeholder requirements established by the ESSA.
   10. If a SPSA is not approved by the governing board or body of the LEA, specific reasons for that action shall be communicated to the schoolsite council. Modifications to any SPSA shall be developed, recommended, and approved or disapproved by the governing board or body of the LEA in the same manner.
   11. Requires SPSAs to be reviewed annually and updated, including proposed expenditure of funds allocated to the school through the consolidated application and the LCAP, if any, by the schoolsite council.
   12. Authorizes single school districts and charter schools to utilize their LCAP to serve as their SPSA, provided that the LCAP meets federal school planning requirements and state stakeholder requirements.
3. Makes the following revisions to provisions relating to schoolsite council, relative to the provisions for schoolsite councils under the School-Based Program Coordination Act:
   1. States the intent of the Legislature that, to the extent possible, the members of the schoolsite council represent the composition of the school’s pupil population.
   2. Requires parity between the specified groups that comprise a schoolsite council.
   3. Deletes the authority for an existing schoolwide advisory group or school support group to be utilized as the schoolsite council.
   4. Deletes the requirement for the SPI to provide examples of selection and replacement procedures that may be considered by the schoolsite councils.
   5. Authorizes schools with a common site administration to operate a shared schoolsite council if the schoolsite has a combined pupil population of less than 300.
   6. Authorizes up to three schools with a combined pupil population of less than 1,000 may operate a shared schoolsite council if the schools have at least one of the following characteristics:
      1. A shared campus.
      2. Geographic proximity to one another with similar pupil populations.
   7. Authorizes a school with a population of fewer than 300 pupils to operate a schoolsite council that has the representation of at least one member of each specified group, as long as it maintains parity with the representation among specified groups and the local governing board or body of the LEA has obtained approval from its local bargaining unit, if applicable.
   8. Revises the SBE waiver provisions relating to schoolsite councils.
   9. Authorizes the SBE to adopt rules and regulations as necessary to implement the provisions relating to schoolsite councils.
   10. Deletes all other provisions relating to schoolsite councils not otherwise added by the provisions of this bill, and all other provisions of the School-Based Program Coordination Act.

Comments

1. Need for this bill. According to the author, “Federal law, the Evert Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires schools that receive federal funding under Title I to develop a school plan. However, the federal school planning requirements are not aligned to the state priorities identified in the local control and accountability plan (LCAP). Under current law, Title I schools identified for comprehensive support or technical assistance are required to submit a Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) as well as a federal school improvement plan, which creates an undue burden on local educational agencies. In addition, the requirements related to the current SPSA are anchored in the School-Based Program Coordination Act, which is no longer relevant, because the provisions it references are largely obsolete, including most state categorical programs.

“Finally, current law does not address the multilayered requirements for the SPSA and its correlations with the Consolidated Application (the funding mechanism for federal programs) and schoolsite councils in a uniform and concise manner. Further, small rural schools or schools with alternative programs often are unable to meet the requirements for schoolsite councils, due in part to population size, resulting in cumbersome waiver requests to the State Board of Education.”

1. LCFF. The 2013-14 Budget Act restructured the existing K-12 finance system and eliminated over 40 existing programs while implementing a new formula known as the LCFF. The LCFF consolidates the vast majority of state categorical programs and revenue limit apportionments into a single source of funding. Certain categorical programs, including Special Education, Child Nutrition, Preschool, and After School programs, are excluded. In addition, the statutory and programmatic requirements for almost all categorical programs were eliminated—the programs would be deemed “discretionary” and programs in any of these areas would be dependent on local district discretion. The School-Based Program Coordination Act and the requirement for school districts to establish schoolsite councils are no longer in effect due to the implementation of the LCFF. School districts are certainly authorized to establish them, but they are not required to do so.
2. The consolidated application. This bill revises and recasts provisions relating to the consolidated application by deleting outdated references to repealed categorical programs and accounting for the new LCFF. According to the CDE, under existing law, the consolidated application is used by CDE “to distribute categorical funds from various state and federal programs to county offices, school districts, and direct-funded charter schools throughout California.”
3. The SPSA. Existing law requires schools and school districts that receive state and federal funds via the consolidated application process to prepare, via the schoolsite council, a SPSA for any recipient school. The SPSA is a blueprint to improve the academic performance of all students. According to the CDE, the purpose of the SPSA is to coordinate all educational services at the school. The SPSA shall, at a minimum, address how funds provided to the school through the consolidated application will be used to improve the academic performance of all students. School goals must be based upon an analysis of verifiable state data and the SPSA must integrate the purposes and requirements of all state and federal categorical programs in which the school participates.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/22/18)

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson

Association of California School Administrators

California Federation of Teachers

California School Boards Association

California Teachers Association

Los Angeles Unified School District

Torrance Unified School District

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/22/18)

EdVoice

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 57-19, 5/31/17

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Berman, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chen, Cunningham, Dahle, Fong, Gallagher, Harper, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Obernolte, Patterson, Steinorth, Voepel, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Acosta, Choi, Eggman, Melendez

Prepared by:

8/23/18 16:08:27

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 716

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/20/18

AYES: Allen, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Pan

NO VOTE RECORDED: Wilk, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 57-19, 5/31/17 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill revises and recasts provisions relating to the consolidated application, the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), and schoolsite councils, and repeals the School-Based Program Coordination Act, to account for implementation of the local control funding formula (LCFF) and the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the School-Based Program Coordination Act, which prior to the implementation of LCFF in 2013, gave school districts flexibility over the use of specified school-based coordinated categorical program funds in exchange for meeting specified requirements. As part of these requirements, participating school districts were required to establish a schoolsite council. The schoolsite councils were required, among other things, to develop a plan made up of specific criteria including, 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 certain pupil populations, a staff development program for teachers, other school personnel, paraprofessionals, and volunteers, and the proposed expenditures of funds available to the school, as specified. While the School-Based Program Coordination Act is effectively no longer operative due to the implementation of the LCFF, school districts are still authorized, but not required, to establish and/or operate schoolsite councils. (Education Code § 52850, et seq.)
2. Requires each school district that elects to apply for specified categorical state and federal funds to submit to the California Department of Education (CDE), for approval by the State Board of Education (SBE) a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of those state and federal categorical programs. (EC § 64000)
3. Requires, notwithstanding any other provision of law, as a condition of receiving state funding for a categorical program pursuant to the consolidated application, school districts to ensure that each school in a district consolidates any plans that are required by those programs into a single plan, authorizes schools to consolidate any plans that are required by federal programs subject to the consolidate application into this plan, unless otherwise prohibited by federal law, and specifies that the plan shall be known as the Single Plan for Pupil Achievement or may be referred to as the SPSA. (EC § 64001)

This bill revises and recasts provisions relating to the consolidated application, the SPSA, and schoolsite councils to account for implementation of the LCFF and the ESSA. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes the following revisions to the consolidated application:
   1. Deletes the list of stare categorical programs funded by the consolidated application.
   2. Defines local educational agency, for purposes of the consolidated application, to mean a county office of education, school district, or charter school.
   3. Specifies that the consolidated application shall apply for funds for the following programs:
      1. Federal funds provided to the state through the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the ESSA. These funds exclude those congressional acts funded other than ESEA or ESSA that are provided through federal acts or grants separate from ESEA or ESSA and those ESSA funds that are allocated separately from the consolidated application process.
      2. State categorical programs that are not funded through LCFF. Carryover funds from state categorical programs that have a sunset under their own provisions.
   4. Requires the consolidated application to include annual certifications by the school district English learner parent advisory committee, if one has been established, that the application was developed with the review and advice of that committee.
2. Makes the following revisions to the SPSA:
   1. Renames the plan the School Plan for Student Achievement.
   2. Requires a local educational agency to ensure, in the consolidated application, that SPSA were developed with the review, certification, and advice of the school English learner advisory committee, if required.
   3. Requires the CDE to monitor and review to ensure that the consolidated application and SPSA were developed in accordance with law and with the involvement of applicable advisory committees and schoolsite councils.
   4. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to monitor onsite school and district compliance review of the categorical programs and develop monitoring instruments for that purpose.
   5. Authorizes a complaint that a local educational agency has not complied with the requires of the consolidated application, the SPSA, or schoolsite council requirements to be filed with the local educational agency pursuant to the Uniform Complaint Procedures.
   6. Notwithstanding any other law, requires the schoolsite council to develop the content of the SPSA.
   7. Requires the development of the SPSA to include both of the following actions:
      1. Administration of a comprehensive needs assessment pursuant to the ESSA that forms the basis of the school’s goals contained in the SPSA. The comprehensive needs assessment shall include an analysis of verifiable state data, consistent with all eight state priorities, and informed by all federal accountability indicators, including student performance against state-determined long-term goals. To the extent that the plan is required by the local governing board or body of the local educational agency only, the local governing board or body of the local educational agency may determine the extent to which the needs assessment is applicable.
      2. Identification of the process for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of the SPSA and progress towards accomplishing the goals set forth in the SPSA.
   8. Requires the SPSA shall include all of the following:
      1. Goals set to improve pupil outcomes, including addressing the needs of pupil groups as identified through the needs assessment, which shall be consistent with the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) of the local educational agency and annual updates to the LCAP.
      2. Evidence-based strategies, actions, or services.
      3. Proposed expenditures, based on the projected resource allocation from the governing board or body of the local educational agency, to address the findings of the needs assessment consistent with the state priorities, including identifying resource inequities, which may include a review of the local educational agency’s budgeting, its LCAP, and school-level budgeting, if applicable.
   9. Authorizes SPSAs to serve as school improvement plans required under federal law for schools identified for targeted support or comprehensive support pursuant to the federal ESSA, as long as the SPSAs also meet requirements of the ESSA. A local educational agency may utilize the schoolsite council to meet the stakeholder requirements established by the ESSA.
   10. If a SPSA is not approved by the governing board or body of the local educational agency, specific reasons for that action shall be communicated to the schoolsite council. Modifications to any SPSA shall be developed, recommended, and approved or disapproved by the governing board or body of the local educational agency in the same manner.
   11. Requires SPSAs to be reviewed annually and updated, including proposed expenditure of funds allocated to the school through the consolidated application and the LCAP, if any, by the schoolsite council.
   12. Authorizes single school districts and charter schools to utilize their LCAP to serve as their SPSA, provided that the LCAP meets federal school planning requirements and state stakeholder requirements.
3. Makes the following revisions to provisions relating to schoolsite council, relative to the provisions for schoolsite councils under the School-Based Program Coordination Act:
   1. States the intent of the Legislature that, to the extent possible, the members of the schoolsite council represent the composition of the school’s pupil population.
   2. Requires parity between the specified groups that comprise a schoolsite council.
   3. Deletes the authority for an existing schoolwide advisory group or school support group to be utilized as the schoolsite council.
   4. Deletes the requirement for the Superintendent of Public Instruction to provide examples of selection and replacement procedures that may be considered by the schoolsite councils.
   5. Authorizes schools with a common site administration to operate a shared schoolsite council if the schoolsite has a combined pupil population of less than 300.
   6. Authorizes up to three schools with a combined pupil population of less than 1,000 may operate a shared schoolsite council if the schools have at least one of the following characteristics:
      1. A shared campus.
      2. Geographic proximity to one another with similar pupil populations.
   7. Revises the SBE waiver provisions relating to schoolsite councils.
   8. Authorizes the SBE to adopt rules and regulations as necessary to implement the provisions relating to schoolsite councils.
   9. Deletes all other provisions relating to schoolsite councils not otherwise added by the provisions of this bill, and all other provisions of the School-Based Program Coordination Act.

Comments

1. Need for this bill. According to the author, “Federal law, the Evert Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires schools that receive federal funding under Title I to develop a school plan. However, the federal school planning requirements are not aligned to the state priorities identified in the local control and accountability plan (LCAP). Under current law, Title I schools identified for comprehensive support or technical assistance are required to submit a Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) as well as a federal school improvement plan, which creates an undue burden on local educational agencies. In addition, the requirements related to the current SPSA are anchored in the School-Based Program Coordination Act, which is no longer relevant, because the provisions it references are largely obsolete, including most state categorical programs.

“Finally, current law does not address the multilayered requirements for the SPSA and its correlations with the Consolidated Application (the funding mechanism for federal programs) and schoolsite councils in a uniform and concise manner. Further, small rural schools or schools with alternative programs often are unable to meet the requirements for schoolsite councils, due in part to population size, resulting in cumbersome waiver requests to the State Board of Education.”

1. LCFF. The 2013-14 Budget Act restructured the existing K-12 finance system and eliminated over 40 existing programs while implementing a new formula known as the LCFF. The LCFF consolidates the vast majority of state categorical programs and revenue limit apportionments into a single source of funding. Certain categorical programs, including Special Education, Child Nutrition, Preschool, and After School programs, are excluded. In addition, the statutory and programmatic requirements for almost all categorical programs were eliminated—the programs would be deemed “discretionary” and programs in any of these areas would be dependent on local district discretion. The School-Based Program Coordination Act and the requirement for school districts to establish schoolsite councils are no longer in effect due to the implementation of the LCFF. School districts are certainly authorized to establish them, but they are not required to do so.
2. The consolidated application. This bill revises and recasts provisions relating to the consolidated application by deleting outdated references to repealed categorical programs and accounting for the new LCFF. According to the CDE, under existing law, the consolidated application is used by CDE “to distribute categorical funds from various state and federal programs to county offices, school districts, and direct-funded charter schools throughout California.”
3. The SPSA. Existing law requires schools and school districts that receive state and federal funds via the consolidated application process to prepare, via the schoolsite council, a SPSA for any recipient school. The SPSA is a blueprint to improve the academic performance of all students. According to the CDE, the purpose of the SPSA is to coordinate all educational services at the school. The SPSA shall, at a minimum, address how funds provided to the school through the consolidated application will be used to improve the academic performance of all students. School goals must be based upon an analysis of verifiable state data and the SPSA must integrate the purposes and requirements of all state and federal categorical programs in which the school participates.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/7/18)

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson

Association of California School Administrators

California Federation of Teachers

California School Boards Association

California Teachers Association

Los Angeles Unified School District

Torrance Unified School District

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/7/18)

EdVoice

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 57-19, 5/31/17

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Berman, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chen, Cunningham, Dahle, Fong, Gallagher, Harper, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Obernolte, Patterson, Steinorth, Voepel, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Acosta, Choi, Eggman, Melendez

Prepared by:

8/7/18 17:05:00

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Benjamin Allen, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: June 20, 2018

Subject: : consolidated applications for funding: school plans for student achievement: schoolsite councils.

SUMMARY

This bill revises and recasts provisions relating to the consolidated application, the Single Plan for Student Achievement, and schoolsite councils, and repeals the School-Based Program Coordination Act, to account for implementation of the local control funding formula and the federal Every Student Succeeds Act.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1) Authorizes the School-Based Program Coordination Act, which prior to the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013, gave school districts flexibility over the use of specified school-based coordinated categorical program funds in exchange for meeting specified requirements. As part of these requirements, participating school districts were required to establish a schoolsite council. The schoolsite councils were required, among other things, to develop a plan made up of specific criteria including, 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 certain pupil populations, a staff development program for teachers, other school personnel, paraprofessionals, and volunteers, and the proposed expenditures of funds available to the school, as specified. While the School-Based Program Coordination Act is effectively no longer operative due to the implementation of the LCFF, school districts are still authorized, but not required, to establish and/or operate schoolsite councils.(Education Code § 52850, et seq.)

2) Requires each school district that elects to apply for specified categorical state and federal funds to submit to the California Department of Education, for approval by the State Board of Education a single consolidated application for approval or continuance of those state and federal categorical programs. (EC § 64000)

3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, as a condition of receiving state funding for a categorical program pursuant to the consolidated application, requires school districts to ensure that each school in a district consolidates any plans that are required by those programs into a single plan, authorizes schools to consolidate any plans that are required by federal programs subject to the consolidate application into this plan, unless otherwise prohibited by federal law, and specifies that the plan shall be known as the Single Plan for Pupil Achievement or may be referred to as the Single Plan for Student Achievement.

(EC § 64001)

ANALYSIS

This bill revises and recasts provisions relating to the consolidated application, the Single Plan for Student Achievement, and schoolsite councils to account for implementation of the local control funding formula and the federal Every Student Succeeds Act. Specifically, this bill:

1) Makes the following revisions to the consolidated application:

a) Deletes the list of stare categorical programs funded by the consolidated application.

b) Defines local educational agency, for purposes of the consolidated application, to mean a county office of education, school district, or charter school.

c) Specifies that the consolidated application shall apply for funds for the following programs:

i) Federal funds provided to the state through the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). These funds exclude those congressional acts funded other than ESEA or ESSA that are provided through federal acts or grants separate from ESEA or ESSA and those ESSA funds that are allocated separately from the consolidated application process.

ii) State categorical programs that are not funded through the local control funding formula. Carryover funds from state categorical programs that have a sunset under their own provisions, including economic impact aid.

d) Requires the consolidated application to include annual certifications by the school district English learner parent advisory committee that the application was developed with the review and advice of that committee.

2) Makes the following revisions to the Single Plan for Student Achievement:

a) Renames the plan the School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA).

b) Requires a local educational agency to ensure, in the consolidated application, that SPSA were developed with the review, certification, and advice of the school English learner advisory committee, if required.

c) Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to monitor onsite school and district compliance review of the categorical programs and develop monitoring instruments for that purpose.

d) Authorizes a complaint that a local educational agency has not complied with the requires of the consolidated application, the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), or schoolsite council requirements to be filed with the local educational agency pursuant to the Uniform Complaint Procedures.

e) Notwithstanding any other law, requires the schoolsite council to develop the content of the SPSA, which shall be consistent with the local control and accountability plan goals and federal planning requirements for improving student achievement.

f) Requires the development of the SPSA to include both of the following actions:

i) Administration of a comprehensive needs assessment pursuant to the federal Every Student Succeeds Act that forms the basis of the school’s goals contained in the SPSA. The comprehensive needs assessment shall include an analysis of verifiable state data, consistent with all eight state priorities, and informed by all federal accountability indicators, including student performance against state-determined long-term goals. To the extent that the plan is required by the local governing board or body only, the local governing board or body may determine the extent to which the needs assessment is applicable.

ii) Identification of the process for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of the SPSA and progress towards accomplishing the goals set forth in the SPSA.

g) Requires the SPSA shall include all of the following:

i) Goals set to improve pupil outcomes, including addressing the needs of pupil groups as identified through the needs assessment, which shall be consistent with the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) of the local educational agency and annual updates to the LCAP.

ii) Evidence-based strategies, actions, or services.

iii) Proposed expenditures to address the findings of the needs assessment consistent with the state priorities, including identifying resource inequities, which may include a review of the local educational agency’s budgeting and school-level budgeting, if applicable.

h) Authorizes Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSAs) to serve as school improvement plans required under federal law for schools identified for targeted support or comprehensive support pursuant to the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), as long as the SPSAs also meet requirements of the ESSA. A local educational agency may utilize the schoolsite council to meet the stakeholder requirements established by the ESSA.

i) If a SPSA is not approved by the governing board or body of the local educational agency, specific reasons for that action shall be communicated to the schoolsite council. Modifications to any Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) shall be developed, recommended, and approved or disapproved in the same manner.

(j) Authorizes single school districts and charter schools to utilize their local control and accountability plan to serve as their SPSA, provided that the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) meets federal school planning requirements and state stakeholder requirements.

3) Makes the following revisions to provisions relating to schoolsite council, relative to the provisions for schoolsite councils under the School-Based Program Coordination Act:

a) States the intent of the Legislature that, to the extent possible, the members of the schoolsite council represent the composition of the school’s pupil population.

b) States the intent of the Legislature that, notwithstanding the size of the school, the composition of the schoolsite council ensure parity between the specified groups that comprise a schoolsite council, but only require parity at the secondary school level.

c) Deletes the authority for an existing schoolwide advisory group or school support group to be utilized as the schoolsite council.

d) Deletes the requirement for the Superintendent of Public Instruction to provide examples of selection and replacement procedures that may be considered by the schoolsite councils.

e) Authorizes schools with a common site administration to operate a shared schoolsite council if the schools have a combined pupil population of less than 300.

f) Authorizes up to three schools with a combined pupil population of less than 1,000 may operate a shared schoolsite council if the schools have at least one of the following characteristics:

i) A shared campus.

ii) Geographic proximity to one another with similar pupil populations.

g) Revises the State Board of Education waiver provisions relating to schoolsite councils.

h) Authorizes the state board to adopt rules and regulations as necessary to implement the provisions relating to schoolsite councils.

i) Deletes all other provisions relating to schoolsite councils not otherwise added by the provisions of this bill, and all other provisions of the School-Based Program Coordination Act.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “Federal law, the Evert Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires schools that receive federal funding under Title I to develop a school plan. However, the federal school planning requirements are not aligned to the state priorities identified in the local control and accountability plan (LCAP). Under current law, Title I schools identified for comprehensive support or technical assistance are required to submit a Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) as well as a federal school improvement plan, which creates an undue burden on local educational agencies. In addition, the requirements related to the current SPSA are anchored in the School-Based Program Coordination Act, which is no longer relevant, because the provisions it references are largely obsolete, including most state categorical programs.

Finally, current law does not address the multilayered requirements for the SPSA and its correlations with the Consolidated Application (the funding mechanism for federal programs) and schoolsite councils in a uniform and concise manner. Further, small rural schools or schools with alternative programs often are unable to meet the requirements for schoolsite councils, due in part to population size, resulting in cumbersome waiver requests to the State Board of Education.

1. Local control funding formula (LCFF). The 2013-14 Budget Act restructured the existing K-12 finance system and eliminated over 40 existing programs while implementing a new formula known as the LCFF. The LCFF consolidates the vast majority of state categorical programs and revenue limit apportionments into a single source of funding. Certain categorical programs, including Special Education, Child Nutrition, Preschool, and After School programs, are excluded. In addition, the statutory and programmatic requirements for almost all categorical programs were eliminated—the programs would be deemed “discretionary” and programs in any of these areas would be dependent on local district discretion. The School-Based Program Coordination Act and the requirement for school districts to establish schoolsite councils are no longer in effect due to the implementation of the LCFF. School districts are certainly authorized to establish them, but they are not required to do so.
2. The Consolidated application. This bill would revise and recast provisions relating to the consolidated application by deleting outdated references to repealed categorical programs and accounting for the new local control funding formula. According to the California Department of Education (CDE), under existing law, the consolidated application is used by CDE “to distribute categorical funds from various state and federal programs to county offices, school districts, and direct-funded charter schools throughout California. Annually, in May, each local educational agency (LEA) submits the spring release of the application to document participation in these programs and provide assurances that the district will comply with the legal requirements of each program. Program entitlements are determined by formulas contained in the laws that created the programs. The winter release of the application is submitted in January of each year and contains the district entitlements for each funded program. Out of each state and federal program entitlement, districts allocate funds for indirect costs of administration, for programs operated by the district office, and for programs operated at schools.”
3. The Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). Existing law requires schools and school districts that receive state and federal funds via the consolidated application process to prepare, via the schoolsite council, a SPSA for any recipient school. The SPSA is a blueprint to improve the academic performance of all students. According to the California Department of Education (CDE), the purpose of the SPSA is to coordinate all educational services at the school. The SPSA shall, at a minimum, address how funds provided to the school through the consolidated application will be used to improve the academic performance of all students. School goals must be based upon an analysis of verifiable state data and the SPSA must integrate the purposes and requirements of all state and federal categorical programs in which the school participates. According to the CDE, “The SPSA serves as the organizer for an individual school’s improvement process. The plan should be developed with a deep understanding of root causes of student academic challenges and identify and implement research-based instructional strategies to raise the achievement of students who are not yet proficient by state standards. A well-developed SPSA can ensure that students are better equipped to meet the Common Core State Standards in English and math. It is critical that each school’s SPSA:

• Builds on a premise that students are capable of learning with effective instruction.

• Includes school goals aligned with activities and goals included in the LEA Plan to maximize school reform efforts.

• Is based on verifiable data analysis.

• Focuses on student achievement and academic interventions.

• Implements high leverage school improvement actions.

• Directs resources where they will most directly improve student academic achievement.

• Ensures that all resources are aligned to serve identified students’ needs.

• Uses research-based strategies.

• Implements strategic coordination of resources.”

1. Author’s amendments. The author would like to make the following clarifying amendments:

• On Page 7, line 19: delete the reference to economic impact aid.
• On Page 7, line 24: add “if required” to the end of the sentence.
• Amend subdivision (d) of Section 64001, as follows:

“(d) For any consolidated application that does not include the necessary certifications or assurances, the department shall initiate an investigation to determine whether The department shall monitor and review to ensure that the consolidated application and the SPSA were developed in accordance with law and with the involvement of applicable advisory committees and schoolsite councils.”

• Amend subdivision (g)(1) of Section 64001, as follows:

“(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the schoolsite council shall develop the content of SPSA, which shall be consistent with the local control and accountability plan goals and federal planning requirements for improving pupil achievement. SPSAs shall be reviewed in accordance with EC 52062(a)(4).”

• Amend subdivision (g)(3)(A) of Section 64001, as follows:

“(g)(3)(A) Goals set to improve pupil outcomes, including addressing the needs of pupil groups as identified through the needs assessment in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2), shall be consistent with the local control and accountability plan (LCAP) of the local educational agency and annual updates to the LCAP.

• Amend subdivision (g)(3)(C) of Section 64001, as follows:

“(C) Proposed expendituresbased on the projected resource allocation from the governing board or body of the local educational agency to address the findings of the needs assessment consistent with the state priorities, including identifying resource inequities, which may include a review of the local educational agency’s local control and accountability plan (LCAP), budgeting and school-level budgeting, if applicable.”

• On Page 12, line 8: add “by the by the governing board or body of the local educational agency” after disapproved.
• In Section 65000, add “or his or her designee” after each reference to principal of the school.
• In subdivision (c)(1)(B) of Section 65000: add “The number of persons selected pursuant to this subparagraph shall equal the number of persons selected pursuant to subparagraph (A).” after the last sentence.
• Amend Page 13, Line 33 to delete “combined” so that it reads: “operate a shared schoolsite council if the schools have a combined school has a”

Staff recommends that the bill amended to reflect the author’s intent.

SUPPORT

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson

California School Boards Association

OPPOSITION

EdVoice

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 716

Author:(O'Donnell)

As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2017

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Provides funding for magnet school startup grants, subject to funds being appropriated for this purpose in the annual Budget Act or other legislation. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to allocate magnet school startup grants in an amount not to exceed $575,000, subject to funding being provided for this purpose in the annual Budget Act or other legislation.
2. Requires priority for grants to be given for the establishment of magnet schools in communities with high populations of pupils eligible for free or reduced-price means.
3. Authorizes the SPI to use prior year meal eligibility data if current year data are not available at the time priority for grants is determined.
4. Authorizes school districts to apply for a grant pursuant to a process determined by the SPI.
5. Provides that grants may be awarded for one-time costs associated with the startup of a new magnet school, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
   1. Supplies, furnishings, equipment, and instructional materials;
   2. Professional development, coaching, and support services for teachers and magnet school staff;
   3. Curriculum and policy development and acquisition; and
   4. Facility and schoolsite preparation or modifications necessary to implement the program in compliance with applicable laws.
6. Specifies that grant funds shall supplement, not supplant, existing services, and shall not be used to supplant federal, state, local, or nonfederal funds or to pay for existing levels of service funded from any other source; or for fundraising, civil defense, legal claims against the state or federal government, or contingencies.
7. Requires the SPI to apportion funding to applicants that meet both of the following conditions:
   1. The magnet school and grant application have been approved by the governing board of the school district; and
   2. The school district submits a proposed budget of how it intends to expand grant funding pursuant to the requirements of this section.
8. Requires grant funds to be disbursed to an applicant within 60 days of approval based on evidence of anticipated or incurred costs provided by the applicant.
9. Specifies that funding apportioned for this purpose is subject to the annual audits required by Section 41020.
10. Defines "magnet school" to mean a school that is operated by a school district and that has a special curricular focus or employs an alternative mode of instruction, or both.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. $236,500 GF for CDE to establish the grant program and on-going administrative cost of $130,500 GF annually. Staff will be needed to create the grant application, establish selection criteria, monitor the grants and verify compliance with the purpose of the grant. CDE notes that a program of this magnitude will require at least three years of administration per grant cycle.
2. On-going Prop98/GF cost pressures to continue funding the grant program at an unspecified amount, but likely not under $20 million.

COMMENTS:

Purpose of the bill. According to the author's office, the purpose of this bill is to help expand school choice by providing start-up funding for magnet schools. Magnet schools are schools that are operated by school districts that have a specific curricular focus, use alternative modes of instruction, or both. For example a magnet school may focus on music and performing arts or a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) curriculum. An elementary-level magnet school may employ the Montessori Method. Magnet school attendance is optional.

Funding. The Assembly version of the budget reappropriates $20 million of current year unspent Proposition 98 funds for the purposes of this bill.

How the grants can be used. This bill provides that grants may be used for one-time costs associated with the startup of a new magnet school, including, but not limited to, all of the following:

1. Supplies, furnishings, equipment, and instructional materials;
2. Professional development, coaching, and support services for teachers and magnet school staff;
3. Curriculum and policy development and acquisition; and
4. Facility and schoolsite preparation or modifications necessary to implement the program in compliance with applicable laws.

This is identical to the purposes for which charter school startup grant funds may be used. This bill requires districts requesting a grant to submit a proposed budget describing how the grant funds will be used.

Analysis Prepared by: Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0000613

Date of Hearing: April 5, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 716

Author:(O'Donnell) – As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2017

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill creates a new grant program for magnet school startup costs. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to allocate magnet school startup grants in an amount not to exceed $575,000, subject to funding being provided for this purpose in the annual Budget Act or other legislation.
2. Requires priority for grants to be given for the establishment of magnet schools in communities with high populations of pupils eligible for free or reduced-price meals.
3. Provides that grants may be awarded for one-time costs associated with the startup of a new magnet school.
4. Specifies that grant funds must supplement, not supplant, existing services, and may not be used to supplant federal, state, local, or nonfederal funds or to pay for existing levels of service funded from any other source; or for fundraising, civil defense, legal claims against the state or federal government, or contingencies.
5. Requires grant funds to be disbursed by the SPI to an applicant within 60 days of approval.
6. Specifies that funding apportioned for this purpose is subject to the annual audits.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. $236,500 GF for CDE to establish the grant program and on-going administrative cost of $130,500 GF annually. Staff will be needed to create the grant application, establish selection criteria, monitor the grants and verify compliance with the purpose of the grant. CDE notes that a program of this magnitude will require at least three years of administration per grant cycle.
2. On-going Prop98/GF cost pressures to continue funding the grant program at an unspecified amount, but likely not under $20 million (see staff comments).

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author's office, the purpose of AB 716 is to help expand school choice by providing start-up funding for magnet schools. Magnet schools are schools that are operated by school districts that have a specific curricular focus, use alternative modes of instruction, or both. For example a magnet school may focus on music and performing arts or a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) curriculum. An elementary-level magnet school may employ the Montessori Method.
2. Background. The author has identified a funding source for this grant program by using undistributed Prop 98 dollars included in the education budget trailer bill for the current year (SB 828, Chapter 29, Statutes of 2016). The education budget trailer bill appropriates $20 million from the state General Fund (Proposition 98) for charter school startup grants. The current year budget also provides federal funding for the same purpose, and SB 828 requires all federal funds to be spent before any state funds are used for charter school startup grants. According to the California Department of Education (CDE), the federal funds will not be exhausted this year. Meanwhile, the $20 million Proposition 98 appropriation must be spent on something to meet the minimum funding guarantee. Since it cannot be used for charter school startup grants, but must be spent this year, the author's office indicates that it will request a reappropriation of the $20 million for magnet school startup grants. The author's office also notes that magnet schools and charter schools both serve the same general purpose of expanding school choice.
3. Staff comments. This bill creates a new grant program using GF/Prop 98 dollars. The funds intended by the author to reappropriate should be considered as a part of the budget committee process and broader discussion of one-time Prop 98 spending.

Analysis Prepared by: Daisy Gonzales / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 22, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 716 (

Author:O'Donnell) – As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2017

SUBJECT: Magnet schools

SUMMARY: Provides funding for magnet school startup grants, subject to funds being appropriated for this purpose in the annual Budget Act or other legislation. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to allocate magnet school startup grants in an amount not to exceed $575,000, subject to funding being provided for this purpose in the annual Budget Act or other legislation.
2. Requires priority for grants to be given for the establishment of magnet schools in communities with high populations of pupils eligible for free or reduced-price means.
3. Authorizes the SPI to use prior year meal eligibility data if current year data are not available at the time priority for grants is determined.
4. Authorizes school districts to apply for a grant pursuant to a process determined by the SPI.
5. Provides that grants may be awarded for one-time costs associated with the startup of a new magnet school, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
   1. Supplies, furnishings, equipment, and instructional materials;
   2. Professional development, coaching, and support services for teachers and magnet school staff;
   3. Curriculum and policy development and acquisition; and
   4. Facility and schoolsite preparation or modifications necessary to implement the program in compliance with applicable laws.
6. Specifies that grant funds shall supplement, not supplant, existing services, and shall not be used to supplant federal, state, local, or nonfederal funds or to pay for existing levels of service funded from any other source; or for fundraising, civil defense, legal claims against the state or federal government, or contingencies.
7. Requires the SPI to apportion funding to applicants that meet both of the following conditions:
   1. The magnet school and grant application have been approved by the governing board of the school district; and
   2. The school district submits a proposed budget of how it intends to expand grant funding pursuant to the requirements of this section.
8. Requires grant funds to be disbursed to an applicant within 60 days of approval based on evidence of anticipated or incurred costs provided by the applicant.
9. Specifies that funding apportioned for this purpose is subject to the annual audits required by Section 41020.
10. Defines “magnet school” to mean a school that is operated by a school district and that has a special curricular focus or employs an alternative mode of instruction, or both.

EXISTING LAW: Appropriated $20 million (Proposition 98) in the current fiscal year to make one-time grants for charter school startup costs.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Purpose of the bill. According to the author's office, the purpose of AB 716 is to help expand school choice by providing start-up funding for magnet schools. Magnet schools are schools that are operated by school districts that have a specific curricular focus, use alternative modes of instruction, or both. For example a magnet school may focus on music and performing arts or a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) curriculum. An elementary-level magnet school may employ the Montessori Method. Magnet school attendance is optional.

Magnet schools have positive outcomes. Although the original purpose of magnet schools was to promote voluntary school desegregation, the UCLA Civil Rights Project notes that, in recent years, the purpose has shifted in the direction of providing greater school choice and rigorous academic programs. The Civil Rights Project report cites several studies that found benefits of magnet schools, including:

• Higher test scores
• Higher graduation rates
• Closer student-teacher relationships
• More access to unique curricula
• More positive inter-racial relations among students^[1]

The finding of higher achievement persisted even after controlling for differences in student background, including comparing achievement differences between lottery "winners" and "losers" for magnet schools that were oversubscribed and admitted students through a random lottery.

Another review of the research found that magnet schools had a positive impact in Connecticut, San Diego, Nashville, Houston, Duval County (Florida), and Milwaukee, and only one study found higher achievement among non-magnet students.^[2]

Funding. The education budget trailer bill for the current year (SB 828, Chapter 29, Statutes of 2016) appropriates $20 million from the state General Fund (Proposition 98) for charter school startup grants. The current year budget also provides federal funding for the same purpose, and SB 828 requires all federal funds to be spent before any state funds are used for charter school startup grants.

According to the California Department of Education (CDE), the federal funds will not be exhausted this year. Meanwhile, the $20 million Proposition 98 appropriation must be spent on something to meet the minimum funding guarantee. Since it cannot be used for charter school startup grants, but must be spent this year, the author's office indicates that it will request a reappropriation of the $20 million for magnet school startup grants. The author's office notes that magnet schools and charter schools both serve the same general purpose of expanding school choice.

How the grants can be used. This bill provides that grants may be used for one-time costs associated with the startup of a new magnet school, including, but not limited to, all of the following:

• Supplies, furnishings, equipment, and instructional materials;
• Professional development, coaching, and support services for teachers and magnet school staff;
• Curriculum and policy development and acquisition; and
• Facility and schoolsite preparation or modifications necessary to implement the program in compliance with applicable laws.

This is identical to the purposes for which charter school startup grant funds may be used. AB 716 requires districts requesting a grant to submit a proposed budget describing how the grant funds will be used.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None received

Opposition

None received

Analysis Prepared by: Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087

1. Erica Frankenberg and Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, "The Forgotten Choice? Rethinking Magnet Schools in a Changing Landscape." The UCLA Civil Rights Project, November 2008. ↑

2. "A Review of the Research on Magnet Schools." Office of Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis, Miami-Dade Public Schools, January 2012. ↑

Date of Hearing: March 22, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 716 (

Author:O'Donnell) – As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2017

SUBJECT: Magnet schools

SUMMARY: Provides funding for magnet school startup grants, subject to funds being appropriated for this purpose in the annual Budget Act or other legislation. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to allocate magnet school startup grants in an amount not to exceed $757,000, subject to funding being provided for this purpose in the annual Budget Act or other legislation.
2. Requires priority for grants to be given for the establishment of magnet schools in communities with high populations of pupils eligible for free or reduced-price means.
3. Authorizes the SPI to use prior year meal eligibility data if current year data are not available at the time priority for grants is determined.
4. Authorizes school districts to apply for a grant pursuant to a process determined by the SPI.
5. Provides that grants may be awarded for one-time costs associated with the startup of a new magnet school, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
   1. Supplies, furnishings, equipment, and instructional materials;
   2. Professional development, coaching, and support services for teachers and magnet school staff;
   3. Curriculum and policy development and acquisition; and
   4. Facility and schoolsite preparation or modifications necessary to implement the program in compliance with applicable laws.
6. Specifies that grant funds shall supplement, not supplant, existing services, and shall not be used to supplant federal, state, local, or nonfederal funds or to pay for existing levels of service funded from any other source; or for fundraising, civil defense, legal claims against the state or federal government, or contingencies.
7. Requires the SPI to apportion funding to applicants that meet both of the following conditions:
   1. The magnet school and grant application have been approved by the governing board of the school district; and
   2. The school district submits a proposed budget of how it intends to expand grant funding pursuant to the requirements of this section.
8. Requires grant funds to be disbursed to an applicant within 60 days of approval based on evidence of anticipated or incurred costs provided by the applicant.
9. Specifies that funding apportioned for this purpose is subject to the annual audits required by Section 41020.
10. Defines “magnet school” to mean a school that is operated by a school district and that has a special curricular focus or employs an alternative mode of instruction, or both.

EXISTING LAW: Appropriated $20 million (Proposition 98) in the current fiscal year to make one-time grants for charter school startup costs.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Purpose of the bill. According to the author's office, the purpose of AB 716 is to help expand school choice by providing start-up funding for magnet schools. Magnet schools are schools that are operated by school districts that have a specific curricular focus, use alternative modes of instruction, or both. For example a magnet school may focus on music and performing arts or a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) curriculum. An elementary-level magnet school may employ the Montessori Method. Magnet school attendance is optional.

Magnet schools have positive outcomes. Although the original purpose of magnet schools was to promote voluntary school desegregation, the UCLA Civil Rights Project notes that, in recent years, the purpose has shifted in the direction of providing greater school choice and rigorous academic programs. The Civil Rights Project report cites several studies that found benefits of magnet schools, including:

• Higher test scores
• Higher graduation rates
• Closer student-teacher relationships
• More access to unique curricula
• More positive inter-racial relations among students^[1]

The finding of higher achievement persisted even after controlling for differences in student background, including comparing achievement differences between lottery "winners" and "losers" for magnet schools that were oversubscribed and admitted students through a random lottery.

Another review of the research found that magnet schools had a positive impact in Connecticut, San Diego, Nashville, Houston, Duval County (Florida), and Milwaukee, and only one study found higher achievement among non-magnet students.^[2]

Funding. The education budget trailer bill for the current year (SB 828, Chapter 29, Statutes of 2016) appropriates $20 million from the state General Fund (Proposition 98) for charter school startup grants. The current year budget also provides federal funding for the same purpose, and SB 828 requires all federal funds to be spent before any state funds are used for charter school startup grants.

According to the California Department of Education (CDE), the federal funds will not be exhausted this year. Meanwhile, the $20 million Proposition 98 appropriation must be spent on something to meet the minimum funding guarantee. Since it cannot be used for charter school startup grants, but must be spent this year, the author's office indicates that it will request a reappropriation of the $20 million for magnet school startup grants. The author's office notes that magnet schools and charter schools both serve the same general purpose of expanding school choice.

How the grants can be used. This bill provides that grants may be used for one-time costs associated with the startup of a new magnet school, including, but not limited to, all of the following:

• Supplies, furnishings, equipment, and instructional materials;
• Professional development, coaching, and support services for teachers and magnet school staff;
• Curriculum and policy development and acquisition; and
• Facility and schoolsite preparation or modifications necessary to implement the program in compliance with applicable laws.

This is identical to the purposes for which charter school startup grant funds may be used. AB 716 requires districts requesting a grant to submit a proposed budget describing how the grant funds will be used.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None received

Opposition

None received

Analysis Prepared by: Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087

1. Erica Frankenberg and Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, "The Forgotten Choice? Rethinking Magnet Schools in a Changing Landscape." The UCLA Civil Rights Project, November 2008. ↑

2. "A Review of the Research on Magnet Schools." Office of Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis, Miami-Dade Public Schools, January 2012. ↑