Existing law sets forth the maximum ratios of administrative employees to each 100 teachers in the various types of school districts. Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to determine, for each current fiscal year, for each school district in the state, the total number of administrative employees except as provided, the total number of teachers except those serving in positions that are supported by federal funds or by categorical grants from any source and are in programs that require specific teacher/administrator ratios, the total maximum number of administrative employees that should be employed by the school district based upon the application of the appropriate ratio prescribed by law, and the number of administrative employees in excess of the number allowable without penalty, as provided. Existing law exempts a school district that has one or fewer administrators from these provisions.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to address the maximum administrative employees to teacher ratios to improve the ability of school districts to meet the needs of its pupils. delete that exemption and instead would exempt from those maximum ratios a certain number of administrative employees of a school district with an average daily attendance of 2,500 or fewer based on the average daily attendance of the school district, as provided.

Existing law sets forth the maximum ratios of administrative employees to each 100 teachers in the various types of school districts. Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to determine, for each current fiscal year, for each school district in the state, the total number of administrative employees except as provided, the total number of teachers except those serving in positions that are supported by federal funds or by categorical grants from any source and are in programs that require specific teacher/administrator ratios, the total maximum number of administrative employees that should be employed by the school district based upon the application of the appropriate ratio prescribed by law, and the number of administrative employees in excess of the number allowable without penalty, as provided.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to address the maximum administrative employees to teacher ratios to improve the ability of school districts to meet the needs of its pupils.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Josh Newman, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB 645 Hearing Date: April 19, 2023

Subject: School finance: administrative employees to teacher ratio.

SUMMARY

This bill allows small school districts to exempt a specified number of administrative employees from the existing administrative employee-to-teacher ratio calculation.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Defines, for the purpose of calculating the maximum ratios of administrative employees to teachers in school districts, the following:
   1. “Administrative employee” means an employee of a school district, employed in a position requiring certification qualifications, who does not come within the definition of a “pupil services employee” or a “teacher”.
   2. “Classified employee” means an employee of a school district, employed in a position not requiring certification qualifications.
   3. “Pupil services employee” means an employee of a school district, employed in a position requiring a standard designated services credential, health and development credential, or a librarian credential, who performs direct services to pupils. “Pupil services employee” includes, but is not limited to, in-school librarians, school nurses, assistant in-school librarians, audiovisual personnel, counselors, psychologists, psychometrists, guidance and welfare personnel, attendance personnel, school social workers, and all other certificated personnel performing pupil-personnel, health, or librarian services.
   4. “Teacher” means an employee of a school district, employed in a position requiring certification qualifications, whose duties require the employee to provide direct instruction to pupils in the schools of that district for the full time for which they are employed. “Teacher” includes, but is not limited to, teachers of special classes, teachers of exceptional children, teachers of pupils with physical disabilities, teachers of minors with intellectual disabilities, substitute teachers, instructional television teachers, specialist mathematics teachers, specialist reading teachers, home and hospital teachers, and learning disability group teachers. Requires instructional preparation time to be counted as part of the teacher full-time equivalent, including, but not limited to, mentor teacher or department chairperson time.
   5. Specifies that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) may also include in the definition of a “teacher” any of the following when calculating the ratio of administrative employees to teachers in the 2022-23 to 2024-25 fiscal years, inclusive:
2. Teachers who spend the majority of their time with pupils as intervention specialists.
3. Teachers who spend a majority of their time on a school campus providing training, coaching, or professional development to other teachers.
4. Establishes maximum ratios of administrative employees to each 100 teachers in the various types of school districts, as follows:
   1. In elementary school districts—9:100;
   2. In unified school districts—8:100; and
   3. In high school districts—7:100.
5. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to determine, for each current fiscal year, for each school district in the state, to two decimal points, the following:
   1. The total number of administrative employees, except those serving in positions that are supported by categorical grants from any source and are in programs that require specific teacher/administrator ratios, or that are supported by federal funds;
   2. The total number of teachers except those serving in positions that are supported by federal funds or by categorical grants from any source and are in programs that require specific teacher/administrator ratios;
   3. The total maximum number of administrative employees that should be employed by the district based upon the application of the appropriate ratio to the number of teachers; and
   4. The number of administrative employees in excess of the number allowable without penalty as determined by subtracting the number of administrative employees from the number of teachers.
6. Requires, for purposes of determining the allowable ratio of administrative employees to teachers for the LAUSD and the San Diego City School District, the number of employees and the full-time equivalent of all of the fractional time of employees serving the district in positions mandated as the result of the district’s court-ordered integration plan is excluded from the ratio calculation.
7. Requires the SPI to determine the reduction in state support resulting from excess administrative employees as follows:
   1. Compute the ratio which total state support to the district general fund bears to the total general fund income of the district;
   2. Multiply the ratio by the average salary of administrative employees; and
   3. Multiply the product by the number of administrative employees converted to the nearest whole number in excess of the maximum number, as specified.
8. Requires the amount of the second principal apportionment made to the district for the current fiscal year pursuant to Section 41335 to be reduced by the product so produced.
9. Exempts a school district with an average daily attendance (ADA) of more than 400,000 as of the 2016–17 second principal apportionment from any reduction in state support, as specified, for the 2019–20 fiscal year to the 2021–22 fiscal year, inclusive. Requires a school district subject to this exemption to submit the following to the SPI, the Department of Finance, and the budget committees of both houses of the Legislature:
   1. By September 1, 2019, a report containing the administrator-to-teacher ratio for the 2011–12 fiscal year to the 2019–20 fiscal year, inclusive, a description of the reasons for not meeting the ratio requirement for each fiscal year in which the ratio was not met, including the estimated impact on pupils, and a plan setting out goals for meeting the ratio by the 2023–24 fiscal year; and
   2. By each September 1 from 2020 to 2022, inclusive, a report detailing the administrator-to-teacher ratio for the prior fiscal year and the progress towards meeting the goals set out in the report.
10. Requires the LAUSD to submit the following to the Superintendent, the Department of Finance, and the budget committees of both houses of the Legislature:
    1. By September 1, 2023, a report containing the ratio of administrative employees to teachers for the 2011–12 fiscal year to the 2022–23 fiscal year, inclusive, a description of the reasons for not meeting the ratio requirement for each fiscal year in which the ratio was not met, including the estimated impact on pupils and the number of teachers and administrators above the required ratio, and a plan setting out goals for meeting the ratio by the 2025–26 fiscal year.
    2. By each September 1 from 2024 to 2025, inclusive, a report detailing the ratio of administrative employees to teachers, including the number of teachers and administrators above the required ratio, for the prior fiscal year and the progress towards meeting the goals set out in the report above.

ANALYSIS

This bill specifies that school districts with ADA of 2,500 or fewer shall exclude administrative employees for purposes of the administrative employee-to-teacher ratio calculation as follows:

1. For a school district that has ADA of 100 or more, but fewer than 250—exclude the Superintendent and one additional administrative employee.
2. For a school district that has ADA of 250 or more, but fewer than 750—exclude the Superintendent and two additional administrative employee.
3. For a school district that has ADA of 750 or more, but fewer than 1,500—exclude the Superintendent and three additional administrative employee.
4. For a school district that has ADA of 1,500 or more, but fewer than 2,500—exclude the Superintendent and four additional administrative employee.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “As California’s education system continues to evolve, it is important that all of our state’s school districts receive the support they need in order to serve our students and provide them with a quality education. SB 645 ensures that school districts in our least populated and rural parts of the state have the appropriate level of administrative staff to better meet the needs of their students and their communities.”
2. What is the administrator-to-teacher ratio requirement? School districts are required to have maximum ratios of administrative employees to each 100 teachers in the various types of school districts, as follows: in elementary school districts—9:100; in unified school districts—8:100; and in high school districts—7:100. Each year the California Department of Education (CDE) determines the ratio for each school district and for those that are over the ratio a fiscal penalty is imposed by reducing their principal apportionment.
3. LAUSD’s ongoing exemptions from this requirement. The education omnibus budget trailer bill of 2019 (SB 75 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Chapter 51, Statutes of 2019) authorized an exemption of the administrator-to-teacher fiscal penalty for the LAUSD for the 2019-20 fiscal year, to the 2021-22 fiscal year. Further, LAUSD is required to annually report to the SPI, the Department of Finance, and the budget committees of both houses of the Legislature on the administrator-to-teacher ratio calculation for each year a school district receives an exemption from the fiscal penalty, including historical information for past years and the school district's plan to meet the ratio requirements over time.

More recently, AB 2038, Chapter 908, Statutes of 2022 (Gipson) allows LAUSD, for purposes of calculating the administrative employee-to-teacher ratio in the 2022-23 to 2024-25 school years, inclusive, to include in the definition of “teacher” intervention specialists and teacher coaches, as specified.

1. School districts request a waiver from the administrator-to-teacher ratio, with the majority of requests approved. The State Board of Education (SBE) considers requests from local educational authorities (LEAs) to waive statutory and regulatory requirements. Statute requires the SBE to approve any and all requests for waivers except in those cases where the board specifically finds any of the following:
   1. The educational needs of the pupils are not adequately addressed.
   2. The waiver affects a program that requires the existence of a schoolsite council and the schoolsite council did not approve the request.
   3. The appropriate councils or advisory committees, including bilingual advisory committees, did not have an adequate opportunity to review the request and the request did not include a written summary of any objections to the request by the councils or advisory committees.
   4. Pupil or school personnel protections are jeopardized.
   5. Guarantees of parental involvement are jeopardized.
   6. The request would substantially increase state costs.
   7. The exclusive representative of employees, if any, was not a participant in the development of the waiver.

According to the CDE, nine requests for waivers from the administrator-to-teacher ratio have been received for consideration by the SBE since 2016, with the majority being submitted between 2016 and 2018. Of the nine waiver requests: seven have been approved, one was denied, and one will be heard in July.

Staff notes that all of these wavier requests were from “small” school districts, those with ADA of 2,500 or fewer. The one waiver request denial was submitted by Oroville Union High School District in 2018. The CDE staff agenda item for the request included a recommendation to deny because, “CDE finds no compelling reason that the situation in the Oroville Union HSD is unique and would warrant different treatment than other high school districts.” It should be noted that Oroville Union submitted another waiver request in November, 2022, which was approved in March, 2023.

1. Arguments in support. The California School Boards Association writes, “As district requirements and state mandates continue to grow—from increased mental health needs of students, required compliance with necessary public health protocols due to the pandemic and significant programmatic requirements, including drafting and adopting a district Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), implementing the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) and the California Universal Meals Program—many small school district superintendents face burn out. This then burdens those districts with the additional challenge of finding successor superintendents who have the necessary qualifications and are willing to live in rural areas and take on a disproportionate workload compared to their peers with insufficient support.

“Equally as important is the equity issue around the impact to students, especially our most vulnerable and historically marginalized students. If there is inadequacy of staffing or continuity in leadership positions, how will homeless, foster, English Learners, and students with disabilities receive the services they need and afforded under the law? The greatest resource is the human resource, but this cap arbitrarily limits the ability of our small school districts to hire the right number of leaders they need to serve their students.

“By revising the ratio based upon school size, SB 645 would help small districts better meet the needs of their students, teachers, staff and the greater school community.”

1. Arguments in opposition. The California Teachers Association writes, “More administrators at a school diverts funds away from necessary resources (teachers, curriculum, libraries, etc.). More administrators can lead to increased bureaucracy in schools, which can create more inefficiencies and lead to higher costs. Additional administrators can distract from the primary focus of education, which should be on students. Having more administrators can take away resources, attention and focus from students and teachers. Also, additional administrators can create more top-down decision-making, which can stifle creativity and innovation in schools. This can lead to a less effective and engaging learning environment. More administrators can lead to an unnecessary increase in paperwork and reporting requirements, which can take away from time that could be used for teaching and learning. Finally, additional administrators can create a culture of distrust between school staff and administration, which can lead to a lack of collaboration and communication.”

SUPPORT

California School Boards Association (sponsor)

Association of California School Administrators

California Federation of Teachers

Central Valley Education Coalition

Kern County Office of Education

Marin County Office of Education

Riverside County Office of Education

Santa Clara County Boards Association

Small School Districts’ Association

OPPOSITION

California Teachers Association

-- END --