Legislative Analyst's Office Analysis of the 2002-03 Budget Bill

Teacher Support and Development

The Governor's budget includes $743 million for 22 teacher preparation, induction, and professional development programs. Of this amount, $514 million is Proposition 98 General Fund and $87.1 million is reappropriated from the Proposition 98 Reversion Account. The remaining $142 million is non-Proposition 98 General Fund. Of the 22 programs, the Department of Education (SDE) administers 12 programs, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) administers 4 programs, the University of California (UC) administers 4 programs, and the California State University (CSU) administers 2 programs. Figure 1 shows the amount each of these agencies received for these programs in the 2001-02 Budget Act and the 2001-02 budget as revised by the Legislature in the Third Extraordinary Session. It also shows the amount included in the Governor's budget proposal.

The Governor's budget proposes the following funding adjustments to teacher preparation, induction, and professional development programs.

• Continues Current-Year Reductions. It continues $88 million in current-year reductions for five programs, though it provides a total of $6.4 million to fund growth and a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to the reduced base budget of two of these programs.
• Proposes Additional Budget-Year Reductions. It proposes $21.3 million in additional budget-year reductions to five other programs.
• Eliminates Three Programs. It eliminates the School Development Plans, Resource Consortia, and the Demonstration Programs in Intensive Instruction, for a total savings of $27.7 million.
• Augments Funding for Two Programs. It provides a total of $110 million for the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development program, which is $78.3 million more than provided in the current year, as revised by the Legislature in the Third Extraordinary Session. It also augments the Advanced Placement Challenge Grant program by $4 million.
• Funds Growth and COLA. It provides $6.3 million to fund growth and COLA for five other professional development programs.

In this write-up, we first identify the programmatic impact associated with each of the Governor's major budget proposals. We then recommend a programmatic alternative based upon the same total amount of funding included in the Governor's budget. This alternative consolidates 25 teacher support and development programs into two new block grants—a formula-based block grant and a competitively based block grant. The consolidation would seek to (1) streamline programs with similar purposes; (2) simplify the relatively complex administrative process districts must currently maneuver to obtain teacher support and staff development monies; (3) offer districts more flexibility in developing and coordinating their teacher preparation, induction, and ongoing professional development programs; and, (4) gain funding efficiencies by leveraging existing resources more effectively. The consolidation would be linked to a set of teacher support and professional development standards and hold districts accountable through a revised program-review process.

Continuing Current-Year Reductions

The Governor's budget proposes to continue current-year reductions for five programs. Figure 2 lists these programs and their funding levels. In this section, we discuss the likely programmatic impact of each of these reductions. In the final section of this write-up, we recommend these programs be included in a new formula-based block grant.

Peer Assistance and Review

The 2001-02 revised budget includes a $50 million reduction for the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) program. This is a 37 percent reduction from the 2001-02 Budget Act appropriation. The Governor's budget proposes to continue this reduction though it provides a $2.7 million augmentation to fund growth and COLA. The PAR program is a professional development program for veteran teachers who are identified as struggling or who want individualized mentoring. The administration states two reasons for continuing the reduction: (1) it believes participation is lower than expected (though neither it nor SDE can provide participant counts to confirm the underutilization), and (2) it thinks the mentor-teacher funding rate is too high. (The PAR program is funded on a mentor-teacher basis, with districts receiving 1 mentor-teacher position for every 20 certificated teachers.)

Lowers Mentor-Teacher Funding Rate. As a result of these funding adjustments, the mentor-teacher funding rate would drop from $8,710 (the 2000-01 rate) to $4,496 in the budget year for districts that certified their PAR programs by July 2000. It would drop from $6,851 to $3,427 for districts that certified their PAR programs by July 2001.

Half of PAR Monies to Be Set Aside for Other Teacher-Training Programs. The administration's education trailer bill proposal creates a reserve pool of funding that districts could apply for annually if they meet two conditions: (1) they certified each year (by March 1) that they had collectively bargained the provisions of the PAR program, and (2) they used at least 50 percent of their PAR monies for programs supporting new teachers. Education Code Section 44506 currently allows districts to use PAR monies for other teacher-training programs, but it does not require them to spend a minimum amount on these other programs. The proposed change would therefore restrict districts' flexibility to shift funding among teacher-related programs.

Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment

The 2001-02 revised budget includes a $20 million reduction for the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program. This is a 19 percent reduction from the 2001-02 Budget Act appropriation. The Governor's budget proposes to continue this reduction though it provides $3.6 million for growth and COLA on the reduced base. The BTSA program is an induction program for first-year and second-year teachers. It is funded on a per-teacher rate. The proposed rate is $3,448 per beginning teacher, which is $73 higher than the current-year rate. The administration states that the continuation of the current-year reduction reflects a revised estimate of participation in 2002-03.

Participation Remains Uncertain. The budget proposal provides sufficient funding to support approximately 24,600 beginning teachers. Approximately 29,500 beginning teachers would be eligible to participate in the program. Currently, the program is voluntary and not all eligible teachers have elected to participate in the program during the last several years. In 2002-03, CTC expects, however, to make the completion of an induction program a new requirement for obtaining a professional clear credential (pursuant to Chapter 548, Statutes of 1998 [SB 2042, Alpert]). If CTC makes this change, more teachers are likely to use the BTSA program to satisfy the new requirement. If all eligible teachers were to participate and the proposed per-teacher funding rate of $3,448 were maintained for all teachers, BTSA would require approximately $16.8 million more than the proposed appropriation. (The budget proposal includes a flexibility provision [Control Section 12.60] that would allow SDE to shift funding among 13 voluntary participation programs if some of these programs experienced unexpected levels of participation.)

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification Incentive Program

The 2001-02 revised budget includes a $5 million reduction for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification Incentive program—lowering the total appropriation from $15 million to $10 million. The Governor's budget proposes to continue this reduction. The National Board program consists of three components: (1) $1,000 fee subsidies for new teachers entering the national certification program, (2) $10,000 awards for each teacher who completes the national certification program; and (3) supplemental $20,000 awards for each teacher who completes the program and teaches in a low-performing school for four years ($5,000 is distributed at the completion of each of the four years).

Funding Insufficient to Award All Eligible Teachers. The SDE states that the national certification program requires a total of $15 million in the budget year (which is $5 million more than included in the Governor's budget) if it is to honor its commitment and provide awards to all recently certified teachers as well as offer fee assistance to all new teachers entering the national certification program. Even if the program stopped offering fee assistance to teachers entering the national certification program, if would still require approximately $12 million to provide awards to all eligible teachers. (This program is also included in the funding-flexibility provision.)

California Professional Development Institutes

The 2001-02 revised budget includes a $12 million reduction for the California Professional Development Institutes (PDIs), which are administered by the University of California (UC). This reduction is split evenly between UC's training budget and SDE's stipend budget. Continuing this reduction, the proposed 2002-03 appropriation for the PDI program is $98.9 million. The PDI program provides a minimum of 120 hours of subject-based and standards-based professional development to beginning and veteran teachers.

PDI Program Could Serve More Teachers. Even with the proposed funding reduction, the PDI program would probably serve additional teachers in the budget year because it has not met its participant targets in prior years. In 2000-01, the PDI program was funded to serve approximately 49,000 teachers. It actually served approximately 44,000 teachers. For 2001-02 and 2002-03, UC is funded to serve approximately 48,000 teachers. As of December 1, 2001, UC had signed formal agreements, however, to train slightly less than 30,000. Given participation will probably increase in the budget year, the Governor's proposal is likely to include an appropriate level of funding for the PDI program.

Additional Budget-Year Reductions

The Governor's budget proposes additional reductions to five other teacher preparation and professional development programs. Figure 3 lists these five programs and their funding levels. In this section, we identify the likely programmatic impact of these reductions. As with the programs discussed above, we recommend these programs be included in a new formula-based block grant.

California Subject Matter Projects

The Governor's budget proposes a $4 million reduction to the California Subject Matter Projects (SMP)—lowering the current-year appropriation of $35.3 million to $31.3 million. The SMP program, which is administered by UC, is a longstanding subject-based and standards-based professional development program that focuses on developing teacher-leaders. These teachers are expected to serve in key leadership capacities at their local school sites.

Fewer Teachers Would Be Served. Unlike the PDI program, UC has already committed all of its current-year funding for the SMP program. In 2001-02, the SMP program is serving approximately 16,700 participants, at an average per-teacher funding rate of $2,100. This rate includes both training costs and funding for stipends, which range from $500 to $1,500. As a result of the proposed reduction, UC estimates it would serve approximately 1,800 fewer teachers.

Education Technology Professional Development Program

The Governor's budget proposes to reduce funding for the Education Technology Professional Development program by $6.5 million, a reduction of more than 50 percent. This program, structured similarly to the PDI program, provides 120 hours of professional development in education technology for both beginning and veteran teachers. The CSU spends approximately $1,900 per teacher. This rate includes a $1,000 stipend.

Fewer Teachers Would Be Served. As of December 31, 2001, CSU had already committed all of its current-year funds. It expects to train slightly more than 6,600 teachers. The proposed reduction would result in CSU being able to serve approximately 3,600 fewer teachers in 2002-03. According to CSU, it has had a waiting list for the last two years comprised of teachers who would like to participate in the program when slots are available.

Internship and Pre-Internship Teaching Programs

The Governor's budget proposes a $6.2 million reduction to the Internship program—lowering the current-year appropriation of $31.8 million to $25.6 million. The Internship program provides training and on-site support for new teachers who have already demonstrated subject matter competency but have not yet obtained their preliminary clear credential. A related program, the Pre-Internship program, provides subject-matter test preparation as well as training in classroom management and basic pedagogy for new teachers who have not yet demonstrated subject matter competency. Both interns and pre-interns would otherwise be teaching on emergency permits if they were not participating in one of these specially designed training programs. The CTC administers both programs.

Participating Teachers, Spending Would Decline Significantly for Pre-Internship Program. Education Code Section 44386 gives CTC the authority to shift funds appropriated for the Internship program to the Pre-Internship program, which it has done for the last several years. For the two programs, Figure 4 shows the 2001-02 Budget Act appropriation, CTC's 2001-02 expenditure estimates, and the Governor's proposed 2002-03 funding level. Given the proposed reduction, CTC is unlikely to continue shifting funds from the Internship to the Pre-Internship program. As a result, spending for the Pre-Internship program would decline by approximately 43 percent. The CTC states that it would no longer shift funds because it would want to guarantee program slots for all current pre-interns who would be advancing into Internship programs.

In 2001-02, CTC is serving a total of 18,100 interns and pre-interns. As a result of the proposed reduction, it would serve approximately 2,400 fewer interns and pre-interns in 2002-03. Although this is a notable reduction, the two programs are serving almost 250 percent more teachers in 2001-02 than they served in 1998-99.

Paraprofessional Teacher Training Program

The Governor's budget proposes a $4 million, or 35 percent, reduction to the Paraprofessional Teacher Training program—lowering the current-year appropriation of $11.5 million to $7.5 million. The Paraprofessional program provides academic scholarships to teachers' aides and assistants for the purpose of completing college coursework and obtaining teaching credentials. As a result of the proposed reduction, CTC states that it would continue funding the approximately 2,400 paraprofessionals who are currently participating in the program, but it would be unable to fund any new program participants. In 2001-02, the program is serving more than four times as many teachers as it served in 1999-00.

Eliminates Three Professional Development Programs

The Governor's budget proposes to eliminate three existing professional development programs—the School Development Plans, Resource Consortia (Regional Professional Development Consortia), and the Demonstration Programs in Intensive Instruction. This section briefly describes these programs. Although the Governor proposes to eliminate these programs, we think that a formula-based block grant could fulfill the primary objectives of the School Development Plans and Resource Consortia. Furthermore, we think a competitively based block grant could fulfill the primary objectives of the Demonstration Programs in Intensive Instruction.

Staff Development Plans and Regional Professional Development Consortia

Chapter 1362, Statutes of 1988 (SB 1882, Morgan), initiated comprehensive reform of existing professional development programs. Part of its reform effort was to create the School Development Plans and the Resource Consortia. Both programs primarily target high schools.

School Development Plans. School development plans are comprehensive, school-site, professional development plans that are designed to be linked to overall school improvement objectives. The professional development activities embedded in these plans are intended to improve teachers' subject matter knowledge and help teachers develop curricula and select high-quality instructional materials. Initially, districts must submit their school-site plans to SDE for review and approval. They then must certify annually that they are continuing to implement their plans. The 2001-02 Budget Act included $17.3 million for schools to maintain these plans. This funding provided approximately $13.30 per average daily attendance (ADA) in grades 9-12.

Regional Professional Development Consortia. The regional professional development consortia typically consist of two educators who work with districts to increase awareness of the state's professional development policies. The consortia also: (1) offer professional development activities, (2) coordinate activities with local SMPs, and (3) disseminate information on best practices and model professional development programs. The 2001-02 Budget Act provided $4.3 million to support 11 consortia dispersed throughout the state.

Demonstration Programs In Intensive Instruction

The Legislature created the Demonstration Programs in Intensive Instruction in 1969 for the purpose of developing model programs in reading and mathematics instruction. The original program was amended in 1992 to add other subject areas, including foreign language, history, and science. The ultimate objective of the model programs is to assist struggling middle grade students.

Program Has Sunset. The program sunset in 1995, but the state has chosen to fund it every year since 1995. The 2001-02 Budget Act included $6.1 million for the program, providing grants to 126 middle schools. Most award amounts were $30,000 or $50,000 per school. If local programs appear to be working, SDE renews the grants for a total of four years. In 2001-02, SDE issued first-year awards to 49 schools ($2.4 million), second-year awards to 23 schools ($1.1 million), third-year awards to 47 schools ($1.5 million), and fourth-year awards to 8 schools ($1.1 million). The Governor proposes eliminating the program because of the current fiscal situation.

Augments Second-Year Funding for New Professional Development Program

As a result of legislative action taken in the Third Extraordinary Session, the current-year budget provides $31.7 million for the first year of the Governor's Mathematics and Reading Professional Development (MRPD) program. The Governor's budget includes $110 million to fund the second year of the program. Of this amount, $22.9 million is Proposition 98 General Fund and $87.1 million is reappropriated from the Proposition 98 Reversion Account. In 2003-04, the administration plans to provide a total of $128 million for the third year of the program. We recommend this program also be included in a formula-based block grant.

Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program

Chapter 737, Statutes of 2001 (AB 466, Strom-Martin), established the MRPD program. According to the administration's revised plan, the program would provide standards-based professional development to more than 170,000 teachers and 22,000 instructional aides over a five-year period (2001-02 through 2005-06). Each teacher receives a total of 120 hours of training, including 40 hours of initial intensive training and 80 hours of follow-up instruction, coaching, and school-site assistance.

Approximately 33,000 Teachers to Receive MRPD Training. In 2002-03, the Governor proposes to fund MRPD training for 32,800 teachers (at a per-teacher rate of $2,500) and 6,500 instructional aides (at a per-aide rate of $1,000). Additionally, the Governor proposes to provide supplemental incentive funding for 43,000 teachers (at a per-teacher rate of $500) who have already attended or currently are attending a PDI.

Update on Implementation of MRPD Program

Some preliminary MRPD activities already have been completed, but much remains to be done before teachers can receive state-approved training.

Initial Implementation Will Not be Completed for Several Months. Currently, the State Board of Education (SBE) is working under contact with the Sacramento County Office of Education to develop the state criteria that training providers will need to satisfy to be approved as MRPD providers. The SBE expects to approve the finalized set of criteria in early February, and board staff think that some providers might be approved as early as March or April. The board will continue to review providers' proposals (as they are submitted) throughout the coming year. The SBE expects that existing PDI providers would be pre-approved (bypassing the formal review process), but private companies, districts, county offices, and universities could also apply to become MRPD providers.

The SDE is currently developing regulations for the new program for SBE's consideration. The SBE adopted emergency regulations in January, but final regulations will probably not be completed for several months. The SDE expects to have a request for applications prepared by the middle of February. Districts' applications probably would need to be submitted to SDE by the middle of March to be part of the initial funding allocation. The SDE expects to allocate funding, distribute grant awards, and encumber funding in April or May.

Training Could Begin Late Spring. Given all these activities have yet to be completed, official MRPD training will probably not begin until late spring. The administration believes, however, that some districts have already begun conducting MRPD training—thinking they eventually will be approved as MRPD providers. Given the timing concerns mentioned above, it is uncertain how much MRPD training would actually occur in the current year.

Current-Year MRPD Funds May Not Train Many New Teachers. If few teachers receive state-approved MRPD training in the current year, the bulk of current-year funding would provide past PDI participants with $500 bonuses. If that were to occur, the funding would not be going to train new teachers but instead would go for bonus payments to teachers who have already been trained. This is an additional anomaly of the current system that results from having two almost identical programs administered by two different agencies and funded at two different rates.

Current System Riddled With Problems

The Governor's budget proposals have the effect of highlighting some of the major problems with the current array of teacher preparation, induction, and professional development programs.

Too Many Programs. One problem is the sheer number of programs. As discussed above, the Governor's budget makes funding adjustments to almost a dozen different teacher preparation, induction, and professional development programs (in addition to the seven augmentations for growth and COLA and the five reductions included in the revised 2001-02 budget). Of these programs, the vast majority were created within the last five years and few are designed to complement one another.

Similar Purposes, Duplicative Services. Additionally, these programs have the same purpose—to provide teachers with support and opportunities for ongoing professional development. Certainly the details of the training vary—some focus on mathematics whereas others focus on reading or education technology; some target beginning teachers, teachers without full credentials, misassigned teachers, or veteran teachers; some provide intensive subject-matter training whereas others offer frequent classroom-based mentoring. Despite these variations, all are designed to help teachers improve their skills and raise student achievement. The programs therefore offer relatively duplicative services and often compete with one another for teachers' participation.

Administrative Quagmire at Local Level. Although most of these programs have a similar purpose, school districts need to apply for each one separately. Hypothetically, a school district might apply to CTC to administer a Pre-Internship and Internship program, collaborate with certain UC personnel to enroll some teachers in the PDI program, collaborate with other UC personnel to enroll other teachers in the SMP program, coordinate with CSU to enroll some teachers in the Education Technology program, apply to SBE to become a state-approved provider to operate its own professional development program for other teachers, submit an annual BTSA improvement plan to its BTSA Cluster Consultant, submit a payment-request form and end-of-the-year verification form to SDE to participate in the Instructional Time and Staff Development Reform (ITSDR) program, and collectively bargain the provisions of its PAR program.

The school district that engaged in the above activities would be participating in less than half of all available preparation, induction, and professional development programs (though it would be participating in the largest-scale programs). Having to navigate this process to offer teachers support and ongoing professional development is likely to be time-consuming, complicated, and frustrating.

Administrative Quagmire at State Level. The ability of state-level administrators and policymakers to monitor and evaluate all these programs is equally difficult. For example, UC now has to track the number of PDI participants it serves with PDI dollars versus MRPD dollars. The state then provides a $500 bonus for PDI participants funded with PDI dollars so it can equalize the funding rate provided under the MRPD ($2,500) and PDI ($2,000) programs. Additionally, the state needs to track: (1) the amount of ITSDR monies used to provide onsite support under the MRPD program, (2) the amount of funding shifted from the Internship to the Pre-Internship program, and (3) under the proposed language changes, the amount of PAR monies spent on nonPAR activities. All this is necessary just to track funding streams. Assessing the actual quality of these programs is even more difficult.

Federal Funds Not Used to Support Key State Programs. Despite the significant investment the federal government makes in teacher preparation, induction, and professional development, few state programs explicitly attempt to couple state and federal funds. For example, although federal Eisenhower monies could be used to provide SMP, PDI, or MRPD training, the state provides few incentives for districts to use federal funds to support, expand, or enhance these programs.

Current System Incoherent. Fourteen years ago, when enacting Chapter 1362, the Legislature found:

The current array of staff development activities and incentives has grown by accretion, without a clear vision, remains largely unevaluated, and is unlikely to yield substantial improvement.

Since the Legislature made this statement, the state has created 18 new teacher support and development programs.

The recently released Report of the Professional Development Task Force (2001), commissioned by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, reiterated similar concerns to the ones discussed above, including fragmentation, multiple funding streams, and the failure of one-size-fits-all approaches. The recently released SRI International report, The Status of the Teaching Profession 2001, also described the system as uncoordinated and ineffective (based upon teachers' assessments). Similarly, an EdSource report, Strengthening Teacher Quality in California (1999), highlighted the difficulty school districts have in leveraging professional development funds to support local reform efforts.

LAO Alternative Approach to Teacher Support and Development

Create New Formula-Based Teacher Support and Development Block Grant

We recommend the Legislature consolidate 18 existing programs and create a new formula-based block grant to increase local flexibility and effectiveness is supporting teacher development. The block grant would provide a total of $722 million of Proposition 98 funds that school districts could use for teacher support and professional development activities.

We think the issues identified above could be addressed by creating a new formula-based teacher support and development block grant. The block grant we recommend would provide a total of $722 million of Proposition 98 monies and consolidate 18 existing programs. Figure 5 lists these programs. The consolidation would entail shifting $139 million of expenditures that are budgeted as non-Proposition 98 General Fund monies to within the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee. (If the minimum Proposition 98 guarantee were to increase this spring—and it could increase by more than $800 million—this redirection could accommodate a portion of this increase as well as save $139 million in non-Proposition 98 General Fund monies.) In the budget year, the block grant would also use $87.1 million from the Proposition 98 Reversion Account.

Several Benefits to Consolidation. The consolidation would (1) streamline programs with similar purposes; (2) simplify the relatively complex administrative process districts must currently maneuver to obtain teacher support and staff development monies; (3) offer districts more flexibility in developing and coordinating their teacher preparation, induction, and ongoing professional development programs; and (4) gain funding efficiencies by levering existing resources more effectively.

Linked to Teacher Support and Development Standards. To provide some overall direction and guidance, we recommend linking the block grant to standards for teacher support and professional development. Several groups have recently worked on establishing these standards.

In the prior legislative session, the state enacted Chapter 884, Statutes of 2001 (AB 341, Strom-Martin), which provided SDE with $140,000 to contract for the development of professional development standards. Additionally, the Regional Professional Development Consortia published Designs for Learning, which identifies 10 elements of high-quality professional development. The National Staff Development Council has also recently revised its 12 standards for professional development.

In general, research advocates that teacher support and development be: (1) based on a coherent, long-term planning process that involves teachers and administrators; (2) include a school-site professional development plan that is connected to overall school improvement objectives and evaluated based upon gains in student achievement; and (3) allow for integrated, ongoing collaboration among teachers.

Allocated on Per-Teacher Formula. Under our proposed block grant, SDE would distribute the $722 million to local educational agencies based on per-teacher funding rates that vary according to teachers' levels of preparation and experience. Figure 6 shows the per-teacher funding rates included in the Governor's budget and our proposed alternative funding rates, which in most cases are significantly higher. For example, the funding rate per fully credentialed beginning teacher would increase from $3,448 to $5,500—a 60 percent increase. In addition, our proposal provides funds adequate to serve all teachers and paraprofessionals.

Rates Vary According to Training Costs. Although the funding rates could be altered in many ways, the rates we suggest vary according to the likely costs incurred in providing specific forms of training and support. For example, the New Teacher Center states that it costs between $5,000 and $6,000 to provide intensive mentoring services to beginning teachers. In contrast, the costs associated with content-specific training for veteran teachers are lower, as evidenced by data on the PDI and Education Technology programs. These programs provide between $1,800 and $2,000 per teacher, typically including $700 for training costs, $1,000 for a teacher stipend, and between $100 and $300 for administration and evaluation. The funding rate we propose for veteran teachers—$2,000—is consistent with these amounts.

Proposed Rates Benefit Low-Performing Schools, Provide Incentives to Hire Qualified Teachers. The proposed funding rates offer some benefits particularly for low-performing schools. For example, under the current system, school districts receive no funding to train and support teachers with emergency permits. By comparison, under the proposed block grant, they would receive $2,000 per emergency-permit holder. These schools would also receive higher funding rates for teachers with pre-intern and intern certificates. The proposed funding rates could, how ever, also provide incentives for districts to hire fully credentialed teachers. This is because the proposed funding rates for beginning teachers increase with their level of preparation.

Block Grant Serves More Teachers and Aides. In addition to higher per-teacher funding rates, our recommended block grant would serve more teachers and instructional aides. As noted earlier, all teachers and full-time paraprofessionals could be funded under our proposal. By comparison, the Governor's budget funds: (1) no teachers on emergency permits or waivers, (2) only one-fourth of paraprofessionals, and (3) roughly half of veteran teachers (and only on a short-term basis).

Block Grant Offers Flexibility, Takes Advantage of Existing Infrastructure. Our recommended block grant would fund participating districts on per-teacher rates, but it would not require specific amounts of funding to be expended on specific teachers. Districts would have considerable flexibility in structuring comprehensive teacher support and development programs, but they could rely entirely on existing programs and providers. For example, districts could continue to operate their local BTSA programs and work with their regional BTSA consultant. Similarly, districts could continue using UC, CSU, county offices, and other groups that currently provide them professional development services. They would simply receive funding directly and contract with their preferred providers—as they do with many other types of services.

Leverages Federal Funds. In 2002-03, California will receive $333 million in federal Title II monies. The federal government recently collapsed the Eisenhower and Class Size Reduction programs and significantly augmented total Title II funding. Title II funds are for teacher recruitment, training, and retention activities. (These monies are allocated based upon population and poverty measures, with low-income schools receiving more funds.) In addition, local education agencies must use between 5 percent and 10 percent of their federal Title I monies on professional development. The new federal legislation encourages agencies to combine local, state, and federal monies. Our block grant approach would make it easier for districts to leverage federal resources and use them to supplement the per-teacher state funding rates—potentially raising these per-teacher rates by several hundred dollars.

Accountability Based on API Scores, New Teacher Records. In general, under our proposed block grant, districts would be held accountable based upon their improvement in student achievement. The Legislature could consider, however, a few additional accountability mechanisms. For example, UC has designed an Internet-based system that allows teachers to record their education and credential information, school-site information, and professional development activities. The system currently allows teachers to report all UC-administered activities, and UC administrators have access to remove teachers who do not complete activities. With little extra cost, UC states it could revise the system to include professional activities sponsored by numerous groups. In essence, teachers could keep their own electronic records of professional development activity. They could then forward these records to their district office or CTC during their review or credential-renewal process. (To renew their credential, teachers currently check a box noting they have completed 150 hours of professional development.)

This system would have the added value of generating a database that could be used to study the relationship between specific professional development activities and student achievement—with the potential that state policy makers could obtain better information on the effectiveness of various program options.

Create Competitively Based Teacher Support and Development Block Grant

We recommend the Legislature consolidate six existing programs and create a new competitively based teacher support and development block grant. The block grant would provide a total of $20 million General Fund (Proposition 98) that educational agencies could use to test pilot programs and conduct research on teacher training and professional development.

In addition to a formula-based block grant, we recommend that the Legislature create a competitively based teacher support and development block grant. This would consolidate six existing programs, listed in Figure 7. The block grant would provide a total of $20 million General Fund (Proposition 98) that would be distributed by SDE on a competitive basis to an educational agency or group of agencies. The size of the grant award could vary depending upon the proposed project, but total funding would be sufficient to provide 250 grants averaging $80,000 per grant.

Encourage Collaboration, Assist Low-Performing Schools. Grant proposals could be submitted by any combination of educational agencies—including school sites, district or county offices, colleges or universities, and research or nonprofit agencies. Priority could be given to agencies that aim to improve student achievement in low-performing schools.

Develop Model Programs, Disseminate Best Practices. The objective of this smaller-sized block grant is to encourage ongoing innovation and experimentation in teacher training, induction, and professional development. Recipients would be required to conduct research on the effectiveness of their interventions and broadly disseminate their findings.

Advanced Placement Teacher Training

We recommend the Legislature shift $8.3 million in overbudgeted funds for the Advanced Placement Challenge Grant program to our proposed competitively based teacher support and development block grant.

The Advanced Placement Challenge Grant program provides nonrenewable four-year grants to high schools, with first priority for funding given to schools that offer three or fewer Advanced Placement (AP) courses. The SDE states that a majority of the funding is used for staff development, such as sending teachers to College Board AP workshops, UC workshops, or other summer AP training institutes. The annual grant amounts decrease each year of the four-year period ($30,000 in year one, $22,500 in year two, $15,000 in year three, and $7,500 in year four). The SDE is to distribute these grants on a competitive basis to no more than 550 public high schools. The 2000-01 Budget Act appropriated $16.5 million for the program, and SDE distributed first-year grants to 550 high schools.

Governor Proposes Reducing Second-Year Appropriation But Not Third-Year Appropriation. For 2001-02, SDE renewed these original grant awards but did not issue any additional awards. The 2001-02 Budget Act appropriated $16.5 million, however, for the program—$4 million more than was necessary to fund 550 second-year grant awards. The 2001-02 revised budget recaptured the $4 million in savings. The Governor's budget proposal, however, appropriates $16.5 million for the program—approximately $8.3 million more than necessary to fund 550 third-year grant awards.

Most Schools With Three or Fewer AP Courses Already Receive Awards. In August 2001, the Office of the Secretary for Education released a report on the availability of rigorous courses in California's public high schools. The study defined "rigorous courses" as AP courses, International Baccalaureate courses, and UC-approved Honors courses. The study reported that 56 high schools had three or fewer rigorous courses in 2000-01. Of these 56 high schools, SDE states that 48 are receiving AP Challenge Grant funding. Of the eight high schools not receiving AP funding, seven are very small schools (for whom offering additional courses is more difficult) and one is a specialized academy. The AP Challenge Grant program is therefore already serving almost all of the schools it is designed to serve, making additional grant awards unnecessary. Thus, we recommend that the Legislature shift $8.3 million in overbudgeted AP funds (Proposition 98) to our proposed competitively based block grant (Proposition 98) that would seek to benefit similar schools through research and innovation.

Another Reading Professional Development Program

We recommend the Legislature eliminate the Support for Secondary Schools Reading program, thereby saving $8 million Proposition 98. The Legislature should eliminate the program because it is (1) duplicative of other programs and (2) not authorized as a state program.

The Support for Secondary Schools Reading (SSSR) program distributes grants on a competitive basis to county offices of education or consortia of county offices. The county offices are to use the grant monies to provide professional development opportunities to secondary school teachers who instruct students who are reading below grade level.

Duplicative of Existing State Programs. The state has three other programs that provide professional development in high school reading. The recently established Mathematics and Reading Professional Development program will provide standards-based professional development in reading for every English and social science public high school teacher in the state over the next four years. The state also recently established the High School English Institutes and the English Language Learner Institutes—both of which provide standards-based professional development opportunities for secondary school teachers. Also, the UC-administered Reading and Literature Project provides standards-based professional development to K-12 teachers, reserving 75 percent of its program slots to teachers serving in low-performing schools.

Federal Program Has Not Been Authorized. The Legislature has not authorized the SSSR program as a state program. It was originally a federal program funded with federal Goals 2000 monies. The 2001-02 Budget Act included $8 million Proposition 98 to compensate for the expiring Goals 2000 monies.

Because the SSSR program was never authorized as a state program and is duplicative of existing state programs, we recommend the Legislature eliminate it, thereby saving $8 million Proposition 98.