| Recommended Legislation
|
Consolidate and simplify related categorical programs into a discrete number of manageable and flexible block grants.
The state currently funds more than 70 categorical programs—each with detailed requirements and distinctly determined funding amounts. Consolidating many of these programs into several block grants would free local districts and schools to address their needs in ways that best match their local circumstances. Money would flow more readily to those activities for which it is needed most, leading to more effective use of funds. It also would simplify administrative processes and eliminate unnecessary "red tape." Under this proposal, state oversight would focus on the local impact of block grant funds on improving student achievement and other educational outcomes. Our proposal also would fundamentally change the mission of the State Department of Education from one of program administration and compliance to (1) focusing on accountability for student outcomes, (2) helping school districts to improve their education programs (especially in low-performing school districts), and (3) improving research and evaluation.
Please see our 2002-03 Analysis, page E-77.
Robert Manwaring: 319-8333 or Jennifer Kuhn: 319-8332
Allow school districts to use class size reduction (CSR) funding to deploy teachers in ways that best meet their students' needs. Rather than the rigid 20 to 1 formula that current law requires for each classroom, this alternative approach would provide for more flexible and effective implementation.
Given differences among local school sites, a single educational strategy does not always benefit all students. Indeed, recent research has revealed that California's CSR program has: (1) had an ambiguous impact on student achievement; (2) contributed to a significant increase in noncredentialed teachers, especially in the most disadvantaged schools; and (3) exacerbated the state's facility shortage. For these reasons, we propose providing greater flexibility for CSR funding. For example, the state could reduce restrictions on pupil per teacher ratios, allow targeted class size reduction, or support alternative uses of certificated staff. Our proposal would help schools with serious facilities constraints and/or high numbers of underqualified teachers.
Please see our 1997-98 Analysis, page E-52.
Jennifer Kuhn: 319-8332
Broaden the permissible uses of the $50 million annually appropriated by Proposition 227, in order to better address the needs of English language learner pupils.
Presently, the $50 million annual appropriation made by Proposition 227 is narrowly restricted to English language instruction to adults who pledge to subsequently tutor school children in the learning of English. Our proposal would further the overall purpose of the proposition to teach all children English as rapidly and effectively as possible by allowing school districts to select additional strategies for delivering English tutoring and other specialized assistance in English instruction. For example, under our proposal, districts could pay for English tutoring of pupils by tutors who already know English. Proposition 227 specifically provides that the Legislature may amend the proposition to "further the act's purposes" through a bill (passed by two-thirds vote and signed by the Governor).
Please see our 1999-00 Analysis, page E-44.
Maryza Gutierrez: 319-8336
Align specific elements of federal and state school intervention and sanction programs for low-performing schools to develop a unified accountability system.
State and federal sanction and intervention programs need to be aligned as required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The current system requires a school to develop different school improvement plans for state and federal intervention or sanction programs, which directs resources away from implementing reforms. In addition, the state and federal systems have differing (1) eligibility requirements, (2) academic improvement targets, (3) timelines, and (4) exit criteria. The conflicting structures of the state and federal systems can send inconsistent messages on the performance of a school. For example, a school could be making "significant progress" under the state system, while at the same time not be making "adequate yearly progress" under the federal system. Integrating the two systems into one would ensure that schools receive a consistent message.
Please see our 2002-03 Analysis, page E-114.
Victoria Carreón: 319-8330
Phase out "basic aid" given to high-property-wealth districts over a three-year period.
So-called basic aid school districts are among the districts with the highest amounts of combined state/local revenues per student. The provision of basic aid to these districts exacerbates the disparities in per-student funding that the Legislature tries to address through equalization funding. The amount currently spent on basic aid (an estimated $17.1 million in 2001-02) could be used instead to address higher priority educational needs.
Please see our 1997-98 Analysis, page E-64.
Jennifer Borenstein: 319-8338
Eliminate the statutory authority permitting the State Department of Education (SDE) to carry over unspent General Fund child care funds beyond the year of appropriation.
Education Code Section 8278 permits SDE to carry over General Fund appropriations for child care and development activities for two fiscal years beyond the year of appropriation. Funds that are carried over may be spent on one-time child care activities described in statute. However, unlike all other Proposition 98 expenditures, unspent child care allocations are unavailable for expenditure in other education areas, even though these other areas may be of higher priority in any given fiscal year. Our proposal would restore the Legislature's full budgeting flexibility to use child care carryover funds for purposes aligned to its full range of K-14 education priorities. Depending on the Legislature's assessment of education needs in any given year, this could include child care and development or other priorities.
Please see our 2001-02 Analysis, page E-153.
Anthony Simbol: 319-8334
Eliminate subsidized child care services for 13-year olds, resulting in annual savings of $5.5 million.
Under current law, children age 13 or younger from families with incomes below 75 percent of the state median income are eligible for state child care. No other state provides subsidized care to 13-year old children. This is mainly because federal funds may not be spent on child care for children older than age 12. Aligning state and federal eligibility requirements for child care would simplify the rules that local providers must follow regarding allowable expenditures. Moreover, multiple state and federal programs already serve 13-year old students before and after regular school hours at many sites in California. The 2002-03 Budget Act includes $40.9 million in new federal funds for before and after school programs to further increase services available to these students. The Legislature could phase in our proposal in order to provide sufficient time for families and child care providers to adapt to the new restriction.
Please see our Supplemental Analysis of the 2002-03 Governor's Budget for Child Care.
Anthony Simbol: 319-8334
Eliminate subsidized child care eligibility for families that were grandfathered by Chapter 270, Statutes of 1997 (AB 1542, Ducheny).
In 1997, the Legislature reduced the family income eligibility threshold for subsidized child care from 100 percent to 75 percent of the state median income (SMI), adjusted for family size. Chapter 270, however, specified that children from families with incomes between 75 percent and 100 percent of SMI that were receiving subsidized care as of December 31, 1997, maintain their right to such care as long as their family income does not exceed 100 percent of SMI. Eliminating the eligibility exception for these children would redirect limited resources to families with the greatest need for care. Typically, there are long waiting lists for subsidized child care because demand from families with incomes at or below 75 percent of SMI substantially exceeds available space. Our proposal would shorten the waiting time for the families with lower incomes.
Please see our Supplemental Analysis of the 2002-03 Governor's Budget for Child Care.
Anthony Simbol: 319-8334
Enact in statute an explicit student fee policy for the University of California and the California State University that provides for an appropriate sharing of educational costs between students and the state, and which preserves access to higher education.
California lacks a consistent fee policy for postsecondary education. Typically, changes to student fee levels have been influenced more by the availability of state funds in any given year than through an established policy for sharing the cost of higher education between the state and students. The lack of an explicit fee policy can make it difficult for students, their families, and the state to plan effectively.
The Supplemental Report of the 2002 Budget Act directed the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) to convene a working group to develop a long-term student fee policy for California's public university systems. The CPEC is to report its findings by December 1, 2002. These findings and recommendations or an alternate proposal could serve as the basis for legislation regarding a student fee policy and provide a rational mechanism for adjusting student fees.
Please see our 2002-03 Analysis, page E-179.
Sona Nagar: 319-8337
Expand competitive Cal Grant programs by consolidating them with institutional aid programs.
Although the state now guarantees financial aid for all recent high school graduates who meet financial and academic requirements, it limits the number of awards (22,500) for older students. In 2001-02, almost 100,000 students competed for these awards—thus, the program served less than one in four eligible applicants. One way to expand the competitive Cal Grant programs without additional cost is to consolidate them with existing institutional financial aid programs. The University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges together spend $484 million on institutional aid programs. Each of these programs operates under different rules. Thus, students with the same level of financial need are treated differently based on the campus they choose to attend. Consolidating these grants under a single program would result in consistent policies that would treat similar students similarly. Statewide consolidation also would improve accountability because institutional aid policies are currently developed outside of the Legislature's direct purview.
Please see our 2002-03 Analysis, page E-202.
Jennifer Kuhn: 319-8332
Require the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges to assess and routinely report on the effectiveness of their precollegiate courses.
Approximately one-third and one-half of all regularly admitted freshmen entering UC and CSU, respectively, are academically unprepared for college-level coursework. These students must enroll in precollegiate reading, writing, and/or mathematics courses. Similarly, academically unprepared community college students who want to transfer to UC or CSU must also complete precollegiate courses. Currently, none of the segments assess and report on the effectiveness of these courses in actually helping prepare students for college-level coursework. Thus, little accountability exists to ensure that the higher education systems are providing appropriate and adequate assistance to at-risk students. Furthermore, students and policymakers do not have access to information that would help them to make admissions decisions and programmatic improvements.
Please see our 2001-02 Analysis, page E-38, or Improving Academic Preparation for Higher Education (February 2001).
Anthony Simbol: 319-8334
Fund all precollegiate courses at a uniform rate—the community college credit rate.
Currently, the state funds precollegiate courses at the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges at different rates. We are not aware of any policy basis for this disparity. We recommend, therefore, that the state fund these courses at a uniform level, using the community college credit rate (which is approximately $4,300 per full-time equivalent student). Using this uniform rate would help ensure that the systems appropriately use the community colleges to share the responsibility for providing precollegiate education. Several campuses—including UC Davis, UC San Diego, and CSU Northridge—already rely on community college instructors to teach many of their precollegiate courses. In these cases, the courses already are funded at the community college credit rate.
Please see our 2001-02 Analysis, page E-38, or Improving Academic Preparation for Higher Education (February 2001).
Anthony Simbol: 319-8334
Fund 11 of the California Community Colleges' (CCC's) categorical programs through two block grants. Specifically, create a "Student Services" block grant to fund CCC's financial aid, extended opportunity programs and services, disabled students, Fund for Student Success, and matriculation programs. Also, create a "Faculty and Staff Support" block grant to fund CCC's instructional improvement, faculty and staff diversity, faculty and staff development, part-time faculty compensation, part-time faculty office hours, and part-time faculty health insurance programs.
Different community college districts face different demands for these programs. Block grants would promote efficiency by allowing districts to allocate funding among these programs in a way that best suits their needs, while at the same time allowing the Legislature to specify an overall level of funding for the general categories of student services and faculty and staff support.
Please see our 2002-03 Analysis , pages E-250 through E-255.
Steve Boilard: 319-8331
Modify the "Partnership for Excellence" (PFE) with the California Community Colleges (CCC) to create a meaningful link between funding and performance. At least $100 million of CCC's PFE funding (totaling $300 million in 2002-03) should be allocated to districts based on their achievements in specified areas.
The PFE, which is scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2005, provides additional funding to community colleges to help them improve their performance in specified areas. It was intended that there would be meaningful accountability mechanisms to ensure that this funding did indeed improve performance. Currently, however, funding is distributed to colleges based on their student enrollment. By making at least a portion of this funding contingent on performance, the PFE would provide an incentive for improved performance.
Please see our 2002-03 Analysis, pages E-241 through E-249.
Steve Boilard: 319-8331
Continue to
2002 Recommended Legislation Health/Social Services
Return to
2002 Recommended Legislation Table of Contents