|Posted on August 15, 2018 at 3:05 PM||comments (0)|
What does the “father” of California’s quarter-century old charter school law think of it now? EdSource recently caught up with former State Sen. Gary Hart, a Democrat who represented Santa Barbara in the Assembly and Senate for 20 years before retiring in 1994. In 1992, as chairman of the Senate Education Committee, he authored the nation’s second charter school law. Sue Burr, a consultant to the committee at the time and currently a member of the State Board of Education, played a major role in drafting it. EdSource writer John Fensterwald asked Hart in an interview and in writing what he was trying to do then and how, in hindsight, he might write a different law today. The answers have been edited for length and clarity.
The original law capped the number of charter schools statewide at 100, with no more than 10 in any one district and 20 in Los Angeles Unified. In 1998, the Legislature raised the limit to 250 charter schools plus an additional 100 more each year after that.
EDSOURCE: Is it as you envisioned, that we would have more than 1,200 charter schools in California?
HART: No. It’s always hard to predict how legislation is going to play out. Although it was very contentious, I didn’t view it as something that was going to be earth-shaking or have the magnitude that it has.
The original law called for up to 100 charter schools. That was changed a number of years later. When the law first passed, we had no idea as to whether there would be any charters. It was like you give a party and you don’t know if anyone will come or not. It was kind of slow in the beginning. The accelerated growth has been just extraordinary, and it’s not something that not only myself, but I don’t think anybody else could have predicted or even imagined.
EDSOURCE: So what do you attribute that growth to? Are the charter schools from what you can tell doing collectively or individually what you would have hoped?
HART: It’s really hard to generalize because charters vary so much. Generally speaking, I’m supportive. With any legislation of this magnitude, there are always going to be issues and concerns. I do think there has been such a focus on how many new charters, it’s focusing on quantity and I had hoped initially there would be a lot more focus on quality, a more careful review of charters.
EDSOURCE: One of the questions originally was whether charters should be seen as a way to innovate and set examples for other district schools to learn from or to give parents a choice in high-poverty neighborhoods where they are dissatisfied with their schools. Those are really two different focuses.
HART: I think it was both. First and foremost was innovation and reform, giving an opportunity for people to do things differently and not be constrained by all of the rules and regulations from the district, from collective bargaining.
I heard over and over again from school folks, “Stop passing all these laws. We’re spending all of our time being compliance officers and bureaucrats and we’re not able to do our jobs as educators.” I thought that there was some truth to that and so passing this law really gave an opportunity for educators to be educators and not be as concerned about rules and regulations.
After the law was passed, there wasn’t much that came forward either from teachers or administrators or school board members who had complained bitterly about state laws. Instead of going out and doing it, a lot of people resisted. That’s not to say they were wrong because going through the whole process can be quite time-consuming and there’s a lot of blood on the floor sometimes for establishing these things.
This other aspect was also important — the people who felt that the existing schools, particularly in low-income areas, were not serving their needs; their school districts were too large or dysfunctional. They needed to have something that would be their own.
One of the concerns was, “This charter law will be for sophisticated parents who have a lot of time on their hands.” It was somewhat of a surprise to see that places like LA Unified and Oakland and other large urban school districts were where the charters were taking off. I think there was a dissatisfaction on the part of parents, but also because the business community and the foundation community got behind these efforts and provided resources. I never anticipated that charter management organizations would have such an important role.
EDSOURCE: The financial impact on a district was not part of the law. Was it brought up at the time?
HART: I don’t think so. The law didn’t have large-scale financial ramifications. We were talking about 100 charters statewide.
The bill was a major effort to try to defeat the voucher proposal that was going to be on the ballot and we saw it as an alternative to vouchers that would not go down that path of providing the large taxpayer subsidies to private schools and violating the church-state separation right. (Editor’s note: Prop. 174, which would have given parents a tuition subsidy to a private or parochial school equal to half of per-student funding at public schools eventually did make the November 1993 general election ballot; voters defeated it 70 to 30 percent.)
There was strong teacher opposition to the charter legislation from both AFT (American Federation of Teachers) and CTA (California Teachers Association) even though ironically, I got the idea from Al Shanker (the late president of the American Federation of Teachers) who had written about it. I was a great fan and Shanker had come out and testified on a number of occasions to legislation that we were considering.
“Charter fights in places like L.A. Unified have become almost religious wars, where large amounts of money are spent, and having an appeals process that is less political makes sense to me.”
The focal point of the unions was largely to ensure that collective bargaining laws would not be tampered with in the charter law. That issue was very contentious and I refused to budge. My position was that there needed to be a choice for teachers whether to form a union at a charter school.
EDSOURCE: How did you ever get it passed?
HART: It wasn’t easy. The unions were strongly opposed and many other education groups — ACSA (Association of California School Administrators) and CSBA (California School Boards Association) — were neutral perhaps because they didn’t want to antagonize CTA. It was pretty lonely out there. We engaged in some legislative jiu-jitsu and pulled the bill out of conference committee and passed it quickly off the Senate floor with no debate and sent it to Gov. Wilson, who signed it into law. If we had followed traditional procedures and the unions had had time to work the bill, it likely would not have passed.
EDSOURCE: Did it become apparent that there would be resistance and that some folks in many districts at the time didn’t like competition? You knew that, right, because you set up an appeals process?
HART: We did, and it wasn’t that we had a cynical view towards school districts, but there was a potential conflict of interest that made, I thought, an appeals process a good idea. School boards and school administrators might oppose any charter because it might mean less district control, less revenue and more competition. So having an appeals process made sense and I thought county boards, who were also elected and had a sense of local issues, were the right bodies to hear appeals. Six years later the charter law was amended to provide another appeal to the State Board of Education. I understand now the state board spends up to half its time hearing charter appeals, which I’m not sure is a good use of state board time given all the other policy matters on their plate.
EDSOURCE: Would you eliminate that ultimate appeals process because it’s not a good use of (state board) time, or do you think someone else ought to be the ultimate authority or should you just keep it at the county level and whatever happens there happens?
HART: I still believe a charter appeals process is a good idea but charters are now becoming a campaign issue with some county boards of education so I’m not sure they are the right venue for appeals. Charter fights in places like L.A. Unified have become almost religious wars, where large amounts of money are spent, and having an appeals process that is less political makes sense to me. Perhaps the State Board of Education could appoint an expert panel to review and have the final say on charter appeals. I favor making the process less political and handled by more neutral people.
Financial impact on districts
EDSOURCE: Some districts are very frank about the financial impact of charter schools. “Look, we can’t afford it. We’re making cuts and you’re asking us to start new charter schools adding to the financial problems we have.” If you were to redo the law, would you hold a district harmless for the financial impact or compensate it for the impact of a charter?
HART: Some districts face loss of revenue due to charter growth, and many districts face unsustainable long-term employee health care costs and all districts face escalating pension contributions. A review of state financing seems in order. We have had funding adjustments to mitigate for declining enrollment. Perhaps something like that ought to be considered for districts with many charter schools. But a strict “hold harmless” for districts losing students to charters doesn’t make sense, as it would reward districts for not being competitive and it might also provide an incentive for districts to push out “undesirable” students. Trying to accommodate various factors that are affecting the financing of a district gets very complicated. There are unintended consequences you have to be careful about.
Districts have many financial challenges and it seems to me that charters are not the primary or even significant part of the financial problems districts face in the long term — those problems are going to remain with or without charter schools.
EDSOURCE: Looking back, seeing what people are saying now are some of the challenges to the law, what changes might you make?
HART: We now have more than 1,000 charter schools in California and we know little about their successes and failures. Some work has been done comparing charter to traditional public schools on student achievement but, given the great variety of charter schools, I’m not sure about the value of that body of research.
I would be interested in research on topics like school size — charters tend to be smaller. School mission — charters tend to have a specific rather than a comprehensive mission. Accountability — it’s easier to dismiss staff in charter schools. And school governance — charter board members are not elected by the general public and do not have to raise money to run for office. There’s a lot to explore with 25-plus years of experience and data.
I think we’re hungry for highlighting and replicating what is working well, whether it’s in a charter school or in a traditional school. We don’t do a good job of that.
|Posted on August 6, 2018 at 2:10 PM||comments (0)|
An important read for both districts and charter schools.
|Posted on May 22, 2018 at 10:30 PM||comments (0)|
"Brown defined full funding as the point at which every district would be restored to the pre-recession funding level of 2007-08, plus inflation."
2007-08 levels restored by 2018-19....it's truly a sad state of affairs for public education funding. If only this message was commonly understood in California
By the time he leaves office early next year, Gov. Jerry Brown will have achieved his goal of “full funding” for his signature school financing law, the 2013 Local Control Funding Formula.
But rather than hang a banner and declare victory, legislators and education advocates who support Brown’s funding formula are ready to set the next target: an aspirational goal of committing more than $35 billion in new K-12 dollars to the funding formula — enough to raise California’s current per-student spending of $11,149 by about $6,500. That would potentially place California among the top 10 states in the nation.
Assembly Bill 2808, authored by Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, avoids a hard choice: It does not include a funding source to accelerate education spending. Since future governors and Legislatures will ultimately decide the size of their state budgets, the bill cannot dictate how soon the state will reach the $35 billion target. It’s a recommendation: Give K-12 schools significantly more money and direct the bulk of it to the funding formula, which covers more than 80 percent of running a school district, from teacher salaries to roof repairs and pension costs.
The point of AB 2808 is to shift the conversation from the previous definition of a fully funded formula to the aspiration of “fair and full funding for all schools, regardless of where you live,” Muratsuchi said. The bill received unanimous approval in the Assembly Education Committee and is now awaiting action by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. It has the support of groups representing teachers, school boards, parents and school district administrators.
The Legislature passed the funding formula in 2013, when the state was emerging from the Great Recession with about a 15 percent cut in K-12 funding. Brown set an 8-year goal of shifting to the new financing system in which districts would receive the same base funding per student, with additional money, called concentration and supplemental grants, tied to the numbers of low-income students, English learners and foster and migrant children they enroll.
Brown defined full funding as the point at which every district would be restored to the pre-recession funding level of 2007-08, plus inflation. The California Department of Finance predicted it would take eight years, until 2020-21, to reach that point. But, due to surging revenue, particularly in the first years of the formula, Brown is budgeting to reach full funding in 2018-19, two years early. Districts with large proportions of students targeted under the formula already receive more than the full-funding minimum. Some are receiving $2,000 or more per student than districts with low percentages of “high-needs” students.
Support for AB 2808 reflects a consensus that the formula’s base funding, which is supposed to cover basic costs of doing business, isn’t enough. A year after they passed the funding formula, the Legislature passed a 30-year plan to cover a massive unfunded pension liability for public employees, including teachers and hourly school employees. That expense, plus rising costs of special education that legislators didn’t foresee in 2013, have consumed a large portion of school districts’ base costs.
The result has been, for many districts, deficit spending and encroaching on supplemental and concentration money that is supposed to be spent on extra programs and services for high-needs students.
“The base is anemic in terms of adequate school funding. Districts will find a rationale to keep doors open, and that is not good for poor children” who could get short-changed money intended for them, said Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, an education consulting company based in Sacramento.
The funding law is silent as to what happens once the 2013 full-funding target is reached. Change the formula? Continue to freeze funding at the current level, plus inflation? Return to the old way, before the funding formula, and fund specific “categorical” programs that dictate how districts should use the money, whether for computer coding classes, mental health counselors, technology or whatever legislators decide is important?
Muratsuchi’s bill sends the message to stay the course, let school boards continue to determine their own spending decisions under local control and don’t change the funding formula itself — just increase the amount.
A top-10 funding state, in theory
Drafters of the bill set a target of raising base funding by $35 billion — 60 percent — which they calculated is needed to raise the base to the national average in per-student spending. That comes with caveats, however.
There are several methods to rank states’ student spending, as an EdSource explainer and an analysis of AB 2808 by Rick Pratt, chief consultant for the Assembly Education Committee, noted. Drafters of the bill chose Education Week’s index, which factors in regional costs of living. By that measure, California’s adjusted total per-student spending of $8,694 was $3,462 below the national average of $12,152; California ranked 45th among states and Washington, D.C.
State comparisons are several years old. The most recent EdWeek comparison, done in January 2017, was for the 2014-15 school year. Other states will probably increase their spending, too, raising the national average by the time California spends $35 billion more.
There is no target date for reaching the national average, and this Legislature couldn’t dictate what future governors and lawmakers will do anyway. Minimum K-12 and community college funding is determined by Proposition 98, a formula that factors in the annual growth in state revenue and per-capita income. School funding has increased an average of about 3 percent per year over the past 30 years, according to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis of the bill. Without new taxes, such as an initiative to raise taxes on commercial property — headed for the 2020 ballot — or reshuffling of state priorities, it could take more than a decade for the base funding under the funding formula to reach EdWeek’s 2014-15 national average.
But base spending for the funding formula makes up only 71 percent of total K-12 state funding. The rest includes supplemental and concentration grants under the formula, about 19 percent of the total. Supplemental and concentration grants are calculated as a percentage of base funding. So raising the base by 60 percent would require raising supplemental and concentration funding by the same proportion. Other programs, including the state contribution to special education, make up the final 10 percent.
Next year, under Brown’s budget for full funding, the base grant would average $8,300 per student, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
With a 60 percent increase, as called for in the bill, that amount would rise to $13,300 per student.
Raising the total funding formula, including supplemental and concentration grants, by 60 percent would increase spending to $15,900 per student.
Even if spending for the remaining K-12 programs not included in the funding formula, like the state contribution to special education, were frozen at current levels — a very unlikely scenario — total per-student spending would rise to a minimum $17,600 per student, according to the LAO. California would then be among the top 10 states in per-student spending, according to Pratt’s analysis.
Supporters aren’t citing these daunting numbers. Instead, they’re making the overall point that “full funding” under the current law is still inadequate funding.
“The educators who work with students day in and day out fully support AB 2808, a long-term funding mechanism to bring increased educational funding in California to a level our students need and deserve,” Claudia Briggs, a spokeswoman for the California Teachers Association, wrote in an email. Along with the CTA and the state PTA, associations representing school administrators, business officers and school boards also back the bill,
Based on conversations with the Department of Finance, Muratsuchi said he is “optimistic” that Brown would sign the bill. Doing so would ensure that Brown’s landmark law remains the top funding priority after he retires, he said.
|Posted on April 24, 2018 at 11:45 AM||comments (0)|
Be sure to check out these latest statisics on charter school growth in California.
Exclusive analysis: New USC survey shows public support for charter schools has jumped 10 points in last year
|Posted on March 29, 2018 at 1:45 PM||comments (0)|
Paul Peterson and Albert Cheng | March 27, 2018
For Democrats and Republicans alike, charter schools have long provided a happy compromise between vouchers for religious schools and no school choice at all. Charters give families an alternative schooling option but remain publicly funded, secular institutions authorized by government agencies. They have been warmly endorsed by Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump.
Unfortunately, the aura of bipartisanship surrounding the charter movement suffered heavy collateral damage during and after the intense battle over Betsy DeVos’s confirmation as Trump’s secretary of education. The NAACP and other civil rights groups called for a moratorium on the formation of new charter schools, despite the fact that black and Hispanic children are more likely to attend and benefit from charter schools than are white children.
As these highly publicized events unfolded, the share of the public who answered yes when asked whether they support “the formation of charter schools” fell from 65 percent in 2016 to an all-time low of 52 percent in the spring of 2017, according to annual polls conducted by Education Next and administered by the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance. This 13-point free fall was especially dramatic because charters had previously garnered high, steady levels of support.
But in January, the poll results reversed course. A nationally representative online survey of 4,617 adults administered by the University of Southern California’s Understanding America Study and later analyzed by the Education Next team at Harvard posed the same question asked in 2017 — and found the share favoring charters had jumped by 10 percentage points, from 52 to 62 percent. That’s nearly the same level attained in 2016, before the postelection hullabaloo began. (The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.)
Still, it may be too soon for charter school advocates to celebrate, as the bitter struggles of the past year have polarized the public along partisan lines. Charter support in the January poll leaped by 14 percentage points among those who identified with the Republican Party but did not budge at all among Democrats. Instead, a growing partisan gap opened even further.
As late as 2010, members of the two parties did not differ significantly in their opinions about charters. But by 2015, a 20-point gap had opened up, and now it has grown to 30 percentage points: 75 percent of Republicans, but only 45 percent of Democrats, support the formation of charter schools. This method of school reform is at risk of becoming still another beanball hurled in an unending slugfest between the two parties.
Still, support for charters among the black and Hispanic communities helps to offset this partisanship. Despite the NAACP’s new anti-charter position, majorities of both groups favor the formation of charters at roughly the same level as whites do. By serving black and Hispanic families well, charters may still be able to sustain a broad-based coalition. Nurturing such coalitions to seek the common good would be a welcome respite from the tribalism of our times.
|Posted on January 20, 2018 at 11:25 AM||comments (0)|
By SHARON NOGUCHI | firstname.lastname@example.org
Despite an unexpected $3 billion infusion in K-12 revenue for the coming year, schools throughout the state are honing their electronic blue pencils to slash budgets.
Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal to boost school funding to $56.7 billion “is not likely to be enough to mitigate any of the other crises districts are facing,” said Mary Ann Dewan, interim superintendent of the Santa Clara County Office of Education.
In San Jose, the Oak Grove School District still plans to close three or four elementary schools in the fall. The East Side Union High School District board resolved to eliminate 66 jobs over two years. And Oakland Unified isn’t reversing the $9 million in painful cuts for this school year — although state funds could soften $11.2 million in trims laid out for next year.
As they cut spending, school officials will face a tough sell to constituents wondering what happened to the new “extra” cash — especially when the combination of federal, state and local funds for K-12 are expected to total a record $95.6 billion in the next fiscal year, a 2.5 percent increase. That comes to $16,085 per pupil.
Of the $3 billion excess designated for schools, half is for cost-of-living increases and the other half simply completes a 2013 promise two years early — to restore schools’ pre-recession purchasing power. For a decade, schools have been struggling to catch up to where they were in 2007-’08.
Meanwhile, costs of benefits, salaries and operations have escalated. Under a deal to help keep the state retirement systems afloat, school districts must devote a greater chunk to pensions — 16.3 percent of teacher payroll next year and likely a similar percentage for support-staff pensions.
In recent years, many districts granted employees generous raises to make up for recession-era frugality. Some like Oak Grove are being squeezed by declining enrollment, forcing state revenue to plummet faster than the districts can reduce costs.
Brown’s proposal “only takes care of the problem for one year,” wrote Rose Ramos, chief business officer of the Mount Diablo Unified School District in Concord.
As they take up next school year’s budgets, districts like East Side Union could choose not to lay off as many employees, Superintendent Chris Funk said, but “all that does is kick the can down the road a year or two.”
If the budget that emerges in June follows Brown’s proposal, “It will help us just a little bit now,” said Jeff Bowman of the Cupertino Union School District, which faces cutting $5 million in 2018-’19, after trimming $2.6 million last spring. “We’re still behind.”
Cupertino doesn’t receive nearly as much state aid as other districts. Under Brown’s 2013 reform — dubbed the Local Control Funding Formula — schools that have a higher number of harder-to-educate students receive more funds. Ravenswood in East Palo Alto and Alum Rock in San Jose are among the top recipients in the state in aid per student. At the bottom are those in wealthy enclaves with few poor and English-learner students: San Ramon Valley Unified, Walnut Creek Elementary, Belmont-Redwood Shores, Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda in Contra Costa County.
Under Brown’s plan, San Ramon would receive an additional $8 million in ongoing funds and $9 million in one-time funds, according to spokeswoman Elizabeth Graswich.
While she welcomed the governor’s budget, she said it was too early for the district to provide any details of how the extra funds might be used.
School officials also will have to explain how the annual increases that schools enjoyed in recent years are about to disappear, now that Brown has achieved the goals of his Local Control Funding Formula.
That was his legacy, said Ron Bennett, CEO of School Services of California. “I think he wanted to make sure it was fully implemented before he left office.” Bennett’s firm offers fiscal advice to most of California’s 1,000 school districts.
But masked by the state’s $6.1 billion projected surplus and the fat boost in education funding in Brown’s last year in office, Bennett said, the governor failed to restore education spending to the premiere status it held in his youth.
“I’m disappointed that absolutely nothing has been done to move California back on par with higher-spending states,” Bennett said.
While high spending doesn’t guarantee high achievement, Bennett points out parallels between low spending and low achievement. California is about 45th among states in per-pupil education spending, he noted, and at a similar level in achievement on standardized tests.
Measured by ratios of students to teachers, administrators, librarians, counselors and psychologists, he said. “California is a high-tax state,” he said, “with a low commitment to public education.”
But pointing that out to the public is a hard sell, as is explaining that a school district is cash-poor because of its demographics. “Overall, it is very confusing for families,” Bowman said. “It’s confusing for the educators who live it every day.”
|Posted on January 19, 2018 at 3:25 PM||comments (0)|
CSBA put together an excellent handout on the impact of rising pension costs. This is a great tool for board meetings or other forums with your stakeholders. Be sure to bookmark this one!
California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO) Eastern Section's Annual Conference 2.0!
|Posted on September 11, 2017 at 2:00 PM||comments (1)|
Registration is now open for the California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO) Eastern Section's Annual Conference 2.0!
This year's annual event will be held at the Riverside County Office of Education on Monday, September 25, 2017. This half-day professional development event offers a variety of break-out sessions, with an opportunity to meet and greet vendors, win exciting raffle prizes from sponsored vendors, and one lucky attendee will even win a complimentary 2018 Annual Conference registration from CASBO!
Attendance to this event qualifies for 3.5 hours of CASBO Continuing Education credit as well!
You may choose from any of the following great sessions upon registration:
§ "Do you think you're SACSy?" (1 Hour Session)
Presenter: Jennifer Marrone, Business Manager, Food & Nutrition Services, San Diego USD
§ "Child Nutrition Procurement, Implementing Buy America Procedures" (1 Hour Session)
Presenter: Bob Quanstrom, Director, Nutrition Services, Val Verde USD
§ "Night of the Living LCAP" (2 Hours Session)
Panelists: Thomas Cassida, Director of Business Advisory Services, San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools
Veronica Calderon, GA Generalist II, Lewis Center for Educational Research
Jeffrey Hinshaw, Director of Fiscal Services, Alvord USD
Jesus Holguin, Fiscal Analyst II, San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools
§ "Telling Your Story with Generational Preferences in Mind" (2 Hours Session)
Presenter: Dr. Suzette Lovely, Former Superintendent, Carlsbad USD
§ "Keeping up with Wage & Hour Law" (2 Hours Session)
Presenter: Todd Robins, Partner, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
§ "E-Rate" (2 Hours Session)
Presenter: Paula Prieto, Administrator I, Information Technology Services, Riverside COE with CSM Consulting
This year, our keynote luncheon speaker Dr. Martinrex Kedziora, Ed.D, Superintendent of Schools, Moreno Valley Unified School District, will be talk on "Professional Development & Growth Opportunities".
Registration includes continental breakfast and lunch. Attached are the Annual Conference 2.0 event flyer, RCOE location map, and RCOE parking information.
Online registration is now open at https://www.casbo.org/event/eastern-section-annual-conference-20 and closes on Monday, September 18, 2017.
|Posted on June 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM||comments (0)|
We have a budget.......
June 28, 2017
Gov. Jerry Brown signed the $183 billion state budget on Tuesday, after announcing he had reached an agreement on the details with legislative leaders earlier this month.
“California is taking decisive action by enacting a balanced state budget,” Brown said. “This budget provides money to repair our roads and bridges, pay down debt, invest in schools, fund the earned income tax credit and provide Medi-Cal health care for millions of Californians.”
The 2017-18 budget allocates more money to K-12 schools and community colleges, expected to increase by $3.1 billion over the 2016-17 level to $74.5 billion. School districts’ share of the increase will include $1.4 million more for the Local Control Funding Formula, bringing its full implementation to 97 percent complete.
Higher education including the University of California and California State University systems will receive $14.5 billion in General Fund money, with new funding to expand access to public institutions for California students and the creation of “guided pathways” that will enable students to earn degrees or credentials, while keeping attendance costs low.
A Full-Time Student Success Program will receive a $25 million increase to expand grant awards to community college students. And a new California Community College Completion Grant Program will receive $25 million to provide grants of up to $2,000 for community college students in need of financial aid who enroll in 15 units or more per semester and meet other criteria, including the completion of an educational plan.
The Middle Class Scholarship and maximum Cal Grant award of $9,084 for students attending private, nonprofit and accredited colleges and universities will be maintained, after the governor initially proposed to phase out the middle class scholarship and reduce Cal Grant awards to students in private, nonprofit colleges and universities.
The budget also requires the University of California to implement cost structure reforms to ensure the system is sustainable into the future, in part based on a critical audit of the office of the president.
Teacher training funding includes $25 million to expand a Classified Employee Teacher Credential Program that will provide grants to support recruiting of non-certificated school employees to participate in teacher preparation leading to becoming certificated public school teachers; $5 million to create a Bilingual Teacher Recruitment and Professional Development Program that will provide competitive grants to support training for teachers and instructional assistants who want to provide bilingual instruction in multilingual classrooms; and $11.3 million earmarked for a California Educator Development Program that will provide one-time competitive grants to assist schools and districts in recruiting and providing ongoing training for educators and school leaders in high-need subjects and schools through the redirection of federal Title II funds, which were originally earmarked for preparing, training, and recruiting high quality teachers and principals.
The budget also increases child care provider reimbursement rate ceilings, due to the state minimum wage increase. In addition, it increases child care eligibility by establishing that a family determined to be eligible for state-subsidized child care and development programs remains eligible for 12 months, regardless of a change in need or income, unless income exceeds 85 percent of the state median income.
Finally, the budget includes a $7.9 million increase to provide access for an additional 2,959 children from low-income families to full-day state preschool starting March 1, 2018.
|Posted on June 19, 2017 at 10:45 AM||comments (0)|
Looking for an update on the state of LCFF implementation? This meeting might be perfect for you then!
Thursday, June 22, 2017 - 1:00pm to 4:30pm
California Secretary of State Office Building Auditorium
1500 11th St, Sacramento, CA 95814
Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) is excited to invite you to The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Implementation and Impact Conference.