Assembly Member Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) has made it a goal of hers, since first being elected to the Assembly, to reform school funding to make it more simple and equitable and to give school districts and county offices of education more discretion over the use of funds. She is now pushing a major overhaul of revenue limits and categorical program funding in her AB 18. The bill will be heard in the Assembly Education Committee next Wed., May 4. Brownley chairs that committee.  The actual bill language is not yet in print but below is an outline of the concepts of the bill.

Revenue Limits Add-On

Brownley proposes to pull a number of current programs into the revenue limit as add-ons and create two broad-based grants made up of other programs. With respect to revenue limit add-ons, AB 18 proposes to consolidate 25 separate funding items into one per-ADA based funding source that will be intended as discretionary to local educational agencies (LEAs).
The programs proposed to be consolidated as revenue limit add-ons include:

• Current unemployment insurance add-on
• Current PERS adjustment add-on
• Supplemental School Counseling Program
• Non-special education Home-to-School Transportation
• Specialized Secondary Program Grants
• Gifted and Talented Education
• Education Technology - CTAP
• Emergency Repair Program
• Deferred Maintenance
• Instructional Materials Block Grant
• Community Day Schools
• National Board Certification Incentives
• CA School Age Families Education (CalSAFE)
• CA High School Exit Exam - Instructional Support & Services
• Civic Education
• Tearcher Dismissal Apportionment
• School Saftey Block Grant (8-12)
• 9th Grade Class Size Reduction
• Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Programs
• Pupil Retention Block Grant
• School and Library Improvement Block Grant
• School Saftey Consolidated Competitive Grants
• Arts and Music Block Grant
• Child Oral Health Assessments
• Adult Education - Schedule 1

Districts would get the same amount of each of these programs that they have been receiving. Those amounts would be divided by ADA and then added on to the revenue limit. 

Revised Grant for EL and Disadvantaged Students

In addition, the bill calls for consolidating eight programs into a Targeted Pupil Equity Grant, which would be targeted to disadvantaged students and English learners. The programs that would be folded into this grant would be:

Similar to the revenue limit add-ons, a calculation would be made for each LEA on the amount of these programs currently received; then the grant would be provided back to each LEA based on the number of disadvantaged and EL students. These funds would be required to be spent on services to support learning and improved academic performance for these students. The intent is to provide COLA and equalization funding to this grant in future years.

Quality Instruction Grant

A third grant is also proposed in the bill.  The grant will be called the Quality Instruction Grant and would include the consolidation of nine programs.  

This grant would be allocated on a per-ADA basis with the intent to provide COLA and equalization in future years. The grant is intended for professional development, class size reduction, teacher recruitment, and beginning teacher support.

Several Major Programs Continue to Stand Alone

Specific programs that are not included in the consolidations include, among other programs, special education, special education transportation, child nutrition, county office of education fiscal oversight, child development, apprenticeship programs, ROC/Ps, small school bus replacement, after school programs and the charter school facility grant program.

Is This Really Reform

It is obvious that AB 18 is going to be controversial as it affects the independence of a wide array of categorical programs.  The implementation of the bill is also designed to coincide with the ending of categorical flexibility.  However, is this reform of categorical flexibility Part II?  The bill is silent on happens to the statutory requirements contained in each program.  Will districts continue to have the maximum flexibility over these programs that they current have or will statutory requirements be reimposed?  The bill also does not repeal any related part of the Education Code.  Finally, the bill continues the current methodology of how schools are funded by maintaining the revenue limit, maintaining approximately 23 existing categorical programs and establishing two new block grants not too dissimilar to the current AB 825 block grants focused on at-risk students and instructional programs/professional development.  

Passing the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) has been part of the states graduation requirements beginning with the Graduation Class of 2006.  The issue of a student with disabilities passing the CAHSEE has always been a sensitive one and has gone through varies requirements over the last five years. The big question is where do we stand now?  

Background

Beginning with the Graduation Class of 2006, students with disabilities were able to request a waiver of the requirement of passing the CAHSEE if they meet specific requirements (Education Code Section 60851 (c)).  Often the student was unable to receive a waiver from taking the CAHSEE; as a result, the legislature enacted a provision of law (Education Code 60852.4) that allowed certain pupils with disabilities who were unable to receive a waiver, to meet a series of seven criteria to receive an exemption of the CAHSEE requirement.  This exemption sunset on December 31, 2007.  In January 2008, students with disabilities, who did not seek a waiver from taking a CAHSEE, were required to pass the CAHSEE graduation requirement in order to receive a high school diploma. 

In 2009, as part of the 2009-10 Budget deal, a provision was included that exempts eligible pupils with disabilities from having to pass the CAHSEE graduation requirement in order to receive a high school diploma. 

Beginning with the 2009-10 school year, an eligible pupil with a disability is not required to pass the high school exit exam as a condition of receiving a diploma of graduation or as a condition of graduation from high school.  This exemption will remain in effect until the State Board of Education (pursuant to Section 60852.1) makes a determination that the “alternative means” by which an eligible pupil with disabilities may demonstrate the same level of academic achievement in the content standards in English language arts or mathematics portions of, or those content standards required for passage of, the high school exit exam are: 1) not feasible or 2) alternative means have been implemented.

An eligible pupil with a disability is defined as a pupil with an individualized education program (IEP) or a 504 Section plan that indicates the pupil is scheduled to receive a high school diploma, and that the pupil has satisfied or will satisfy all other state and local requirements for the receipt of a high school diploma, on or after July 1, 2009.

In the mean time, the SPI & SBE where required to establish an Advisory Panel to look at “alternative means” by which an eligible pupil with disabilities may demonstrate the same academic achievement. 

The evaluation of “alternative means” was a provision that was placed into law via AB 2040 (Nunez, Chapter 666, Statutes of 2008) which required the Superintendent of Public Instruction to convene an advisory panel to look at “alternative means”  by which an eligible pupil with disabilities may demonstrate the same level of academic achievement in the content standards in English language arts or mathematics portions of, or those content standards required for passage of, the high school exit exam are: 1) not feasible or 2) alternative means have been implemented.

The panel was required to present its options and make its findings to the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education by October 1, 2009.  This provision was extended and at the September 2010 SBE meeting, the CDE presented several options for scale scores on the CST in ELA, grades 9 & 10 and the CST in Algebra 1 and also declared that it is feasible to create alternative means by which eligible students with disabilities may demonstrate the same level of academic achievement required for passage of the CAHSEE.  The SBE adopted emergency regulations and approved commencement of the rulemaking process to adopt permanent regulations extending the date of implementation of alternative means to the CAHSEE for eligible students with disabilities to July 1, 2012.

SBE approves a pilot study for alternative means to the California High School Exit Examination (CASHEE)

At the March 2011 SBE meeting, the Board approved the immediate commencement of a pilot study for alternative means to the California High School Exit Examination (CASHEE) for eligible students with disabilities (SWDs). 

The SBE approved the pilot study, largely based on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Special Education (ACSE).  ACSE believes that there are a large number of students with disabilities that have attained the same level of academic achievement as that required for passage of the CASHEE, but have been unable to demonstrate it using traditional means such as standardized tests.  The pilot will include work in both Tier I & Tier II.  The work would involve the development of a plan to improve Tier I (scale scores on test) and design of the collection of evidence described in Tier II.  The pilot study will use the following scale scores in Tier I:

•  The use of a scale score of 300 for the CST in ELA, grades 9 through 11, and a scale score of 269 for the CST in Algebra I, as an alternative scale score for passage of the ELA and mathematics portions of the CAHSEE.

• The use of a scale score for the CMA in ELA, grades 9 through 11, and a scale score for the CMA in Algebra I, as an alternative scale score for passage of the ELA and mathematics portions of the CAHSEE.

We will keep you posted on this important issue.