An Overview of theLocal Control Funding Formula

7/27/2019 An Overview of theLocal Control Funding Formula

1/20

A Ovevie o teLocal Cotol Fig FolaM AC TAy lo r l e g i s l A T i v e A n A l y s T J uly 29, 2 013

Exective Sa

Chapter 47, Statutes o 2013 (AB 97, Committee on Budget)enacted as part o the 201314

budget packagemade major changes both to the way the state allocates unding to school districts

and the way the state supports and intervenes in underperorming districts. Te legislation was the

culmination o more than a decade o research and policy work on Caliornias K12 unding system.

Tis report describes the major components o the legislation, with the rst hal o the report

describing the states new unding ormula and the second hal describing the states new system o

district support and intervention. Troughout the report, we ocus primarily on how the legislation

aects school districts, but we also mention some o the main eects on charter schools. (Tis report

does not cover the new unding ormula or county oces o education [COEs], which diers in

signicant ways rom the new district ormula.) Te report answers many o the questions that have

been raised in the aermath o passage regarding the nal decisions made by the Legislature and theGovernor in craing new K12 unding and accountability systems or Caliornia.

Contents

T Frmula .....................................................................................................................2

Cmp ........................................................................................................................... 2

spdig Rrici ............................................................................................................ 6

C Frmula ...................................................................................................................... 8

Diribuial efc Frmula .......................................................................................... 8

traparcy ad Accuabiliy Udr nw sym ..................................................10

Diric Dvlpm ad Adpi LCAP ....................................................................10

Coe Rviw Diric LCAP .............................................................................................13

suppr ad Irvi .....................................................................................................13

Majr Dcii Lay Ahad ...........................................................................................18

Cclui ......................................................................................................................19


2/20

ThE FOrmuLA

same rates previously used to set charter school

gradespan unding rates). Tese gradespan

dierences are intended to recognize the generally

higher costs o education at higher grade levels.

Adjusts Early Elementary and High School

Base Rates. Te LCFF includes certain adjustments

to the K3 and high school base rates. Tese

adjustments eectively increase the base rates

or these two grade spans. Te K3 adjustment

increases the K3 base rate by 10.4 percent (or

initially $712 per ADA)or an adjusted, initial

K3 base rate o $7,557. Tis adjustment is intended

to cover costs associated with class size reduction(CSR) in the early grades. (Te $712 perpupil

adjustment refects the average K3 CSR rate under

the previous unding rules.) Te high school

adjustment increases the grades 912 base rate by

2.6 percent (or initially $216 per ADA)or an

adjusted, initial high school base rate o $8,505.

Tis adjustment is not designated or any particular

activity, but the genesis o the adjustment related

Components

One o the main components o Chapter 47 is

the creation o the local control unding ormula(LCFF). Te LCFF has several components, as

described below. (Except where otherwise noted,

the components that apply to school districts also

apply to charter schools.)

Sets Uniorm, Grade-Span Base Rates. Under

the new ormula, districts receive the bulk o

their unding based on average daily attendance

(ADA) in our grade spans. Figure 1 displays the

our LCFF gradespan base rates as specied in

Chapter 47. Each year, beginning in 201314, these

target base rates are to be updated or costoliving

adjustments (COLAs). Te dierences among

the target gradespan rates refect the dierences

among existing unding levels across the grade

spans. Specically, the new baserate dierentials

are linked to the dierentials in 201213 statewide

average revenue limit rates by district type (the

Figure 1

Overview of Local Control Funding Formulaa

Formula Component Rates/Rules

Target base rates (per ADA)b K-3: $6,845

4-6: $6,947

7-8: $7,154

9-12: $8,289

Base rate adjustments K-3: 10.4 percent o base rate.

9-12: 2.6 percent o base rate.

Supplemental unding or certain student subgroups(per EL/LI student and oster youth)

20 percent o adjusted base rate.

Concentration unding Each EL/LI student above 55 percent o enrollmentgenerates an additional 50 percent o adjusted base rate.

Add-ons Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant, Home-to-School Transportation, Economic Recovery Target.

a Applies to school districts and charter schools.b Reects target rates as specifed in statute. Does not include 1.57 percent cost-o-living adjustment provided in 2013-14.

ADA = average daily attendance; EL = English learner; and LI = low-income (defned as a student receiving a ree or reduced price meal).

2 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.a.ca.

A n LA O Re p ORt


3/20

to the costs o providing career technical education

(CE) in high school. (Te $216 adjustment refects

the average total amount spent per pupil on CE

categorical programs under the old system.)

Moving orward, the adjustment percentages will

remain the same, though the dollar value o theadjustments will increase as the base rates rise due

to COLAs.

Includes Supplemental Funding or English

Learners and Low-Income (EL/LI) Students. Te

LCFF provides additional unds or particular

student groups. Under the ormula, each EL/LI

student and oster youth in a district generates an

additional 20 percent o the qualiying students

adjusted gradespan base rate. For instance, an LI

kindergartener generates an additional $1,511 or

the district, which is 20 percent o the adjusted

K3 base rate o $7,557. (Because all oster youth

also meet the states LI denition, hereaer we do

not reer to them as a separate subgroup.) For the

purposes o generating this supplemental unding(as well as the concentration unding discussed

below), a districts EL/LI count is based on a

threeyear rolling average o EL/LI enrollment.

Students who are both EL and LI are counted only

once (known as an unduplicated count). For more

inormation regarding the classication o EL/LI

student groups, see the nearby box.

Provides Concentration Funding or Districts

With Higher EL/LI Populations. Districts

Classicatio o Eglis Leae/Lo-Icoe (EL/LI) Stets

Classication o EL Students. For the purposes o the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF),

students are classied as EL based on a home language survey and the Caliornia English Language

Development est (CELD). I a parent or guardian reports on the home language survey that a

language other than English is the students initial language learned or the primary language used at

home, the student is required to take the CELD. I the student is determined by the school district

not to be English procient based on CELD results, then the student is classied as EL. Each year

thereaer, an EL student is reassessed using the CELD. Once a student is determined to be English

procientbased on CELD results, perormance on other state assessments, teacher input, and

local criteriathe student is reclassied as Fluent English Procient (FEP). Each school district can

use its own criteria or reclassiying EL students as FEP. Under the LCFF, no time limit is placed on

how long an EL student can generate supplemental and concentration unding or a district, but a

student reclassied as FEP who is not also LI will no longer generate additional unding.

Classication o LI Students. For the purposes o the LCFF, LI students are those that qualiy

or ree and reduced price meals (FRPM). Eligibility or FRPM is determined by school districts

through a variety o means. In many cases, students are determined FRPMeligible through an

application process sent to students households. I a households income is below 185 percent othe ederal poverty line ($43,568 or a amily o our), the student is eligible or FRPM. In other

cases, students are directly certied as FRPMeligible due to participation in other social service

programs, such as the Caliornia Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids program. Foster

youth automatically are eligible or FRPM, thereore the oster amilys income has no bearing on

the oster students FRPM eligibility. An LI student wil l generate supplemental and concentration

unding or a district until the student is no longer FRPMeligible.

www.a.ca.LegislativeAnalystsOfce 3

A n LA O Re p ORt


4/20

whose EL/LI populations exceed 55 percent o

their enrollment receive concentration unding.

Specically, as shown in Figure 2, these districts

receive an additional 50 percent o the adjusted base

grant or each EL/LI student above the 55 percent

threshold. (A charter school cannot receiveconcentration unding or a greater proportion o

EL/LI students than the district in which it resides.

For instance, i a charter school has 80 percent EL/

LI enrollment but the district in which it resides

has only 60 percent EL/LI enrollment, the charter

schools concentration unding is capped based on

60 percent EL/LI enrollment. I a charter school

has multiple sites located in multiple districts,

its concentration unding is capped based on the

encompassing district with the highest EL/LI

concentration, or its own EL/LI concentration i

lower.)

Efect o Supplemental and Concentration

Funding on a Districts otal Allocation.

In the description above, the supplement

and concentration actors are described in

perstudent terms. Alternatively, the supplement

and concentration actors can be viewed in

perdistrict terms. Tinking o the supplement and

concentration actor in this latter way allows total

district unding allocations to be compared moreeasily. As seen in Figure 3, as a districts proportion

o EL/LI students increases, so does its total

unding allocation. For instance, a district with

50 percent EL/LI students has a total allocation that

is 10 percent higher than the samesized district

with no EL/LI students. In Figure 3, the rst section

o the line (colored blue) shows percent increases in

a districts unding allocation up to the 55 percent

EL/LI threshold, whereas the second section o

the line (colored red) shows unding increases

once a district passes the 55 percent concentration

threshold and begins receiving concentration

unding in addition to supplemental unding.

As shown in the gure, a district in which every

student is EL/LI has a total unding allocation

Illustration of How LCFF Works

Elementary District

Figure 2

EL/LI = English learner/low-income.

Base K-3 Rate K-3 Adjustment EL/LI Supplement EL/LI Concentration

$6,845

$6,845

$6,845

$712

$712

$712

$1,511

$1,511 $3,779

Concentration Threshold(55 percent of enrollment)

Funding Each Student Generates

Total

$9,068

$12,847

$7,557

Student

EL/LI

EL/LI

Non-EL/LI


A n LA O Re p ORt


5/20

42.5 percent greater than the samesized district

with no EL/LI students.

reats wo Existing Categorical Funding

Streams as Add-Ons. Funds rom two

existing programsthe argeted Instructional

Improvement Block Grant and HometoSchool(HS) ransportation programare treated

as addons to the LCFF. Districts that received

unding rom these programs in 201213 will

continue to receive that same amount o unding

in addition to what the LCFF provides each year.

Districts that did not receive unds rom these

programs in 201213 do not receive these addons

moving orward.

Also Provides New Economic Recovery arget

(ER) Add-On to Some Districts. Had the revenue

limit decit actor been retired and categorical

program unding been restored, the previous

unding system would have generated greater

levels o unding than the LCFF or approximately

230 districts (about 20 percent o districts). o

address this issue, the new unding system provides

the ER addon to a subset o these districts.As shown in Figure 4 (see next page), the ER

addon amount equals the dierence between

the amount a district would have received under

the old system and the amount a district would

receive based on the LCFF in 202021. o derive

the amount a district would have received under

the old system in 202021, assumptions are made

that the revenue limit decit actor would have

been retired, a 1.94 percent COLA would have been

applied to revenue limits every year rom 201314

through 202021, and categorical unding would be

How a Districts EL/LI Concentration Affects its LCFF Allocation

Percent Increase in District Funding Allocation

Figure 3

2

6

10

14

18

22

26

30

34

38

42%

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%55

Percent of EL/LI Students in District

Due to Supplemental Funding

Due to Supplemental and Concentration Funding

EL/LI = English learner/low-income.


A n LA O Re p ORt


6/20

increased to the districts

200708 level (refecting

an increase o 24 percent

over the 201213 level).

Approximately 130

districts are eligible toreceive the ER addon.

Te 100 remaining

districts are not eligible

or the addon because o

their exceptionally high

perpupil unding rates.

Specically, a provision

disallows a district rom

receiving an ER addon

i its unding exceeds

the 90th percentile o

perpupil unding rates

under the old system

(estimated to be approximately $14,500 per pupil in

202021).

spending RestRiCtions

Te LCFF eliminates the vast majority o

categorical spending restrictions. In their place, theLCFF establishes a more limited set o spending

restrictions, some o which apply over the long

term and some o which are applicable only during

the initial transition period.

Log-Te Seig reqieets

Many Existing Categorical Spending

Requirements Removed. Approximately three

quarters o categorical programs were eliminated in

tandem with the creation o the LCFF. As a result,

the majority o categorical spending restrictions

that districts aced under the old system were

eliminated. Under the new system, 14 categorical

programs remain. Figure 5 lists those categorical

programs that were eliminated and those that are

retained under the new system.

Districts Eventually Must Ensure

Proportionality When Spending EL/LI

Funds. Under the LCFF, districts will have to

use supplemental and concentration unds to

increase or improve services or EL/LI pupils in

proportion to the increase in unds apportioned

on the basis o the number and concentrationo unduplicated pupils. Te exact meaning and

regulatory eect o this proportionality clause is

currently unknown. On or beore January 31, 2014,

the State Board o Education (SBE) is required to

promulgate regulations regarding how this clause

will be operationalized. Tese regulations also will

include the conditions under which districts can

use supplemental and concentration unds on a

schoolwide basis.

Districts Encouraged to Have K-3 Class

Sizes No More Tan 24 Students. Under ull

implementation o the LCFF, as a condition o

receiving the K3 baserate adjustment, districts

must maintain a K3 schoolsite average class size o

24 or ewer students, unless collectively bargained

otherwise. I a district negotiates a dierent class

Calculating Economic Recovery Target (ERT)

Total District Funding Allotment

Figure 4

Old System New System

RevenueLimit

Funding

LCFF

ERTCategorical

Funding


A n LA O Re p ORt


7/20

size or those grades, the district is not subject

to this provision and will continue to receive the

adjustment. Absent a related collective bargaining

provision, were a particular school site in a district

to exceed an average class size o 24, the district

would lose the K3 adjustment or all its K3 schoolsites.

Restrictions on HS ransportation Funding

Maintained. Starting in 201314, districts

receiving the HS ransportation addon must

expend the same amount o those unds or HS

ransportation as they spent in 201213. Districts

that did not receive HS ransportation unds

in 201213 and thereore are not eligible or the

addon moving orward, do not have similar

transportation spending requirements.

Sot-Te reqieets

Specic Maintenance-o-Efort (MOE)

Requirements Imposed During First wo Years

o Implementation. School districts are required

to spend no less in 201314 and 201415 than they

did in 201213 on Regional Occupational Centers

and Programs (ROCPs) and Adult Education. I

districts received unding or ROCPs and/or HS

ransportation through a joint powers authority

(JPA), they must continue to pass through those

unds to the JPA in 201314 and 201415. Funds

used to satisy these MOE requirements count

towards a districts LCFF allocation. Consequently,

districts subject to these MOE requirements will

have relatively less general purpose unding overthis twoyear period. (A district that already shied

all unds away rom these programs as part o its

Figure 5

Treatment of Categorical Programs Under LCFF

Retained Programs

Adults in Correctional Facilities

Ater School Education and Saety

Agricultural Vocational Education

American Indian Education Centers andEarly Childhood Education Program

Assessments

Child Nutrition

Foster Youth Services

Mandates Block Grant

Partnership Academies

Quality Education Improvement ActSpecial Education

Specialized Secondary Programs

State Preschool

Eliminated Programs

Advanced Placement Fee Waiver Instructional Materials Block Grant

Alternative Credentialing International Baccalaureate Diploma Program

Caliornia High School Exit Exam Tutoring National Board Certifcation Incentives

Caliornia School Age Families Oral Health Assessments

Categorical Programs or New Schools Physical Education Block Grant

Certifcated Sta Mentoring Principal Training

Charter School Block Grant Proessional Development Block Grant

Civic Education Proessional Development or Math and English

Community-Based English Tutoring School and Library Improvement Block Grant

Community Day School (extra hours) School Saety

Deerred Maintenance School Saety Competitive Grant

Economic Impact Aid Sta Development

Educational Technology Student Councils

Gited and Talented Education Summer School Programs

Grade 7-12 Counseling Teacher Credentialing Block Grant

High School Class Size Reduction Teacher Dismissal


A n LA O Re p ORt


8/20

response to categorical fexibility is not subject to

these MOE requirements.)

Districts Must Make Progress oward Meeting

CSR Goal During ransition Period. As mentioned

earlier, to receive the K3 baserate adjustment,

districts by ull LCFF implementation must reduceK3 class size to no more than 24 students, unless

collectively bargained otherwise. Over the phasein

period (discussed later in more detail), districts

must make progress toward this goal in proportion

to the growth in their unding. For example, i a

district started with an average K3 class size o

28 students, and it received new unding equivalent

to 10 percent o its LCFF unding gap, that district

would have to reduce average K3 class size to

27.6 students (10 percent o the dierence between

28 and 24). Similar to the CSR requirement under

ull implementation, this interim requirement does

not apply to districts that collectively bargain K3

class sizes.

Costof foRmula

As explained below, the LCFF costs

signicantly more than the previous unding

system. As a result, it will take several years to ullytransition to the new unding ormula.

Fully Implementing LCFF and ER Add-On

Estimated to Cost an Additional $18Billion. Were

the state to ully implement the LCFF in 201314,

the costs would be $18 billion more than the state

spent on K12 education in 201213. (Tis assumes

current levels o ADA, EL/LI enrollment, and

property tax revenue.) Given the cost, coupled with

projected growth in Proposition 98 unding, ully

implementing the new system is anticipated to take

eight years. Each year the total General Fund cost

o the new system will change somewhat due to

providing COLAs, fuctuations in ADA and student

demographics, and growth in property tax revenue.

Additional LCFF Funding to Be Allocated

Based on Funding Gap.Over the course o

implementation, districts will receive new unding

based on the dierence (or gap) between their

prioryear unding level and their target LCFF

unding level. Every district will see the same

proportion o their gap closed, but the dollar

amount they receive will vary depending on thesize o their gap. For example, in 201314, districts

(in most cases) will have 12 percent o their gap

lled. For a district whose gap is $100 million, this

corresponds to $12 million in additional unding.

For a district whose gap is $10 million, this

corresponds to $1.2 million in additional unding.

Figure 6 depicts transition unding or years one,

our, and eight or a nonER district as well as an

ER district (discussed below).

Funding or ER Add-On to Be Allocated

in Equal Increments Over Eight-Year Period.

Districts eligible to receive the ER addon

will receive incremental ER unding over the

course o implementation in addition to their gap

unding discussed above. As depicted in Figure 6,

an ER district will receive the same proportion

o gap unding towards its LCFF target as other

nonER districts, as well as a portion o its ER

addon. In 201314, an ER district wil l receiveoneeighth o its addon, in year two twoeighths,

in year three threeeighths, etcetera. In year eight

(the estimated year o ul l implementation), ER

districts will receive their ull ER addon (as

calculated in 201314) and will continue to receive

this addon amount in perpetuity. Changes in the

implementation timeline or LCFF will not aect

the ER unding schedule.

distRibutional effeCtsof foRmula

Vast Majority o Districts to Receive More

State Aid, No District to Get Less State Aid.

Te vast majority o districts will see signicant

increases in unding under the LCFF. Tat

notwithstanding, statute urther includes a hold

harmless provision that species no district is to


A n LA O Re p ORt


9/20


10/20

isolated are no longer eligible or NSS

unding. As a result, these districts 201213

unding levels exceed their LCFF targets

and they will continue receiving their

201213 amounts until those amounts drop

below their LCFF targets.

Anomalous Districts. Some districts had

unding levels under the old system that

were abnormally high either because o

peculiar categorical rules (such as receiving

an extremely high mealsorneedy

pupils addon) or peculiar charterschool

conversion rules (used by a ew districts

to receive signicant scal benet rom

conversions). Tese districts also will

continue to receive their 201213 unding

amounts until those amounts drop below

their LCFF targets.

A Few Districts Likely to Fall Out o Basic

Aid Status and Begin Receiving State Aid.

Under the previous unding system, property tax

revenue counted only against a districts revenue

limits. Consequently, basic aid districts were

those districts whose revenue limit entitlementswere equal to or less than their local property

tax revenue. Under the LCFF, local property tax

revenue counts against a districts entire LCFF

allocation (which has base rates higher than old

revenue limit rates and greater unding or EL/

LI students). As a result, the threshold or basic

aid status is signicantly higher under the LCFF.

Moreover, some districts recently entered basic aid

status as a result o state cuts in revenue limit rates.

Tese districts are most likely to all out o basic aid

status under the new system, but a ew other basic

aid districts also might all out o basic aid status

due to increased unding levels under the LCFF.

TrAnSpArEnCy And ACCOunTAbILITy

undEr nEw SySTEm

In addition to adopting a new unding ormula,Chapter 47 establishes a set o new rules relating

to school district transparency and accountability.

Specically, under the new rules, districts are

required to adopt Local Control and Accountability

Plans (LCAPs) that disclose how unds will be spent

to provide highquality educational programs.

Districts that do not meet the goals specied

in their plans and ail to improve educational

outcomes receive assistance through a new system

o support and intervention. We describe this new

system in more detail below.

distRiCt developmentand

adoptionof lCaps

Districts Must Set Annual Goals in Eight

Specied Areas. Each LCAP must include a school

districts annual goals in each o the eight areasshown in Figure 7. Tese eight areas o specied

state priorities are intended to encompass the

key ingredients o highquality educational

programs. Figure 8 (see page 12) identies how

districts are to measure success in each o the

eight areas, with districts required to include

associated data in their LCAPs. Te plans must

include both districtwide goals and goals or each

numerically signicant student subgroup in the

district. (o be numerically signicant, a district

must have at least 30 students in a subgroup, with

the exception o oster youth, or which districts

must have at least 15 students.) Te student

subgroups that must be addressed in the LCAPs

are listed in Figure 9 (see page 12). (In addition

to specied state priorities, districts LCAPs can


A n LA O Re p ORt


11/20

include annual goals in selselected areas o local

priority.)

Districts Must Speciy Actions Tey Will ake

to Achieve Goals. A districts LCAP must speciy

the actions the district plans to take to achieve

its annual goals. Te specied actions must bealigned with the school districts adopted budget.

For example, a school district could speciy that it

intends to provide tutors to all EL students reading

below grade level to improve its EL reclassication

rate. o ensure the LCAP and adopted budget

were aligned, the school district would be required

to include sucient unding or EL tutors in its

adopted budget plan.

Districts Must Use SBE-Adopted LCAP

emplate. In preparing their LCAP, districts

are required to use a template developed by SBE.

Te template is intended to create consistency in

LCAPs across the state and assist school districts in

developing their plans. Te SBE is required to adopt

the LCAP template by March 31, 2014.

Districts Must Solicit Input From Various

Stakeholders in Developing Plan. Figure 10

(see page 13) outlines the process a district must

ollow in adopting its LCAP. One o the mainprocedural requirements is that a district consults

with its school employees, parents, and students.

As part o this consultation process, districts must

present their proposed plans to a parent advisory

committee and, in some cases, a separate EL

parent advisory committee. (EL parent advisory

committees are required only i ELs comprise at

least 15 percent o the districts enrollment or the

district has at least 50 EL students.) Te advisory

committees can review and comment on the

proposed plan. Districts must respond in writing to

the comments o the advisory committees. Districts

also are required to notiy members o the public

LCAP = Local Control and Accountability Plan.

Student Achievement

School Climate

Basic Services

Other Student Outcomes

Parental Involvement

Course Access

Student Engagement

Implementation of CommonCore State Standards

Areas of State Priority

Eight Areas of State Priority Must Be Addressed in LCAPs

Figure 7


A n LA O Re p ORt


12/20

that they may submit written comments regarding

the specic actions and expenditures proposed in

the LCAP.

LCAP to Be Adopted Every Tree Years And

Updated Annually. Districts are required to adopt

an LCAP by July 1, 2014 and every three years

thereaer. In the interim years between adoptions,

districts are required annually to update their

LCAPs using the SBE template. Annual updates

must review a school districts progress towardsmeeting the goals set orth in its LCAP, assess the

eectiveness o the specic actions taken toward

achieving these goals, and describe any changes

the district will make as a result o this review and

assessment. Te school district also must speciy

the expenditures or the next scal year that will be

used to support EL/LI and oster youth students.

Performance on standardized tests. Score on Academic Performance Index. Share of students that are college and career ready. Share of ELs that become English proficient. EL reclassification rate. Share of students that pass Advanced Placement

exams with 3 or higher. Share of students determined prepared for college

by the Early Assessment Program.

Required Data for Each of Eight State Priority Areas

Figure 8

Student Engagement

School attendance rates. Chronic absenteeism rates. Middle school dropout rates. High school dropout rates. High school graduation rates.

Other Student Outcomes

Other indicators of student performance inrequired areas of study. May include performanceon other exams.

School Climate

Student suspension rates. Student expulsion rates. Other local measures.

Parental Involvement

Efforts to seek parent input.

Promotion of parental participation.

Basic Services

Rate of teacher misassignment. Student access to standards-aligned

instructional materials. Facilities in good repair.

Implementation of Common CoreState Standards (CCSS)

Implementation of CCSS for all students, includingEL.

Course Access

Student access and enrollment in all requiredareas of study.

Student Achievement

EL = English learner.

Figure 9

Student Subgroups to Be Included inLocal Control and Accountability Plans

Racial/Ethnic Subgroups:

Black or Arican American

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Filipino

Hispanic or Latino

Native Hawaiian or Pacifc Islander

White

Two or more races

Other Subgroups:

Socioeconomically disadvantaged students

English learners

Students with disabilities

Foster youth


A n LA O Re p ORt


13/20

Districts also are required to hold at least two

public hearings to discuss and adopt (or update)

their LCAPs. Te district must rst hold at least one

hearing to solicit recommendations and comments

rom the public regarding expenditures proposed

in the plan. It then must adopt (or ocially update)the LCAP at a subsequent hearing.

Coe Reviewof distRiCt lCaps

COE Can Ask or Clarication, Make

Recommendations Regarding District LCAPs.

Within ve days o adopting (or updating) its

LCAP, a district must submit its plan to its COE

or review. Figure 11 (see next page) displays the

process o COE review. Beore August 15 o each

year, the COE can seek clarication in writing

rom the district about the contents o its LCAP.

Te district must respond to these requests

within 15 days. Ten, within 15 days o receiving

the districts response, the COE can submit

recommendations or amendments to the LCAP

back to the district. Te district must consider the

COE recommendations at a public hearing within

15 days, but the district is not required to make

changes to its plan.

COE Must Approve LCAP i Required ProcessFollowed and Plan Aligned With Budget. Te

COE must approve a districts LCAP by October 8

i it determines that (1) the plan adheres to the

SBE template and (2) the districts budgeted

expenditures are sucient to implement the

strategies outlined in its LCAP. As we discuss

in the next section, districts whose LCAPs are

not approved by the COE are required to receive

additional support.

suppoRtand inteRvention

Chapter 47 also establishes a system o support

and intervention or school districts that do not

meet perormance expectations or the eight state

Develop proposed plan.

Solicit written commentson proposed plan from public.

Present proposed plan to parentadvisory committees for reviewand comment.

Solicit recommendations andcomments from the public in hearing.

Respond in writingto comments of parentadvisory committees.

Adopt plan in public hearing.

Consult with schoolemployees, parents,and students.

School District LCAP Adoption Process

Figure 10

LCAP = Local Control and Accountability Plan.


A n LA O Re p ORt


14/20

priority areas identied in the LCAP. Below, we

discuss this new system in greater detail. (Tis

system works somewhat dierently or charter

schools. We discuss the major dierences in the

box on page 16.)

ne rics to deteie i disticts

nee Sot o Itevetio

COE Must Assess School District Perormance

Based on SBE-Adopted Rubrics. As shown in

Figure 12, SBE must develop three new rubrics or

assessing a school districts perormance. Te SBE

is to adopt all three rubrics by October 1, 2015.Te rubrics are to be holistic and consider multiple

measures o district and school perormance as

well as set expectations or improvement or each

numerically signicant subgroup in each o the

eight state priority areas.

Sot o Stgglig Scool disticts

Tree Reasons Districts Can Be Flagged or

Additional Support. School districts are required

to receive additional support in the ollowing three

instances.

LCAP Not Approved by COE. A district

is required to receive support i its LCAP

is not approved by the COE because it

does not ollow the SBE template or is not

aligned with the districts budget plan.

District Requests Assistance. A district

may specically request additional support.

District Not Improving Student

Outcomes. A district must receive support

i, based on the support rubric, it does not

improve outcomes in more than one state

priority area or at least one subgroup.

COE Review of Local Control and Accountability Plans

District Actions: COE Actions:

Figure 11

Seeks clarification about contents

of plan from district by August 15.

Submits recommended amendmentsto plan back to district within 15 days.

Reviews plan to determine if it meetsrequirements (adheres to SBE

template and aligns with district

budget).

Submits locally approved planto COE five days after adoption.

Responds to COE request for

clarification within 15 days.

Considers COE recommendations

in a public hearing within 15 days.

If plan meets requirements,approves plan by October 8.

If plan does not meet

requirements, does not approveplan, provides support.

COE = County Office of Education and SBE = State Board of Education.


A n LA O Re p ORt


15/20

Tree Forms o Support. Under the newsystem, COEs are responsible or providing school

districts with certain types o support. As Figure 13

shows, COEs can provide three types o support.

COE Review of Strengths and

Weaknesses. Te COE can deliver assis

tance by providing a written review o

the districts strengths and weaknessesin the eight state priority areas. Te COE

review also must identiy evidencebased

programs that could be used by the school

district to meet its annual goals.

Assign an Academic Expert. Te

COE can assign an academic expert or

Figure 12

State Board of Education (SBE) Required to Adopt Three New Rubrics

Chapter 47, Statutes of 2013 (AB 97, Committee on Budget) requires SBE to develop and adopt the following three evaluation rubrics by

October 1, 2015.

9 Self-Assessment Rubric. This rubric is to assist districts in evaluating their strengths and weaknesses.

9 Support Rubric. This rubric is to be used by COEs to determine if a school district does not improve outcomes in more thanone state priority for at least one subgroup, and thus is required to receive some form of support.

9 Intervention Rubric. This rubric is to be used by the SPI to determine if a district does not improve outcomes in three out offour consecutive school years for three or more subgroups in more than one state or local priority, and thus is considered to be

persistently failing.

COE = County Ofce o Education and SPI = Superintendent o Public Instruction.

COE Options for Providing District Support

COE review of strengthsand weaknesses.

Assistance from CCEE.Assignment of academic expert.

New System of School District Support and Intervention

Figure 13

SPI Options for District Intervention

Stay or rescind any actionby district governing boardthat would prevent studentimprovement.

Impose budget revision aligned to LCAP changes.Change district LCAP.

COE = County Office of Education; CCEE = California Collaborative for Educational Excellence; SPI = Superintendent of Public Instruction;and LCAP = Local Control and Accountability Plan.


A n LA O Re p ORt


16/20

team o experts to assist the district in

implementing eective programs that are

likely to improve outcomes in the eight

areas o state priority. Te COE also can

assign another school district within the

county to serve as a partner or the schooldistrict in need o assistance.

Request Assistance From Newly

Established Agency. Te COE can

request that the SPI assign the Caliornia

Collaborative or Educational Excellence

(CCEE), a newly established agency, to

provide assistance to the school district.

(We discuss the role o the CCEE in more

detail in the box on page 18.)

Itevetio i pesistetl

Failig Scool disticts

SPI Can Intervene in Select Cases. For a

persistently underperorming school district,

the SPI can intervene to assist the district in

improving its education outcomes. Te SPI can

intervene, however, only i all three o the ollowing

conditions are met.

Persistent Failure for Several Years.

Te SPI can intervene i, based on the

intervention rubric, the district does not

improve outcomes in three out o our

consecutive school years or three or more

subgroups in more than one state or local

priority area.

ne Sste woks Soeat difeetl o Cate Scools

Chapter 47, Statutes o 2013 (AB 97, Committee on Budget) requires charter schools to adopt

Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs), have their perormance assessed using rubrics

adopted by the State Board o Education (SBE), and receive support rom its authorizer or the

Caliornia Collaborative or Education Excellence (CCEE). Te charter school process, however,

works somewhat dierently rom the school district process. We describe the major dierencesbelow.

Charter School LCAP Adoption Process Diferent in wo Ways. Chapter 47 requires the

petition or a charter school to include an LCAP that establishes goals or each o the eight state

priorities (and any identied local priorities) and species the actions the charter school will take to

meet these goals. Te LCAP must be updated annually by the charter schools governing board. Like

school districts, charter schools are required to consult with school employees, parents, and students

when developing their annual updates. Te LCAP adoption process is dierent, however, in that

charter schools are exempt rom the specic requirements to solicit public comment and hold public

hearings that apply to school districts. Charter schools also are not required to have their plans

approved by the County Oce o Education (COE).

Support Required or Persistently Failing Charter Schools. Like school districts, charter

schools must have their perormance assessed based on the new SBE rubrics. For charter schools,

however, this assessment is to be conducted by the charter authorizer rather than the COE. A

charter school is required to receive support rom its authorizer i, based on the intervention

rubric, it does not improve outcomes in three out o our consecutive school years or three or more


A n LA O Re p ORt


17/20

CCEE Determines Intervention Is

Necessary. Te SPI can intervene i the

CCEE has provided assistance and deter

mines both that (1) the district has not been

able or will not be able to implement CCEE

recommendations and (2) the districtsperormance is so persistently or severely

poor that SPI intervention is necessary.

SBE Approves Intervention. Te SPI can

intervene only with approval o SBE.

Provides Tree New Powers to SPI. I the above

conditions are met, the SPI can intervene directly

or assign an academic trustee to work on his or her

behal. Te SPI can intervene in the ollowing three

ways.

subgroups in more than one state or local priority areathe same standard applied or determining

whether the Superintendent o Public Instruction (SPI) intervention is necessary in a school district.

(Unlike school districts, a charter school that is determined to be struggling based on the support

rubric is not required to receive support.) In addition to the support rom the charter authorizer, the

SPI may assign the CCEE to provide the charter school with support i the authorizer requests and

SBE approves the assistance. (I a charter school requests support but is not underperorming based

on the intervention rubric, the charter authorizer and CCEE are not required to provide support.)

Instead o SPI Intervention, Charter Can Be Revoked by Authorizer. Te charter authorizer

can consider revoking a charter i the CCEE provides a charter school with support and determines

that (1) the charter school has not been able or will not be able to implement CCEE recommenda

tions and (2) the charter schools perormance is so persistently or severely poor that revocation is

necessary. I the authorizer revokes a charter or one o these reasons, the decision is not subject to

appeal. Consistent with current law, the authorizer must consider student academic achievement as

the most important actor in determining whether to revoke the charter.

Te SBE Also Can Revoke Charter or ake Other Actions Based on Poor Academic

Perormance. Te SBEbased upon a recommendation rom the SPIalso can revoke a charter ortake other appropriate actions i the charter school ai ls to improve student outcomes across multiple

state and local priority areas. (Prior to the adoption o Chapter 47, SBE could take similar action or

charter schools only i the schools were (1) engaging in gross nancial mismanagement, (2) illegally

or improperly using unds, or (3) implementing instructional practices that substantially departed

rom measurably successul practices and jeopardized the educational development o students.)

Change District LCAP. Te SPI can change

the districts LCAP to modiy the districts

annual goals or the specic actions the

district will take to achieve its goals.

Impose Budget Revision in ConjunctionWith LCAP Changes. Te SPI can impose

a revision to the districts budget to align

the districts spending plan with the

changes made to the LCAP. Tese changes

only can be made i the SPI determines

they will allow the district to improve

outcomes or all student subgroups in one

or more o the eight state priorities.

Stay or Rescind an Action of the LocalGoverning Board. Te SPI also can stay or

rescind an action o the district governing


A n LA O Re p ORt


18/20

ne Agec to Sot Stgglig disticts

New Agency to Serve as Statewide Expert in Improving School District Perormance.Chapter 47, Statutes o 2013 (AB 97, Committee on Budget) creates a new agency, the Caliornia

Collaborative or Educational Excellence (CCEE), to advise and assist school districts in improving

perormance. o this end, statute requires the CCEE to serve as a statewide expert to help districts:

(1) improve their achievement in the eight state priority areas, (2) enhance the quality o teaching,

(3) improve district/schoolsite leadership, and (4) address the needs o special student populations

(such as English learner, lowincome, oster youth, and special education students). In particular,

the CCEE is intended to help districts achieve the goals set orth in their Local Control and

Accountability Plan (LCAPs).

Tree Main Roles or CCEE. A County Oce o Education (COE) can assign the CCEE to

provide assistance to some school districtsspecically those that have an LCAP rejected, request

assistance, or are determined in need o assistance based on the COEs assessment using the support

rubric. Te Superintendent o Public Instruction (SPI) also can assign the CCEE to provide assis

tance to any school district that the SPI determines needs help in order to accomplish the goals set

orth in its LCAP. Te third main role o the CCEE is to determine i SPI intervention is necessary to

improve the perormance o a persistently ailing school district.

board i he or she determines the action

would make improving student outcomes

in the eight state priority areas, or in any

o the districts local priority areas, more

dicult. Te SPI, however, cannot stay or

rescind an action that is required by a local

collective bargaining agreement.

mAjOr dECISIOnS LAy AhEAd

Many important state and district decisions

relating to the new ormula and the new system

o support and intervention will be made over the

next several years. Figure 14 identies the major

milestones that lay ahead. Below, we discuss some

o these major decisions in more detail.

Many Major Regulations to Be Determined by

SBE. Over the next several years, SBE must adoptnumerous regulations relating to the LCFF and the

new system o transparency and accountability. As

the timeline shows, by January 31, 2014, SBE must

adopt regulations to implement the proportionality

clause relating to LCFF supplemental and

concentration unds. wo months later, by

March 31, 2014, it must adopt LCAP templates or

districts to use in developing their 201415 LCAPs.

By October 1, 2015, SBE must adopt the three

rubrics that will be used to assess a school districts

perormance. Te details o these regulations will

signicantly aect the manner in which these new

provisions are ultimately implemented.

Organization o CCEE to Be Claried. Tegovernance structure o the CCEE, as well as its

larger role within the states accountability system,

remains unclear. Chapter 47 authorizes the SPI,

with SBE approval, to contract with individuals,

local education agencies and other organizations

with expertise and a record o success in the CCEEs


A n LA O Re p ORt


19/20

Major Milestones for Implementation of LCFF and LCAPs

Figure 14

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Jan. 31:SBE must adopt regulationsfor use of supplemental andconcentration funds.

Mar. 31:SBE must adopt LCAP template.

July 1:

Districts must adopt LCAP for 2014-15.

Oct. 8: .COEs must approve or reject district LCAPs.

July 1:Districts must adoptLCAP annual update.

July 1:Restrictions on spending for Adult Education, ROCPs, and JPAs expire.

Oct 1:

SBE must adopt evaluation rubrics.

July 1:Districts adopt LCAP annual update.

LCAP = Local Control and Accountability Plan; SBE = State Board of Education; COE = County Office of Education;ROCP = Regional Occupational Centers/Programs; and JPA = Joint Powers Authority.

assigned areas o responsibility. Te legislation,

however, does not speciy the process the SPI

should take to identiy agencies with expertise

and how the role o these agencies would dier

rom the role o the SPI. In signing the 201314

Budget Act, the Governor expressed his interest in

adopting legislation by the end o 2013 to clariy the

composition and ongoing role o the CCEE.

Cost o New Academic Accountability System

Also to Be Claried. Because o the signicant

uncertainty regarding the level o workload

associated with the new system o district

support and intervention, the associated costs are

unknown at this time. Te 201314 budget provides

$10 million or CCEE but includes little detail on

how and when the unds are to be spent. Moreover,

the total costs o the system will depend in part

on the number o school districts determined to

need support or intervention based on the new SBE

rubrics, the number o school districts that will

specically request assistance, and the amount o

assistance that will be perormed by the CCEE in

the coming years.

COnCLuSIOn

Chapter 47, particularly with the creation o

the LCFF, addresses many o the faws o the states

prior K12 unding system, which was widely

believed to be overly complex, inecient, and

outdated. Te LCFF, or instance, is much simpler

when compared with the dozens o categorical

unding ormulas that were part o the states

previous unding system. Te new system o

unding and accountability created by Chapter 47,

including the provisions dealing with the


A n LA O Re p ORt


20/20

LCAPs, also is intended to reduce some spending

requirements while giving districts more guidance

in developing scal and academic plans designed

to improve perormance in their local context. As

evident throughout this report, both the LCFF

and the new system o support and interventionrepresent major state policy changes and time will

be needed to determine the eectiveness o the

new policies. Moreover, in the coming months and

years, the Legislature, state, and school districts

will ace many decisions that ultimately will shape

how the ormula and new accountability system are

implemented, which, in turn, will determine theeectiveness o the legislation.

A n L A O B R I E F

LAO Publications

This brie was prepared by Edgar Cabral and Carolyn Chu, and reviewed by Jennier Kuhn. The Legislative Anal ysts

Ofce (LAO) is a nonpartisan ofce that provides fscal and policy inormation and advice to the Legislature.

To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This brie and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service,

are available on the LAOs website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

Documents

An Overview of theLocal Control Funding Formula