Community rallies to have art programs included in school budget

South San Francisco, CA   March 28, 2014    Submitted by Laura Alban Walsh

Keep performing arts in our schools!
Photo: Blocksportsschools.com

Dear Parents,

Gov. Brown has mandated every district in California come up with a 3 year plan (Local Control Accountability Plan) The LCAP must outline goals, how we will use funding to serve specific segments of our student population and how we will measure our progress towards these goals.

On Tuesday, March 25, our District presented a proposed budget plan during meetings with classified and certificated staff (teachers). Sadly, the District’s budget does not include any money allocation for the Arts.This is an outrage!

On Monday, March 31st at 6:30 PM, in the SSFHS Library, there will be a parent meeting to discuss the District’s budget proposal.

The importance of your attendance at this meeting cannot be overstated because the district DID NOT fit in arts to their budget plan.

Please plan on attending. Make your voice heard.

Insist that music and art continue to be a part of a balanced education for our students

Here are a few budget items for consideration:

•that we embed collaboration in the day so cross curriculum can happen specifically with music.
•create more art electives as its benefits create higher student achievement.
•transportation funding for music field trips/performances.
•update our music instruments and performance rooms.

•more music teachers (choral director for the district and rehearsal pianist for choral programs)
I hope to see you on March 31st.

Very truly yours,

Russ Ferreira SSFUSD Performing Arts Committee Chair

FROM  SSFUSD

Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) Public meetings

The Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) is an important component of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).  Under the LCFF all LEAs are required to prepare an LCAP, which describes how they intend to meet annual goals for all pupils, with specific activities to address state and local priorities.

Public LCAP meetings with stakeholders, where members of the community are encouraged to provide input, are scheduled as follows:

Tuesday, March 25^th, Serra Vista

LCAP – with Classified, 2:00 – 3:30 p.m.

LCAP – with CTA, 3:30- 5:00 p.m.

Monday, March 31st, South San Francisco High School library

LCAP with parents, 6:30 – 8:00 p.m.

Comments can be sent to [email protected] or go to the school where your child attends and ask to fill out a comment card which will then be given to the superintendent.

The draft plan will be presented to the SSFUSD school board on May 8th. The Board will need to have the plan approved by June 12th in order to comply with the July 1st deadline to submit the plan to the County Office of Education.

###

HERE is the link to the 5 minute video presented by SSFUSD Superintendent Alejandro Hogan. It is very informative and we encourage parents, guardians and all those in our community to check this out. There are some major changes coming to our schools that we all need to be made aware of since it will have an impact with the youth in our city. It takes a village! Middle School Parents are also asking for support in gaining after school care options and more info can be found HERE

From the State of California

LCFF Frequently Asked Questions

Funding Changes

How is the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) different from what was in place under revenue limits?

The goal of the LCFF is to significantly simplify how state funding is provided to local educational agencies (LEAs). Under the new funding system, revenue limits and most state categorical programs are eliminated. LEAs will receive funding based on the demographic profile of the students they serve and gain greater flexibility to use these funds to improve outcomes of students. The LCFF creates funding targets based on these student characteristics. For school districts and charter schools, the LCFF funding targets consist of grade span-specific base grants plus supplemental and concentration grants that reflect student demographic factors. For county offices of education (COEs), the LCFF funding targets consist of an amount for COE operations plus grants for instructional programs.

When will the LCFF be implemented?

Implementation of the LCFF begins in 2013–14. The state Department of Finance estimates that achieving full funding levels under the LCFF will take eight years based on its current Proposition 98 growth projections. During the intervening years, some LCFF provisions will be phased in (e.g., funding levels and K–3 class size). Regulations and templates to support local implementation will be adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE) in early 2014 for use during the 2014–15 program and budget planning process.

How are LCFF target levels calculated for school districts and charter schools?

Funding targets under the LCFF consist of:

• Grade span-specific base grants that reflect adjustments for grades K–3 class sizes and grades 9–12 career technical education;
• Supplemental grants equal to 20 percent of the adjusted base grants multiplied by the LEA’s unduplicated percentage of English learners, free and reduced-price meal eligible, and foster youth students;
• Concentration grants equal to 50 percent of the adjusted base grants multiplied by an LEA’s percentage of unduplicated pupils above 55 percent;
• A necessary small school allowance for any qualifying school; and
• Two add-ons equal to the amounts LEAs received in 2012–13 for the Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant and Home-to-School Transportation programs.

Commencing in the 2013–14 fiscal year, the base, supplemental, and concentration grants, as well as necessary small school allowances, will receive cost-of-living adjustments.

How are funding levels calculated in 2013–14 and during phase-in for school districts and charter schools?

The calculation of LCFF funding in 2013–14 and throughout the phase-in is based on an LEA’s prior year funding (funding floor) as well as its LCFF target amount.

In most cases, an LEA’s funding floor consists of 2012–13 deficited revenue limit including basic aid fair share reductions and charter general purpose funding (including the charter school categorical block grant) divided by average daily attendance (ADA), multiplied by current year ADA, plus the sum of any applicable categorical program funding.

Actual funding in 2013–14 and subsequent years is based on the difference between the LEA’s funding floor and its LCFF target (the LCFF gap). For the 2013–14 fiscal year, LEAs will receive their funding floor amount plus a portion of their LCFF gap. Each fiscal year thereafter, an LEA’s funding amount will be based on recalculation of its LCFF target and its funding floor including any prior year transition funding converted to a per-ADA value and then adjusted for current year ADA. The state Department of Finance estimates that the portion of the gap that will be funded will be 11.78 percent in 2013–14, 16.49 percent in 2014–15, and 18.69 percent in 2015–16.

Some LEAs may also be eligible to receive an Economic Recovery Target (ERT) payment. This payment is based on the difference between the amount an LEA would have received under the old funding system and the amount a district would receive under the LCFF in 2020–21. To determine this difference, assumptions for the old funding system include:

• 2012–13 undeficited revenue limits, or block grant funding for charter schools, with cost-of-living adjustments of 1.57 percent in 2013–14 and 1.94 percent each year from 2014 –15 through 2020–21; and
• Categorical program funding levels restored to the 2007–08 level.

LCFF calculations assume the same cost-of-living adjustments.

Only school districts and charter schools that are at, or below, the 90th percentile of per-pupil funding rates of school districts under the old funding system are eligible for ERT payments. An LEA eligible to receive ERT payments will receive one-eighth of its payment in 2013–14, two-eighths of its payment in 2014–15, and so on, following this pattern until it has reached its full amount in 2020–21, at which time the ERT payment will become a permanent add-on to the LEA’s LCFF formula funding.

LEAs may also continue to receive funding from categorical programs that were not eliminated as a part of the LCFF including, but not limited to, Child Nutrition, Mandates Block Grant, State Preschool, and Special Education.

LEAs should consult with their COEs, or authorizers, for assistance in calculating their unique funding levels under the LCFF.

How do 2013–14 LCFF funding levels compare to 2012–13 funding levels?

The 2013 Budget Act provides $2.067 billion in new funding for school districts and charter schools and $32 million for COEs to support the first-year implementation of the LCFF. In 2013–14, LEAs will receive roughly the same amount of funding they received in 2012–13 plus an additional amount each year to bridge the gap between 2012–13 funding levels and the 2013–14 LCFF target levels. In future years, additional funding will be provided to eventually enable each LEA to achieve its unique LCFF target funding level. Some school districts and charter schools will also receive economic recovery target payments if their undeficited 2012–13 funding levels are greater than their 2013–14 LCFF targets.

How will funds be apportioned under LCFF?

LCFF funding will be distributed using the existing Principal Apportionment system. The California Department of Education (CDE) anticipates completing the necessary system changes required to implement the new formula in time for the Second Principal Apportionment for 2013–14, which will be released in July 2014. This apportionment will be based on data collected in fall 2013 (enrollment-related data from CALPADS) and spring 2014 (attendance and tax data from the Principal Apportionment Revenue and Attendance Data Collection Software) and will reflect the total amount allocated to each LEA under the LCFF for 2013–14. The Second Principal Apportionment will “true up” the amounts provided in the Advance Apportionment (July 2013) and First Principal Apportionment (February 2014), which will not be fully based on the LCFF formula. (Please review the “Local Control Funding Formula Fact Sheet”)

Are there any changes to calculation of ADA?

School districts will continue to be funded based on the greater of prior year or current ADA, with exceptions as provided in previously existing law. Charter schools will continue to be funded based on current-year ADA.

Financial Accounting

In the standardized account code structure (SACS), will all the LCFF funding be accounted for as an unrestricted resource?

For 2013–14, all LCFF funding will be accounted for as an unrestricted resource.

How can expenditures be coded in 2013–14 to address LCFF state priorities?

Funding is provided in an unrestricted resource code. LEAs may define local codes to track expenditures if they wish.

Does the LCFF result in any modification or elimination of the “Minimum Classroom Compensation” requirements of EC Section 41372?

No.

Will the recommended level for the reserve for economic uncertainties be increased?

The regulations regarding the recommended reserve for economic uncertainties remain in place under the LCFF (California Code of Regulations Title 5, Section 15449 ).

Auditing

Are any changes to the Audit Guide anticipated? (Updated 10-Mar-2014)

Yes. On February 10, 2014, the Education Audit Appeals Panel (EAAP) amended the Audit Guide for the 2013–14 fiscal year. The Audit Guide is posted at the EAAP Regulations page . Proposed changes for 2014–15 will be available before May 2014.

For the 2013–14 fiscal year only, the K–12 Audit Guide instructs auditors to verify that each LEA has a signed certification stating that the LEA is aware of the requirements of EC sections 2574, 2575, 42238.02, 42238.03, and 42238.07. The signature should be that of a school district’s, county office of education’s, or charter school’s superintendent, administrator, or authorized designee. If the auditor is unable to verify that a certification exists, the Audit Guide instructs the auditor to issue a finding and recommend that the LEA comply with the requirements in the 2014–15 fiscal year. A sample certification form (DOC) is available on the Audit Resources Web page.

The cited EC sections include but are not limited to, requirements related to the K–3 grade span adjustment; maintenance of effort in Adult Education, Regional Occupational Centers/Programs and Home-to-School Transportation; submission of pupil data into CALPADS; and expenditures of supplemental and concentration grant funding.

Audit procedures for 2014–15 are under development.

2013–14 Budget Updates

Do 2013–14 budgets need to be updated? If so, when?

Yes. The LCFF legislation does not change timelines under the AB 1200 fiscal oversight process. Because LEAs adopted budgets for 2013–14 before the passage of the LCFF, governing boards must revise their budgets to reflect both the funding and legislative changes directed by the LCFF. Current law requires that LEAs selecting the single budget adoption process pursuant to California Education Code (EC) Section 42127(i) must make available for public inspection any revisions to their budgeted revenues and expenditures no later than 45 days after the Budget Act was signed (by August 11, 2013, this year). LEAs selecting the dual budget adoption process pursuant to EC Section 42127(e) must adopt a revised budget to reflect changes by September 8, 2013 (EC sections 1622(e)(3), 42127(e) and 42127(i)(4)).

What is the process for updating 2013–14 budgets?

The LCFF legislation does not change the process for updating 2013–14 budgets (EC sections 1622(e)(3), 42127(e) and 42127(i)(4)).

What budget reports are required for 2013–14?

For 2013–14 fiscal year budgets, the LCFF legislation does not require LEAs to prepare any reports or provide any additional information beyond what was required under previously existing law to comply with the AB 1200 fiscal oversight process (EC sections 42120ff).

For future years, the extent of new reporting requirements, if any, may be determined by the SBE through regulations.

Local Control and Accountability Plans

What is the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP)?

The LCAP is an important component of the LCFF. Under the LCFF all LEAs are required to prepare an LCAP, which describes how they intend to meet annual goals for all pupils, with specific activities to address state and local priorities identified pursuant to EC Section 52060(d).

When will LCAPs be required?

The governing board of each LEA shall adopt an LCAP on or before July 1, 2014. The law requires the SBE to adopt the LCAP template for LEA use before March 31, 2014.

Does the LCAP replace Local Educational Agency Plans (LEAPs) required under the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)?

The LCAP does not replace the federal requirements related to LEA Plans in Section 1112 of the ESEA. However, the LCAP template will be developed by the SBE in a manner that meets both the LCAP requirements and the federal requirements, and the SBE will take steps to minimize duplication of effort at the local level to the greatest extent possible (EC Section 52064).

What are the planning requirements for LEAs identified for program improvement pursuant to ESEA?

LEAs identified for program improvement must continue to meet current LEA Plan requirements pursuant to ESEA Section 1116(c)(7).

How does the LCAP affect site plans (i.e., Single Plan for Student Achievement)?

According to EC Section 52062, specific actions included in the LCAP, or the annual update of the LCAP, must be consistent with the strategies included in the school plans submitted pursuant to EC Section 64001.

Must all state priorities be addressed in each year or over the three year period? (Posted 12-Mar-2014)

EC sections 52060 and 52066 specify that the LCAP must include a description of the annual goals to be achieved for each student group for each state priority. Goals must address each of the state priorities and any additional local priorities; however, one goal may address multiple priorities. An LEA may identify which school sites and subgroups have the same goals, and group and describe those goals together. If a single goal requires longer than one year to implement fully, the LCAP should reflect the annual incremental actions, services, and expenditures, as well as the annual anticipated progress, that the district expects to achieve for each student group. These annual benchmarks will assist LEAs and the community to monitor the progress of the plan.

Unduplicated Pupils and California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System

Will the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) data collection processes change under the LCFF?

No, however CALPADS data collections will affect your LCFF calculations. Please see the CALPADS letter for further information on how CALPADS data will be used under LCFF.

How are “unduplicated pupils” defined for purposes of calculating supplemental and concentration grant amounts?

Supplemental and concentration grant amounts are calculated based on the percentage of “unduplicated pupils” in the LEA. The percentage equals:

• Unduplicated count of pupils who (1) are English learners, (2) meet income eligibility requirements for free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program, or (3) are in foster care. “Unduplicated count” means that each pupil is counted only once even if the pupil meets more than one of these criteria (EC sections 2574(b)(2) and 42238.02(b)(1)).
• Divided by total enrollment in the LEA (EC sections 2574(b)(1) and 42238.02(b)(5)).

All pupil counts are based on Fall 1 certified enrollment reported in the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) as of fall Census Day (first Wednesday in October).

What is the timeline for determining eligibility for free or reduced-price meals?

Pupils can be coded as eligible for free or reduced-price meals in CALPADS if they meet income eligibility requirements as of Census Day in early October. The eligibility determination process need not be complete at that time, however. As a practical matter, the process must be complete before LEAs certify their CALPADS data. LEAs must certify CALPADS data for pupils enrolled on Census Day by mid-December, and there is an amendment window for corrections that is open until early February. In 2013–14, the CDE will allow LEAs that have one or more schools with Provision 2 or 3 status under the National School Lunch Program to extend the CALPADS Fall 1 amendment window, up to March 21, 2014.

Please see the CALPADS letter for further information.

Is the calculation of the “unduplicated pupils” percentage based on annual or a multi-year average of data?

The percentage of unduplicated pupils will be based on a three-year rolling average from data submitted by LEAs through routine CALPADS reporting. For the first year of implementation (2013–14), however, it will be based on one year of data only (2013–14), and for the second year, it will be based on two years of data (EC sections 2574(b)(1) and 42238.02(b)(5)).

Unduplicated Pupils at Schools with Provision 2 and 3 Status

How will the students receiving free and reduced-price meals in Provision 2 and 3 schools be counted for LCFF purposes? (Revised 04-Nov-2013)

Under the National School Lunch Program, schools in Provision 2 and 3 status receive meal funding based on participation in a base year. These schools collect eligibility applications in the base year, but do not collect eligibility applications in the subsequent years the school is on Provision 2 and 3 status.

To be counted as eligible for free or reduced-price meals for purposes of the LCFF, students must meet income eligibility criteria for the National School Lunch Program, be directly certified to receive free meals, or be categorically eligible. This means that in Provision 2 and 3 schools, LEAs must determine income eligibility through an alternative process and submit a program record in CALPADS. Identifying a student as income-eligible or not income-eligible in CALPADS does not affect the student’s ability to receive a free meal in a Provision 2 or 3 school.

LCFF funding calculations are not the only reason this requirement exists; it stems from the need to track the academic achievement of the socioeconomically disadvantaged student group as defined in California’s accountability workbook approved by the SBE and submitted to the federal United States Department of Education as required by federal accountability statute. Please review the CALPADS letter for further information on how CALPADS data will be used under the LCFF.

The CDE has issued detailed information to food service directors about the impact of the LCFF on Provision 2 and 3 schools. Please see the Management Bulletin on this issue.

Do Provision 2/3 schools need to reset their base year?

No. Provision 2/3 schools can continue on that status and do not need to submit new paperwork to establish a new base year.

What information must Provision 2 and 3 schools collect on household income? (Updated 02-Dec-2013)

The CDE does not require that all information collected on the federal meal program eligibility forms be collected on alternative forms for annual LCFF and federal accountability determination. The CDE suggests that LEAs collect the following information at a minimum:

• Information to identify the child(ren)
• Information sufficient to determine that the child or household meets federal poverty income eligibility requirements based on family income and household size, and if so, whether household income is below 130 percent of the federal poverty level (eligible for a free lunch) or between 130 percent and 185 percent of the federal poverty level (eligible for a reduced-price lunch). (The distinction between free and reduced-price eligibility is needed for federal data reporting, not the LCFF.)
• Certification that information is true
• Parent/guardian signature, printed name, and date signed
• Confidentiality statement

The CDE has developed several sample forms to collect income eligibility information: Please note that these forms are not designed for and should not be used to determine eligibility for free or reduced-priced meals under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).

• Sample 1 (DOC): This form collects information for multiple children in a household. Parents/guardians would calculate their annual income and select among income ranges. Spanish (DOC); Vietnamese (DOC); Korean (DOC); Tagalog (DOC); Chinese Simplified (DOC); Chinese Traditional (DOC); Armenian Eastern (DOC); Arabic (DOC); Hmong (DOC); Punjabi (DOC); Russian (DOC)
• Sample 2 (DOC): This form collects information for multiple children in a household. Parents/guardians would list their income sources and amounts. The school would determine whether the income falls within specified ranges. Spanish (DOC); Vietnamese (DOC); Korean (DOC); Tagalog (DOC); Chinese Simplified (DOC); Chinese Traditional (DOC); Armenian Eastern (DOC); Arabic (DOC); Hmong (DOC); Punjabi (DOC); Russian (DOC)
• Sample 3 (DOC): This form collects information for multiple children in a household. Parents/guardians would select among income ranges, which are presented for various frequencies of payment (weekly, monthly, yearly, etc). Spanish (DOC); Vietnamese (DOC); Korean (DOC); Tagalog (DOC); Chinese Simplified (DOC); Chinese Traditional (DOC); Armenian Eastern (DOC); Arabic (DOC); Hmong (DOC); Punjabi (DOC); Russian (DOC)
• Sample 4 (DOC): This form collects information for one child. Parents/guardians would provide their total income and household size. The school would determine whether the income falls within specified ranges. Spanish (DOC); Vietnamese (DOC); Korean (DOC); Tagalog (DOC); Chinese Simplified (DOC); Chinese Traditional (DOC); Armenian Eastern (DOC); Arabic (DOC); Hmong (DOC); Punjabi (DOC); Russian (DOC)
• Sample 5 (XLS): This form collects information for multiple children in a household. Parents/guardians would list their income sources and amounts. The school would determine whether the income falls within specified ranges. The form includes other information that the school may wish to collect, such as eligibility for benefits under various federal programs. Spanish (XLS); Vietnamese (XLS); Korean (XLS); Tagalog (XLS); Chinese Simplified (XLS); Chinese Traditional (XLS); Armenian Eastern (XLS); Arabic (XLS); Hmong (XLS); Punjabi (XLS); Russian (XLS)

It should be noted that the data collection requirements applying to Provision 2 and 3 schools also apply to schools that do not collect FRPM applications for other reasons, for example schools that do not participate in the NSLP.

Categorical Programs

Which categorical programs are included in the LCFF?

The LCFF legislation eliminated most state categorical funding streams. Categorical funding received in 2012–13 forms the basis for determining an LEA’s funding in the phase-in period under the LCFF.

More specifically, the LCFF target amount includes grade-span specific base, supplemental, and concentration grants, with add-ons for the former Home-to-School Transportation and Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant Programs. The actual LCFF entitlement in any given year will be determined by adding the following amounts together: (1) 2012–13 general purpose funds and funding from a list of categorical programs, (2) a transition amount that, after full implementation, will bridge the difference between 2012–13 funding and the LCFF target, and (3) an add-on for economic recovery, if applicable. Except for the Home-to-School Transportation program, categorical program amounts included in the 2012–13 funding level calculation will not be separately identifiable funding streams in 2013–14 or thereafter; they will be identified initially only as a means to develop an aggregate funding amount for use in calculations. (Please note: although the separate funding streams will not be identifiable, there are new maintenance-of-effort requirements for Adult Education and ROC/Ps. See topics on each of these programs for more information.)

For 2013–14, the CDE does not intend to propose restoration of any Audit Guide provisions discontinued under categorical flexibility or reinstitute any categorical monitoring or data requirements in place prior to categorical flexibility, for any of the programs affected by the LCFF.

2012–13 Categorical Programs Used in the LCFF Calculations

Necessary Small Schools

Are there any changes to funding of necessary small schools (NSSs)? (Revised 04-Nov-2013)

The funding calculations for NSSs under the LCFF are similar to calculations under previously existing law: schools will receive the greater of the NSS amount or the adjusted grade span base grant funding calculated under the LCFF. Under the LCFF legislation, schools may no longer qualify for NSS funding if the school achieved NSS status because it is the only elementary school or high school in a unified district. However, if a school district qualified for NSS funding in 2012–13, the amount of NSS funding the school district received in 2012–13 will be included in its minimum state aid calculation and the school district, at a minimum, will continue to receive state funding at that level (EC Section 42238.03(e)).

Home-to-School Transportation

Is Home-to-School Transportation included in the LCFF? (Revised 04-Nov-2013)

Home-to-School Transportation is an add-on to the LCFF target calculation. For purposes of LCFF, Home to School Transportation includes entitlements for Home to School, Severely Disabled or Orthopedically Impaired and the Small District and COE Bus Replacement Program.

Does an LEA need to continue to spend LCFF funds on Home-to-School Transportation? (Revised 04-Nov-2013)

The LCFF legislation requires that LEAs spend at least as much of their transportation funding on transportation as they spent in 2012–13. Please see EC sections 2575(k)(1) and 42238.03(a)(6). The language from the latter code section is as follows:

“…of the funds a school district receives for home-to-school transportation programs the school district shall expend, pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 39820) of Chapter 1 of Part 23.5, Article 10 (commencing with Section 41850) of Chapter 5, and the Small School District Transportation program, as set forth in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 42290) of Chapter 7 of Part 24 of Division 3 of Title 2, no less for those programs than the amount of funds the school district expended for home-to-school transportation in the 2012–13 fiscal year.”

The amount of “funds a school district receives” is the amount that the LEA will receive for 2013–14. The maintenance-of-effort is the lesser of (1) the actual 2012–13 expenditures or (2) the amount received in 2013–14. As reference, the amount received in 2013–14 as the Transportation add-on equals the total 2012–13 Pupil Transportation entitlement (including Home to School, Severely Disabled or Orthopedically Impaired and Small District and COE Bus Replacement) less the Control Section 12.42 reduction.  Please see Columns O and P on the 2012–13 Adjusted Local Control Funding Formula Categorical State Aid spreadsheet (XLS) for a listing of 2012–13 entitlements less the Control Section 12.42 reduction.

The legislation also requires LEAs that passed through funds in 2012–13 to transportation Joint Powers Agencies (JPAs) to continue to pass through those funds in the 2013–14 and 2014–15 fiscal years. In addition, JPAs that received transportation funds directly in the 2012–13 fiscal year will continue to receive those funds directly for the 2013–14 and 2014–15 fiscal years.

If an LEA’s 2012–13 expenditures reported on Form TRAN are less than the 2012–13 entitlement (prior to Control Section 12.42 reduction), will the LEA’s entitlement be reduced? (Posted 04-Nov-2013)

No. The add-on included in an LEA’s LCFF entitlement pursuant to EC Section 42238.02(h) will not be reduced if the amount of 2012–13 transportation expenditures reported on Form TRAN is less than the 2012–13 entitlement (prior to Control Section 12.42 reduction).

Regional Occupational Centers/Programs and Adult Education

Are Regional Occupational Center/Program (ROC/P) and Adult Education funds included in the LCFF?

The ROC/P and Adult Education funding streams were eliminated along with the funding streams for many other categorical programs in the implementation of LCFF. However, these two programs have maintenance-of-effort requirements (see next topic).

Does an LEA need to continue to spend LCFF funds on ROC/Ps and adult education?

The LCFF legislation imposes a maintenance-of-effort requirement on ROC/P and adult education. Please see EC sections 2575(k)(2) and 42238.03(a)(7). The language from the latter section is as follows:

“For the 2013–14 and 2014–15 fiscal years only, of the funds a school district receives for purposes of regional occupational centers or programs, or adult education, the school district shall expend no less than the amount of funds the school district expended for purposes of regional occupational centers or programs, or adult education, respectively, in the 2012–13 fiscal year.”

The CDE is interpreting this language as a requirement to maintain the level of in 2012–13 expenditures that were paid with state funds, up to the amount available from the applicable budget items (6110-105-0001 and 6110-156-0001, plus related deferral funding) for fiscal years 2013–14 and 2014–15. The CDE is requesting cleanup language to clarify this matter.

Please note that the legislation also requires LEAs that passed through funds in 2012–13 to ROC/P Joint Powers Agencies (JPAs) continue to pass through funds to those agencies for two years.

Economic Impact Aid

Will LCFF funding include an amount equal to what the LEA previously received as Economic Impact Aid (EIA) funds? What requirements, if any, apply to these funds?

LCFF funding calculations are based on the 2012–13 funding amount for programs folded into the LCFF, plus additional transition funds. The LCFF provides LEAs with funding without reference to past categorical programs thus the portion of LCFF funding attributable to 2012–13 EIA funding will not be separately identified and will not be subject to EIA spending requirements.

Will LCFF include requirements that “supplemental” and “concentration” grant funds be devoted to those students generating this added revenue?

Yes, AB 97 requires LEAs to increase or improve services for students in proportion to the number of high need students (low-income students, English learners, and foster youth) who generated the additional funds. The SBE will adopt regulations regarding how such expenditure of funds will be managed to demonstrate compliance. Refer to EC Section 42238.07.

Will LEAs have to create a plan to spend “supplemental” and “concentration” grant funds?

Yes, beginning with the 2014–15 school year, LEAs must develop an LCAP identifying the use of all such funds, using a template to be adopted by the SBE by March 31, 2014. By January 31, 2014, the SBE will adopt regulations regarding how expenditure of funds should be managed to demonstrate compliance with EC sections 52065 and 52071. Refer to EC sections 52072 and 52073.

Is it true that LCFF will not take effect until the 2014–15 school year?

LCFF funds will be allocated beginning in 2013–14. A transition period will commence with the 2013–14 school year. The 2013–14 budget package appropriates transition funding of $2.067 billion for school districts and charter schools and $32 million for COEs. The budget also provides $2 million to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to provide assistance to the SBE to adopt specified regulations, evaluation rubrics, and LCAP templates.

Can EIA carryover funds be used for any educational purpose?

No, funds allocated as EIA must be used as originally purposed for English learners and educationally disadvantaged youth. The categorical intent continues to be in effect for funds previously allocated through the EIA program, pursuant to EC sections 54000 et seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 4200 .

Are the data reported in the Consolidated Application Reporting System and used in EIA allocation formulas now irrelevant?

No. Any current EIA funds carried forward will remain subject to the original requirements for the life of those funds.

Will the CDE’s 2013–14 Federal Program Monitoring (FPM) process still apply compliance standards to LEAs carrying forward unspent EIA funds?

Yes, FPM will continue to monitor the use of EIA carryover funds until all EIA monies have been expended.

Was the new Web posting requirement of SB 754 eliminated?

No, the requirement to post EIA funding data is still in effect under current law EC Section 54029. However, the conditional funding provisions do not appear to apply with implementation of LCFF. The CDE is seeking clarification in the legislative clean-up process on whether the posting requirement continues to apply to remaining EIA funds. In the meantime, the CDE suggests that districts continue to post their EIA information pursuant to EC Section 54029.

If a district has EIA carryover and distributes to school sites as required, do those sites in receipt of EIA need to continue with their English Learner Advisory Committees (ELACs)?

As long as EIA funds continue to be carried over, the associated requirements will continue to exist, including requirements for ELACs.

Parent and Community Engagement

Should we include parent groups in conversation regarding expenditures associated with increases in 2013–14?

Statute requires the inclusion of parents, including parents or legal guardians of targeted disadvantaged pupils in the planning and implementation of the LCFF. School districts need not establish new parent advisory groups if the LEA has previously existing groups that satisfy the new requirements. Although regulations are not in place for the 2013–14 school year, the language in the LCFF legislation is in effect in 2013–14. LEAs should strive to meet the intent of the statute.

County Office of Education Schools and Alternative Education

How will COEs be funded? (Updated 25-Feb-2014)

The LCFF target amount for COEs consists of a COE operations grant and an alternative education grant. The COE operations grant is based on (1) a minimum grant per county, (2) the number of school districts in the county, and (3) the ADA in the county attributable to school districts, charter schools, and schools operated by the county superintendent.

The alternative education grant is based on the category of pupil served.

Certain pupils served by COEs (on probation, probation referred, and mandatory expelled) are funded with an alternative education base grant of $11,046 (plus applicable cost-of-living adjustment). In addition to the base grant, COEs receive a supplemental grant equal to 35 percent of the base grant for targeted disadvantaged students and a concentration grant equal to 35 percent of the base grant for targeted disadvantaged students exceeding 50 percent of enrollment.

Juvenile court school pupils are funded with a base grant of $11,046 (plus applicable cost-of-living adjustment). Additionally, all juvenile court school pupils are deemed to be eligible for the supplemental and concentration grants provided for targeted disadvantaged students. The supplemental grant is equal to 35 percent of the base grant, and the concentration grant is equal to 17.5 percent of the base grant.

For LCFF purposes, enrollment and average daily attendance of other pupils served by COEs will be transferred to (enrollment) or credited to (ADA) their school district of residence (EC Section 2576).

The actual LCFF entitlement in any given year will consist of: (1) 2012–13 general purpose funds and funding from a list of categorical programs and (2) a transition amount that, after full implementation, will bridge the difference between 2012–13 funding and the LCFF target.

Additional frequently asked questions (FAQs) about this topic are available on the COE FAQ page.

Charter Schools

Does Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) apply to charter schools? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)

Yes, charter schools must comply with the applicable LCFF provisions. Charter schools may review the August 7, 2013, LCFF Legislation Letter for guidance on how to begin implementing the LCFF legislation. Charter schools may also view the LCFF expenditure and Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) template emergency regulations.

Must a charter school complete a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP)? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)

Yes, all charter schools must complete an LCAP, using the template (DOC) adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE) on January 16, 2014, and approved by the Office of Administrative Law on February 6, 2014, as stated in Title 5 California Code of Regulations Section 15497.

How does the content of a charter school’s LCAP differ from the charter petition? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)

A charter school’s LCAP is a separate document from the charter petition. The charter LCAP must describe the goals, for all pupils and each subgroup of pupils, which are aligned to the state priorities identified in Education Code (EC) Section 52060 that apply to the grade level served and the nature of the program.

What is the timeline for charter schools to prepare LCAPs? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)

Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Chapter 14.5, passed by the SBE at the January 16, 2014 meeting, a charter school must adopt an LCAP by July 1, 2014. The Finding of Emergency, included in the rulemaking package for the adopted regulations, states that “the Emergency regulations are necessary in order for LEAs to meet the statutory requirements for public participation and the July 1, 2014, deadline for adoption of the LCAP.” Charter schools are included in the definition of LEAs in the regulations. Therefore a charter school must adopt an LCAP by July 1, 2014 and annually thereafter.

When will the LCAP template be available? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)

A downloadable copy of the SBE approved template (DOC) is available on the CDE’s Web site now.

When do charter schools need to incorporate the new requirements into their petitions? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)

Pursuant to EC sections 47605 and 47605.6, charter schools that file an initial charter petition or a renewal petition after July 1, 2013, need to incorporate into the charter petition the required state priorities identified in EC Section 52060. Assembly Bill 97 (Ch. 47, Statutes of 2013) amended EC sections 47605 and 47605.6 to require the charter petition to include a description of the annual goals and actions in the eight state priority areas in EC Section 52060 that apply to the grade levels served and the nature of the charter school’s program.

Is an LCAP considered a material revision to the charter petition? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)

The statute is silent; however, the LCAP template adopted by the SBE is a separate document from the charter petition and therefore is not automatically considered a material revision to the charter petition. However, if in completing an LCAP, the charter school or its authorizer determines that changes to the charter petition are necessary, then a material revision may be needed.

Does the charter school governing body need to hold a public hearing to adopt the LCAP? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)

The statute is silent; however, charter schools are encouraged to follow a similar process that is required for a school district, which would be to present to the charter school governing board in a public meeting before submitting the adopted LCAP to the charter authorizer.

Does the charter school authorizer approve the LCAP? (Updated 11-Mar-2014)

No. However, as is the case with charter school budgets and audits, a charter school must prepare and submit the LCAP to the chartering authority and the county superintendent of schools by July 1 of each year pursuant to EC Section 47604.33. The chartering authority reviews the LCAP as part of its regular oversight duties. There is not an explicit requirement that the authorizer approve the LCAP.

May a charter school operator with numerous schools prepare a single LCAP for all of its schools? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)

No. The charter school or its operator must prepare a separate LCAP for each charter school that has a separate petition.

Does the requirement to complete a charter LCAP apply to all charter schools? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)

Yes. The requirements for charter schools to create an LCAP are included in EC Section 47606.5. The adopted SBE California Code of Regulations, Title 5, sections 15494 through 15497 specify that a charter school is to develop an achievement plan that focuses on the state priority areas defined in EC Section 52060(d) that apply for the grade levels served, or the nature of the program operated, by the charter school. Therefore, each charter school with a petition would need to complete an LCAP.

Does a charter school need to have a school site council to review the LCAP? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)

No, a charter school is not required to establish a site council to comply with this requirement. However, EC Section 47606.5 requires charter schools to consult with teachers, principals, administrators, other school personnel, parents, and pupils in developing the LCAP. Consultation with an existing site council may satisfy this requirement if the site council includes membership that meets the requirements of EC Section 47606.5.

Do the grade span adjustment requirements in EC Section 42238.02(d)(3)(B) apply to charter schools? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)

No. EC Section 42238.02(d)(3)(B) applies specifically to school districts.

K–3 Grade Span Adjustment

What are the conditions for receiving the kindergarten through grade three (K–3) grade span adjustment (GSA)? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)

As a condition of receiving the K–3 GSA, which is equal to 10.4 percent of the K–3 base grant, school districts must meet one of the following conditions:

•  If a school site’s average K–3 class enrollment was more than 24 pupils in the 2012-13 fiscal year, make progress toward maintaining, at that school site, an average K–3 class enrollment in of not more than 24 pupils.
• If a school site’s average K–3 class enrollment was 24 pupils or less in the 2012-13 fiscal year, maintain, at that school site, an average K–3 class enrollment of not more than 24 pupils.
• Agree to a collectively bargained alternative to the statutory K–3 GSA requirements.

How should a school district determine the required K–3 average class enrollment for each school site under the proposed regulations? (Revised 13-Mar-2014)

If a school site’s average K–3 class enrollment was 24 pupils or less in the 2012–13 fiscal year, the district must maintain, at that school site, an average K–3 class enrollment of not more than 24 pupils, unless a collectively bargained alternative ratio is agreed to by the school district.

1. Determine the prior year average K–3 class enrollment at the school site. In 2013-14, this will be the 2012-13 actual level. In subsequent years, this will be the result of the calculation in Step 4 for the prior year.
2. Subtract 24 from step 1.
3. Multiply the result of step 2 by the percentage of gap funding provided in the current fiscal year (estimated to be 11.78 percent in 2013–14).
4. Subtract the result of the calculation in step 3 from the prior year average K–3 class enrollment in step 1, to determine the maximum average K–3 class enrollment at the school site in the current year.

The average K–3 class enrollment at the school site for the current year shall not exceed the maximum average class enrollment, unless a collectively bargained alternative annual average class enrollment for the school site is agreed to by the district for the applicable year:

Does a district need to maintain or make progress towards an average K–3 class size of 24 in both 2013–14 and 2014–15? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)

Yes. Language in the LCFF legislation regarding the K–3 GSA is in effect in 2013–14. School districts should meet the intent of the section. Please see the related Auditing subject, below.

For 2014–15, as indicated in the question above, the starting point for calculating the required 2014–15 average K–3 class enrollment by school site will be the required average K–3 class enrollment by school site determined for 2013–14. In other words, the amount of progress required by the end of the fiscal year will be based on the combined effect of required progress in both 2013–14 and 2014–15.

Must every K–3 classroom at a school site be at the specified average K–3 class enrollment or below? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)

No. An individual classroom may be higher or lower than the specified average so long as the average class enrollment of all K–3 classrooms at the school site is at, or below the specified average K–3 class enrollment.

When may school districts use a collectively bargained alternative to an average K–3 class enrollment of not more than 24? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)

A school district may use this option when the district has collectively bargained an alternative annual average K–3 class enrollment for each school site in contemplation of or subsequent to enactment of EC Section 42238.02.  A school district can demonstrate that it agreed to an alternative in different ways. For example, the school district could enter into a new collective bargaining agreement, renegotiate an existing collective bargaining agreement, or mutually agree with its local union that an existing collective bargaining agreement contains an alternative annual average class enrollment for each school site. District legal counsel should be consulted as appropriate.

Do charter schools need to progress toward or maintain an average K–3 class enrollment of 24 to receive the K–3 GSA funding? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)

No. Pursuant to EC Section 42238.02(d)(3)(C) only a “school district” must make progress towards average K–3 class enrollment of 24 at each school site.

May a districtwide average be used instead of a school site average? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)

No. Statute only allows for a school site average.

May the requirements be waived by the Superintendent or the SBE if a school district determines that exceeding the school district’s required average K–3 class enrollment at a particular school site is in the best interest of a student or students? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)

This section of law may not be waived by the Superintendent or the SBE. Please note that school districts may collectively bargain an alternative.

Will school districts need to provide a report similar to the J-7 CSR (class-size reduction) report to get grade-span adjustment funds? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)

No.

Other

Do LEAs need to continue to submit the Consolidated Application?

The Consolidated Application will still be required as a condition of receiving certain federal grants. Please also see the Economic Impact Aid topic.

Do LEAs still have the option to reduce the school year by up to five days of instruction or the equivalent number of instructional minutes without incurring penalties? (Posted 04-Nov-2013)

Yes. However, the flexibility to reduce five days from the school year sunsets June 30, 2015 (EC Section 46201.2).