Education Mandates: Overhauling a Broken System

Education Mandates: Overhauling a Broken System M AC TAylor • l e g i s l A T i v e A n A l y s T • FebruAry 2, 2010 an LaO RepORt 2 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office an LaO RepORt ExEcutivE Summary California has an elaborate system for identifying mandates and reimbursing local govern‑ ment agencies, including school districts and community colleges, for performing related activi‑ ties. Currently, the state has more than 50 education mandates, with each mandate requiring school districts and/or community colleges to perform as many as a dozen specific activities. In 2009‑10, these education mandates are estimated to cost a total of more than $200 million. When coupled with a pending mandate relating to high school science graduation require‑ ments, annual costs total more than $400 million. California’s process for identifying mandates creates major problems for schools, com‑ munity colleges, and the state. At the local level, districts are required to perform hundreds of activities even though many of these requirements do not benefit students or educators. The existing mandate system also can reward districts for performing activities not only inefficiently but ineffectively. Making matters worse, the state’s system for funding mandates is broken. Oftentimes, districts claim vastly different amounts for performing comparable activities. Moreover, the state does not pay for these activities on a regular basis, instead deferring district reimbursements to future years. As a result of these deferrals, which were deemed unconstitu‑ tional by a superior court in 2008, the state owes roughly $3.6 billion in outstanding mandate claims (including the high school science mandate, which more than doubled the backlog). In short, districts are required to perform hundreds of activities—many of dubious merit—without regular pay, resulting in billions of dollars in state debt. In this report, we present a comprehensive K‑14 mandate reform package. As a general principle, we think the state should not mandate an activity unless it is of fundamental impor‑ tance to the education system. Using this standard, we evaluate mandates on a case‑by‑case basis. In the few cases mandates are serving essential purposes, we recommend funding them using a simplified reimbursement process. For some mandates, the underlying policy objec‑ tive appears worth preserving but the mandate process is not the best means of achieving that objective. In these cases, we find a more effective policy alternative that largely achieves the same goal. We recommend eliminating the remaining mandates either in whole or part. By relieving schools from performing the vast majority of K‑14 mandate requirements, our package of recommendations would result in more than $350 million in annual savings. LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 3 an LaO RepORt 4 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office an LaO RepORt introduction This report presents a comprehensive K‑14 rize the Governor’s 2010‑11 proposal to suspend mandate reform plan. The report is divided into most K‑14 mandates and highlight two major four sections. First, we provide background on shortcomings of such an approach. Finally, we the current mandate system. Second, we discuss recommend a strategy for comprehensive K‑14 problems current K‑14 mandates create for both mandate reform and describe how to implement local educators and the state. Third, we summa‑ that strategy. multiStEp procESS uSEd to idEntify rEimburSablE mandatES In this section, we provide background in‑ California Has Unique Legal System for formation on mandates, including the role of the Identifying Reimbursable Mandates. Due in Commission on State Mandates (CSM) and the part to the requirements placed on the state number of K‑14 mandates that currently exist. by Proposition 4, California now has an elabo‑ Mandate Determination Process Overseen rate legal process for determining whether new by CSM. In 1979, voters passed Proposition 4, requirements constitute mandates (see Figure 2 which added a requirement to the California for a simplified overview of this process). Follow‑ Constitution that local governments be reim‑ ing the passage of a state law, executive order, bursed for new programs or higher levels of or regulation, school districts and community service the state imposes on them. As part of its colleges (as other local government entities) have response to Proposition 4, the Legislature created one year to file a “test claim” with CSM asserting the CSM to hear and decide claims that a state the new requirements impose on them a new law imposes new requirements on local govern‑ program or higher level of service and are there‑ ments, including school districts and community fore reimbursable. The CSM adopts a “State‑ colleges. In its current form, CSM consists of ment of Decision” articulating the reasons for its seven members entrusted with overseeing the determination whether a test claim is a mandate. mandate determination process (see Figure 1). Following adoption of the Statement of Decision, the commission must adopt a “statewide cost Figure 1 estimate” for the man‑ Membership of Commission on State Mandates date. Upon adoption of a statewide cost estimate, State Controller CSM’s role is largely fin‑ State Treasurer ished and responsibility Director of the Department of Finance Director of the Office of Planning and Research for reimbursing school Local government officials—gubernatorial appointees (2) districts and community Public member—gubernatorial appointee college’s is turned over LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 5 an LaO RepORt to the State Controller’s Office (SCO). The SCO school districts and community colleges each accepts claims from school districts and com‑ year (see Figure 3). The majority of these man‑ munity colleges that are based on the commis‑ dates apply only to K‑12 schools whereas seven sion’s adopted guidelines for reimbursement. mandates apply solely to community colleges. From beginning to end, the mandate determina‑ Some mandates, such as collective bargaining, tion process usually takes roughly five years to are required of both school districts and commu‑ complete. nity colleges. Finally, some mandates involving Determination Process Limits Legislature’s other local agencies, such as city governments, Role in Mandate Process. The legal authority also apply to school districts and community col‑ given to CSM has implications for the role the leges. (These local government mandates extend Legislature plays in the mandate determination beyond the scope of this report and therefore are process. Before legislation is passed into law, not discussed in detail.) the Legislature has options for avoiding many Mandates in Various Stages of the Deter- mandates by structuring policies in ways that do mination Process. Mandates can be in different not shift requirements onto local governments. stages of the mandate determination process. However, once a bill becomes law and activi‑ Mandate claims that have completed the pro‑ ties required of local governments are deemed cess typically appear in the annual budget act. reimbursable by CSM, so long as those require‑ Other mandates that have not fully completed ments remain in law, the state has no choice but the process, however, can still generate costs. to eventually reimburse them. Short of taking For example, mandates involved in litigation or legal action, the Legislature merely can fund the awaiting an official cost estimate might generate mandate or eliminate its cost by changing the substantial costs though not listed in the budget statute creating it. act. (The additional claimable mandates listed in School Districts and Community Colleges Figure 3 either have not completed the determi‑ Required to Perform 51 Reimbursable Activi- nation process or were simply omitted when the ties. The state now imposes 51 mandates on budget act was crafted.) Figure 2 Mandate Determination Process Statute or Test Claim Parameters and Statewide Cost Claiming Executive Order Guidelines Estimate Instructions School districts file A statute, a “test claim” with If the Commission After guidelines School districts executive order, or the Commission approves a test are adopted, the follow State set of regulations arguing the state claim, the school Commission Controller claiming may create a new has created a district proposes approves an instructions when program or impose mandate. reimbursement estimate of the filing ongoing a higher level of “guidelines” for the mandate’s cost. claims. service for school Commission to districts. accept or reject. 6 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office an LaO RepORt Figure 3 Comprehensive List of K-14 Mandatesa Claimable Only by K-12 School Districts (36) Included in 2009-10 Budget Act AIDS Prevention Instruction I-II Notification to Teachers of Mandatory Expulsion Annual Parent Notification Physical Education Reports Caregiver Affidavits Physical Performance Tests Charter Schools I-III Pupil Health Screenings Comprehensive School Safety Plans Pupil Promotion and Retention County Office of Education Fiscal Accountability Reporting Pupil Residency Verification and Appeals Criminal Background Checks Pupil Suspensions, Expulsions, and Expulsion Appeals Criminal Background Checks II Removal of Chemicals Differential Pay and Reemployment School District Fiscal Accountability Reporting Expulsion Transcripts School District Reorganization Financial and Compliance Audits Scoliosis Screening Graduation Requirements Teacher Incentive Program Habitual Truants Additional Claimable Mandates Immunization Records High School Exit Examination Immunization Records—Hepatitis B Missing Children Intradistrict Attendance Pupil Safety Notices Juvenile Court Notices II School Accountability Report Cards Law Enforcement Agency Notifications Stull Act Notification of Truancy Claimable Only by Community Colleges (7) Included in 2009-10 Budget Act Additional Claimable Mandates Health Fee/Services Enrollment Fee and Waiver Law Enforcement College Jurisdiction Agreements Integrated Waste Management Sex Offenders: Disclosure by Law Enforcement Reporting Improper Governmental Activities Sexual Assault Response Procedures Claimable by Both School Districts and Community Colleges (3) Included in 2009-10 Budget Act Additional Claimable Mandates Collective Bargaining Agency Fee Arrangements California State Teachers' Retirement System Service Credit Claimable by Local Governments (5) Included in 2009-10 Budget Act Additional Claimable Mandates Mandate Reimbursement Process Absentee Ballots Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Open Meetings Act Threats Against Peace Officers a In addition to these 51 mandates, two mandates claimable only for school districts (School Bus Safety I-II and County Treasury Withdrawals) and three mandates claimable for both school districts and community colleges (Law Enforcement Sexual Harassment Training, Health Benefits for Survivors of Peace Officers and Firefighters, and Grand Jury Proceedings) have all been suspended in recent years. LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 7 an LaO RepORt Some Mandates Have Been Suspended. have to perform the mandated activities during Once a mandate has been established, the Legis‑ the suspension period. Currently, five mandates lature retains the authority to determine whether applying to school districts (three of which also it remains in effect. The Legislature can eliminate apply to community colleges) are suspended. a mandate by repealing the provisions of law or These mandates were suspended on a case‑by‑ “suspend” a mandate on a year‑to‑year basis. case basis. For example, the School Bus Safety Suspending a mandate means the law creating mandate was suspended in part because its costs the mandate technically remains in statute, but were exceeding expectations. school districts and community colleges do not currEnt StatuS of K-14 mandatE funding In this section, we describe the state’s gen‑ mandates still completing the determination eral approach to paying for K‑14 mandates and process.) Increases in claims have corresponded address their long‑term costs to the state. with the identification of more mandates, more Yearly Claims Have Increased Substantially, districts filing claims, and increased costs for Sporadically Over Time. Over the last two existing mandates. While claims have increased decades, as the state has passed more laws that significantly over time, year‑to‑year changes can impose new local government requirements and be volatile due largely to the number of claim‑ CSM has heard more cases, annual K‑14 Figure 4 mandate claims have Annual K-14 Mandate Claims Have Increased grown substantially. Substantially Over Timea As shown in Figure 4, (In Millions) in 1992‑93 (the first $450 year for which data are readily accessible), 400 annual K‑14 unadjusted 350 mandate claims totaled 300 less than $5 million. 250 By 2005‑06 (the most recent year for which 200 complete data were 150 available at the time this 100 report was being pre‑ 50 pared), annual claims exceeded $400 million. 1992-93 1994-95 1996-97 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 (These figures include a Represents all claims filed with the State Controller’s Office. Includes claims for some mandates still claims for some of the completing the determination process, such as the mandate relating to high school science graduation requirements. 8 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office an LaO RepORt able mandates. For example, the number of man‑ the state has deferred payments by providing dates doubled between 1994‑95 and 1995‑96, only a nominal sum for each mandate in the an‑ increasing claims from $25 million to roughly nual budget act. The 2009‑10 Budget Act, for ex‑ $200 million. By contrast, claims fell in 2002‑03, ample, provides only $41,000 ($1,000 per identi‑ due largely to decreases in certain volume‑driven fied mandate) for activities school districts and mandates, such as processing interdistrict trans‑ community colleges will likely claim in excess of fers and collective bargaining. $400 million to perform. Despite receiving virtu‑ Mandates Just Finishing Process Likely to ally no funding, districts must still perform the Lead to Large Cost Increases in Future Years. activities required by each mandate. Our office estimates annual school district and Current Backlog of Mandate Claims Sub- community college mandate claims will reach stantial. As shown in Figure 5, the backlog of $416 million in 2009‑10, including roughly unpaid K‑14 mandate claims is substantial. We $200 million in new annual claims associated anticipate unpaid K‑14 mandates, including with the high school science graduation man‑ the graduation requirement, will total roughly date. (The SCO recently released new retroactive $3.6 billion in 2009‑10. The state has a con‑ claims data for the graduation requirement man‑ stitutional obligation to eventually pay off this date, which serves as the basis for our estimate.) backlog (though it has some options for reducing Another mandate related to special education some costs for pending mandates, such as the with potentially big costs is involved in a court high school graduation requirement mandate). case awaiting resolution. In addition, over a Superior Court Declares Deferring Pay- dozen claims are still on file with CSM awaiting ments Unconstitutional. In December 2008, a statements of decision. In short, while uncertain‑ superior court found the state’s practice of defer‑ ty remains over exactly how much annual costs ring education mandates unconstitutional and will increase, they are likely to grow considerably ordered the state to fully fund mandated pro‑ in the near term. grams “in the future.” (The opinion responds to a State Typically Defers Mandate Payments to lawsuit filed in 2007 by five school districts and Future Years. In recent years, the state has not the California School Boards Association against paid these annual K‑14 mandate claims. Instead, the Department of Finance and State Controller seeking payment of past Figure 5 mandate claims and an Outstanding K-14 Mandate Obligations Total $3.6 Billiona end to deferrals.) While (In Millions) constitutional separa‑ 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 tion of powers means the court cannot force Outstanding K-12 claims $2,141 $2,501 $2,867 Ongoing cost of K-12 claims 360 366 373 the Legislature to make Outstanding CCC claims 260 299 340 appropriations for past Ongoing cost of CCC claims 39 41 43 mandate costs, its deci‑ Total Outstanding Obligations $2,800 $3,207 $3,623 a Excludes mandates still in the mandate determination process. Includes mandate relating to high school sion increases pressure science graduation requirement. LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 9 an LaO RepORt on the state to pay the annual ongoing cost of in the annual budget to pay a mandate’s out‑ education mandates. standing claims, (2) suspend the mandate (render Noneducation Mandates Already Funded it inoperative for one year), or (3) “repeal” the on an Ongoing Basis. One motivation for the mandate (permanently eliminate it or make it op‑ court case involving education mandates was tional). Two categories of mandates—those relat‑ that other local government (cities, counties, and ing to K‑14 education and employee rights—are special districts) mandates are already funded on exempt from this payment requirement. Though an annual ongoing basis. Under Proposition 1A, the exact impact of Proposition 1A on the man‑ approved by the state’s voters in 2004, the Legis‑ date process is unclear, noneducation mandates lature has only three options for addressing other are more likely to be suspended or eliminated local government mandates: (1) appropriate funds than K‑14 mandates. virtually EvEry aSpEct of K-14 mandatE SyStEm broKEn In this section of the report, we discuss similar provisions. Yet another requires admin‑ problems with K‑14 mandates and the state’s istrators to inform teachers when one of their approach to funding them. These problems are students has committed an expellable offense, summarized in Figure 6. even though principals are already responsible Mandates Often Do Not Serve Compelling for keeping teachers safe and would provide staff Purpose. Mandated activities do not necessar‑ with this information in the absence of a man‑ ily serve a more compelling purpose than other date. (In stark contrast to the state’s treatment of policies that are not mandated. Oftentimes, a K‑14 mandates, the amended 2008‑09 Budget law becomes a mandate not because it serves Act removed requirements associated with many an essential function, but because the original categorical programs that arguably serve more legislation did not phrase its requirements very compelling purposes, such as requirements re‑ carefully. Further, many Figure 6 mandated activities are Problems With Current K-14 Mandate System of altogether question‑ able value. For example, one mandate requires = Mandates often do not serve a compelling purpose. districts to submit physi‑ = cal education data that Costs can be higher than anticipated. are already collected = Recent court ruling likely to make containing costs even more difficult. during regular audits. = Another requires schools Reimbursement rates can vary greatly without justification. to remove chemicals = from science classrooms Reimbursement process can reward inefficiency. = even though state Health Reimbursement process ignores effectiveness. and Safety Code includes 10 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office an LaO RepORt lated to summer school, programs for suspended mately file claims, the number of years covered or expelled students, instructional materials, and by claims, the activities deemed allowable, and professional development. See nearby box for subsequent statutory decisions and legal rulings. more detail.) Consequently, legislators can rarely predict the Costs Can Be Higher Than Anticipated. Not fiscal ramifications of the policies they establish only are mandates often of questionable value, that eventually are deemed mandates. but their costs often are much higher than an‑ Recent Court Ruling Likely to Make Con- ticipated. The mismatch between initial expecta‑ taining Costs Even More Difficult. A 2009 tions and final costs can occur for several rea‑ Appellate Court ruling found unconstitutional the sons. In some cases, the state can end up being Legislature’s practice of referring mandates back required to reimburse districts for activities that to CSM in an attempt to reduce associated costs were not intended to increase total education through “reconsideration.” Specifically, the court costs. In other cases, lawmakers do not antici‑ ruled the Legislature cannot refer any previously pate the range of activities that eventually will be decided mandate back to CSM without a con‑ deemed reimbursable. The high school gradu‑ sistent process for doing so. This is significant ation requirement mandate fits both categories. because legal developments after a mandate’s For instance, our office’s Analysis of the 1983‑84 initial determination can occasionally reduce the Budget Bill (the year after the state increased cost of a mandate and the Legislature has wanted graduation requirements) anticipated minimal a way to recognize these savings. For example, costs for this mandate. Nonetheless, based on a several court rulings involving collective bargain‑ 2004 superior court ruling, which expanded the ing rights have been issued that would likely im‑ scope of reimbursable activities, annual claims pact the costs associated with the K‑14 collective are all but certain to reach about $200 million. In bargaining mandate. Specifically, the courts have general, costs per mandate can vary dramatically clarified that requirements applicable to public depending on the number of districts that ulti‑ and private entities are not mandates. Nonethe‑ L J t M ittLe ustification for reating andates and c P s d ategoricaL rograMs o ifferentLy Beginning in 2008‑09, the state significantly increased local flexibility by essentially elimi‑ nating the requirements associated with roughly 40 state‑funded categorical programs. One rationale for this categorical flexibility was to allow school districts and community colleges to focus resources on a smaller range of top priorities amidst diminishing state funding. Despite of‑ fering more categorical flexibility, the state chose to maintain more than 50 K‑14 mandates, many of which have dozens of specific requirements. Given the types of requirements associated with categorical programs and mandates can be quite similar, eliminating many categorical require‑ ments while simultaneously maintaining virtually all K‑14 mandate requirements has little justifi‑ cation. Moreover, eliminating mandated requirements would result in as much, if not more, local flexibility, especially given the highly detailed process entailed in filing a mandate claim. LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 11 an LaO RepORt less, as a result of the 2009 ruling, CSM has no Reimbursement Process Can Reward Inef- way to revise its decisions in light of new legal ficiency. Districts also receive more in mandate precedent until a new process is developed that funding by claiming more activity, not by per‑ is consistent with the court’s findings. Thus, the forming an activity efficiently. Many mandates recent ruling further limits the state’s options for are reimbursed based on the amount of time lowering the cost of an established mandate. devoted to a required activity and the salary of Reimbursement Rates Vary Greatly With- the staff member performing it. In other words, out Justification. In addition to these overarch‑ the more time devoted to an activity and the ing problems, mandates allow districts to claim higher the staff member’s rank, the greater the widely different reimbursement amounts and reimbursement. For example, the longer it takes receive widely different rates for performing the school districts to reach collective bargaining same activities. The variation often reflects local agreements or evaluate their teachers, the greater record keeping and claim‑filing practices more the reimbursement. than substantive cost differences in implementing Reimbursement Process Ignores Effective- policy objectives. For example, some larger dis‑ ness. The state also has little power to hold tricts have staffing units dedicated to processing districts accountable for performing mandated mandate claims or hire accounting firms to file activities effectively. That is, districts can claim claims whereas many smaller districts have one expenses for performing an activity regardless of administrator to file claims while juggling many how well it is performed or whether its underly‑ other responsibilities. Figure 7 provides an ex‑ ing policy objectives are achieved. For example, ample of the notable variation in reimbursement school districts receive the same amount for amounts. As shown in the figure, among a subset sending a form letter home when a student of districts selected by our office for purposes becomes a truant, regardless of whether the of illustration, reimbursements for the gradua‑ districts’ efforts increase parental involvement or tion requirement mandate ranged from $6 to reduce dropout rates. $264 per pupil and reimbursements for the high school exit exam ranged from $3 to $26 per pupil. Figure 7 Moreover, more than Mandate Reimbursement Claims Vary Widely 11 percent of eligible School District 2005-06 Claims Per Pupila school districts did not Graduation Requirement file a claim for the high Clovis Unified $264 school exit exam, sug‑ Grossmont Union High 203 Los Angeles Unified 81 gesting the process was Visalia Unified 6 not worth the investment High School Exit Exam of staff time. For some Colusa Unified $26 mandates, as many as East Side Union High 18 Clovis Unified 8 one in four districts does Los Angeles Unified 3 not file a claim. a Ranges in per-pupil claims differ by roughly the same magnitude when claims are averaged over several years. 12 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office an LaO RepORt govErnor’S propoSal to SuSpEnd moSt K-14 mandatES miSSES opportunity The Governor’s 2010‑11 budget includes medical examination and potentially lifesaving funding for the annual cost of three K‑12 man‑ immunizations before entering school. In the dates but suspends all remaining K‑14 mandates past, lawmakers have found strategies to limit (except for the graduation requirement mandate, the high cost of some mandates while creating which the administration is challenging in court). strong incentives for schools to perform activities Unlike the practice of deferring mandate costs, fundamental to the operation of a school district. suspending mandates would relieve the state By suspending mandates, the administration fails from the obligation to pay for required activities to create such incentives. as well as relieve local schools from perform‑ Suspension Creates Confusion for Districts. ing them. The Governor’s proposed suspen‑ Suspension also would lead to confusion among sions would reduce associated 2010‑11 claims districts about what activities they are required by roughly $373 million. While the Governor’s to perform. Rather than actually repeal or amend plan reduces state mandate costs and is a better sections of the Education Code, suspension option than continuing to defer costs, we believe through the budget act makes sections of law his plan misses an opportunity to engage in sub‑ inoperative only for the year in which they are stantive mandate reform. Specifically, we think suspended. As a result, districts would be forced the Governor’s plan has two major shortcomings to cross‑reference the budget act with the Educa‑ as described below. tion Code and lengthy CSM decisions to deter‑ Treats All Currently Mandated Activities mine what activities they are still required to per‑ Alike Regardless of Policy Merits. The Gover‑ form. Moreover, districts cannot dismantle costly nor’s proposal does nothing to preserve the state programs for a single year if there is a chance the policies that underlie many education mandates. mandate will be reinstated the following year. For For instance, suspension would temporarily example, a district is unlikely to release science remove requirements that students receive a teachers one year only to rehire them the next. rEcommEnd comprEhEnSivE mandatE rEform In this section, we recommend comprehen‑ State Should Adopt Comprehensive Man- sively reforming K‑14 mandates, discuss related date Reform Package. We recommend the state implementation issues, and make suggestions for assess the merits of each K‑14 mandate. For addressing future mandates. As shown in Fig‑ most mandates, we recommend either funding ure 8 (see next page), our reform package would or eliminating them in their entirety. For a few save the state $363 million annually by no longer mandates, however, we recommend a hybrid ap‑ requiring non‑essential or ineffective activities. proach whereby certain activities associated with Our package would fund slightly more than a mandate would be funded and the remaining $30 million in ongoing mandate costs to support activities eliminated. Eliminating a mandate is not essential activities. necessarily the same as eliminating the related LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 13 an LaO RepORt policy. Oftentimes, a mandate can be eliminated in its absence, the educational system will not while still preserving underlying policies that function with nearly the same effectiveness or serve a compelling purpose. Under our reform integrity or the state will encounter significant package—taken in totality—the state can relieve health or safety risks. Specifically, in determin‑ schools from performing hundreds of activities ing if a mandate is essential, we asses whether of relatively little value to students while saving it meets five longstanding Legislative Analyst’s hundreds of millions in mandate costs annually. Office (LAO) criteria (see Figure 9). Use Narrow Definition of Statewide Inter- Fund Select Mandates est. In making our assessment of each education As a general rule, the state should only mandate, we use a somewhat narrow defini‑ mandate activities of fundamental importance to tion of “statewide interest”—focusing primarily the effective operation of a school district. That on activities related to accountability as well as is, implementing a policy that has reasonable public health and safety. Over time, the educa‑ objectives in an effective manner is not by itself tion system has gradually shifted to a focus on sufficient justification for mandating an activity. outcomes and accountability. An outcomes‑ In many cases, reasonable education policies based system cannot function, however, without that are not essential still can be implemented by data and procedures to assess effectiveness and creating a different incentive to perform related hold schools accountable. Furthermore, the activities, such as making funding available for education system cannot meet its accountability a school district to conduct the activities at its goals if students and teachers are not protected discretion. By comparison, an activity should from health and safety risks. In short, we believe only be mandated when it is essential—that is, educational activities should only be a mandate Figure 8 Systematic Approach to Comprehensive K-14 Mandate Reform (Dollars in Thousands) Annual Fiscal Effecta Recommendation Number of Mandatesa Cost Savings K-12 Mandates Fund 11 $26,379 — Eliminate 19 — $271,052 Hybrid 6 7,165 16,934 Community College Mandates Fund 1 $1 — Eliminate 6 — $32,322 Hybrid — — — K-14 Mandates Fund — — — Eliminate 2 — $42,167 Hybrid 1 $54 54 Totals 46 $33,599 $362,529 a Based on estimated 2009-10 claims. Excludes the five mandates that apply to all local governments and the Behavioral Intervention Plan mandate. Also excludes the five currently suspended mandates, which we recommend eliminating. 14 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office an LaO RepORt if they are needed to hold schools accountable Standardize Reimbursement for These or protect students and educators. This narrow Mandates. While we recommend funding the definition of a statewide interest conforms to the activities in Appendix A, we also recommend approach the state has recently adopted for local the state improve the manner in which it funds agency mandates—funding certain public safety those activities. Specifically, we recommend the and oversight activities while suspending most state work with original claimants and statewide other local agency mandates. organizations like the California School Boards Several Existing Mandates Meet This Defini- Association to develop a standardized reimburse‑ tion and Should Be Funded. While many existing ment methodology. For example, under our mandates do not translate into essential services for proposal, rather than fund school districts based students or teachers, some mandates do require on whatever they claim for the high school exit activities of fundamental importance. In these exam mandate, every district submitting a claim cases, we recommend funding associated costs would receive a set amount for each student (see Appendix A). For example, despite an annual tested. A reasonable reimbursement methodol‑ cost of nearly $10 million, we recommend the ogy (or RRM) would help ensure districts are state pay to ensure students entering school have compensated reasonably for performing the been immunized against certain infectious diseas‑ same activities. An RRM also would reduce the es, such as mumps, measles, and hepatitis B. The staff time needed to file a claim, thereby making effectiveness of immunizations in preventing these the claims process easier for smaller districts. communicable diseases, all of which could prove Pay Annually Based on Actual Prior-Year debilitating to school districts and their students, Costs. Once standardized reimbursements are ad‑ is well documented. We also recommend local opted, we recommend the state pay for mandates education agencies continue to provide oversight on an annual basis and align payment schedules of district budgets, charter schools, and plans to for education and other local government man‑ combine school districts. In each case, lack of dates. Other local government mandates currently sufficient regulation could have serious negative are paid annually but two years in arrears. (For effects on impacted school districts. example, 2007‑08 claims were paid in 2009‑10.) Figure 9 LAO Criteria for Funding Mandates 9 Statute has resulted in a “true” mandate by requiring local governments to establish a new program or provide an increased level of service. 9 The mandate serves a statewide interest. 9 The mandate has produced results consistent with the Legislature’s intent and expectations. 9 The benefits achieved by the mandate are worth the cost. 9 The goal of the mandate cannot be achieved through a less-costly alternative. LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 15 an LaO RepORt Such a practice allows districts time to document little to increase parental involvement or reduce their activities and file claims after the end of the dropout rates. Rather than lead to substantive year, which in turn allows the state to pay districts interaction between educators and parents, the based on the actual activities they performed. mandate simply requires districts to send a form Aligning mandate payments would mean all man‑ letter to parents when a student is truant, which dates are reimbursed two years in arrears. the state reimburses at a rate of approximately $17 per notification. In general, educators believe Eliminate Mandates That Do Not a form letter is neither sufficient to increase paren‑ Serve a Fundamental Purpose tal involvement nor as effective as a phone call. Despite the important nature of certain man‑ Beyond the ineffective and inefficient implemen‑ dates, others can be eliminated with little if any tation of these mandates, federal accountability impact on students (see Appendix B). In some policies require schools serving low‑income fami‑ cases, these mandates require activities that also lies to develop detailed plans for increasing parent are required elsewhere in law. For example, the involvement. This federal requirement directly Notification of Truancy mandate largely overlaps targets students at risk of dropping out, whereas with federal law that also requires school districts the state’s truancy mandates often fund affluent to develop policies for increasing parental in‑ districts with very low dropout rates. volvement and reducing dropout rates. For other Eliminate Other Mandates While mandates, the activity may add some small value Preserving Core State Policies but does not justify its price tag. For instance, the state now pays $2 million a year for physi‑ For some mandates, we recommend eliminat‑ cal performance tests in certain grades. While ing required activities while still preserving im‑ physical activity is important for kids, these tests portant state policies underlying the mandate (see do not supplement state physical education Appendix C). In these cases, in our view, the core requirements in any substantive way, nor do they state policies add significant value to the educa‑ provide data used to improve physical educa‑ tion system. Relatively simple changes to statute, tion practices. (While mandates suspended in however, often can drastically reduce the cost of the 2009‑10 Budget Act do not generate costs the mandate without removing these fundamen‑ and are therefore not addressed in Appendix B, tal requirements. The high costs of the mandates we recommend eliminating them as part of our typically stem from quirks in the mandate pro‑ reform package.) cess. For example, requiring students to take two, Truancy Mandates Exemplify Requirements rather than one, science class in order to graduate That Should Be Eliminated. The two mandates from high school now costs upwards of $200 mil‑ requiring school districts to notify parents when lion annually. Through a simple change to statute, students are truant exemplify requirements that the same requirement could be preserved at no should be eliminated. These particular mandates cost to the state by clarifying that districts need are expensive ($25 million annually), ineffective, to provide the additional science class as part of and broadly duplicative of other requirements. their regular course of study, which virtually all of While notifying parents when a student misses them now do. (As discussed in the box on class repeatedly is important, the mandate does page 18, another mandate involving behavioral 16 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office an LaO RepORt interventions for students with disabilities also neither be funded nor eliminated in their en‑ could be reformed using this approach.) tirety. In these cases, we recommend the state consider the merits of each activity required by Refine and Implement New the mandate and fund or eliminate it accordingly Reconsideration Process (see Appendix D). This hybrid approach allows To help preserve certain policies while the state to preserve important policies while reducing costs, we also recommend the state es‑ reducing costs and relieving school districts from tablish a new mandate reconsideration process. performing unnecessary activities. For example, Toward this end, CSM already has proposed a the state now requires schools to inform parents new process for how mandates impacted by annually of certain information. Some of this changes in legal precedent, fact, or circum‑ information, such as the right of students to take stance could be reconsidered. While our office necessary medications during the school day has some concerns with specific components and receive support from staff, is important for of CSM’s proposal (particularly with provisions families to know. Other information, however, is disallowing reconsideration after a set number unnecessary, overly costly to provide, or would of years), CSM’s general approach addresses the be provided even in the absence of a mandate. court’s concerns. With a few refinements, we Much of the cost associated with annual parent recommend the Legislature adopt this reconsider‑ notifications, for instance, is generated by the ation process. Establishing a new reconsideration requirement that districts include the complete process would mean the state could reduce man‑ text of their sexual harassment policies in the no‑ date costs in the event a court finds that certain tification. Rather, the state could require districts types of activities are no longer reimbursable. to inform parents generally of sexual harassment Reduce Cost of Collective Bargaining Using policies and of their right to obtain a complete New Reconsideration Process. As our office has copy by request. As shown in Appendix E, argued in the past, collective bargaining laws simple changes like these would have little to no now largely apply both to public and private or‑ impact on students while significantly reducing ganizations, which means most of the state’s edu‑ the cost of these mandates. cation collective bargaining requirements should Mandates Completing the not be a reimbursable mandate. By requesting Determination Process This Year Could CSM to reconsider this mandate, which was Be Included in Reform Package originally decided before CSM even existed, we believe the commission will find most bargaining Chapter 1124, Statutes of 2002 (AB 3000, requirements not to be reimbursable. This action Committee on Budget), requires the LAO to would significantly reduce costs while preserving review each mandate included in CSM’s annual current bargaining requirements. report of newly identified mandates. Since our last review, three new education mandates have Use a Hybrid Approach for been identified by CSM. We recommend the fol‑ Remaining Mandates lowing approaches on these provisions: For some mandates, there are a mix of requirements that, based on our review, should LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 17 an LaO RepORt B i P M s ehavioraL ntervention Lans andate houLd B e t W g e LiMinated hrough ork rouP A mandate related to Behavioral Intervention Plans (BIPs) for students with disabilities, which could add significantly to ongoing state costs, is currently involved in litigation. We rec‑ ommend eliminating this mandate because federal special education laws now largely overlap with state laws. Under state law, if a student with a disability exhibits behavior that impedes his or her Individualized Education Plan, school districts are required to perform three primary ac‑ tivities: (1) assess the student’s behavior using a “functional analysis assessment,” (2) implement a plan for addressing the behavior (the BIP), and (3) ensure teachers are properly trained to perform BIPs. After state laws and regulations were adopted, the federal government essentially chose to require the same primary activities (see figure below, which highlights federal regula‑ tions related to IDEA generally and BIPs specifically). As a result of the new changes in federal law, IDEA funding likely could be used to implement most, if not all, desired BIP activities. New Federal Requirements Offer Sufficient Protection Topic Federal Rules and Regulations Functional Analysis Assessments The IDEA “requires the public agency to ensure that the child is as- sessed in all areas related to the suspected disability...If a child’s behavior or physical status is of concern, evaluations addressing these areas must be conducted.” Behavioral Intervention Plans The IDEA “emphasizes a proactive approach to behaviors that in- terfere with learning by requiring that, for children with disabilities whose behavior impedes their learning...the IEP team consider...the use of positive behavioral interventions. This provision should en- sure that children who need behavior intervention plans to succeed in school receive them.” Related Professional Development The IDEA requires the state “to ensure that personnel are appro- priately and adequately prepared and trained...(IDEA) specifically focuses on professional development for teachers and other school staff to enable such personnel to deliver scientifically based aca- demic and behavioral interventions and provide educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports.” Given the high degree of overlap among state and federal law, most state BIP requirements could be eliminated with minimal impact on students. Nonetheless, given this mandate involves issues related to student safety, we believe the state should use heightened care when repeal‑ ing state requirements that duplicate federal law. Specifically, we recommend creating a work group that includes special education experts to make recommendations for revising associated state laws and regulations. The work group could help ensure new federal requirements are implemented effectively and state requirements are rolled back carefully, such that important existing protections for students and districts are not undermined. 18 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office an LaO RepORt · We recommend eliminating expanded State Should Develop Long-Term Plan hearing costs for students mandatorily For Reducing Backlog of Unpaid Claims expelled from school. As indicated earlier Given the Legislature is essentially limited to in the report, we recommend leaving reforming mandates on a prospective basis, the offenses that now result in a mandatory state will likely have to pay for the vast majority expulsion to a school district’s discretion, of prior‑year mandate claims. We recommend a an approach that would automatically two‑tiered approach to paying down this backlog eliminate these expanded hearing costs. over time. First, the state should schedule out annual payments until the debt is retired. The an‑ · For a new mandate involving reporting re‑ nual obligation, however, should not be so large quirements placed on school districts and as to create an undue burden on the K‑14 budget community colleges related to the Califor‑ but should still constitute enough to pay down nia State Teachers’ Retirement System, we the debt slowly over time. Second, the state recommend a hybrid approach (as de‑ should use any unanticipated Proposition 98 scribed in Appendix D and Appendix E). revenues received at the end of a fiscal year to · Lastly, one mandate involving the state’s accelerate payments such that the backlog could Norm Referenced Test (NRT) that recently be retired more quickly. completed the entire CSM process is no longer claimable because the NRT was eliminated during the 2008‑09 school year. CONCLuSION Continuing to defer mandate costs while We recommend comprehensively reforming avoiding substantive mandate reform has several K‑14 mandates. If a mandate serves a purpose negative consequences. For school districts and fundamental to the education system, such as community colleges, deferral means still hav‑ protecting student health or providing essen‑ ing to perform hundreds of activities, which are tial assessment and oversight data, it should be often of little benefit to students, even amid steep funded. If not, the mandate should be eliminated. budget cuts. Mandates also allow districts and Taken as a whole, our reform package would community colleges without justification to claim relieve school districts and community colleges very different amounts for performing the same of performing hundreds of activities that provide activities. For the state, deferral means the debt little value to students while providing them with owed to schools will grow steeply and, without adequate and timely compensation for the activi‑ substantive reform, most mandated policies likely ties still required of them. In addition, compre‑ will continue to be implemented ineffectively hensively reforming mandates would reduce the and inefficiently. state’s annual obligations by more than $350 mil‑ lion—funds that could be saved or allocated to districts for higher priorities. LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 19 appendix Appendix 20 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office appendix Appendix A LAO Recommends Funding a Dozen Mandates (In Thousands) Mandate Requirements Annual Costa K-12 Mandates High School Exit Exam Cover excess costs for administering the California High School Exit Exam. $8,458 Immunization Records—Hepatitis B Request, record, and follow-up on documentation that student is im- 6,160 Immunization Records—Original munized against: hepatitis B, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, 4,821 tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough). Exclude students from school if documentation is not provided within a set period. Charter Schools I-III Review petitions for charter schools and charter renewals, notify 2,325 charter schools of reasons for charter revocation, and administer facility rentals. Pupil Health Screenings Inform parents that students must have a health screening before 1,570 enrollment in kindergarten or first grade, follow up with parents to ensure compliance, and exclude any pupil without a screening after 91 days in school from attending for at most five days. School District Fiscal Accountability Reporting/ Counties must annually certify that district budgets are financially 2,612 County Office Fiscal Accountability Reporting sound and follow specific timelines for certification and public review 404 of budgets. Includes district compliance activities. Differential Pay and Reemployment Maintain a list of certificated employees who have exhausted all sick 11 leave and process paperwork to return that employee to work upon recovery. School District Reorganization Counties must send district reorganization petitions to the State 9 Board of Education, make petitions public, and review petitions based on established criteria. Pupil Safety Notices Inform parents when a school does not meet certain safety stan- 6 dards, including for lead, and provide an interpreter anytime a parent does not speak English and wishes to discuss certain safety issues, such as child abuse. Missing Children Reports Post notices of missing children provided by law enforcement. Notify 3 law enforcement if another school requests the student's records. Community College Mandates Sex Offenders: Disclosure by Law Enforcement Campus police must register students who are sex offenders and live $1 on campus. a Based on estimated 2009-10 claims. Costs could increase to the extent more districts file claims given our recommendation to simplify the reimbursement process. LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 21 appendix Appendix B LAO Recommends Eliminating Most Education Mandates (In Thousands) Likely Impact on Annual Mandate Requirements Students and Teachers Savingsa K-12 Mandates Truancy Notification—Develop truancy procedures. Minimal impact expected. Almost all mandate $15,900 Identify students absent or tardy three or costs are generated by form letters, which are more times as truant. Use a form letter to reimbursed at a rate of $17 each and do not inform parents their child has been classified substantively increase parent involvement or as truant. reduce dropouts. Further, the federal No Child Left Behind Act already requires districts to de- Habitual Truants—If a student is truant three 6,883 velop extensive policies for increasing parental or more times: verify prior truancies, inform involvement. the parents using a form letter, and request a conference with the parent. After these steps, classify the student as habitually truant. Notification to Document and maintain information on all Minimal impact expected. Keeping teachers 6,818 Teachers of students in the past three years who have and students safe is one of the primary respon- Mandatory committed suspendable or expellable of- sibilities of any principal. Moreover, compelling Expulsion fenses. Inform teachers of students who have liability concerns provide a stronger incentive engaged in such activities. than a mandate to inform teachers. Scoliosis Screening Screen all female students in grade seven Minimal impact expected. Rigorous studies 3,652 and male students in grade eight for scoliosis. show these tests are costly and do a poor job of Train staff as needed. Report results to state identifying students in need of further treatment. departments. Physical Purchase equipment, train staff, conduct Minimal impact expected. The state already 2,325 Performance Tests assessments, analyze assessment data, and requires two years of physical education in high respond to state agency requests associated school and has well-developed curriculum stan- with administering physical fitness tests in dards for middle school. Data are not used to grades five, seven, and nine. improve education practices. Law Enforcement File a report with law enforcement whenever Minimal impact expected. Most districts al- 1,894 Agency Notifications a student violates particular sections of ready inform law enforcement of crimes commit- state Penal Code. Maintain records of those ted on campus, in part due to compelling liability reports. concerns. Removal of Chemicals Hire consultants to inventory chemicals in No impact expected. Health and Safety Code 1,289 science classrooms, review those inventories, requires the removal of dangerous chemicals. and remove all chemicals that are outdated Potential lawsuits resulting from harm to stu- but have not yet become dangerous as de- dents create greater incentives for compliance fined in Health and Safety Code. than a mandate. Caregiver Affidavits For a student living with a caregiver residing Minimal impact expected. Schools legally 975 in the district: prepare affidavit procedures allowed to enroll these students. Attendance and approve valid affidavits to allow the stu- funding provides sufficient incentive to prepare dent to attend local schools. Perform related an affidavit. administrative tasks. (Continued) 22 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office appendix Likely Impact on Annual Mandate Requirements Students and Teachers Savingsa Pupil Residency Verify student's residency in the district and Minimal impact expected. No compelling rea- $348 Verification and U.S. citizenship at times other than annual son exists to mandate the district verify resi- Appeals residency verification, especially if concerns dency outside of the annual residency period arise over the validity of residency documen- or upon the student's arrival at the district. tation provided. Conduct appeals for students Districts are still free to perform these activi- deemed not to be legal residents. ties at their discretion. Expulsion Transcripts Districts cannot charge students for the cost Minimal impact expected. Costs are minimal 13 of providing a transcript for expulsion hear- and districts already frequently provide this ser- ings if the family is low-income or the county vice when a student's family cannot afford it. reverses the district's decision. Teacher Incentive Inform teachers of a $10,000 state incen- Minimal impact expected. Additional funding 6 Program tive to receive National Board Certification. from the state to attract and train qualified teach- Certify to the National Board that the teacher ers is itself sufficient incentive for districts to is employed by the district. Submit the ap- participate. plication to the California Department of Education. Physical Education Report to the California Department of Edu- No impact expected. The state already re- 2 Reports cation on whether students receive 200 min- ceives this information as part of its broader utes of physical education instruction every district compliance and audit processes. two weeks. Community College Mandates Law Enforcement Campus police must develop and update (as No impact expected. Campus police have $195 College Jurisdic- needed) agreements with local law enforce- already adopted agreements. New statute could tion Agreements ment agencies concerning which agency has allow them to keep in place such policies (or responsibility for investigating violent crimes update at their discretion). occurring on campus. Sexual Assault Districts must adopt policies and procedures No impact expected. Districts have already — Response on campus response if students are sexually adopted procedures. New statute could allow Procedures assaulted. them to keep in place such policies (or update at their discretion). Reporting Improper Districts must pay for all costs of State Per- Minimal impact expected. State law already 27 Governmental sonnel Board hearings (as well as certain provides protections and legal recourses for Activities other related activities) if an employee files a CCC whistleblowers. By eliminating require- complaint with the Board alleging retaliation ment, CCC would be treated the same as K-12. by the district for whistleblowing. Shared K-12 and Community College Mandates Agency Fee Deduct bargaining unit fees from employees' No impact expected. Districts involved in $75 Arrangements paychecks. Provide the local bargaining bargaining likely already do these activities. unit representative with any new employee's Unions can also bargain to have these activities home address. included in contracts. a Based on estimated 2009-10 claims. LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 23 appendix Appendix C LAO Recommends Preserving Core Policies Underlying Some Mandates (In Thousands) Likely Impact on Annual Mandate Requirements Students and Teachers Savingsa K-12 Mandates High School Science Require two science classes for graduation (rath- No impact expected. A simple statute $200,000 Graduation er than one). Acquire space and equipment for clarification can eliminate the mandate Requirement additional science classes. Acquire and produce while preserving the requirement. related instructional materials. Pay teacher salary costs for an additional science course. Stull Act Evaluate certificated instructional personnel No impact expected. Core evalua- 19,166 related to: adherence to curricular objectives and tion requirements are not part of the students' progress on state assessments. Review mandate. Assessment requirements tenured teachers that receive an unsatisfactory are covered in other Education Code evaluation on a yearly basis. sections. Districts have a compelling interest in evaluating teachers, includ- ing those with previously unsatisfactory performance. Inter/Intradistrict Prepare policies regarding student transfer. De- Minimal impact expected. Within 5,792 Attendance velop a random selection process for transfers. district transfers are required for failing Determine school site capacity prior to transfer. schools under No Child Left Behind Study the impact of any transfer on racial and and across-district transfers are al- ethnic balances. Within-district transfers are ready optional. required, but across-district transfers are optional and only require county office oversight. Pupil Suspensions, Automatically suspend students for certain of- Minimal impact expected. Leave 3,849 Expulsions, and fenses and recommend students for expulsion suspension and expulsion decisions to Expulsion Appeals for certain offenses. Hold expulsion appeals and local discretion—most serious offenses follow due process. Perform all related adminis- likely would still result in suspension or trative activities. expulsion. (Students expelled for identi- fied offenses would still generate higher funding at community and community day schools.) Criminal Background Conduct criminal background checks prior to No impact expected. Districts already 1,713 Checks I and II hiring all certificated personnel and contractors. charge fees for some of these ser- Purchase necessary electronic fingerprinting vices—the state could allow them to equipment. Prepare all related district policies. charge fees for all related services. Exchange information with the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies. Financial and Conduct activities required to comply with new No impact expected. State could 427 Compliance Audits audit procedures, submit corrective plans to streamline the audit process and county offices, respond to requests for financial requirements to correspond with the information, and review audits publicly. recent consolidation of state categori- cal programs. (Continued) 24 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office appendix Likely Impact on Annual Mandate Requirements Students and Teachers Savingsa Community College Mandates Enrollment Fee Districts must collect enrollment fees and waive No impact expected. Create a strong $20,000 Collection and Waivers fees for certain students (such as financially incentive for districts to perform these needy students). administrative duties by reducing districts' General Fund support by the amount of fee revenues that they decline to collect. Integrated Waste Districts must divert from landfills a specified per- Minimal impact expected. Statewide Unknown Management centage of their solid waste through reduction, cost estimate scheduled for January recycling, and compacting activities. Develop 2010. To the extent that savings and and report annually on their ability to meet solid- revenues fully offset all costs that waste division goals. districts incur from required activities, retain the mandate. If significant cost, treat CCC the same as K-12 school districts, which are encouraged—but not required—to comply with diversion goals. Like K-12 schools, likely that colleges would participate anyway in waste-division programs. Health Fee/Services Each district is required to provide students at No impact expected. Continue to re- 12,100 least the level of health services it provided in quire districts to provide same level of 1986-87. Fee districts may charge for health ser- health services, but eliminate mandate vices is capped. costs by allowing districts to assess a fee amount that covers the full cost to provide current service levels. Shared K-12 and Community College Mandates Collective Bargaining Determine appropriate bargaining units and rep- No impact expected. Recent court $42,092 resentatives. Hold and certify elections for unit decisions suggest most collective bar- representatives. Negotiate contracts and make gaining requirements should no longer them public. Participate in impasse proceedings. be considered a mandate. Upon adop- Administrate and adjudicate contract disputes. tion of new reconsideration process, laws could remain unchanged while drastically reducing the associated cost to the state. a Based on estimated 2009-10 claims. LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 25 appendix Appendix D In a Few Cases, LAO Recommends a Hybrid Approach (In Thousands) Annual Fiscal Effecta Mandate and Required Activities Fund Eliminate Annual Parent Notification Inform parents of: High school exit exam requirement $335 — Right to exempt students from HIV prevention classes 395 — Right of students to take necessary medications and receive school support 395 — Right of student to refuse immunizations and other medical treatment 395 — Alternative education options 335 — Sexual harassment policiesb — $6,712 Local school discipline rules — 395 Excusable absences — 395 Dates of in-service training for teachers — 395 Fingerprinting program for school staff — 395 Subtotals ($1,855) ($8,292) AIDS Prevention I-II Provide all middle school students with HIV prevention instruction $396 — Provide professional development on HIV instruction 314 — Provide all high school students with additional HIV prevention instruction — $396 Notify parents of right to exempt students from HIV instruction — 75 Provide instructional materials on HIV instruction — 194 Keep relevant sections of Education Code available for parents — 120 Subtotals ($710) ($785) Comprehensive School Safety Develop a schoolwide safety planc $151 — Review and annually update safety planc — $4,890 Subtotals ($151) ($4,890) Juvenile Court Notices II Maintain private record of students' juvenile court notices $154 — Transfer notices to students' subsequent schools 461 — Destroy records when student turns 18 years-old 154 — Distribute notices to teachers — $308 Provide juvenile courts with school's mailing address — 154 Subtotals ($769) ($461) Pupil Promotion and Retention Notify parent of teacher's recommendation to retain a student $480 — Discuss recommendation with parent 480 — Provide appeals process for student recommended for retention 480 — Provide supplemental instruction for students underperforming on state tests — $563 Provide supplemental instruction for students recommended for retention — 563 Develop local policies on promotion and retention — 563 Subtotals ($1,439) ($1,689) (Continued) 26 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office appendix Annual Fiscal Effecta Mandate and Required Activities Fund Eliminate School Accountability Report Cards Schools must report the following information to the state and parents: Salaries paid to teachers and staff $408 — Current year dropout rate 203 — Student assessment data 407 — Total number of instructional minutes and days 204 — Average class size 408 — Credentialing status and qualifications of staff members 407 — Suspension and expulsion rates 204 — School average Scholastic Aptitude Test scores when reportedd — $408 School days devoted to staff developmentd — 204 Degree to which pupils prepared to enter workforced — 204 Subtotals ($2,241) ($816) California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) Service Credit Submit sick leave records to CalSTRS for audit purposes $18 — Provide information to CalSTRS regarding reemployment of military personne 18 — Certify number of unused excess sick days to CalSTRS for retiring members 18 — Inform new staff of eligibility for membership in the Defined Benefit Program. — 18 Alert new employee of right to make an election to CalSTRS or CalPERS and — 18 make available written information on the plans Maintain new employees' written acknowledgment information was received — 18 Subtotals ($54) ($54) Total Estimated Annual Fiscal Effect $7,219 $16,988 a Based on estimated 2009-10 claims. b Requirement would not be eliminated entirely, but costs would be reduced substantially by alerting parents of right to obtain sexual harassment policies from the school by request rather than printing entire policy in the notification letter. c Proposal would fund cost of developing an initial plan, submitting it to the district, consulting with local law enforcement, conferring with other schools, assessing the current status of school crime, and developing strategies to comply with current safety laws. Any update to the plan would be left to district discretion. d Alternatively, state could use these data reporting requirements to collect more useful data rather than simply eliminate the cost. LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 27 appendix Appendix E Likely Minimal Impact From Eliminating Individual Requirements Mandate and Required Activities Likely Impact of Elimination on Students and Teachers Annual Parent Notification Inform parents of: Sexual harassment policies No impact expected. The majority of costs can be elimi- nated by informing parents of their right to obtain sexual ha- rassment policies rather than printing the entire policy in the notification. Local school discipline rules No impact expected. Clarify districts cannot take disciplin- ary action against a student unless the student was informed about local rules in advance. This technical change elimi- nates state costs. Excusable absences No impact expected. Clarify schools cannot take any atten- dance-related disciplinary action against a student without verifying reasons for absence. Dates of in-service training for teachers No impact expected. Districts already have a compelling incentive to let parents know which days students are not required to attend school. Fingerprinting program for school staff No impact expected. Effectiveness of finger-printing pro- grams and background checks are not contingent on parents' awareness of the programs. AIDS Prevention I-II Provide a second HIV prevention course to all Minimal impact expected. All middle and high school stu- high school students dents would still receive at least one course on HIV aware- ness and prevention. High school health content standards cover HIV multiple times. Data suggest the vast majority of high schools provide health classes. Notify parents of right to exempt students from No impact expected. Already included in annual parent no- HIV instruction tification. Provide instructional materials on HIV instruction No impact expected. Middle and high school content standards include detailed information on HIV prevention. Schools already receive funding for instructional materials. Keep relevant sections of Education Code avail- No impact expected. If a parent wants a copy of the rel- able for parents evant Education Code from the district, it can be accessed online and printed. California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) Service Credit Inform new staff of benefit eligibility No impact expected. All of these requirements could be Alert new employee of right to make an election achieved by allowing CalSTRS and CalPERS to charge dis- to CalSTRS or CalPERS tricts that file benefits information after the deadline the cost Maintain employees' written acknowledgment of processing the material. (Continued) 28 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office appendix Mandate and Required Activities Likely Impact of Elimination on Students and Teachers Comprehensive School Safety Review and annually update safety plansa Minimal impact expected. Schools would still be required to update their plans if they determine the original plan is no longer sufficient to protect student safety. Liability concerns create a stronger incentive than the mandate to update safety plans. Juvenile Court Notices II Distribute notices to teachers Minimal impact expected. Similar to Notification to Teach- ers of Mandatory Expulsion, schools already have strong incentives to alert teachers when students are expelled or commit a crime. Provide juvenile courts with school's mailing address No impact expected. Courts can find this information online. Pupil Promotion and Retention Provide supplemental instruction for students Minimal impact expected. Accountability systems provide underperforming on state tests or recommended incentives for improving student performance and already for retention require supplemental instruction. Also, research suggests an hourly after-school model often does not reach students most in need of help. Develop local policies on promotion and retention No impact expected. Districts already develop these poli- cies. Moreover, protecting students' due process rights re- quires districts to have a rational basis for making retention decisions. School Accountability Report Cards Schools must report the following information to the state: School average Scholastic Aptitude Test scores Minimal impact expected. Districts only collect data for when reported students who report scores. As a result, scores are not rep- resentative of the student body. School days devoted to staff development No impact expected. Requirement does not tell families or the state anything about the quality of professional develop- ment. Degree to which pupils prepared to enter workforce No impact expected. The state has not found an effective way to measure or operationalize this reporting requirement. a Includes cost of developing a plan, submitting it to the district, consulting with local law enforcement, conferring with other schools, assessing the current status of school crime, and developing strategies to comply with current safety laws. LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 29 an LaO RepORt 30 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office an LaO RepORt LegisLative anaLyst’s Office 31 an LaO RepORt LAO Publications This report was prepared by Jim Soland and reviewed by Jennifer Kuhn. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an E-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s Internet site at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 32 LegisLative anaLyst’s Office