Review of the California Department of Education

Review of the California Department of Education MAC TAYLOR • L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T • AUGUST 28, 2014 AN LAO REPORT 2 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The California Department of Education (CDE) Administers Education Programs. The CDE is the primary state entity responsible for administering federal and state education programs. Generally, CDE does not create education policy or programs. Many of CDE’s activities stem from federal requirements, such as overseeing the compliance of local educational agencies (LEAs) with the conditions placed on federal education grants. The state also requires CDE to perform certain administrative tasks, such as overseeing LEAs’ compliance with state education programs and collecting and compiling statewide data. Given the size of the state, number of LEAs, and diversity among LEAs, the state typically relies on county offices of education (COEs)—not CDE—to provide direct assistance and specific advice to LEAs on how they can improve their educational programs. CDE Activities and Staff Supported by Three Funding Sources. The CDE has an annual budget of around $250 million and about 1,500 employees—rendering it midsized compared to other departments within California state government. In 2013-14, federal funds made up the bulk (68 percent) of CDE’s budget, whereas state General Fund comprised 19 percent and monies generated by and for specialized activities made up 13 percent. Over the past 20 years, CDE’s personnel and budget have grown as the federal and state governments have tasked the department with additional responsibilities. Like many public agencies, CDE experienced a decline in both positions and funding during the recent economic recession and an increase in positions and funding during the recent economic recovery. Findings and Recommendations CDE Can Meet Existing Requirements but Has Limited Capacity to Absorb New Workload. Our review suggests that CDE’s overall staffing level is reasonably well aligned with its existing responsibilities. We also find that CDE has only limited unused federal funding in its budget to dedicate towards new activities and does not have excess state funding available. As such, we recommend that when the state tasks CDE with notable new requirements—either through the annual budget act or other legislation— the Legislature provide the department with additional positions and funding to carry them out. Our review suggests that taking on significant additional state-directed workload absent new resources likely would force CDE to deprioritize other activities that may be important to the state. Should the Legislature reduce CDE’s responsibilities, we recommend the Legislature make a conforming reduction to associated CDE positions and funding. CDE Could Explore Ways to Make Oversight Activities More Valuable for LEAs. Over the past decade, increasing federal requirements and funding combined with decreasing state categorical program requirements and funding have led CDE staff to focus predominantly on federally directed activities, such as monitoring LEA compliance with the specific conditions of federal grants. In interviews, staff from both CDE and LEAs indicate this orientation has caused LEAs to perceive CDE as increasingly reactive and punitive and less collaborative and service-oriented. Yet even within the constraints of federal requirements, we believe CDE could explore opportunities for using federally required activities www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 3 AN LAO REPORT and federally funded staff to provide more helpful services to LEAs. For example, some other state education agencies have expanded the scope of their activities beyond an evaluation of whether the activities LEAs undertake with federal funds are permissible, to trying to ensure those expenditures are effective at improving student outcomes. Such an approach would represent a paradigm shift for CDE and would require more coordination across—and potentially a reorganization of staff within— the department. Yet while we think CDE should explore ways to add value to its federally required compliance activities, we believe COEs and other local entities continue to be better sources for providing most professional development, technical assistance, and other forms of “ground level” support to LEAs. CDE Could Help Align State and Federal Accountability Systems, Avoid Duplication of Effort. The Legislature recently adopted new LEA planning requirements, as well as a new system for supporting and intervening in low-performing LEAs. While the legislation laid out a general framework for this system, several details still are under development by the State Board of Education (SBE). Many of the new state requirements are similar to activities associated with federal grants that districts currently are performing and CDE staff currently are monitoring. The department therefore could help SBE in aligning the state’s system with federal accountability activities to avoid establishing two parallel systems of requirements, support, and intervention. Once the state’s new accountability system is fully implemented, we recommend the Legislature carefully review the staff CDE currently dedicates (and, if applicable, proposes to dedicate) to state and federal support and intervention activities. Moreover, we recommend the Legislature make future funding for these CDE positions contingent on evidence of a streamlined, integrated accountability system. Given an integrated system would incorporate both state and federal requirements, we recommend the Legislature fund associated CDE staff with a combination of state and federal funds. Certain CDE Reporting Requirements Provide Limited Value. The Legislature routinely asks CDE to prepare formal, public reports on numerous topics. In interviews, CDE staff indicated that preparing and reviewing these reports for public release requires considerable time and effort for both programmatic and executive-level staff. Based on our review, we recommend the Legislature repeal 54 reporting requirements and maintain 23 reports that continue to provide helpful information. Of the reports we recommend eliminating, 43 do not represent current workload for CDE, either because the requirement is obsolete or because CDE has prioritized other activities in lieu of completing them. In tandem with removing the remaining 11 required reports, we recommend that CDE provide information as to the staff and funding currently associated with their production so the Legislature can make corresponding adjustments. Legislature Has Important Role in Continuously Reassessing Alignment Across CDE’s Responsibilities, Staffing, and Funding. As part of the state budget process, each year the Legislature considers whether CDE should receive augmentations or reductions to its authorized positions and budget. Our review indicates that the scope of CDE’s responsibilities—and the associated need for staff and funding—change frequently based on shifting state and federal policies. These findings highlight the important role the Legislature has in continuously reassessing CDE’s responsibilities and the appropriate staffing and funding required for the department to carry out those responsibilities. 4 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION Report Describes and Assesses CDE’s Overall California state government. In this report, we Operations. The CDE is the primary state agency describe CDE’s major roles and responsibilities, as tasked with administering public education well as track its staffing and funding levels over the programs for children in preschool through high last 20 years. We then assess how well positioned school. The CDE has an annual budget of around CDE is to accomplish its primary duties and offer $250 million and about 1,500 employees—rendering the Legislature recommendations related to the it midsized compared to other departments within department’s responsibilities and funding. CDE’S MAJOR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES In this section we describe CDE’s major and providing technical assistance and professional activities as well as identify statewide education development. functions performed by agencies other than CDE. State Also Requires CDE to Perform Certain Administrative Tasks. Similar to its role for federal CDE Administers Education Programs programs, the state tasks CDE with overseeing LEA CDE’s Main Role Is Administrative. The compliance with most state education programs. CDE is the primary state entity responsible for (The number of discrete state programs, however, administering federal and state education programs. has diminished notably in recent years—resulting Figure 1 (see next page) summarizes the primary in a corresponding decrease in associated CDE activities CDE performs in this administrative role. workload.) As shown in Figure 1, the state also (Appendix A contains a more detailed description charges CDE with certain other statewide activities, of these activities.) Generally, CDE does not create such as collecting and compiling statewide data. education policy or programs. Education policies Additionally, CDE supports the activities of and programs generally are established by the U.S. SBE, including drafting regulations required to Congress, state Legislature, Governor, and SBE. implement state programs that then are formally Most Federal Education Programs Include a adopted by SBE. Substantial Administrative Role for CDE. Many CDE Distributes Donated Food to LEAs. As of CDE’s activities stem from federal requirements. noted in Figure 1, an additional federally directed The federal government tasks CDE with overseeing CDE activity is managing the state’s participation the compliance of LEAs with the conditions in the federal food commodity program. The CDE placed on federal education grants. The CDE’s operates two warehouses to store food and a fleet federal compliance monitoring activities include: of trucks to distribute food to LEAs that the federal calculating and allocating individual LEA grant government donates to the state. (This approach amounts; collecting and reviewing paperwork such differs from practices in many other states, which as applications and expenditure reports; on-site frequently use outside contractors or staff from observations and reviews; identifying areas of LEA state agricultural departments for these activities noncompliance, developing corrective action plans, instead of staff employed by the state department of and monitoring progress on making improvements; education.) www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 5 AN LAO REPORT Other Agencies Perform Some in the K-12 High Speed Network, and overseeing Statewide Education Functions state bond-funded school facility projects. Agencies managing these initiatives include the California State Relies on Other Agencies for Specialized Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Kern COE, Expertise. The state selects some entities other Imperial COE, and the Office of Public School than CDE to carry out certain statewide education Construction. activities. In several cases, the state relies on other State Relies on COEs for Certain Key agencies because they have expertise in a specialized Monitoring Responsibilities. Given the size of the area, such as teacher education, information state, number of LEAs, and diversity among LEAs, technology, or school facilities. Figure 2 summarizes the state relies on COEs to provide some statewide major statewide education responsibilities the state monitoring activities. While each of the state’s has assigned to other agencies. These activities 58 COEs offers a unique array of services for the include monitoring teacher qualifications, school districts in its county, the state has tasked intervening when districts struggle with fiscal every COE with certain statewide roles. State- management, monitoring districts’ participation required COE oversight activities historically have Figure 1 included reviewing and CDE’s Major Activities approving district budgets 9 as well as monitoring Monitor Compliance. Conduct reviews to ensure LEAs are following laws and requirements for education programs, including expending that districts have funds appropriately. sufficient instructional 9 Compile Data and Information. Collect, summarize, and disseminate materials, are staffed fiscal, demographic, and performance information on the state’s districts, with qualified teachers, schools, and students. and maintain adequate 9 Allocate Funding. Allocate funding to LEAs based on various formulas. facility conditions. The 9 recent Local Control Disseminate Information. Inform and train LEAs regarding laws and Funding Formula requirements for education programs. 9 (LCFF) legislation added Coordinate Certain Statewide Initiatives. Oversee development of some new oversight student assessments, school facilities standards, and adoption of state curriculum frameworks and instructional materials. responsibilities for COEs, 9 including reviewing Distribute Food. Manage and deliver food to LEAs that the federal districts’ Local Control government donates to the state. 9 and Accountability Plans Oversee COEs. Review and approve COE budgets and Local Control and verifying districts’ and Accountability Plans. counts of certain student 9 Support SBE. Prepare information for SBE hearings and develop draft groups. In many of these regulations for SBE to review and adopt. ways, COEs in California 9 Manage Internal CDE Administration. Attend to departmental issues carry out tasks that the such as staffing, budget preparation, information technology, government state departments of affairs, and legal services. education in other smaller CDE = California Department of Education; LEA = local educational agency; COE = county office of education; and SBE = State Board of Education. states perform directly. 6 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT State Relies Primarily on COEs, Not CDE, to and other forms of support for their districts. The Help Districts Improve Student Outcomes. Based state, however, also has tasked certain COEs with on many districts’ preferences and the structure of providing formal assistance within their regions many education programs, COEs are more likely for schools and districts identified as needing than CDE to provide direct assistance and specific intervention under the federal or state accountability advice to LEAs on how they can improve their systems. Specific intervention initiatives include the educational programs. The COEs frequently provide Regional System of District and School Support, professional development, technical assistance, District Assistance and Intervention Teams, and Title III regional COE leads. CDE’S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND FUNDING In this section, we describe CDE’s and three state diagnostic centers serving students organizational structure, its staffing levels, and its with disabilities and their families. Because this funding sources and levels. (The CDE also operates report focuses on CDE’s role as administrator of three statewide schools for blind and deaf students statewide education programs, all totals throughout Figure 2 Major Statewide Education Functions Not Administered by CDE 9 Teacher-Related Activities. Administered by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC). The CTC accredits teacher preparation programs, issues teacher credentials, collects information on teacher misassignments, and monitors teacher conduct. 9 Fiscal Assistance for LEAs. Administered by the Fiscal Crisis Management and Assistance Team (FCMAT), operated out of Kern COE. The FCMAT provides fiscal advice, management assistance, training, and other related services to LEAs in need of such assistance. (The CDE oversees school districts that receive emergency state loans.) 9 Assistance to LEAs on Managing Student Data. Also administered by FCMAT. The California School Information Services project assists LEAs with data management practices and electronically exchanging data with the state’s California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System and other K-12 and postsecondary institutions. 9 Academic Intervention and Support. Various statewide initiatives implemented by various COEs to support schools and districts identified by state and federal accountability metrics as low-performing. Initiatives include the Regional System of District and School Support, District Assistance and Intervention Teams, and Title III COE leads. 9 Oversight of State Funding for School Facilities. Administered and overseen by the State Allocation Board (SAB) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC). The SAB apportions funds from voter-approved state bonds to LEAs and adopts policies and regulations related to school facilities. The OPSC administers the state’s school facilities construction program. 9 K-12 High Speed Network. Overseen by the Imperial COE. The Imperial COE manages LEA participation in a high-speed internet network. CDE = California Department of Education; LEA = local educational agency; and COE = county office of education. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 7 AN LAO REPORT this report exclude funding and positions for daily thematic areas, with three branches primarily operation of those six sites.) focused on services for LEAs and three primarily focused on internal CDE functions. Appendix A Organizational Structure and Staffing contains a detailed description of the total funding The State Superintendent of Public Instruction for and primary activities performed by each CDE (SPI) Oversees CDE Operations, Advocates for branch. His or Her Priorities. The SPI oversees day-to-day CDE Has Roughly 1,500 Staff. The 2013-14 CDE operations. This includes responsibility for budget authorized 1,490 full-time equivalent managing CDE staff and ensuring they perform (FTE) positions for CDE. (This total includes required activities. In California, the SPI is a 11 positions that exclusively support SBE and non-partisan position elected by voters to serve report to SBE’s executive director, not the SPI.) up to two four-year terms. (This contrasts with The majority of the staff works at the CDE most other states in which the officer heading the headquarters building in Sacramento. Roughly department of education typically is appointed 100 individuals—primarily overseeing components by the governor or state board of education. of child nutrition programs—work in other As discussed in the nearby box, previous locations. (Other CDE locations include food researchers have raised concerns about the state’s distribution centers in Sacramento and Pomona educational governance structure.) While the and about 25 small nutrition field offices spread SPI’s primary responsibility is to oversee program throughout the state, as well as the CDE Press implementation, the SPI commonly advocates publishing facility and a school bus driver training to the Governor and Legislature for passage of facility, both located in Sacramento.) As shown in certain education policies and initiatives he or she Figure 3, the largest CDE branch is Special Services believes would be beneficial. (The SPI also serves and Support with 482 positions. This branch also as a nonvoting member of SBE.) Additionally, the contains the two largest CDE divisions—Nutrition SPI typically dedicates a small share of the CDE Services (229 positions) and Special Education budget—often paired with funding from private (143 positions). sources—to undertake discretionary projects, CDE Vacancy Rate of 8 Percent Comparable including convening advisory task forces to make to Similarly Sized Departments. As of June policy recommendations. 2014, 8 percent of CDE’s authorized positions Staff Organized Into Six Branches and (124) were vacant. This rate is comparable to 30 Divisions. Generally, the SPI has discretion other similarly sized state departments, and is to organize CDE staff in whatever way he or lower than CDE’s typical vacancy rate before the she believes will be most effective to perform state’s economic downturn. (As discussed below, departmental functions. Over the years, SPIs have in recent years the state eliminated authority for reorganized staff in different ways based on the many vacant CDE positions.) While in previous specific priorities of the era or the individual. As years certain CDE divisions maintained chronically shown in Figure 3 (see page 10), the current SPI has high vacancy rates, eliminating some positions organized CDE employees into six branches, with and changing hiring practices to promote more each branch containing between three and seven internal candidates seem to have reduced persistent divisions or offices. According to CDE executive vacancies. staff, the branches generally are organized around 8 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT Funding SBE.) The final funding source—monies generated by and for specialized activities—made up 13 percent CDE Operations Supported by Three Funding ($32 million) of CDE’s overall funding. Sources. In 2013-14, CDE received $251 million in Majority of Divisions Supported Primarily total funding. As shown in Figure 4 (see page 11), by Federal Funding. Corresponding to the large federal funds made up the bulk (68 percent, or proportion of federal funds in the overall CDE budget, $171 million) of this total. (Most federal grants the majority of CDE divisions primarily are funded allow CDE to retain a portion of the grant for with federal monies. In 2013-14, federal funds made administrative and oversight activities.) The state up a majority of the operating budget in 17 of the provides non-Proposition 98 General Fund monies for 30 divisions, and nearly the entire budget for many CDE to fulfill state-required activities. State General large divisions, including Nutrition Services and Fund made up 19 percent ($48 million) of the CDE Special Education. budget in 2013-14. (This total included $2 million for California’s Educational Governance Structure Highly Criticized Previous Studies Have Highlighted Shortcomings. Several research reports have highlighted concerns with California’s system of educational governance, including the roles played by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and California Department of Education (CDE). Frequently cited criticisms about the existing structure include the following: • Contains Overlapping Roles, Lacks Clear Lines of Responsibility. The Legislature, Governor, and State Board of Education (SBE) all play roles in developing education policies, sometimes leading to inconsistent or even conflicting policies. Moreover, the SPI—who is not charged with developing policy and who does not report to any of the policy-making entities—can modify those policies through their administration. • Lacks Clear Lines of Accountability. The spreading of statewide responsibilities across multiple agencies makes holding the state’s educational system accountable challenging. As the SPI does not report to the Governor (in contrast with most other state departments), holding CDE accountable for its performance also is relatively difficult. • Creates Potential Conflicts of Interest. The SPI is charged with assessing the effectiveness of the same educational system that he or she also is charged with administering. Moreover, the SPI may be charged with implementing policies that he or she actively opposed. Suggested Alternatives Have Included Restructuring CDE Governance. Researchers have suggested various alternative structures the state could adopt, including a major restructuring of CDE management and the roles of the SPI and SBE. While an analysis of these issues and proposals is beyond the scope of this report, we believe the state could benefit from exploring options for improving efficiency and accountability within its educational governance system. In particular, the state could further explore whether other entities might be better positioned to carry out some of the state-level responsibilities currently assigned to the SPI. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 9 AN LAO REPORT State Funds Spread Throughout Most CDE Branch, including the Office of the Chief Deputy, Divisions. Although state General Fund support Communications, and Superintendent’s Initiatives. for CDE makes up only one-fifth of its overall Other Specialized Funding Sources SGurpapporht ic Sign Off budget, these monies are spread amongst nearly Specialized Activities. Just over one-tenth of CDE’s Secretary all divisions. The School Fiscal Services Division— budget is supported by various special funds. For Analyst which apportions funds and provides guidance example, the 2013-14 budget included $1.7 million MPA to LEAs on fiscal issues—received the largest from the state’s Driver Training Penalty Deputy share of total General Fund support at $9 million Assessment Fund to support CDE’s school bus in 2013-14. Only a few divisions are primarily driver training program. Most special fund sources funded with General Fund. These include most are fee revenues that support related activities, such of the divisions and offices in CDE’s Executive as fees charged to charter schools and nonpublic Figure 3 CDE Organized Into Six Branchesa 2013-14, Number of Positions by Branch and Division District, School, and Instruction and Special Services Innovation (222) Learning Support (283) and Support (482) Improvement and Accountability (67) Early Education and Support (82) Nutrition Services (229) Assessment Development and Administration (50) Career and College Transition (77) Special Education (143) Educational Data Management (42) Professional Learning Support (47) Coordinated Student Support and Adult Education (62) Analysis, Measurement, and Curriculum Frameworks and Accountability Reporting (36) Instructional Materials (41) After School (38) Charter School (23) English Learner Support (33) State Special Schools and Services (7) Legal, Audits, Executive (67) Services for Administration, and Compliance (77) Finance, Technology, and Superintendent’s Initiatives (16) Infrastructure (347) Audits and Investigations (43) Government Affairs (13) Legal (23) Fiscal and Administrative Services (104) Office of Equal Opportunity (11) Categorical Programs Personnel Services (72) Office of Chief Deputy (9) Complaints Management (8) Technology Services (70) CDE Press (7) School Fiscal Services (64) Communications (7) School Facilities and Transportation (35) Local Agency Systems Support (4) a In addition to the positions shown, the state funds 11 positions for the State Board of Education. Totals for each branch include branch management and support positions that are not associated with a particular division or office. CDE = California Department of Education. 10 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov ARTWORK #140080 Template_LAOReport_large.ait AN LAO REPORT schools for CDE staff to oversee them and publisher 2013-14), which CDE uses to operate that program. fees that help fund the costs of state instructional The department also collects revenue from sales materials adoptions. The CDE’s largest source of of its various publications to support printing special revenue consists of district payments for costs. (Publications for sale by CDE Press include food deliveries from the federal food commodity summaries of the state’s curriculum frameworks program. These revenues are deposited into the and content standards, as well as a number of Donated Food Revolving Fund ($7.3 million in resources developed for caregivers serving infants and toddlers.) TRENDS IN CDE STAFFING AND FUNDING Over time, CDE’s personnel and budget rendered total CDE staffing 10 percent, or nearly have grown as the federal and state governments 140 positions, higher than staffing levels in 1993-94. have tasked the department with additional The CDE Budget Also Has Fluctuated. responsibilities. Like many public agencies, CDE Figure 6 (see page 13) shows total funding for CDE experienced a decline in both positions and operations over the past 20 years, adjusted for Graphic Sign Off funding during the recent economic recession inflation. Unsurprisingly, funding trends generally and an increase in positions and funding during mirror the staffing trends displayed in Figure 5. Secretary the recent economic recovery. In this section, we As shown in the figure, inflation-adjusted funding Analyst discuss CDE’s staffing and funding levels over the increased notably (28 percent) between 1993-94 MPA past 20 years, including a more detailed review of and 2001-02, to a high of nearly $300 million. Deputy recent trends. Between 2001-02 and 2008-09, the CDE budget remained relatively unchanged, averaging roughly Historical Trends $290 million in adjusted dollars. The figure shows CDE Staffing Levels Have Fluctuated. Figure 5 that during the recent recession, the CDE budget (see next page) displays the number of FTE positions authorized at CDE from 1993-94 through Figure 4 2013-14. The number of positions increased Three CDE Funding Sources notably (21 percent) between 1993-94 and 2000-01, from 1,351 to 1,636. Significant federal and state Special Funds education initiatives were implemented during this period—including the federal Improving State America’s Schools Act and the state Public Schools General Fund Accountability Act—leading to additional CDE responsibilities. The figure displays some small fluctuations in positions between 2000-01 and Federal 2008-09, with a slight decline over the period. Funds The recent economic downturn between 2008-09 and 2012-13 led to a more significant (8 percent) CDE = California Department of Education. decrease in CDE’s total positions. Additional positions authorized in 2013-14, however, www.lao.ca.govA R LTegWisOlatRivKe A#1na4l0ys0t8’s0 Office 11 Template_LAOReport_sm.ait AN LAO REPORT declined markedly—to an inflation-adjusted economic recession and downturn in state revenues 20-year low in 2011-12—but that recent budgets led to reductions in both CDE positions and restored a portion of those reductions. Over the budget. Figure 8 (see page 14) displays the annual entire period, CDE’s inflation-adjusted funding percent change in both total authorized staffing increased by 8 percent. levels and budget for CDE between 2008-09 and Federal Funds Represent a Large and 2012-13. While the average annual decline across Increasing Share of CDE Funding. Figure 7 shows the period was somewhat comparable (2 percent the proportion of CDE funding supported by for positions and 3 percent for funding), the figure federal funds, state General Fund, and special shows that in certain years staffing levels changed funds over the past 20 years. The share covered by much less than did funding. For example, between federal funds has increased notably over time, from 2008-09 and 2009-10, staffing levels declined about half of overall funding in 1993-94 to nearly by only 1 percent wherGears afupnhdiincg S drigopnp eOd fbfy 70 percent in 2013-14. Commensurately, the shares 17 percent. This difference largely was a result of Secretary covered by the state General Fund and special the state granting CDE discretion in implementing Analyst funds have dropped—from about one-quarter each the funding reductions. Instead of conducting MPA to 19 percent and 13 percent, respectively. layoffs, CDE achieved savings by implementing Deputy staff furloughs and not backfilling for attrition. Recent Trends Over a number of years, the state gradually Staffing Levels Were Reduced More Gradually reduced the number of positions authorized in Than Funding During Recession. The recent the annual budget act as positions became vacant. (This explains why the number of authorized Figure 5 CDE's Staffing Levels Have Increased Over Past 20 Years positions dropped in 2011-12 and 2012-13 Number of Full-Time Equivalent Positions even as funding 1,700 increased.) 1,650 CDE Reductions 1,600 Corresponded to Reduction in State 1,550 Requirements. At 1,500 the same time the 1,450 state reduced General 1,400 Fund support for 1,350 CDE, it implemented 1,300 major funding changes for schools. 1,250 Specifically, beginning 1,200 93-94 95-96 97-98 99-00 01-02 03-04 05-06 07-08 09-10 11-12 13-14 in late 2008-09, the Legislature suspended CDE = California Department of Education. the funding formulas and programmatic ARTWORK #140080 Template_LAOReport_mid.ait 12 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov Graphic Sign Off Secretary Analyst MPA Deputy AN LAO REPORT spending requirements Figure 6 for approximately 40 state CDE’s Funding Levels Have Fluctuated Notably categorical programs, 2013-14 Dollars (In Millions) providing LEAs greater flexibility over how to $310 use their monies. The 300 CDE staff therefore no 290 longer had to monitor 280 implementation or calculate 270 annual allocations for those 260 programs. Accordingly, 250 many of the positions that 240 Graphic Sign Off CDE eliminated during the 230 recession previously had 220 Secretary workload related to “flexed” 210 Analyst state categorical programs. 200 MPA Many Staffing 93-94 95-96 97-98 99-00 01-02 03-04 05-06 07-08 09-10 11-12 13-14 Deputy Reductions Related CDE = California Department of Education. to Changes in State Categorical Programs. Figure 7 Federal Funds Make Up Large and Growing Share of CDE’s Budget ARTWORK #140080 Template_LAOReport_mid.ait 100% 90 80 70 60 50 40 Special Funds 30 State General Fund Federal Funds 20 10 93-94 94-9595-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 CDE = California Department of Education. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 13 ARTWORK #140080 Template_LAOReport_large.ait Graphic Sign Off Secretary AN LAO REPORT Analyst Figure 9 shows the CDE divisions from which the state’s categoricaMl pPrAograms prior to their being positions were eliminated between 2008-09 and flexed (as well as theD feedpeuratyl Reading First program, 2012-13. As shown, the largest number of positions which was defunded in 2010-11). The next largest (25) was eliminated from the Professional Learning reduction (12 positions) came from the School Support Division, which had overseen several of Fiscal Services Division, which had calculated the apportionment formulas for many of the affected Figure 8 categorical programs. (The Staffing Levels Reduced More Gradually figure shows eliminated Than Funding During Recession positions but does not Change From Prior Year show positions that were 10% redirected from one division to another over 5 the same period. As such, individual divisions may 0 have experienced more or less notable changes in -5 overall staffing levels during this period compared to the -10 Funding reductions shown in the Positions figure.) -15 CDE Used Various -20 Strategies to Manage 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Workload Amid Budget Constraints. While the divisions highlighted in ARTWORK #140080 Figure 9 Figure 9 experienced the Eliminated CDE Positions by Division Template_LAOReport_mid.ait most notable reductions, Reductions Between 2008-09 and 2012-13 most CDE divisions Eliminated experienced some Division Positions decrease in staffing levels Professional Learning Support 25 during the recession. School Fiscal Services 12 Not all lost positions Assessment Development and Administration 11 Improvement and Accountability 10 were associated with Fiscal and Administrative Services 8 flexed or eliminated state Early Education and Support 7 categorical programs. Audits and Investigations 4 Coordinated Student Support and Adult Education 4 The department used Government Affairs 4 various approaches to Othera 35 accommodate those Total 119 a reductions. First, CDE Staffing levels in other divisions were reduced by three or fewer positions. CDE = California Department of Education. curtailed many activities 14 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT not explicitly required by federal or state law, statutory requirements. For example, as identified including most on-site monitoring and support in Appendices B and D, the department opted not activities (saving the associated travel costs). Other to complete some reports for the Legislature, citing common strategies CDE employed included adding a lack of resources. new tasks to existing staff members’ workload Recent Budgets Included Increases. After and endeavoring to find a nexus between state several years of reductions, recent state budgets and federal goals whenever possible (so as to have increased funding for CDE. Together, the permissibly use federally funded positions to also 2012-13 and 2013-14 budget packages augmented meet state goals). The department also identified total CDE funding by $29 million, including a certain minor activities for which funding and notable increase in state General Fund support positions were not explicitly identified, deemed ($7 million). Moreover, the 2013-14 budget package them lower priority, and opted not to perform authorized an additional 20 positions for the them—sometimes even if they were explicit department. ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS As part of the state budget process, each year Federal Portion of CDE Budget Likely Could the Legislature considers whether CDE should Accommodate Some Amount of Additional receive augmentations—or reductions—to its Workload. . . The department typically authorized positions and budget. To help guide underspends its federal funding by around the Legislature in this exercise, this section $15 million each year, “carrying over” the funds to assesses the existing alignment among CDE the subsequent year. Should a moderate amount activities, staffing, and funding. Figure 10 (see of new workload arise that is permissible under next page) summarizes our major findings and federal law, the Legislature therefore could direct recommendations. CDE to accommodate it using some portion of these funds. For example, in 2014-15, CDE CDE Can Meet Existing Requirements but Has will begin conducting new federally required Limited Capacity to Absorb New Workload child nutrition program oversight activities Overall Staffing Level Reasonably Well using existing funding and existing authorized Aligned With Existing Responsibilities. While positions. certain divisions may have slightly too many . . . However Existing Federal Funds Likely or slightly too few positions relative to current Cannot Cover All New Workload. While federal workload, our review did not uncover any funds may be available to help support new CDE glaring misalignment whereby CDE was failing activities in some circumstances, the Legislature to conduct required activities or had grossly should not assume this is always the case. When excessive numbers of staff assigned to particular a clear nexus exists between state and federal activities. (As noted, we did learn that CDE has requirements, federal funds sometimes can be not completed some minor state requirements— used to help support CDE activities that also such as preparing some of the reports listed in achieve state goals. For example, in 2014-15, the Appendices B and D—for which state funding was federal government granted CDE permission to not explicitly provided.) use federal funds for aligning the state’s English www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 15 AN LAO REPORT Language Development standards with the state’s implicitly assumes the department will absorb academic content standards for mathematics and related workload within its existing state resources. science (which are considered rigorous standards The Legislature, for example, provided CDE with by the federal government and aligned with no additional staff to implement the Transitional standards adopted in other states). Some federal Kindergarten program. (Perhaps as a result, some audits over the years, however, have found that LEAs have expressed concern with the amount and CDE has relied too heavily on federal funds to quality of guidance they are receiving from CDE.) support particular activities. For example, a Recommend Legislature Align Changes in recent federal audit required CDE to discontinue Responsibilities With Changes in Resources. Given using federal funds to support certain activities CDE’s existing staffing levels and responsibilities within the English Learner Support Division. generally are well aligned, we recommend that (As a result, the department may will be unable when the state tasks CDE with notable new to meet those requirements absent additional requirements—either through the annual budget state funding.) Because state and federal goals act or other legislation—the Legislature provide the for public education frequently overlap, the department with additional positions and funding distinctions around which funding sources should to carry them out. Similarly, should the Legislature support particular activities are not always clear. reduce CDE’s responsibilities, we recommend The Legislature, however, clearly cannot expect the Legislature make a conforming reduction to the federal government to pay the entire cost of all associated CDE positions and funding. While overlapping activities. limited federal funds may be available to support a State Portion of CDE Budget Has Extremely few new activities, we recommend the Legislature Limited Capacity to Absorb New Workload. provide CDE with General Fund-supported In contrast to the federal portion of its budget, positions to carry out state-directed activities. our review suggests CDE does not have excess Our review suggests that taking on significant state funding available to dedicate towards new additional state-directed workload absent new activities. As a result, the department struggles resources likely would force CDE to deprioritize to respond when state legislation passes that other activities that may be important to the state. Figure 10 Summary of Major Findings and Recommendations Finding Recommendation CDE has the resources to meet its existing Align changes in CDE’s responsibilities with changes requirements, but has limited capacity to absorb new in resources. workload. CDE’s compliance-based orientation limits the value of Explore ways to make CDE’s oversight activities more its interactions with LEAs. valuable for LEAs. CDE could play an important role in aligning state and Ensure funding and positions for CDE reflect an federal requirements. integrated system for supporting and intervening in struggling LEAs. Certain state reporting requirements provide limited Repeal some reporting requirements. value. CDE = California Department of Education and LEA = local educational agency. 16 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT Compliance-Based Orientation Limits seem imminent (as discussed in the box on the next Value of CDE’s Interactions With LEAs page). Yet even given these constraints, some states have adopted more innovative approaches towards Increased Emphasis on Federal Compliance undertaking federal activities. Specifically, some Has Narrowed Scope of CDE’s Activities. Over state education agencies have expanded the scope the past decade, increasing federal requirements of their activities beyond an evaluation of whether and funding, combined with decreasing state the activities LEAs undertake with federal funds are categorical requirements and funding, have led permissible, to trying to ensure those expenditures CDE staff to focus predominantly on federally are effective at improving student outcomes. For required activities. This has narrowed the focus example, to provide LEAs with more holistic of CDE’s interactions with LEAs and limited the feedback on improving student outcomes, several scope of advice and services CDE staff provides. In states have merged staff responsibilities and funding interviews, CDE staff reports that previously the sources that traditionally have worked in separate department used state categorical funds to employ silos. These include staff supported by federal grants a larger cadre of education experts to anticipate and that fund services for students with disabilities, respond to LEAs’ wide-ranging needs. In contrast, students from low-income families, and English monitoring, technical assistance, or professional learner students. Such an approach would represent development that CDE staff now provides primarily a paradigm shift for CDE and would require more is oriented around the specific requirements of coordination across—or a reorganization of—CDE individual federal grants. Moreover, many CDE staff divisions. Yet approaches being explored by other members predominantly are focused on reviewing state education agencies, as well as various types of paperwork to ensure that LEAs have spent federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers granted to funds according to prescribed rules—without many states, signal the federal government can be evaluating or advising on the effectiveness of LEAs’ flexible with states that demonstrate a plan for and expenditure choices or programmatic offerings. commitment to improving student outcomes. In interviews, staff from both CDE and LEAs Regional Agencies Still Better Positioned indicate the department’s compliance orientation to Provide Direct Assistance to LEAs. While we has caused LEAs to perceive CDE as increasingly think CDE should explore ways to add value to reactive and punitive—and less collaborative and its federally required compliance activities, we service-oriented. do not believe CDE should be the primary entity CDE Could Explore Ways to Make Oversight charged with assisting LEAs in improving student Activities More Valuable for LEAs. Even within outcomes. Whereas in other states the staff from the constraints of federal requirements, we believe state education agencies frequently lead turnaround CDE could explore opportunities for using efforts for struggling schools and districts, tasking federally required activities and federally funded CDE with this role would not be practical in a state staff to provide more helpful services to LEAs. as large and diverse as California. Given the state’s All states face similar federal requirements, and characteristics and CDE’s existing capacity, we research suggests these requirements have led most believe COEs and other local entities continue to state education agencies to assume regulatory, be better sources for providing most professional compliance-focused orientations similar to that of development, technical assistance, and other forms CDE. While changes to federal education law could of ground-level support to LEAs. modify these requirements, such revisions do not www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 17 AN LAO REPORT CDE Could Play Important Role in Aligning state accountability systems. Federal and state State and Federal Requirements funds, requirements, and intervention activities ultimately should be working in tandem towards one Questions Remain Regarding New State purpose—improving student achievement. Many of Support and Intervention System. In tandem the new state requirements for districts are similar to with the LCFF, the Legislature recently adopted activities associated with federal grants that districts new district planning requirements, as well as a currently are performing and CDE staff currently new system for supporting and intervening in are monitoring. For example, new state requirements low-performing districts. While the legislation regarding how districts must serve English learner laid out a general framework for this system, students (such as designing expenditure plans, several details still are under development by SBE. providing supplemental services, and being identified Outstanding questions include (1) the specific criteria for additional support and intervention from outside by which districts will be identified as needing experts if students do not meet achievement goals) additional support, (2) the specific criteria by which are similar to federal requirements under Title III of districts will be identified as needing more intensive the NCLB Act. Moreover, the structure for the new intervention, (3) which entities will provide this state support and intervention system outlined in support and intervention, and (4) what form the the LCFF legislation—including the new California support and intervention will take. Collaborative for Educational Excellence—is similar CDE Could Help Align State and Federal to the existing Regional System of District and Systems, Avoid Duplication of Effort. As the School Support, established pursuant to Title I of the state develops its new accountability approach, NCLB Act. Coordinating under both federal and opportunities exist to streamline federal and state laws (1) the ways in which districts may comply state activities to avoid establishing two parallel with spending and programmatic requirements, systems of requirements, support, and intervention. (2) the criteria by which districts are identified for The CDE could help SBE in aligning federal and Eventual Changes to Federal Education Policy Could Result in Major Changes for CDE Given addressing federal requirements is considerable workload for the California Deptartment of Education (CDE), notable changes to those requirements could have major implications for the department’s activities, staffing and funding levels, and organizational structure. Many of CDE’s federal activities relate to components of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The current iteration of the ESEA, known as the No Child Left Behind Act, was passed in 2001 and was scheduled to be reauthorized in 2007. The U.S. Congress, however, has yet to reauthorize the act. While President Obama released a “Blueprint” for ESEA reauthorization that mentioned “fewer, larger, [and] more flexible funding streams,” exactly how and when federal requirements ultimately will change still is uncertain. Major CDE activities associated with the existing ESEA include overseeing certain district programs to support low-income students, English learner students, and teachers; developing and implementing statewide standardized assessments for certain grades and subjects; calculating scores for schools and districts based on how students perform on those assessments; and tracking schools and districts that have consistently low student assessment scores. 18 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT support and intervention, and (3) the support and Education Code whereas others are requested intervention districts receive would both minimize through the annual budget act. In interviews, CDE duplication of effort and lead to a more cohesive staff indicated that preparing and reviewing these education program. reports for public release requires considerable time Recommend Funding and Positions for CDE and effort for both programmatic and executive-level Reflect an Integrated Support and Intervention staff. System. Once the state’s new accountability system Recommend Legislature Repeal Some Reporting is fully implemented, we recommend the Legislature Requirements. We reviewed 77 statutorily required carefully review the staff CDE currently dedicates CDE reports to assess whether they provide (and, if applicable, proposes to dedicate) to state and sufficient statewide benefit to merit the resources federal support and intervention activities. Moreover, required for their production. We recommend the we recommend the Legislature make future funding Legislature repeal 54 reporting requirements and for these CDE positions contingent on evidence of maintain 23 reports that continue to provide helpful an integrated accountability system. Streamlining information. (Appendices B, C, and D contain the activities and duties of these staff such that comprehensive lists of each report and its statutory they coordinate across—rather than duplicate— reference, as well as the rationale behind each of our overlapping federal and state requirements would be associated recommended actions.) The recommended both more efficient and effective. Given an integrated eliminations are based on our assessment that the system would incorporate both state and federal reports no longer are pertinent, do not provide requirements, we recommend the Legislature fund sufficient information to merit their costs, or the associated CDE staff with a combination of state and information provided therein is otherwise already federal funds. available or available upon request. Of the reports we recommend eliminating, 43 do not represent current Certain State Reporting Requirements workload for CDE, either because the requirement Provide Limited Value is obsolete or because CDE has prioritized other Staff Spend Considerable Time Preparing activities in lieu of completing them. In tandem Statutorily Required Reports. The Legislature with removing the remaining 11 required reports, routinely asks CDE to prepare formal, public reports we recommend that CDE provide information on numerous topics. Some of these reporting as to the staff and funding currently associated requirements are ongoing whereas some are with their production so the Legislature can make one-time, and some reports are required by state corresponding adjustments. CONCLUSION The CDE’s core responsibility is to administer staff and funding—change frequently based on federal and state education programs. Our review shifting state and federal policies. These findings found that the department currently is adequately highlight the important role the Legislature has positioned to fulfill this core mission. Our review, via the annual budget and policy processes in however, also indicates that the scope of CDE’s continuously reassessing CDE’s responsibilities and responsibilities—and the associated need for the appropriate staffing and funding required for the department to carry out those responsibilities. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 19 AN LAO REPORT APPENDIX A Summary of CDE Funding, Staffing, and Activities by Division 2013-14 (Funding in Millions) Total Division Fundinga Positions Primary Activities Special Services and Support Branch Nutrition Services $34.2 229 Administer and oversee federal and state nutrition programs, including donated food program. Special Education 32.8 143 Oversee local compliance with federal special education laws and investigate and resolve complaints of noncompliance, certify and monitor nonpublic schools serving students with disabilities, and collect and compile federally required data. Coordinated Student Support and 9.9 62 Administer and oversee LEA activities related to several state and Adult Education federal grants, including: Workforce Investment Act, Foster Youth Services, American Indian Education Centers, and other grants related to health and safety. Oversee independent study and alternative education programs. After School 4.8 38 Administer and oversee federal 21st Century Learning Center and state ASES programs. SSS and Services 1.4 7 Oversee facilities, budgets, and services at the three SSS and three diagnostic centers. Branch management and support 0.6 4 Oversee and support branch activities. Subtotals ($83.7) (482) Administration, Finance, Technology, and Infrastructure Branch Technology Services $13.7 70 Maintain and support CDE information technology systems, websites, servers, devices, and databases. Fiscal and Administrative Services 12.6 104 Develop and manage CDE budget and financial statements, reconcile expenditures with grant amounts, and calculate and allocate child development and nutrition payments. School Fiscal Services 12.0 64 Calculate and allocate most LEA payments, maintain SACS database, review and oversee COE budgets, oversee districts under state receivership, and calculate ADA. Personnel Services 6.3 72 Oversee human resources for CDE staff, manage CDE-owned facilities and vehicles, and oversee contracts and purchasing. School Facilities and Transportation 5.7 35 Develop school facilities standards, review and approve LEA applications for bond-funded facility projects, and train and certify school bus drivers. Branch management and support 0.4 3 Oversee and support branch activities. Subtotals ($50.8) (347) (Continued) 20 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT Total Division Fundinga Positions Primary Activities Instruction and Learning Support Branch Early Education and Support $17.3 82 Administer and oversee child care vouchers and state-contracted preschool and child care programs, and conduct and oversee activities to improve the quality of child development services. Career and College Transition 11.7 77 Administer and oversee LEA activities related to several state and federal grants, support LEAs’ CTE efforts in various industry sectors, and oversee various college preparatory initiatives. Professional Learning Support 7.0 47 Oversee and administer various state and federal grants and initiatives in specific content areas, including federal Title II grant activities. Curriculum Frameworks and 6.5 41 Administer development of state curriculum frameworks, administer Instructional Materials state instructional materials adoption process, produce and distribute materials for blind students, and translate parent information documents. English Learner Support 4.4 33 Administer and oversee federal Title III and migrant education grant activities and oversee LEA policies and services for English learner students. Branch management and support 0.6 4 Oversee and support branch activities. Subtotals ($47.4) (283) District, School, and Innovation Branch Improvement and Accountability $8.5 67 Administer and oversee multiple components of federal Title I program (including School Improvement Grants) and oversee corrective action requirements for schools in Program Improvement status. Educational Data Management 7.1 42 Coordinate Federal Program Monitoring visits and reviews; oversee ConApp and federal reporting requirements; manage and update school directory; oversee CALPADS, CBEDS, and CSIS; and coordinate education technology initiatives. Assessment Development and 6.9 50 Oversee development, administration, and validity of state Administration assessments and prepare for transition to new assessments. Charter School 4.3 23 Oversee SBE-authorized charter schools, review petitions and appeals for new charter schools, administer and oversee federal charter school grant, and determine eligibility for nonclassroom based instruction. Analysis, Measurement, and 4.3 36 Calculate various performance scores and rankings for LEAs and Accountability Reporting schools, manage Dataquest website, respond to external data requests, conduct data matching activities, and provide data for Ed-Data website. Branch management & support 0.8 4 Oversee and support branch activities. Subtotals ($31.9) (222) Legal, Audits, and Compliance Branch Audits and Investigations $5.5 43 Conduct audits and fiscal monitoring of agencies receiving federal grants and conduct internal audits of CDE and SSS. Legal 3.9 23 Advise on legal issues and represent CDE, SPI, SSS, and SBE in legal proceedings, conduct legal review of proposed regulations, and coordinate regulation adoption process. Categorical Programs Complaints 1.2 8 Investigate complaints from LEAs. Management Branch management and support 0.9 3 Oversee and support branch activities. Subtotals ($11.4) (77) (Continued) www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 21 AN LAO REPORT Total Division Fundinga Positions Primary Activities Executive Branch Superintendent’s Initiatives Office $2.0 16 Work on SPI’s initiatives and handle scheduling and logistics for SPI. Government Affairs 1.9 13 Work on fiscal and policy issues with legislative, federal, and external stakeholders. CDE Press 1.4 7 Design and edit CDE and SPI publications. Office of Chief Deputy 1.3 9 Oversee and support CDE activities, staff CDE-wide Common Core initiative, and coordinate work for SBE. Office of Equal Opportunity 1.0 11 Investigate equal opportunity complaints internal to CDE and from LEAs. Communications 0.9 7 Handle communications for SPI and CDE. Local Agency Systems Support 0.6 4 Support implementation activities related to Local Control and Accountability Plans. Subtotals ($9.0) (67) SBE $2.2 11 Support SBE activities and Governor’s office. Totals $236.3 1,490 a Reflects the amount budgeted by CDE, which is less than the amount authorized by the 2013-14 Budget Act. LAO computation based on CDE data. Attributes funds allocated through CDE’s “indirect” allocation methodology (for overhead expenses) to divisions where funds actually are budgeted to be spent. CDE = California Department of Education; LEA = local educational agency; ASES = After School Education and Safety; SSS = State Special Schools; SACS = Standardized Account Code Structure; COE = county office of education; ADA = average daily attendance; CTE = career technical education; ConApp = Consolidated Application; CALPADS = California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System; CBEDS = California Basic Educational Data System; CSIS = California School Information Services; SBE = State Board of Education; and SPI = Superintendent of Public Instruction. 22 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT APPENDIX B Recommend Eliminating Certain Ongoing CDE Reporting Requirements Statutory Report Reference Date Due Rationale Reports CDE Does Not Currently Produce: Summary of expenditures pursuant to Carl EC 32228.5 Annually Categorical program no longer Washington School Safety and Violence exists. Prevention Act. Evaluation of and recommendations related EC 35294.14 January 1 Categorical program no longer to School Safety and Violence Prevention exists. Strategy program. Evaluation of bilingual education programs. EC 52171.6 Annually Categorical program no longer exists. Summary of State Bilingual Teacher Training EC 52184 Annually Categorical program no longer Assistance Program. exists. Results of Digital High School Education EC 52266 Annually Categorical program no longer Technology Grant Program. exists. Evaluation of programs funded using EC 54006 Annually Categorical program no longer Economic Impact Aid. exists. Summary of Green and Clean Technology EC 54699 January 1 Categorical program no longer Partnership Academies. exists. Review of a COE’s fiscal oversight of a school EC 41326(k)(3) Within three months of CDE and FCMAT can provide district requiring an emergency loan and state takeover information upon request. state receivership. Summary of how many site visits CDE staff EC 8261 September 1 CDE can provide information made to child development programs in the upon request. prior fiscal year. Summary of CDE’s actions to eliminate audit EC 41020.6 October 1 CDE can provide information exceptions and comply with management upon request. improvement recommendations. Agreements between state agencies EC 56475 As applicable CDE can provide information regarding special education services. upon request. Summary of dropout rates, graduation rates, EC 48070.6 August 1 Some similar information is pupil promotion rates, course enrollment available on CDE website. patterns, and behavioral data. Summary of loans made to charter schools EC 1042 (f)(5)(B) December 1 CDE no longer oversees the within the prior fiscal year. Charter School Revolving Fund Loan Program. Summary of educational programs and EC 51781 Annually Cost of producing report does workshops on genetic diseases and birth not merit requirement. defects. Summary of COE reports on teacher EC 44258.9(g) Annually Duplicative of reports compiled assignment monitoring. by CTC. Status of school districts receiving emergency EC 41320.3 February 15 Duplicative of reports prepared apportionments. by FCMAT. Budget proposal for services for foster EC 42925 November 1 Funding amount is resolved children. through annual budget process. (Continued) www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 23 AN LAO REPORT Statutory Report Reference Date Due Rationale Evaluation of effectiveness of CDE’s School EC 32253 Annually Funds were never provided and Safety and Security Resources Unit. unit was never established. Update on implementation of School Section 12 of Chapter March 15 System is fully implemented. Standardized Account Code Structure. 525, Statutes of 1995 Evaluation of California School Information EC 49082 Biannually System is fully implemented. Services’ oversight of CALPADS project. Evaluation of CALPADS project. EC 60900(i) Biannually System is fully implemented. Summary of districts that have not adopted EC 42127.1 December 10 Under current law, if a district on-time budgets, and steps being taken to does not adopt a budget on address the delays. time, then the COE adopts one for them. Reports CDE Does Currently Produce: Summary of requests for and expenditures EC 8278.3(b) August 1 CDE can provide information from Child Care Facilities Revolving Fund. upon request. Summary of carryover for federal 21st Century BA: 6110-197-0890 March 1 CDE can provide information after school grant. Provision 1 upon request. Summary of carryover for federal BA: 6110-166-0890 February 1 CDE can provide information Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Provision 3 upon request. Education grant. Summary of lottery fund expenditures. BA: Section 24.60 May 15 CDE can provide information upon request. Summary of “AB 212” professional EC 8279.7(f) April 10 CDE can provide information development stipends for child care upon request. providers. Limited-scope audit reports for grantees BA: 6110-156-0890 Annually CDE can provide information receiving between $25,000 and $500,000 Provision 2(b) upon request. in federal adult education funds. Summary of school average daily attendance EC 41339 February, June, CDE can provide information and local property tax revenues used in and July upon request. principal apportionment calculations. Compilation of student Physical Fitness Test EC 60800 December 31 Information is available on CDE results. (biennially) website. Summary of savings from placing certain EC 8263.4(g) Annually Cost of producing report does 11- and 12-year olds in school-based after not merit requirement. school programs instead of subsidized child care. Summary of Compliance, Monitoring, BA: 6110-001-0890 April 1 Duplicative of federally required Interventions, and Sanctions program Provision 14 report that contains similar activities related to federal highly qualified information, which CDE can teacher requirements. provide upon request. Summary of activities and performance of BA: 6110-156-0890 March 1 Duplicative of federally required federal Workforce Investment Act grantees. Provision 3 report that contains similar information, which CDE can provide upon request. CDE = California Department of Education; EC = Education Code; COE = county office of education; FCMAT = Fiscal Crisis Management and Assistance Team; CTC = Commission on Teacher Credentialing; CALPADS = California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System; and BA = budget act. 24 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT APPENDIX C Recommend Maintaining Certain Ongoing CDE Reporting Requirements Report Statutory Reference Date Due Information regarding supplemental special education funds provided BA: 6110-161-0001 Provision 14 January 1 to the Ravenswood Elementary School District. Independent evaluation of California High School Exit Examination EC 60855 February 1 (biennially) results. Draft of Child Care and Development Fund spending plan to be EC 8206.1 February 1 (biennially) submitted to federal government. Three-year tracking of federal funds.a EC 12143(a) February 15 Summary of services provided by Foster Youth Services program and EC 42923(b) February 15 (biennially) educational outcomes of foster youth. Update on five-year cost projection, implementation plan, and timetable EC 60604(b) March 1 for implementing statewide pupil assessment program. Estimated amount of Proposition 98 savings available for reversion by BA: 6110-001-0001 Provision 9 March 31, May 31, June 30. and October 31 Summary of administrative errors in child care programs. BA: 6110-001-0890 Provisions 5(a) April 15 and 5(b) Summary of activities undertaken with the Race to the Top Early BA: 6110-200-0890 Provision 3 May 1 Learning Challenge Grant. (for length of grant) Summary of available federal carryover funds.a EC 12143(b) November 1 Summary of caseload and expenditures for CalWORKs Stage 2 and EC 8359 Quarterly Stage 3 child care. Summary of State Board of Education waiver requests and actions. EC 33053 Annually Summary of degree to which LEAs are meeting state requirements for EC 33352(c)(1) Annually offering Physical Education. Summary analysis of student assessment results and update on EC 60630 Annually implementation of new statewide assessments. Summary of children served in state’s child care and development EC 8236.1 Annually programs. a To consolidate workload, recommend combining two reports and maintaining February 15 due date. CDE = California Department of Education; BA = budget act; EC = Education Code; CalWORKs = California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids; and LEA = local educational agency. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 25 AN LAO REPORT APPENDIX D Review of One-Time CDE Reporting Requirements Statutory Recommendation Report Reference Date Due and Rationale Summary of the academic progress of students EC 56366.11 2006 Eliminate reference. Due date with disabilities attending nonpublic, nonsectarian past. Report not in progress, schools. not completed. Study on expanding school breakfast programs. EC 49550.2 March 31, 2007 Eliminate reference. Report completed. Study of feasibility of establishing and expanding EC 52372.5 December 1, 2009 Eliminate reference. Report multiple pathway programs. completed. Long-term evaluation of Partnership Academies. EC 54697 None Eliminate reference. Report completed. Evaluation of District Assistance and Intervention Team EC 52055.58 April 1, 2010 Eliminate reference. Report pilot project. completed. Recommendations for revising the Academic EC 52052.5(c) January 1, 2011 Eliminate reference. Report Performance Index. completed. Independent evaluation of the 21st Century After School EC 8428 October 1, 2011 Eliminate reference. Report program. completed. Evaluation of the After School Education and Safety EC 8483.55(c) October 1, 2011 Eliminate reference. Report Program. completed. Evaluation of services provided to districts identified for EC 52055.59 November 1, 2011 Eliminate reference. Report Program Improvement and corrective action (“AB 519 completed. evaluation”). Summary of technical assistance provided for After EC 8483.55(d) December 1, 2011 Eliminate reference. Report School Education and Safety programs. completed. Evaluation of pilot program for electronic instructional EC 60051 December 31, 2011 Eliminate reference. Pilot materials. program did not have any participants. Evaluation of the Kindergarten Readiness Pilot EC 48005.45 January 1, 2012 Eliminate reference. Pilot program. program never funded. Recommendations for a new statewide pupil EC 60604.5 November 1, 2012 Eliminate reference. Report assessment program. completed. Results of a study on the Mathematics and Reading EC 99240 December 31, 2012 Eliminate reference. Professional Development Program. Categorical program no longer exists. Report not in progress, not completed. Results of kindergarten and grade 1 early literacy EC 60810 January 1, 2013 Eliminate reference. Report assessment. completed. Recommendations for measuring longitudinal academic EC 52052.5(d) July 1, 2013 Eliminate reference. Report growth. completed. Recommendations related to transitioning students to EC 313.5 January 1, 2014 Eliminate reference. Funds English proficiency. for completing report not appropriated. Final evaluation of and recommendations regarding the EC 52055.765 January 1, 2014 Maintain reference. Report Quality Education Investment Act. in progress. (Delayed due to program extension.) (Continued) 26 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT Statutory Recommendation Report Reference Date Due and Rationale Status report on developing and funding regional EC 84830(e) March 1, 2014 Eliminate reference. Report consortia to deliver adult education. completed. Summary of amounts and uses of state assessment BA: 6110-113-0890 May 1, 2014 Eliminate reference. Report contract savings. Provision 9 completed. Evaluation of federal Race to the Top grant activities. EC 53102 June 1, 2014 Eliminate reference. State did not receive grant. Schedule and implementation plan for implementing EC 60605.85 July 1, 2014 Maintain reference. Report in new science content standards. progress. Evaluation of the Open Enrollment Act. EC 48360 October 1, 2014 Eliminate reference. Funds for completing report not appropriated. Summary of plans and recommendations for delivering EC 84830(f) March 1, 2015 Maintain reference. Report in adult education via regional consortia. progress. Summary of local expenditures from state grant Section 85 of January 1, 2016 Maintain reference. Report in provided for implementation of Common Core content Chapter 48 of the progress. standards. Statutes of 2013 Evaluation of and recommendations for the California EC 33384 January 1, 2016 Maintain reference. Report in American Indian Education Center Program. progress. Evaluation of Linked Learning Pilot Program. EC 52372.7 September 30, 2016 Maintain reference. Report in progress. Summary of issues related to adding career technical EC 51225.3(c) July 1, 2017 Maintain reference. Report in education courses to high school graduation progress. requirements. Status of the Early Commitment to College Program. EC 54715 November 1, 2017 Maintain reference. Report in progress. CDE = California Department of Education; EC = Education Code; and BA = budget act. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 27 AN LAO REPORT LAO Publications This report was prepared by Rachel Ehlers and reviewed by Jennifer Kuhn. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that 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 website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 28 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov