Torlakson, Brown differ on mandates
Eliminating some would be stealth budget cut
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson has taken issue with Gov. Brown’s plan to eliminate half of K-12 mandates this year and to fund the remaining half through a block grant.
“We have some grave concerns on his selection of some critical mandated programs to be eliminated,” Erin Gabel, Torlakson’s director of the Legislative Affairs and Fiscal Policy Division at the state Department of Education, testified during a Senate Budget Committee last week.
Once the Legislature mandates programs or requirements, the state must in turn fund them. In his 2012-13 budget, Brown proposes to drop two dozen mandates that he considers unnecessary, that are funded by the federal government, or that local districts are likely to provide on their own.
But Gabel said that eliminating mandates on the assumption that districts will continue to do them anyway constitutes a budget cut in this fiscal environment, and leaves districts with what she called a “Sophie’s choice” of paying for the mandate or cutting other vital programs.
Brown is proposing to eliminate two dozen mandates (top) and place the rest in a block grant. Click to enlarge. (Source: Legislative Analyst's Office).
Like the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which has long been calling for mandate reform, Torlakson agrees that the list of mandates should be reviewed and the process for reimbursement should be changed.
“Many mandates proposed for elimination do not serve a compelling, statewide purpose, such as ensuring accountability or protecting public health and safety,” the LAO concluded in a presentation to the Budget Committee. Torlakson doesn’t disagree, but maintains that it’s up to the Legislature to determine, one by one, which mandates should be dropped.
Gabel cited several mandates on Brown’s hit list as ones that should probably be retained and fully funded. Two deal with truancy: the requirements that school districts notify parents if their child is truant and then hold conferences with them. Enforcement of truancy laws is a state responsibility, Gabel said. Even though it’s in districts’ financial interest to be on top of truancy, since the state funds districts for students only when they’re in school, many districts are lax in enforcing the mandate.
Brown also wants to eliminate the mandates for a second year of high school science and for a physical education test. At a time when state leaders are pressing for college and career readiness standards, the state would be “going in the wrong direction” by dropping the science requirement, Gabel said. The increase in childhood obesity also is a state concern, Gabel said. Physical education isn’t covered by state standardized tests, so there’s no incentive for districts to continue the test, Gabel said. Perhaps the State Board will create new accountability measures, but until it does, the mandate should continue, she said.
Torlakson does agree that the current reimbursement system is flawed, however. The state is about $3 billion in arrears for repayment of mandates to districts. More than half of districts – particularly small districts – don’t file claims for most mandates, and those that do seek amounts that are all over the map. The state audits only 5 percent of the claims and rejects 75 percent of the amounts sought, according to the LAO, which said there’s no incentive for districts to be efficient or effective in carrying out mandates.
Brown proposes to put 22 mandates into a $178 million optional block grant, which works out to $30 per student. In order to get that amount, a district would have to carry out all of the mandates, which include AIDS instruction, the high school exit exam, health screenings, and school accountability report cards. Districts would still have the option of going through the laborious reimbursement request process, but the governor is betting that they’ll find it simpler to get a flat sum.
The LAO agreed with Brown that $178 million should be more than adequate to cover all of the mandates, but Torlakson and the California School Boards Association aren’t convinced and are doing their own calculations. What the CSBA opposes, Assistant Executive Director Dennis Meyers said, is suspending mandates one year and then enforcing them the next, in order to avoid reimbursements.
Brown wants his mandate proposal passed this spring, but Gabel said that Torlakson favors a deliberate process, without an immediate deadline. The Legislature must define “pivotal issues” and retain those mandates that ensure they are carried out equitably and consistently, she said.
13 Comments
Trackbacks
- John Fensterwald: Torlakson, Brown differ on mandates — | The Maddy Institute
- EdSource Today: Second year of science remains a mandate : SCOE News Reader
There is a lot of problems the Governor’s proposal re: mandates.
First School Districts are not filing mandate claims for two reasons: the Legislature has only provided funding for mandates in the annual budget three of the last 9 years and during the same time increased the minimum claim amount from $201 to $1001 which limited the ability of smaller School Districts to file claims.
By eliminating the truancy laws the Governor removes some of the leverage School Districts have with the parents of truant students. School Districts need more support in addressing truancy not less support.
Much of the criticism of mandates from the Legislative Analyst’s Office is flawed. While the statistics of comparing claim totals is facually accurate, the context of the claim is what matters. In it’s Feb. 2010 report, it compares school districts claim totals by ADA but does not indicate if the District claimed costs from every school or not. Nor does the report indicate which claimable component the districts claimed. Again it’s the context that matters.
Finally no one has mentioned that the Governor’s mandate proposal eliminates the Pupil Suspension, Expulsions and Expulsion Appeals claim.
The law that enacts this mandate requires an school administrator to suspend, make a recommendation to expel a student and various procedural requirements for students who bring firearms, dangerous objects (knifes, explosives), causing serious physical injuries and selling illegal drugs. I don’t know about you but unlike the LAO I find this law does serve a compelling purpose in our schools.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Categorical funding allocations have been carefully created and targeted over the years to meet very specific needs. The moment they are created, administrators plead for them to be rolled into block grants — or better yet, rolled into the general fund. Then they go into salaries.
This is why California has such dreadful school library staffing and nursing shortages and few counselors. It is why art and music classes have gone away. It is why we have well paid teachers in overstuffed classrooms. Left to the local level, California schools have given us the lowest reading levels in the nation.
Categorical programs, like California subject standards are the place where thoughtful decision making occurs. But administrators want fat pensions.
When Pete Wilson had a surplus, he asked Delaine Eastin, his state school superintendent, where to put the money so it wouldn’t disappear. She said, school libraries and science labs. It took four years for the school administrators to get that taken away. But for those four years school libraries had a rebirth.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Having a room for books and even a budget for new books for a school library is fairly easy. What’s expensive is staffing it with a librarian: the person who helps kids pick out books, who supervises kids in the library, and who makes the decisions about what new books to buy and which books should be discarded. It’s that money for the librarian salary that is gone.
And part of the reason that it’s gone is because districts are having to choose between a librarian – a wonderful and important position – and a classroom teacher when they spend that salary. As much as I love and value librarians, it’s hard to argue that we should eliminate a 4th grade teacher position before we eliminate the librarian.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
California has NEVER staffed its schools with credentialed librarians. Even when we were rolling in money. We are the only state that NEVER set standards for library staffing — while 49 states did. It is not a case of choosing between a 4th grade teacher and a librarian. It is choosing to build a proper school — which in 49 states means a credentialed teacher librarian.
In 1961 I walked into Torrance High School — the magnificent set for 90210 and Buffy the Vampire Slayer — and met my first librarian, as a freshman. From that day to this there has not been a single librarian in Torrance K-8 schools.
California “believes in local control.” It gave us the lowest reading scores in the nation.
In 1998 Pete Wilson gave us $28 per student for library materials. All of a sudden librarians were being hired to spend the money properly. Four years later Grey Davis cut library funding and that ended the promise. Orange County has 75 librarians for 600 schools. Not satisfied to deny our kids school libraries, California also has the lowest level of PUBLIC library service in the nation. We would have to build 1000 new branch libraries to be average nationally.
Under State Superintendent Rafferty in the 60s the state issued a report outlining the problem — and nothing was done.
Under State Superintendent Honig in the 80s the state issued a report outlining the problem — and nothing was done.
Under Delaine Eastin the change started — and under Grey Davis it ended. Four years of what was possible — and a legislative promise not to take the money away for at least ten years — then the administrators got to the governor and he got out his blue pencil and canceled the futures of California students.
You could look it up.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I am curious about the second-year-of-science mandate.
If a second year of high school science is no longer funded, won’t those students have to enroll in other courses? Was the mandate for operating costs? No operating money would be saved by sending the students to other teachers.
Capital costs would be lower, as less laboratory space would be required. Still, it seems that existing investments in laboratory space are sunk costs.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@ Richard Moore, I am in total agreement about the importance of employing teacher-librarians and funding library acquisitions.
Where short-sighted (and often low-performing) districts opt to divert (”flex”) their School and Library Improvement Block Grant funds to other uses, academically successful districts like Santa Cruz City Schools rely on parcel taxes to enhance library services.
I have no doubt that there is a correlation between academic achievement and access to a well-stocked school library, staffed by a credentialed library media teacher. Some would argue that library access matters only at the secondary level, but I believe it is most important in the primary grades. A small, early investment can instill a lifelong love of reading.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Paul – To respond to your question re: the second year of science mandate: first the Legislature enacted a law requiring a second year of science to graduate high school and that second year had to be a “life or biology” class.
Let me be clear here the Legislature has not funded this program.
The California Constitution (Article 13 B, section 6) requires that the Legislature “Provide a subvention of funds” to pay for any new program that “mandates” a new activity or cost.
As with all mandated cost claim programs School Districts absorb the cost to implement the mandate and then file claims for reimbursement after the fact.
Currently the State is years behind in paying this and many mandated cost claims and owe School Districts 3.3 billion (which by the way the State has to pay interest on). The claims total is largely due to the Graduation Requirements II mandated cost claim.
This is an old law enacted back in 1983 I believe. The original mandated cost claim allowed for the reimbursement of textbooks, supplies, and the salary cost of teachers teaching the mandated classes and in some cases the increased cost of remodeling or building new science labs.
For years the State Controller’s Office disallowed claims for the teacher salary costs and the remodeling costs. A few School Districts sued the State and won numerous legal battles to recover the actual costs.
After the legal battles were over the Commission on State Mandates approved a new claim called Graduation Requirements II which is basically the same claim but allowed School Districts who had not claimed the disputed costs to go back and claim the costs retroactively from 1993/94 through 2007/08 and then on an annual basis.
The new claim had a “Reasonable Rate Methodology” that uses average teacher salary, ADA and average science class size to calculate the salary and benefits costs.
Currently the State is suing the Commission on State Mandates over the Reasonable Rate Methodology on the ground that the rate is too generous.
To be honest the rate is a little generous but School Districts would have found it difficult to go back to 1993/94 and find out who taught the science classes way back when. It was a fair compromise…
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I am fully on board with the importance of funding staffed elementary school libraries. Our school used to have a librarian but lost that position a few years ago in the budget cuts. Since then, the library has been staffed by parent volunteers, which is better than nothing, but has left every parent who has helped out with a very clear understanding of how inadequate that is. Parents can be used to supervise kids and to check books in and out, but they cannot do the necessary work of removing older books from the shelves and choosing new materials, even when we have the money for new materials (as we do, thanks to a generous bequest many years ago endowing a library fund).
When you add the cutbacks at the county level (thank goodness our county just voted for a dedicated sales tax to fund the county system), the library situation is dire, no question. The county used to run a bookmobile to our location, so kids had access that way even if their parents didn’t drive them into town for the library. No more.
But again, districts are choosing between a librarian and a classroom teacher at this point. The supplemental reading specialist is gone too.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@ R Roach, thanks for the informative response!
When the second year of science was added, was there a net increase in credits required for graduation, or did the state reduce the number of elective credits required? I could understand covering salary and textbook costs in the first case, but not in the second — as the students would still require teachers and books, though in subjects other than science.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I found the answer in the California School Boards Association (CSBA) legal newsletter archives. Since high school course offerings and (additional) graduation requirements are subject to local jurisdiction, the courts decided that the state couldn’t ask districts to reduce other courses to pay for the second year of science. Districts got to double-dip: though enrollment shifted from other courses to science, districts kept whatever operating revenue they had been using for the other courses and got new operating revenue for science courses.
If this sort of irrational overfunding pervades the mandate reimbursement system, then the LAO is right about scrapping the system.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Paul – First as I remember correctly the law that enacted the 2nd year of science requirement encouraged Districts to lay off Classified Staff to pay for the mandate, not teachers. The Courts found that merely suggesting that Districts lay off staff is not the same as funding the legislation under the meaning of the California Constitution (Article 13B, Section 6) “Whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the State shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service”…).
This particular law is the exception to the rule in mandates. The laws that enact mandates rarely have any funding option at all and that is the real problem here.
If a mandate exists then the Legislature failed to provide funding!
The other problem with the Governor’s proposal regarding eliminating the 2nd year science requirement is that if the budget is enacted as proposed School Districts will not be able to adjust their staffing due to the March 15 statutory pink slip notice requirement.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity