BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
John Vasconcellos, Chair
2003-2004 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 442
AUTHOR: Richman
AMENDED: July 3, 2003
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: July 9, 2003
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:James Wilson
SUBJECT : School District Budget Summary
SUMMARY
This bill requires the governing boards of school districts
with enrollments exceeding 50,000 to make a summary of the
district budget available to the public at budget hearings
of the board.
BACKGROUND
Current law requires the governing board of each school
district to hold a public hearing on the district's
proposed budget and requires the budget to show a complete
plan and itemized statement of all proposed expenditures.
Current law also requires school districts to annually
issue a school accountability report card for each school,
reporting estimated per pupil expenditures among other
things.
ANALYSIS
Commencing in 2005-06, this bill requires the governing
board of each school district with enrollment exceeding
50,000 to include a summary in the district budget. The
summary is required, at a minimum, to include the following
specified information:
1) Past year actual and proposed current year
"expenditures on salaries, benefits, incentive
bonuses, expenses, or other forms of remuneration paid
to certificated staff, including administrators, pupil
services personnel, and teachers, and classified
staff, including paraprofessionals, office workers,
AB 442
Page 2
clerical employees, and others."
2) Immediate prior year actual and proposed current year
expenditures and percentage change, for salaries and
benefits paid to employees assigned to classrooms
segregated by type of credential.
3) The number and percentage of fully credentialed
classroom teachers who are employed by the district
for the immediate prior and the current fiscal years.
4) The average total expenditure for a credentialed
teacher and a non- credentialed teacher, based on
salaries and benefit packages, and the average amount
spent for compensation of the 10 percent of the
credentialed teachers who earn the most and the 10
percent who earn the least.
5) The number and percentage of classroom teachers
employed by the district for the immediate prior and
current fiscal years who are serving without full
credentials, including holders of emergency
credentials, university interns, district interns, and
pre-interns.
6) The total expenditures for facility maintenance, new
construction and modernization for the immediate prior
and current fiscal years, including the number of
completed new facility projects.
7) The average class size by grade levels.
8) The average non-capital operating expenses per pupil
and class for the immediate prior fiscal year and
proposed current year average non-capital expenditures
per pupil.
9) The actual expenditures in the immediate prior fiscal
year and proposed current year expenditures for books
and supplies, including the total cost of textbooks
per pupil, and the total cost of textbooks per class.
10) The actual expenditures in the immediate prior fiscal
year and proposed current year expenditures for
instructional materials, excluding textbooks, per
pupil and the total cost of instructional materials
AB 442
Page 3
per class.
11) Total district revenue and expenditures and average
district revenue and expenditures per pupil.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Which year is that? In state budgeting three years
are displayed. The year for which the budget is being
proposed or "budget year", the "current" year that is
in progress and the "prior year" that has been
completed and for which one should able to display
"past year actual" expenditures. It is not possible to
have "actual" numbers for a "current" year that is not
finished. This bill uses terms such as "proposed
current year" and "immediate prior fiscal year". Such
terms may cause confusion regarding which years are to
be compared. Is the "current year" meant to be the
budget year"? Is the "immediate prior fiscal year"
meant to be what the state calls "current year", for
which "actual" figures cannot be obtained? Staff
recommends that these terms be clarified.
2) State mandated costs. The Legislative Counsel notes
that this bill would mandate costs on school districts
that may already be collecting this
information, but will be able to collect reimbursement from
the state once they are told that the shall collect
the information.
3) Only ten, or twelve, districts. The bill is limited
in its application to only those school districts with
enrollments exceeding 50,000 pupils. The current list
based on October 2001 data, shows ten districts
meeting that criteria. However, the rapidly growing
Elk Grove and Garden Grove school districts were
within 200 pupils of the 50,000 threshold, and would
likely qualify by the time the bill becomes law.
SUPPORT
California Federation of Teachers
United Teachers of Los Angeles
OPPOSITION
AB 442
Page 4
California School Boards Association
County Superintendents of Schools
Los Angeles County Office of Education