BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 275 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 15, 2013 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Mike Gatto, Chair AB 275 (Alejo) - As Amended: May 8, 2013 Policy Committee: Education Vote:7-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill makes the following changes to the federal Migrant Education Program (MEP): 1)Requires the state MEP plan to be revised as necessary by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), in consultation with the State Parent Advisory Council (SPAC). 2)Adds new requirements to the MEP plan, including involving parents in the review of data; an analysis of data on migratory children collected through the state's data system; and an evaluation and monitoring component, as specified. FISCAL EFFECT 1)Reallocation of federal MEP funds, likely between $500,000 to low millions, to meet the requirements of this bill, including requiring specified data to be collected and establishing specified evaluation and monitoring procedures. To the extent these requirements require the use of local assistance funds, MEP regions may have less funding available to provide direct services to migratory children. Likewise, these requirements will likely lead to additional SDE costs, which may affect its ability to continue funding statewide service contracts at the same level. 2)The 2012-13 Budget Act appropriated $135 million (federal funds) for the MEP as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------ AB 275 Page 2 | Local | State | State level activities | | Assistance | Administration | | |----------------+----------------+--------------------------| |$114.6 million |$1.3 million |$18.6 million | | | | | |Allocated to 26 |Allocated to |Used by SDE to execute | |MEP regions, |SDE, which |the following statewide | |which |represents one |service contracts | |represents 85% |percent of |(represents 14% of total | |of total funds |total funds. |funds): | |(as required | | | |under federal | |$7.1 million for | |law). | | Mini-Corp (services for | | | | undergraduate students). | | | | | | | |$6 million for Migrant | | | | Education School | | | | Readiness Program. | | | |$5.5 million for other | | | | statewide programs, | | | | including, to | | | | identification and | | | | recruitment, data | | | | collection, summer | | | | institutes, and SPAC. | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------ 1)Federal Sequestration . Federal sequestration is the reduction of federal government spending by a minimum of $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts to be divided among defense and domestic programs. It is unclear at this time if federal MEP funds will be reduced due to this requirement. If MEP funds are reduced, California will experience a reduction in its state grant allocation, which will affect local assistance and state level activities. SUMMARY CONTINUED 1)Requires the SPI to develop a monitoring instrument and procedures that provide for the annual monitoring of each local education agency (LEA) and region receiving federal migrant funds, as specified. Further requires the SPI to periodically sponsor or conduct local training for the education of regional operating agency personnel assigned to AB 275 Page 3 the evaluation of MEPs. 2)Requires the SPI to submit to the State Board of Education (SBE), the Legislature, and the governor, a triennial performance report of MEPs. Further requires the SPI to develop a process to ensure migratory children enrolled in juvenile court schools and other alternative education programs receive eligible services. 3)Requires MEP regions to collect and report to SDE individual and aggregate data on migratory pupils, including on issues related to course enrollment, pupil discipline, dropout/retention, and graduation rates. 4)Requires a regional plan to include a written evaluation plan describing how the operating agency will measure annual pupil progress and the overall success of its program. 5)Requires an LEA and region receiving federal MEP funds, as a condition of funding renewal, to conduct an evaluation of its program's overall effectiveness in the prior year, as specified. COMMENTS 1)Background . The federal MEP, authorized by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, provides supplemental education services to address the educational needs of highly mobile children whose family members are employed doing seasonal agricultural work. Children are eligible to participate in the MEP if they or their parents or guardians are migrant workers in the agricultural, dairy, lumber, or fishing industries, and their family has moved for the purpose of finding temporary or seasonal employment during the past three years. Migrant students are eligible for program services from age three until they attain a high school diploma or its equivalent or turn 21. Migrant students who are under age 21 but have not yet completed high school and/or do not attend a traditional school are referred to as "out-of-school youth." According to the State Department of Education (SDE), 136,467 migratory children received services under the MEP in 2011-12. This is a 15% decrease (20,673 children) from 2010-12. 2)Purpose . In February 2013, the State Auditor (SA) released a report entitled: Despite Some Improvements, Oversight of the AB 275 Page 4 Migrant Education Program Remains Inadequate. The SA determined SDE was implementing improper oversight or providing little guidance to the regions. "Instead, it has relied largely on the judgment of regional administrators and its individual program staff when making decisions about allowable expenses and financial codes used to categorize these expenses. This lack of formal guidance has created inconsistencies and controversy regarding allowable expenses as well as wide variation in how the migrant program regions classify expenses." The SA further stated: "Because of a lack of trust, [SDE] also has had difficulty making productive use of a state parent council whose purpose is to advise and assist the migrant program. Partly because of its past inaction and lack of communication, [SDE] now faces numerous grant conditions and reporting requirements imposed by the federal agency overseeing the migrant program." This bill attempts to address the SA's finding and recommendations. 3)SA's recommendations and SDE's response . The audit report provided specific recommendations to SDE about improving fiscal oversight, monitoring, and data collection in the MEP. Specifically, the SA suggests SDE review accounting and expense reporting procedures, ensure evaluations are completed, and review current data procedures with the suggestion to collect more accurate/appropriate data. Even before the SA completed its report, SDE began to implement modifications in its administration and oversight of the MEP. Specifically, it has developed a Bureau of State Audit Implementation Plan to address the report's recommendations, including developing more clear criteria for allowable program expenditures, establishing long-term plan for meeting evaluation requirements, and updating its migrant data system to collect additional quality data. 4)Existing law establishes the federal MEP and requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to establish a master plan for services to migrant children. Statute requires the master plan to detail the types of instructional, health, and supportive services, including child care and transportation, provided to migrant children. In order to implement the AB 275 Page 5 master plan, MEP services are delivered through a regional system and each region is required to submit a plan to the SPI for approval. Currently, there are 23 MEP regions in the state. Of this number, 14 are county offices of education and nine are school districts (act as a region). Current law also requires the SPI to establish the SPAC to participate in the planning, operation, and evaluation of the MEP. The SPAC is required to meet a minimum of six times a year to provide input on issues related to the program. The SPI is also required to sponsor an annual spring SMPC conference with the requirement that a report be submitted to the Legislature, SBE, the SPI, and the governor regarding the status of the program. This bill proposes to increase the minimum number of yearly SPAC meetings from six to nine. 5)Previous legislation . AB 331 (Romero), Chapter 274, Statutes of 2010, expanded the scope of a status report the migrant SPAC is required to submit to specified parties, and changed the timeline for the submission of the report. Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916) 319-2081