SB 69 embraces the spirit of the Governor's local control funding formula but increases accountability and modifies some aspects. It agrees with the goals of making funding more equitable and focused on disadvantaged students, while providing flexibility. However, it addresses issues like ensuring adequate funding for all districts and that supplemental funds target stated student groups. The Senate proposal differs from the Governor's in areas like base grants, supplemental grants, and accountability measures, and it would take effect a year later.

1. This summary of Senate Bill 69 was provided by State Senator Jim Beall
SB 69 embraces the spirit of the Governor’s local control funding formula (Restructuring
Education Funding proposal) by focusing more resources on poor children, but
increases accountability and smooths out some of the rough edges identified by
legislators.
SB 69 is a work in progress. Legislators have decided to establish per-pupil and per
district funding after the May Revision is released. This will allow legislators to have a
better understanding of available revenues available to schools.
The Senate approach agrees with the fundamental goals and concepts behind the
Governor’s proposal:
• A more equitable, streamlined, transparent funding structure.
• A funding structure that puts greater focus and financial resources on
educationally disadvantaged students.
• A funding structure that provides permanent flexibility to school districts to
address local needs. [Note: current law, which sunsets in 2014, already
provides school districts with substantial flexibility over most state educational
funding.]
However, the Senate approach finds that the Governor’s proposal is lacking in several
areas and needs modification. The major issues that need to be addressed in the
proposal related to:
• Funding adequacy for all school districts.
• Modifications to the funding distribution formulas to ensure that no LI (Low
Income)and EL (English Language Learner) students are made “invisible” under
the formula.
• Stronger provisions on local school district accountability to ensure that additional
funds generated by numbers of educationally disadvantaged students (LI, EL,
and foster youth) are actually spent to improve their educational outcomes.
• Ensuring that school districts continue to focus on reducing the high school
dropout rate, maintain educational options for young adults, training the
workforce of tomorrow.
What are the major differences between the Senate’s approach and the
Governor’s?
• Base Grants: SB 69 will adopt the Governor’s proposal to eliminate Revenue
Limits and move to a uniform per pupil “Base Grant.” Like the Governor’s
proposal, the Base Grants will be differentiated by grade span. The Base Grant
level will be left blank in the first draft, but will be higher than the Governor’s
proposal (additional information provided below). The Senate will wait until the
May budget revision to determine the grant amounts.
• Supplemental Grants: SB 69 will accept the Governor’s proposal to add a 35
percent “Supplemental Grant” to the Base Grant for each educationally
disadvantaged student (LI, EL, foster care). The numbers are still being worked

2. out, but the SB 69 Supplemental Grant percentage will likely be higher under the
Governor’s proposal.
• Concentration Grants: The Governor’s proposal adds an additional 35%
“Concentration Grant” on top of the Supplemental Grant for those districts that
have more than half of their students who are LI, EL, or foster youth. The
Senate approach does not include the Concentration Grant proposal because it
has the effect of making thousands of LI, EL, and foster youth “invisible” in the
funding formula.
Instead, SB 69 will take the funds from the Concentration Grants and add them
back to both the Base Grants (to improve funding adequacy for all students) and
Supplemental Grants (to ensure that funds are provided for all educationally
disadvantaged kids).
What do you mean by “funding adequacy”?
For the purposes of SB 69, the Senate wants to make sure all students are educated in
districts that are funded well enough to help them achieve the common core standards,
as well as other important state standards and goals. Because districts have not yet
regained the level of state support that had before the latest round of budget cuts, the
Senate’s goal is to bring all districts back to that level, at a minimum.
The Senate’s approach in SB 69 will address these issues in a number of ways,
including increasing the Base Grants (by redirecting the Concentration Grant funds),
which will have the effect of “lifting all boats,” and modifying the schedule for
implementing the new formula.
How much flexibility would school districts have under the Senate’s proposal vs.
the Administration’s proposal?
Under the Senate’s proposal, districts would enjoy flexibility over many categorical
programs. The Administration’s proposal takes a similar approach. The main
difference is that the Senate would require school districts to spend transportation
dollars on transporting students to school, and would like the “grade span” dollars
allocated for students in grades 9 to 12 to be spent on programs that prepare students
for college and careers, such as career technical education.
What are the new provisions related to school district accountability?
The Senate’s approach will be substantially stronger than the Administration’s when it
comes to school district accountability. Among the changes that will be part of SB 69:
• Provisions that ensure that Supplemental Grant funds generated by LI, EL, and
foster pupils are used to improve services to those pupils, and not to supplant
existing resources dedicated to those pupils.
• Provide authority for state and/or county education entities to intervene in and
support districts that do not demonstrate improvements, across subgroups of
students, toward achievement of the Common Core standards and other state
standards and goals.
• Provisions that will rescind flexibility provisions for districts that do not
demonstrate improvements in outcomes across subgroups.
• Requiring more robust data collections to improve state and local oversight.

3. Are there other changes to the Administration’s proposal?
Among other changes, the bill will express the legislative intent to consider remedies for
other funding allocations that are distributed according to inequitable, historically based
formulas. In addition, it will express intent to provide some level of supplemental
support for EL students beyond the 5-year time limit in the Administration’s proposal.
When would the new formula take effect?
The Senate proposal takes effect one year later than the Governor’s, starting in 2014-
15. This gives school districts more time to plan and make a smooth transition to the
new formula and accountability systems.
How did the Senate consider the Administration’s LCFF proposal?
The full Senate Budget Committee heard the proposal on Feb. 28, and Budget
Subcommittee 1 (education) had another hearing on April 18. In addition, the full
Senate had a discussion and presentation on the LCFF proposal by Public Policy
Institute of California on March 5 during the two-day Senate Education Policy
Conference in Long Beach. Finally, the Senate Democratic Caucus has had two in-
depth discussions on the issue.
What are the next steps in the process?
The Senate Education Committee will tentatively hear SB 69 on May 1. The bill will be
keyed “Fiscal,” so it will also be heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee by May
24.