Bipartisan Background Check Act of 2021 (Thompson)

By Dianna MacDonald, California State PTA Legislative Advocate

For more than a century, California State PTA has advocated for safer schools. While gun violence is a public-health crisis that affects us all, it is of particular concern when it comes to the safety of our children and youth.  Deaths from gun violence are preventable. 

California State PTA supports state and federal legislation that protects all children and youth from gun violence. We base this on our position statement on Firearms and Assault Weapons, which was deemed relevant in 2018. 

In March 2021, California State PTA Legislation Action Committee voted to support House Resolution (HR)  8 – Bipartisan Background Check Act of 2021 (Thompson), which would establish new background check requirements for firearm transfers between private parties (i.e., unlicensed individuals). It specifically prohibits a firearm transfer between private parties unless a licensed gun dealer, manufacturer, or importer first takes possession of the firearm to conduct a background check. 

What is a universal background check?
A universal background check, conducted through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), is required anytime a gun is purchased through a federally licensed gun dealer. 

What does the Federal Law currently require as far as licensed gun dealer background checks?
Current federal law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct a background check prior to completing a gun sale under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prevent certain individuals, for example, those with histories of domestic abuse or violent felony convictions, from gun possession. After an individual submits to a background check, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has three days to conduct an investigation.

What does the Federal government require for private gun sales?
The Federal government currently does not legislate private sales, known as the private-sale loophole. Private sellers do not need to conduct a background check.

Does California require universal background checks?
In 1991, California required universal background checks for gun sales and transfers by authorized dealers. In 2006, California established a database for identifying firearm owners who fall into a prohibited status, such as violent crime conviction and drug offenses. In 2017, California voters approved Proposition 63 which required background checks for ammunition purchases and banned possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines. 

Does California legislate private gun sales?
Twenty-two states have legislated some categories of private sales. California is one of those states, requiring transfers between private parties be conducted through a licensed California dealer who must conduct a background check (Penal Code 28050).

What are other California gun laws?
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States with over 100 laws that restrict the manner in which firearms can be used. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence awarded California in 2020 an “A” (one of only two awarded) for gun control laws which include bans on specific types of firearms and assault weapons (Penal Code 16590 and 30600) and limitations on bringing guns to certain locations, like schools (Penal Code 626.9). Effective July 1, 2021, California’s ban on purchasing more than one gun in a 30-day period was expanded to semi-automatic weapons (Senate Bill (SB) 61, Portantino).

Why is California State PTA supporting HR 8?
Gun violence is an epidemic, with more than one hundred Americans dying from gun violence every day, and twice as many shot and wounded. America’s gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than in other high-income countries and this violence directly affects the health and welfare of children and families across the country.

Advocates Plan to Continue Work on Several Education Bills

By Anita Avrick, Melanie Lucas and Beth Meyerhoff, California State PTA Education Advocates

The California State PTA takes positions on bills to improve the lives of children and families.  

The Legislation Team reads hundreds of bills a year. The Legislation Action Committee then meets monthly between January and June to discuss and take positions on bills that fulfill our Mission Statement to “positively impact the lives of all children and families.”

During 2021, the Education advocates researched many bills affecting K-12 public school education, based on our authorities, which consist of our legislative planks, resolutions, and position statements. Although the bills listed below did not proceed through the full legislative process to reach Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk and were not signed into law, California State PTA continues to support the issues these bills address.

We hope that the legislature will again discuss these bills when they reconvene in January 2022. 

Senate Bill 70 (Rubio). Elementary education: kindergarten
This bill would require that a student complete one year of kindergarten before being admitted to first grade. Students would begin first grade if they had their 6th birthday on or before September 1 and had completed one year of kindergarten.

Currently, Education Code Section 48200 requires every person between the ages of 6 and 18 years to attend school full-time. Students must be admitted to first grade if they have their 6th birthday on or before September 1.

According to the author, kindergarteners who miss 10% or more of school days have lower academic performance when they reach first grade. The impact is even greater for students who do not attend kindergarten at all.

AB 1444 (Buchanan, 2014) would have required a student to have completed kindergarten before being admitted to first grade. Governor Brown vetoed AB 1444, saying that he preferred to let parents determine what is best for their children rather than mandate an entirely new grade level.

The majority of eligible children in California do attend kindergarten, including approximately 95% of eligible students (public and private kindergarten) with 80% at a public school, as estimated by the Department of Education (CDE). According to the California Kindergarten Association, an estimated five- to seven percent of students do not enroll in kindergarten. (EdSource, March 3, 2021)

California PTA supports this bill because we believe that early learning is crucial, especially for our most vulnerable population. Making kindergarten mandatory will help those children who are most likely to fall behind due to the lack of early learning programs. Since kindergarten is optional, it can lead some families to believe that it is not important or that attendance is not essential.

Senate Bill 723 (Rubio). Pupil instruction: tutoring program: learning loss mitigation
Among the many challenges during distance learning is a rising opportunity gap. Senate Bill 723 would address learning loss and provide students with tutoring as a documented strategy to close opportunity gaps. The tutoring would be provided by college students and other pupils through the California Leadership, Excellence, Academic, Diversity, and Service-Learning Tutoring Program.

California State PTA supports legislation that can improve academic achievement for all students and eliminate the achievement gap. PTA believes it is important to provide all students with equal opportunity to learn and, when necessary, to provide access to appropriate intervention strategies and remediation programs for academic success. 

Additional funding and support for this program was included in Assembly Bill 86 which appropriated $4.6 billion to provide support and tutoring by certificated or classified employees.

Assembly Bill 520 (Gipson). Teacher retention: California Diversifying the Teacher Workforce Grant Program
This bill would establish the California Diversifying the Teacher Workforce Grant Program to provide one-time competitive grants to develop and implement new or expand existing programs to develop and retain a diverse teacher workforce. 

According to the author, California’s teaching force is significantly less racially and ethnically diverse than the student population. For example, according to the California Department of Education (CDE), 23% percent of K-12 students are white and 54% are Latino, while 63% of teachers are white and 20% are Latino. Assemblymember Gipson states, “Student success is amplified when they are taught by teachers who reflect the diversity of those students. In addition to academic benefits, students of color experience social-emotional gains to having teachers who look like them, also lessening the likelihood of chronic absenteeism and suspension.”  

California State PTA has a resolution, TEACHER QUALITY: RECRUITMENT, RETENTION AND RESOURCES (2012), that supports “policies, programs, and practices that promote the recruitment, hiring and retention of well prepared, fully credentialed teachers.”   

Assembly Bill 285 (Holden). State Department of Education: state school nurse consultant
AB 285 would require the State Department of Education to appoint an experienced state school nurse consultant with a minimum of 5 years of experience. The state school nurse would promote quality school programs to support the health needs of students. 

California is one of 10 states without a school nurse official at the state level during the COVID-19 pandemic.

California State PTA supports legislation that encourages a greater number of school nurses in schools. Appropriate health services by credentialed nurses are vital to students, especially during this pandemic. A school nurse consultant at the state level will improve the health assistance and guidance our school districts can provide students.

Assembly Bill 299 (Villapudua). Career technical education: California Apprenticeship Grant Program
AB 299 would establish the California Apprenticeship Grant Program to provide grants to high school pupils, community college students, and employed and unemployed workers to enter career technical education and vocational professions through state-approved apprenticeships.

California State PTA supports continued and sufficient funding of School-to-Career education. We believe that apprenticeships give community college students not only additional funds for continuing their education but a step up on their career path.

Senate Bill 237 (Portantino). Special education: dyslexia risk screening
SB 237 would require the State Board of Education to establish an approved list of culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate screening instruments to be used by schools to screen pupils for risk of dyslexia.

Local educational agencies (LEAs) would be required to annually screen all pupils in grades kindergarten through second grade for risk of dyslexia using the screening instruments approved by the State Board of Education. This bill would also require third-grade pupils to be screened during the initial year of implementation. LEAs would also be required to provide results to parents within 45 days of the screening. LEAs would be required to provide all pupils identified as being at risk of dyslexia with appropriate instruction, progress monitoring, and early intervention in the regular general education program. 

According to the bill’s author, “Students with dyslexia are less likely to graduate from high school and attend college, and also experience higher rates of incarceration. In some prisons today, where nearly 80% of the inmates are illiterate, almost one-half of the inmates are on the dyslexia spectrum. 

“Research evidence from multiple scientific studies is unequivocal: early identification and intervention with scientifically based early reading instruction strategies and materials improve literacy outcomes for students with dyslexia and other struggling readers.

“By screening all students for risk of dyslexia early, California can help families and teachers achieve the best learning and life outcomes for all students, close academic achievement gaps, and help end the school-to-prison pipeline.”

California State PTA strongly supports early screening for signs and symptoms of dyslexia and the use of appropriate accommodations to provide students with dyslexia equitable access to the general education curriculum as identified in the California State PTA Resolution, “Dyslexia: Addressing the Educational Implications in Public Schools.”

Multiple Bills Addressing Students’ Mental Health are Now Law

By Beth Meyerhoff, California State PTA Advocate

Fear and isolation heightened during the pandemic have reinforced California State PTA’s long-standing commitment to the mental health of children and the need for adult education to address youth mental health challenges. Our advocacy team applauds Governor Gavin Newsom’s signing of a trio of bills to support the mental health needs of students. 

Senate Bill 14 (Portantino) mandates that student absences for mental and behavioral health are treated the same as excused absences for physical health.

Thirty percent of high school students report experiencing symptoms of depression and COVID-19 has further increased the mental health issues children face according to reports cited by Senator Portantino, the author of this bill.

Thanks to SB 14, behavioral health will now be included within the “illness categories” that are legally considered excused absences (Education Code Section 48205). In addition, the California Department of Education (CDE) must identify a training program to address youth behavioral health.

California State PTA believes behavioral health evaluation and services are critical for student development. We support providing information and education to understand and sustain children, youth, and family behavioral health and social-emotional development.

Senate Bill 224 (Portantino) requires middle and high schools to include instruction in mental health if the schools offer courses in health education.

For schools that offer health education courses, this bill requires that those courses include mental health instruction. The course shall cover symptoms of common mental health challenges, promoting mental health wellness, and how to find assistance from professionals, among other requirements. Additionally, it shall include developing an awareness of mental health challenges across all populations and “the impact of race, ethnicity and culture on the experience and treatment of mental health challenges.” The State Department of Education must develop a plan to expand mental health instruction in California public schools on or before January 1, 2024.

According to Senator Portantino’s office, “Education about mental health is one of the best ways to increase awareness, empower students to seek help, and reduce the stigma associated with mental health challenges.”

California State PTA supports age-appropriate social and emotional learning and mental health education for all students. As an advocacy organization, California State PTA supports legislation that creates a safe and accepting environment in schools. 

Assembly Bill 309 (Gabriel) requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to develop model referral protocols for addressing pupil mental health.

The development of model mental health protocols required by this bill would guide schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) in “appropriate and timely intervention for pupil mental health concerns.” The protocols will be posted on the CDE website and used on a voluntary basis.

The Assembly Bill analysis quoted the Student Mental Health Policy Workgroup which noted the connection between mental wellness and academic achievement, attendance, and behavior. The Workgroup also said California’s educators acknowledge their lack of preparedness in addressing pupil mental health challenges as a major barrier to instruction. 

California State PTA passed its resolution, Mental Health: Treatment and Support in 1999 (reviewed 2017), calling on “ the California State PTA and its units, councils and districts [to] urge that members of the education community and local law enforcement agencies receive training to ensure that peace officers and educators can recognize symptoms of mental illness and appropriately respond when dealing with persons, especially children, and youth, who show signs of mental illness.” 

In addition, at the 2020 California State PTA Convention, members passed a resolution Mental Health Service for Our Children and Youth to support mental health wellness and social-emotional learning policies, including staff training.

Governor’s Signature on AB 417 Supports College Access

By Beth Meyerhoff, California State PTA Education Legislative Advocate

College opportunities for incarcerated teens and adults increased significantly when Governor Gavin Newson signed Assembly Bill (AB) 417 (McCarty) into law on October 6, 2021. This bill establishes guidance on how to spend the $10 million (already allocated in California’s 2021-22 State Budget) for the Rising Scholars Network. The Rising Scholars Network Project, under the direction of the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, mandates that community colleges increase community college course access and support for students transitioning from incarceration, or who have been “justice-involved.”

AB 417 authorizes 50 of California’s community colleges to join the Rising Scholars Network in order to increase the number of justice-involved students attending. The bill also requires reporting and recommendations on the possible expansion of the Rising Scholars Network to all community college districts and campuses.

Prior legislation (Senate Bill (SB) 1391, Hancock) created a pilot program of colleges offering instruction inside prisons. According to the bill analysis, over 5,000 students are enrolled each semester in these programs and 19 colleges piloted programs. According to a Rand Corporation report, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs That Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults, inmates are 43% less likely to recidivate after receiving correctional education.

California State PTA supports legislation which improves academic achievement for all students. We support efforts to study issues related to the system of juvenile justice and to work for reforms that will best meet the needs of youth in the juvenile justice system.

PTA strongly believes that every student who meets the established eligibility requirements must be allowed access to the appropriate level of California’s system of higher education; financial hardship should not prohibit eligible students from attending institutions of higher education and efforts should be made to provide financial assistance to students.

The Legislation Action team relied upon the following authorities to support AB 417:

ACHIEVEMENT: ELIMINATING THE GAP  http://downloads.capta.org/res/AchievementEliminatingTheGap.pdf

PTA has resolved to advocate for legislation and public policies that improve academic achievement for all students and eliminate the achievement gap.

JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM – A PRIORITY http://downloads.capta.org/res/JuvenileJusticeReform-APriority.pdf

PTA has resolved to study issues related to the system of juvenile justice in California and work for reform that will best meet the needs of children and youth who come in contact with the Juvenile Justice System; and be it further

Position Statement:
Basic Education
http://toolkit.capta.org/advocacy/position-statements/basic-education/

California State PTA believes that all children and youth have the responsibility and should have the opportunity to develop their abilities to their fullest potential.

Position Statement: 
Higher Education
http://toolkit.capta.org/advocacy/position-statements/education-higher-education/

California State PTA believes that … investment in students’ postsecondary education enriches the lives of all Californians, and provides skilled workers to meet the needs of California’s global economy.

AB 856 Established Protocols for Safe Return to School

By Vinita Verma, California State PTA Community Concerns Legislative Advocate 

California State PTA supported Assembly Bill (AB) 856 (Maienschein) which was signed  by Governor Gavin Newsom in July.  The bill addressed the much-needed COVID era protocols for the safe return of students to exercise and physical activity after testing positive for or experiencing symptoms of, COVID-19. Validating the public’s right to information, the bill requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to post information on its website about the protocols for the safe return to school after a student contracts Covid. In addition, school districts will be encouraged to distribute this information. This law went into immediate effect for the health and safety of the public.

California State PTA supports legislation that prevents, controls, or eliminates hazards to the health, safety, and well-being of all children and youth. This bill provides important information for families and students. It safeguards the health of students who contracted or experienced symptoms of COVID-19. California State PTA acknowledges the need for science-based information and transparency to be available to all affected parties.

California State PTA relied on two legislative planks in supporting this legislation:

  • Legislative Plank #8 – To protect and improve the health of all families through the prevention, treatment, and control of disease; and 
  • Legislative Plank #11 – To prevent, control, or eliminate hazards to the health, safety, and well-being of all children and youth.

Additional Reading and Resources:

The American Academy of Pediatrics has published guidance for students’ safe return to sports and physical activity.  https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/clinical-guidance/covid-19-interim-guidance-return-to-sports/

California State PTA has collected a variety of resources for parents and PTA leaders here: https://capta.org/news-publications/covid-19/

Senate Bill 796: A Step Closer to Historic Justice for a Southern California Family

By Beth Graves Meyerhoff, California State PTA Legislative Advocate

In a historic moment on September 30, 2011, the issue of reparations was addressed by Governor Gavin Newsom when he signed Senate Bill (SB) 796, authored by California State Senator Steven Bradford (D). SB 796 authorizes Los Angeles County to transfer two parcels of land to the descendants of Willa and Charles Bruce. The  property, located in Manhattan Beach, was wrongfully taken from its owners in the 1920s simply because of their race. 

Senator Bradford has been quoted as saying, “SB 796 represents economic and historic justice and is a model of what reparations can truly look like.” At the bill signing, Senator Bradford also said, “We’re returning what was rightfully theirs. It’s not a gift of public funds. They were denied generational wealth when the city took it from them.”

The Bruces purchased two beachfront parcels of property in 1912 for $1,225 and operated a seaside resort for African Americans at a time when beaches were segregated. In 1924, the property was taken by the city of Manhattan Beach through eminent domain to create a public park. The Bruce family received $14,500 for the parcels. The properties remained vacant until 1948 when they were given to the state and later transferred to Los Angeles County in 1995 to operate a lifeguard station.  

California State PTA believes that we must eradicate the negative impact of institutional racism and we must support systems and practices that are rooted in social justice to effectively serve the needs of children, youth, and families. The National PTA in a related position statement emphasized, “As an association that represents all children, we must listen, educate and advocate beyond rhetoric and rise to correct all inequities and injustices.” 

In his press release, Governor Newsom said, “As we move to remedy this nearly century-old injustice, California takes another step furthering our commitment to making the California Dream a reality for communities that were shamefully shut out by a history of racist exclusion. We know our work is just beginning to make amends for our past, and California will not shy from confronting the structural racism and bias that people of color face to this day.” 

The next step is for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to consider a motion for the county to accept the deed for the parcels in order for the county to return the two parcels of land to the Bruce family.

The California State PTA Legislative Action Committee considered these General Principles and Legislation Planks to support this legislation:

Additional reading about this legislation and the history of Bruce’s Beach: 

https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/bruce-s-beach-manhattan-beach-california-1920/

https://www.newyorker.com/news/us-journal/californias-novel-attempt-at-land-reparations

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-30/newsom-signs-law-to-return-bruces-beach-black-family

California Supports Diversity with New Ethnic Studies Graduation Requirement

By California State PTA Legislation Team with the Health and Community Concerns and Education Commissions

With the governor’s signing of Assembly Bill (AB) 101 Ethnic Studies (Medina), California is the first state in the country to require that every high school student take an ethnic studies course in order to graduate. This bill, which was supported by California State PTA, requires schools to offer ethnic studies beginning with the 2025-26 school year and makes the one-semester ethnic studies course a graduation requirement beginning with the 2029-30 school year. 

Students must take a course that meets one of the following requirements:

  • A course based on the model curriculum, which was approved by the State Board of Education (SBE) in March 2021.
  • An existing ethnic studies course already offered at their high school.
  • A course that has been approved as meeting the A-G requirements for the University of California and the California State University.
  • A locally developed ethnic studies course approved by the school board or the governing body of the charter school.

The ethnic studies course requirement is important because it seeks to include voices that have not always been represented in instructional materials – voices of Blacks, Latinos, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. Ethnic-studies advocates cite evidence that the inclusion of voices often omitted from traditional lessons and texts can lead to more student engagement and improved general academic performance. 

School districts can use the model curriculum, adopted on March 18, 2021, by the California State Board of  Education, as a guide to new instructional materials.  AB 101 also enables school districts to create their own lesson plans. As a result, the content of ethnic studies courses may vary from district to district. Many school districts in California such as Los Angeles Unified and Fresno Unified already have ethnic studies courses.

The new high school graduation requirement follows last year’s Assembly Bill 1460 signed by Governor Newsom which requires California State University students to take an ethnic studies course in order to earn their university degree. An ethnic studies course as a graduation requirement has already been vetoed twice: once by Governor Jerry Brown in 2018, who stated in his veto message that he was concerned about overwhelmed students and again in 2020 by Governor Newsom who vetoed the measure since the model ethnic studies curriculum had not yet been adopted.  

California State PTA supported this bill in order to provide the most comprehensive and diversified education possible for all children. Specifically, California State PTA supports curricula that develop an awareness and appreciation of cultural diversity designed to help students to develop personal worth and confidence in one’s own abilities. 

To Learn More About this Topic

The basis for PTA’s support of AB 101 includes:

Articles that provide more background and perspective:

Protecting Kids from the Academic Impact of a Lost Year

By Mary Perry, California State PTA Board of Managers

For many California children, the 2020-21 school year was a time of lost potential as one fourth of families did not have a high-speed internet connection and thousands of students did not even enroll in school. In June, Assembly Bill 104 (Gonzalez) was adopted as an emergency measure to support parents and help them protect their students from some of those impacts.

According to a press release from the bill’s author, San Diego Democrat Lorena Gonzalez, AB 104 goes into effect immediately and allows parents of students who fell behind during the last year to pursue a number of learning recovery options before the next school year begins.” California State PTA supported the bill. 

Three key things parents can do

Thanks to this newly passed emergency measure, families have several options for helping students make up for lost instructional time. Each has a specific timeline and requires that parents and students take the initiative to communicate with school officials. When state guidance refers to Local Education Agencies, or LEAs, it includes school districts, charter schools and county offices of education.  

  • Change a “D” or “F” grade to Pass/No Pass

This option requires fast action! Students enrolled in high school in the 2020–21 academic year may apply to have any letter grade replaced with a pass or no pass grade. The CA Department of Education has prepared a form that LEAs will use for this request and should have already posted on their website. In addition, they should post this list of the UC campuses and private universities that have agreed to accept transcripts with these changes. AB 104 required that all California State University (CSU) campuses accept the pass/no pass grades as well. After the LEA has posted this information and provided written notice, students have 15 days to file their grade change request.

  • Retain a student in their previous grade

This option is for students who were in any of grades kindergarten to 11th grade in 2020-21 and successfully finished less than half of their course work. Parents must file a written request with their Local Education Agency to have their student retained in the same grade for another year. The LEA, in turn, must schedule a consultation with the parent within 30 days of that request. The LEA makes the final decision on the request and must notify the parent within 10 days of the consultation. Most LEAs already have a form they use for parents related to grade retention. You should contact your school principal or district office for more information.

  • Exempt a student from local graduation requirements 

Students enrolled in their third or fourth year of high school in 2020-21 and who are not on track to graduate in four years must be offered some options. One option is to exempt them from all coursework and other requirements adopted by the LEA that are in addition to the statewide coursework requirements, which are fewer than most districts require. If necessary, LEAs must also provide these students the opportunity to complete the statewide coursework required for graduation, which may include offering a fifth year of instruction or credit recovery. Here is a quick comparison of the statewide requirements and those that make a student eligible for UC or CSU admission.

This EdSource article, part of their July 26 news update, provides additional background about AB 104. For deeper background related to education, PTA advocacy, health, community concerns, and family engagement, visit the Focus Areas section of the CA State PTA website

Follow us on social media for the latest updates on state laws, emerging issues and other information impacting California’s children and families.

To return to the blog homepage, click here.

Advocacy Agenda for Equity 2021

California State PTA believes that all children deserve a quality education regardless of the community in which they live, the color of their skin, their language, their gender identity, or their immigration status.

But too many California students from underserved communities are deprived of an equal opportunity to learn. This year we created an equity agenda to address the needs of all of our children. The bills the California State PTA supports are listed below by category.

Poverty, Income, and Racial Inequality

PTA seeks legislation to address poverty, and the income and racial inequities that affect millions of California families.

  • AB 27 (Rivas, Luz D) Homeless children and youths and unaccompanied youths: reporting.
  • AB 57 (Gabriel D) Law enforcement: hate crimes.
  • AB 367 (Garcia, Cristina D) Menstrual products.
  • AB 408 (Quirk-Silva D) Homeless children and youths: reporting.
  • AB 742 (Calderon D) Personal income taxes: voluntary contributions: School Supplies for Homeless Children Voluntary Tax Contribution Fund.
  • AB 1006 (Rubio, Blanca D) Foster care: social worker turnover workgroup.
  • SB 17 (Pan D) Office of Racial Equity.
  • SB 100 (Hurtado D) Extended foster care program working group.
  • AB 14 (Aguiar-Curry D) Communications: broadband services: California Advanced Services Fund.
  • AB 775 (Berman D) Public postsecondary education: basic needs of students.
  • SB 4 (Gonzalez D) Communications: California Advanced Services Fund: deaf and disabled telecommunications program: surcharges.
  • SB 532 (Caballero D) Pupil instruction: high school coursework and graduation requirements: exemptions.
  • SB 682 (Rubio D) Childhood chronic health conditions: racial disparities.
  • AB 37 (Berman D) Elections: vote by mail ballots.
  • AB 546 (Maienschein D) Dependent children: documents: housing.
  • AB 656 (Carrillo D) Child welfare system: racial disparities.
  • SB 274 (Wieckowski D) Local government meetings: agenda and documents.
  • AB 34 Muratsuchi D Broadband for All Act of 2022.
  • AB 256 Kalra D Criminal procedure: discrimination.
  • SB 79 Bradford D State parks: state beaches: County of Los Angeles: Manhattan State Beach: deed restrictions.

Early Learning

PTA supports quality childcare, pre-school and early learning for all children.

  • AB 22 (McCarty D) Childcare: preschool programs and transitional kindergarten: enrollment: funding.
  • AB 92 (Reyes D) Preschool and childcare and development services: family fees.
  • AB 321 (Valladares R) Childcare services: eligibility.
  • AB 393 (Reyes D) Early Childhood Development Act of 2020.
  • AB 1361 (Rubio, Blanca D) Childcare and developmental services: preschool: expulsion and suspension: mental health services: reimbursement rates.
  • SB 50 (Limón D) Early learning and care.
  • SB 725 (Ochoa Bogh R) Early childhood education: parent participation preschool programs.

Health and Welfare

Physical, social, emotional, and mental health needs must be met before students can thrive.

  • AB 452 (Friedman D) Pupil safety: parental notification: firearm safety laws.
  • SB 260 (Wiener D) Climate Corporate Accountability Act.
  • SB 699 (Eggman D) School climate: statewide school climate indicator: surveys.
  • AB 285 (Holden D) State Department of Education: state school nurse consultant.
  • AB 967 (Frazier D) Special education: COVID-19 Special Education Fund.
  • SB 224 (Portantino D) Pupil instruction: mental health education.
  • SB 237 (Portantino D) Special education: dyslexia risk screening.
  • SB 722 (Melendez R) Interscholastic athletics: adult supervisors: cardiopulmonary resuscitation training.
  • AB 234 (Ramos D) Office of Suicide Prevention.
  • AB 270 (Ramos D) Core Behavioral Health Crisis Services System.
  • AB 309 (Gabriel D) Pupil mental health: model referral protocols.
  • AB 586 (O’Donnell D) Pupil health: health and mental health services: School Health Demonstration Project.
  • AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan D) Mental health: mobile crisis support teams: 988 crisis hotline.
  • AB 1117 (Wicks D) Pupil support services: Healthy Start: Toxic Stress and Trauma Resiliency for Children Program.
  • AB 1165 (Gipson D) Juvenile facilities: storage and use of chemical agents and facility staffing.
  • AB 1197 (Quirk-Silva D) School meals: nutritional requirements.
  • SB 14 (Portantino D) Pupil health: school employee and pupil training: excused absences: youth mental and behavioral health.
  • SB 21 (Glazer D) Specialized license plates: mental health awareness.
  • SB 217 (Dahle R) Comprehensive sexual health education and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention education.
  • SB 364 (Skinner D) Pupil meals: Free School Meals For All Act of 2021.
  • AB 48 (Gonzalez, Lorena D) Law enforcement: kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents.

Education Funding

California’s school finance system must provide stable, sustainable, equitable, and adequate funding to meet the diverse needs of all our students, including before and after-school programs, summer school, and distance learning.

  • AB 99 (Irwin D) Statewide longitudinal data system: California Cradle-to-Career Data System: governance and support.
  • AB 1112 (Carrillo D) Before and after school programs: maximum grant amounts.
  • SB 737 (Limón D) California Student Opportunity and Access Program.
  • AB 75 (O’Donnell D) Education finance – School facilities: Kindergarten-Community Colleges Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2022.
  • SB 22 (Glazer D) Education finance- School facilities: Public Preschool, K–12, and College Health and Safety.

Teaching

PTA supports the recruitment and development of an educator workforce that is reflective of the student population, and that all students have qualified and effective teachers delivering a full curriculum.

  • AB 312 (Seyarto R) Teacher credentialing: basic skills proficiency test: exemption.
  • AB 437 (Kalra D) Teacher credentialing: subject matter competence.
  • AB 520 (Gipson D) Teacher retention: California Diversifying the Teacher Workforce Grant Program.
  • SB 237 (Portantino D) Special education: dyslexia risk screening.

Curriculum

Instruction should be personalized, culturally relevant, and responsive.  Coursework must address racism and bias to counteract the institutional and structural biases and related traumas that often drive inequitable outcomes for students.

  • AB 101 (Medina D) Pupil instruction: high school graduation requirements: ethnic studies.
  • AB 104 (Gonzalez, Lorena D) Pupil instruction: retention, grade changes, and exemptions.
  • AB 299 (Villapudua D) Career technical education: California Apprenticeship Grant Program.
  • AB 839 (O’Donnell D) Career technical education: California Career Technical Education Incentive Grant Program.
  • ACR 49 (Choi R) Arts Education Month.
  • SB 545  (Wilk R) Pupil retention: COVID-19 impact.
  • SB 628 (Allen D) California Creative Workforce Act of 2021.
  • SB 723 (Rubio D) Pupil instruction: tutoring program: learning loss mitigation.
  • SB 70 (Rubio D) Elementary education: kindergarten.
  • AB 366 (Rubio, Blanca D) Foster youth.

To return to the blog homepage, click here.

Will There be More Money for Schools Next Year? Let’s See…

The headlines say California schools will get billions of dollars of new funding next year under Prop 98 which guarantees schools about 40% of the state budget.

This is great news. But it is only part of the financial picture, because last year schools lost billions of dollars of funding under Prop. 98.

We are at the start of a new budget cycle that projects how much money California will have next year, in this case 2021-22. This includes “guestimates” as to whether schools will get more money or less. Here is a quick look at how this works:

  • In November, the independent legislative analyst reports on the State’s fiscal outlook.
  • In January, the Governor releases his proposed budget, which is usually based on slightly different financial projections from the Department of Finance.
  • In May, the Budget Proposal is revised, based on the most recent economic projections.
  • In June, a final budget is adopted for the next year, starting July 1.

Just to make this a bit more complicated, schools have a special procedure in the budget called “settle up”. When the budget is adopted, there is a projection as to how much schools should get under Prop. 98. If that guess is wrong, and it usually is not quite right because it is hard to guess the future, then next year’s budget corrects this through the settle up. Schools get more money if last year’s budget projection was too low.

That’s what is happening now. The Legislative analyst report in November estimates the minimum Proposition 98 guarantee will increase by more than $13 billion for the current year, 2020–21. This is because tax receipts were higher than anticipated. This is a one-time windfall.

In upcoming years, Prop. 98 school funding is projected to have only a modest increase.

Budget Magic

Last year, based on what was known in May of 2020, the state did not have enough money in Prop. 98 to keep education funding from dropping. So as part of its budget adoption for 2020-21, it included money it hoped to get from the federal government because of the pandemic. Well, that extra money did not happen.

Deferrals: The fallback position was something called “deferrals.” If the federal government did not come through with funding help for schools, the state would have to delay about $12 billion in payments owed to local school districts. (This means school districts would have to meet their ongoing expenses by digging into reserves or borrowing.) The state planned to send schools that $12 billion as the first part of their 2021-22 funding.

Supplemental payments: Even with deferrals, the education budget was so low in 2020-21 that the state also promised to give education extra money from the general fund in 2021-22 to keep education protected.

Where are we now?

Many education advocates and the legislative analyst are recommending that deferrals be eliminated in the current year so schools get the money they are owed on time. This would use up most of the $13 billion in projected new revenue.

We still don’t know, however, what will happen to state revenues for the rest of the current year as the state builds its budget for next year. Will the picture look better or worse?

And what should happen to those supplemental payments promised to schools in the coming years? Schools certainly need the money. But so does the general fund, which pays for lots of programs that support children and families. General fund deficits are projected to grow by a substantial amount in future years given the costs created by the pandemic, the impact on various parts of the state’s economy, and the costs of such extraordinary events as this year’s wildfires. The new Legislature may also have its own ideas about how important it is to fund schools at something beyond the minimum guarantee.

This article is based on information from Ed100 on how the state budget works.