The Education Committee of LULAC/Sacramento has recommended for over 4 years that the funds allocated to Sacramento City Unified School District specifically to improve the educational achievement of English Learners be used specifically for that purpose.
( see example below of 2018 submission). Supplemental funds carried over from one year to the next should not be used for projects other than serving English Language Learners.
We note with interest the presentation to the Special Board meeting of 3.11.21 on LCAP draft materials.
The district is now preparing its LCAP plan ( Local Control Accountability Plan) and it is time for us to again make recommendations. Our recommendations for prior years have been ignored. We request that our proposals for this year be included in the report to the board scheduled for May 5, 2021, and that our requests be included in the documents sent to Sacramento County Office of Education for their assigned task of monitoring the development of LCAP proposals on matters of accountability.
We note the requirements of LCAP to include community participation in development of the district plan. We assert the reflections of the district advisory committees are important but inadequate to the requirements of community participation required for the development of LCAP.
The next presentation will be at the SCUSD Board of Education meeting on May 6, 2021. You can participate on line.
Education Committee.
League of United Latin American Citizens, / Sacramento
Legislative summary. LCFF
Existing law establishes a public school financing system that requires state funding for county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to be calculated pursuant to a local control funding formula, as specified. Existing law requires funding pursuant to the local control funding formula to include, in addition to a base grant, supplemental and concentration grant add-ons that are based on the percentage of pupils who are English learners, foster youth, or eligible for free or reduced-price meals, as specified, served by the county superintendent of schools, school district, or charter school. Existing law requires the State Board of Education to adopt regulations that govern the expenditure of funds apportioned pursuant to the supplemental and concentration grant add-ons.
AB 533 Proposal.
This bill would require the State Department of Education to develop, on or before January 1, 2022, a tracking mechanism for school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to use to report the types of services on which they spend their supplemental and concentration grant funds. The bill would require each local educational agency, commencing July 1, 2022, to annually report to the department the types of services on which it spends its supplemental and concentration grant funds using the tracking mechanism developed by the department. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
State Audit of LCFF
State Auditor’s Report LCFF funding
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2019-101.pdf
LCFF require districts to use these funds to increase or improve services for intended student groups, the regulations do not create an effective means of ensuring that districts do so. Districts must identify in their annual local control and accountability plans (LCAPs) the supplemental and concentration funds they expect to receive and spend. LCAPs provide a key opportunity for stakeholders to ensure that districts direct the funds toward the intended student groups. However, districts can treat any supplemental and concentration funds that they do not fully spend in a given year as base funds in the following year, meaning that the districts can use the funds
for general purposes that do not directly serve intended student groups. Despite this lack of r
….
Moreover, even when districts did report supplemental and concentration funds in their LCAPs, we had difficulty determining whether or how the districts’ use of those funds increased or improved services for intended student groups—a difficulty
that stakeholders likely share. One challenge is that the current requirement districts must meet for spending supplemental
and concentration funds to benefit intended student groups is essentially meaningless. Specifically, a district must describe in its LCAP how it will increase or improve services for those students in proportion to the amount of supplemental and concentration funds it receives. However, it is unclear how a district would demonstrate that it increased or improved services by a proportion, and neither county offices of education nor the California Department of Education are responsible for verifying whether districts actually met the required proportional increases.
Further, although districts must report in their LCAPs information about the services on which they have spent their supplemental and concentration funds, they often do not effectively analyze whether those services have been successful. As a result, stakeholders may struggle to hold districts accountable for continuing to fund effective services and discontinuing ineffective services.
To ensure that intended student groups receive the maximum benefit from supplemental and concentration funds, the Legislature should take the following actions:
- Amend state law to require districts and other local educational agencies to identify any unspent supplemental and concentration funds by annually reconciling the estimated amounts of
these funds they include in their LCAPs with the actual amounts of funding the State reports apportioning to them. - Amend state law to specify that unspent supplemental and concentration funds at year‐end must retain their designation to increase and improve services for intended student
groups and be spent in a following year, and it should require districts and other local educational agencies to identify in their LCAPs the total amounts of any unspent supplemental and concentration funds from the previous year.
· As Figure 3 indicates, a number of different state and local entities are involved in overseeing and making decisions related to LCFF funding. For example, local stakeholders, such as parents, teachers, and other interested groups, provide input and oversight to ensure that districts develop clear and informative LCAPs. Stakeholders review and provide comments on a district’s draft LCAP. In addition, they can submit complaints to the district or county office, and appeal to CDE, if they believe a district has violated state law in completing its LCAP.
· In most instances, county offices are responsible
for approving LCAPs for the districts within their counties.2 Figure 4 depicts the LCAP development and approval process. The California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) has developed an LCAP approval manual that county offices can use as a guide during their reviews. A county office must approve a district’s LCAP if the LCAP meets the conditions listed in the text box. If a county office rejects a district’s LCAP, it must provide assistance to that district that focuses on revising the LCAP so that the county office can approve it before October 8 of that year. This date is the deadline for county offices to approve LCAPs.
County Office of Education
LCAP Approval Requirements for County Offices
The county office must approve a district’s LCAP on or before October 8 if it determines all of the following are true:
· The district’s LCAP adheres to the LCAP template.
· The district’s budget includes expenditures sufficient to implement the services included in the LCAP.
· The district’s LCAP adheres to the expenditure requirements for supplemental and concentration funds.
· Districts must consult with stakeholders, including parents and teachers, in developing their LCAPs. They must hold public meetings to solicit recommendations from members of the public regarding the services and expenditures in their LCAPs.
No comments:
Post a Comment