Current Legislative Updates

CASP Board Report

March 2008

Jim Russell, Legislative Chairperson and Jeff Frost, Advocate

2008-09 State Budget Discussion Heating Up

Overview

In January, Governor Schwarzenegger unveiled his proposed 2008-09 state budget.  He did this in the face of a looming $14 billion budget shortfall projected for an 18 month period covering both the current 2007-08 and 2008-09 fiscal years.  The Governor’s proposal to balance the budget was in recommend a 10 percent across-the-board cut for every program in state government.  He also reiterated that he does not support the raising of taxes as a budget-balancing solution.  In prior years, the Legislature has used creative options to help balance the budget and stave off large cuts to K-12 programs. However, given the number of court cases decided against the state in prior years and initiatives that have been passed to limit these types of creative approaches, there are very few ways to avoid the severe cuts being proposed by the Governor.

In early January the Governor called for a special session of the legislature to enact immediate reductions in the current year to help reduce the on-going budget problem.  On February 23, the Legislature acted by sending the Governor a package of budget cutting bills.

2007-08 Mid-Year Cuts Enacted

Almost one week before the required February 23, 2008, deadline for action in the emergency session, both houses of the Legislature approved a package bills containing more than $1 billion in budget reductions in the 2007-08 fiscal year, and over $1.2 billion in (non-education) savings in the budget year.   The largest reductions were in public (K-14) education and Medi-Cal.  Interestingly, some of the speeches given on the floors of the two houses came from Republican members who argued not to reduce Medi-Cal payments because they would have a devastating effect on rural areas that would result in closure of programs and hospitals and force patients to utilize emergency care.  In response, Democratic members pointed out that these reductions would only get worse in the 2008-09 fiscal year if revenues were not added to stave off even deeper cuts. 

What Were The Reductions In K-12?

The most positive component of the budget reductions is that the education spending reductions avoid cuts at the local school district level.  Instead, all of the state’s education “savings” is realized through the capture of $507 million in Proposition 98 current- and prior-year savings and reversions, and through the use of $409 million in Public Transportation Account (PTA) dollars to fund home-to-school transportation.

Furthermore, the action to “swap” PTA funds for state general fund dollars as a source of funding for school transportation was done in such a manner as to avoid reducing the Proposition 98 guarantee.  As a result, the Proposition 98 guarantee will be lowered by $507 million in the current year, but not by the full $916 million in education savings realized by the state.

Legislative Analyst Weighs In

On February 19, 2008, the Legislative Analyst, Elizabeth Hill, unveiled her analysis of the 2008-09 budget.  The most telling comment was that the estimated state budget shortfall is $1.5 billion more than the $14.5 billion estimated by the Schwarzenegger administration last month.  This was actually a smaller increase than many observers had expected.  In a departure from prior budget reviews, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) provided the Legislature with an alternative budget proposal from the one offered up by the Governor in January. LAO staff report is a reaction to their concern over the  depth and seriousness of the state's fiscal crisis and their opposition to the across-the-board budget reduction approach recommended by the Governor.  Most importantly, the LAO report outlines a number of  revenue increases that, in their view, must be a part of any comprehensive budget solution.  Specifically, the LAO is proposing $2.7 billion in new revenue by closing "tax loopholes" or eliminating what she calls "tax expenditures."

In her press conference, Ms. Hill provided some useful background on how California policymakers got to this precarious point.  In her view, in boom times, Sacramento policymakers not only overspent, they cut taxes irresponsibly.  She suggested that the nagging budget deficit is a product of both tax cuts and uncontrolled spending.  This is  why she called for "a balanced approach" of raising revenue and reducing spending.  Hill has recommended closing or narrowing a dozen loopholes and generating $2.7 billion a year.  This view is an interesting one because it will likely not be well received by either the Governor or the Republican members of the Legislature.

Is Proposition 98 The Problem?
 

In 2005, the Governor sponsored a series of ballot initiatives.  One of these was to alter the Proposition 98 formula and reduce what the Governor called “auto-pilot” increases to education funding.  Since that measure was soundly defeated, education advocates have examined whether Prop 98 is really the problem.  The answer is clearly that it is not.  To the contrary, since 1998-99, the Proposition 98 guarantee has been lowered by $6.785 billion.  This has been done through suspensions and the manipulation of the guarantee through mid-year cuts and revenue transfers.  Additionally, our research shows that over the prior 10 years, state General Fund revenues have increased from $57 million in 1998-99 to $102 million in 2007-08.  This is an increase of 79 percent.  During that same time period, Prop 98 expenditures have increased from $35 million to $57 million.  This is a 62 percent increase.  In contrast, the non-Prop 98 portion of the budget has increased from $32 million to $64 million which is a 96 percent increase.

What Will The Final Budget Look Like?

This data clearly shows that Prop 98 is not the "problem."  Additionally, these figures demonstrate that as the academic expectations increase in K-12 education, there has not been a commensurate increase in resources to address the needs of all our students.  The Governor's proposed budget reductions for 2008-09 would only exacerbate the gap between funding and academic expectations. 

In my view, the budget crisis of 2008-09 has the potential to be the most difficult and painful of the last 20 years.  The Democrats and Republicans are seriously far apart in terms of revenue and budget cutting solutions.  It is very possible that any final budget will not be agreed to until late in the summer and long after school districts must make hiring and programmatic decisions.  But whenever the budget is sent to the Governor for final action it will no doubt contain K-12 reductions that are significant and will have very real impacts on the delivery of academic programs to students. 

AB 497 (Portantino) – Special education: foster youth: assessment and IEPs

In January AB 497 (Portantino) was scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Education Committee.  Based on opposition from CASP, the bill was pulled.  However, a request was made by the sponsors of the bill to meet with CASP.  In mid-February we meet with Gina Plate with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services who are the sponsors of AB 497.  AB 497 would have shortened the timeline (form 60 to 30 days) for assessment and determination of special education eligibility for pupils placed in rate classification levels 12 through 14 group homes or community facilities. The bill would have also eliminated the current grace period allowed in the summer based on assessments.

Although AB 497 is no longer moving through the legislative process this year, the Alliance is interested in reintroducing this same type of proposal into a new bill and moving it through the legislative process this year.   The Alliances objective is to assure that foster youth residing in RCL 12-14 group homes obtain appropriate education assessments and services in a timely manner.  Staff to the Alliance indicated that there are individual student cases out there which have taken anywhere from 5 - 9 months to get the proper assessments.  

According to their data, in California there are approximately 7,500 children & foster youth placed in level 12-14 care.  Approximately 20-25% of those foster youth have not been qualified for special education services.   However, it appears that the area of the state which is experiencing the largest assessment delays is in the Los Angeles/Orange County area where 55-60% of the foster youth arrive without an existing IEP - of this percentage, once these kids are tested - 92% qualify for special ed services.

The two issues that are important to Alliance are the reduction from 60 days to 30 days for the assessment and addressing the problem that summer break creates for assessment purposes. Unfortunately these are the two issues that CASP feels strongly about not changing or making modifications to.  The Alliance is aware that if they reintroduce the bill with this language in it that CASP will continue to oppose the issue. The deadline for bills to be introduced for the 2008-09 legislative session was Friday, February 22.  We do not yet know if another version of the bill was introduced.

Senator Steinberg Named Senate Pro Tem

In 2007, CASP nominated California State Senator Darrell Steinberg for the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) “Certificate of appreciation.”  Senator Steinberg is very deserving of the award that was presented by NASP.  Unfortunately, the Senator could not attend either the NASP or CASP annual conferences to receive the award.  However, we are working with his office to present him with the award during a special meeting of the CASP leadership in his Sacramento office.

This award presentation has been made more important because the Senator has been named the President Pro Tem of the Senate beginning in November.  This position is one of the two most powerful leadership positions in the legislature.  During his tenure in both houses, Senator Steinberg has been one of the legislature’ most prolific authors and leaders.  He has focused much of his attention on the needs of poor, at-risk and troubled students.  He is currently the Senate’s appointee to the state’s Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission and is also a member of the legislature’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Autism.  He serves as the Chair of both of these critically important panels and in that capacity has been able to set the tome and establish critical public polices in the areas of mental health and autism reform.

CASP Opposes AB 1768 On Special Education

AB 1768 would make a significant change to the current special education requirements for local school districts when a student transitions into the public education system at the age of three.  Specifically, AB 1768 would apply to a child with exceptional needs who currently has an Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) in place, the bill would require that the IFSP placement would be the student’s “stay put” placement during the pendency of stay put proceedings.

Under current law, the Department of Developmental Services is responsible for early intervention services for children with exceptional needs who are age birth to 3 years (this is referred to as Part C under IDEA and the child’s services and placement is outlined in the IFSP).  The Department of Education is responsible for education services for individuals with exceptional needs who are age 3 to 22 (this is referred to as Part B under IDEA and the child’s education services and placement is outlined in the Individual Education Plan/IEP). 

When IDEA was reauthorized in 2004, the federal regulations made it very clear that the public agency (school district) is NOT required to provide the early intervention services that the child had been receiving under the IFSP while any administrative dispute resolution process is pending. 

CASP respectfully opposes AB 1768 for several reasons.  First, CASP believes that the federal regulations are very clear regarding the child’s placement status during proceedings while the child is transitioning from Part C to Part B of IDEA. The IFSP placement for the student is a possibility for the student during a pendency of a stay put proceeding but it is not a mandatory placement as prescribed by AB 1768. 

Secondly, the statutory change proposed by AB 1768 would exceed the requirements under federal law as stated in Section 330.518 of the federal regulations.  By requiring that the IFSP placement be the student’s stay put placement during legal proceedings would exceed federal law and therefore impose new state mandate requirements on local school districts for which the state must pay.  CASP must oppose AB 1768 because of the mandated costs and the fact that the bill exceeds federal law.  Given the current budget shortfall California is facing adding this level of new cost is something we most oppose.

The bill will be heard in the Assembly Education Committee in March and CASP will be in attendance to comment on the bill.

CASP Weighs In On Title 5 Regulations Related To NPS

The California Department of Education has worked for the past year to revise Title V regulations to ensure that students enrolled in non-public schools have access to the same services, materials and programs as public school students.  The Board of Psychology housed in the Department of Consumer Affairs, has recommended an amendment to Title V that resulted in substantial changes to the regulations shortly before they were presented to the State Board of Education in January.  These recently proposed changes to the regulations significantly limit who can provide psychological services to students enrolled in non-public schools.  Currently, psychological services are provided by Credentialed School Psychologists, Licensed Educational Psychologists, Marriage/ Family Therapists and Licensed Clinical Social Workers.  Should the new regulations be adopted, only Doctorate Level Licensed Psychologists could provide psychological services.  CASP lobbyists have coordinated with ACSA and other groups in an effort to stop these proposed changes.  The regulations are scheduled to be heard again by the State Board of Education in May.

Next Report >>