Current Legislative Updates

June 2008

State Budget Actions Still Grinding On

On May 30, the Assembly Budget Sub-Committee (#2) on Education Finance took their final actions on the 2008-09 Budget. On a strict party line vote (Democrats-yes, Republicans-no), the sub-committee voted to increase K-14 (Proposition 98) funding by $2.3 billion above the level proposed by the Governor in his May Revision. According to the sub-committee chair, Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica), this increase for education will be made possible by an additional $6 billion in taxes/revenue above the additional revenue proposed in the May Revision. No further information was released by the sub-committee on the details of these additional taxes to be proposed by Assembly Democrats.  There was also no discussion about the Governor's proposal to securitize the state lottery.

On Thursday June 5, the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance took their final actions on the 2008-09 Budget.  Following the lead of the Assembly from last week, the Senate budget subcommittee voted to increase K-14 (Proposition 98) funding by $3.0 billion above the level proposed by the Governor in his May Revision (and $700,000 above the Assembly). As in the case of the Assembly, this increase for education will be made possible by additional taxes/revenue above the additional revenue proposed in the May Revision.

The specific budget actions of the Governor and the two subcommittees are listed in a side-by-side document that is attached.

These actions are the next step in what is likely to be a long summer of negotiations on the 2008-09 State Budget.  The key to this action is that the Democratic members have moved a budget proposal that expands programs and services that can only come from additional revenues (i.e. taxes).  The Republican members of both subcommittees stated that they liked the additional spending for K-14 education but could not support these actions because there was no revenue to pay for these increases (i.e. no new taxes).  For legislative Democrats, these actions, and those of the other budget subcommittees enables them to now talk about a budget that they can support, rather than talk about a budget (i.e. the Governor's May Revision) that they do not support.  The budget conference committee is currently meeting to finalize the budget and then send it to the floor of each house.  Clearly, that will not be the end of this protracted negotiation which could last throughout the summer.

CASP Leadership Meeting With Key Legislators

Over the last few weeks, CASP leaders have met with several key legislators in an effort to broaden the profile of the organization and to lobby our most important issues.  On May 25^th, President-Elect Doug Siembieta, Legislative Chair Jim Russell, Executive Director Suzanne Fisher and lobbyist Jeff Frost met with Senator Darrell Steinberg who is the incoming President Pro Tem of the Senate.  We discussed several of the most critical issues facing school psychologists, including the need to send Proposition 63 mental health funds to local agencies in a more expedited manner, the status of pupil services given the proposed cuts in the 2008-09 state budget and the growing impact of autism in our schools.  Senator Steinberg was very open to our concerns and indicated his on-going support for the work that CASP is doing.

On June 12^th, CASP leaders again came to Sacramento to meet with several other legislators as a part of the CASP Legislative Day in Sacramento.  Again, Doug Siembieta, Jim Russell, Suzanne Fisher, Monica Crouch and Jeff Frost met with several legislators and key staff that have a major impact on school policy and budgets.  We met with Assembly Member Julia Brownley, the Chair of the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education and is also a member of the Education Committee, Assembly Member Paul Krekorian, a member of the Assembly Appropriations and Human Services Committees.  We also met with key staff members for Senator President Pro Tem Don Perata, Senate Appropriations Committee chair Senator Tom Torlakson, and Lynn Lorber the policy consultant for special education issues in the Senate Education Committee.  These were very successful meetings that served to increase the profile of CASP and enabled us to advocate for a number of important policy positions.

CASP Opposing Costly Special Education Bills

There are two special edcuaiton bills that are troublsoem to CASP and on which we have taken positions of oppose. 

AB 2717 (Lieber) would make a change in the “burden of proof” requirement for special education proceedings.  This bill would counteract the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Schaffer v. Weast.   Under the 1975 federal law (IDEA), parents who believe public schools fail to provide their disabled children with a “free appropriate education” (FAPE) may seek redress in a hearing before an independent arbiter.  In some states, lawyers or retired school administrators work part-time as hearing officers.  Elsewhere, a full-time official handles special education hearings as part of a broader caseload.  Currently in California, the Office of Administrative Hearings handles these reviews. 

CASP must oppose AB 2717 because the change in the burden of proof has the potential for a significant increase in the costs for the district that could place an undue financial burden on districts in a time of extreme budget cutbacks.  Additionally, CASP believes that it is appropriate for California law to reflect the intent of the federal IDEA special education law.  AB 2717 would instead reverse this burden.  In our view doing so will create a new state mandate and result is significant costs associated with additional filings for fair hearings.  The bill is currently in the Senate Education Committee.

AB 2783 (Plescia) would require that certain foster youth would have to be assessed within 30 days of being enrolled in school.  Specifically, the measure would shorten the timeline (from 60 working days to 30 calendar days) for a pupil who is placed in a level 12, 13 or 14 classification in a group home or community treatment facility to complete their Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and to determine eligibility. 

CASP oppose this bill because it goes beyond the requirements of the 2004 federal IDEA requirements.  Making this change would require a much shorter timeline than we believe is reasonable.  While CASP would like to see all students assessed, as early as possible, given the current level of resources at the district and SELPA levels, shortening this timeline is simply not a realistic remedy.  The shortened timelines prescribed in the bill could cost a district approximately $30,000 -$60,000 annually depending on the size of the school district (this amount would pay for additional staff time for both school psychologist and special education teacher).  AB 2783 is in the Senate Education Committee.

CASP Continues To Focus On Proposed Title V Regulations

For several months the California State Broad of Education has been scheduled to adopt revisions to the federal Title V regulations.  These regulations include amendments to Non-public Schools and Agencies.  One of the changes proposed to the Title V Regulations would make a significant policy change to the current special education requirements for local school districts and CASP strongly opposes these changes. 

Specifically, the proposed changes 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.  We strongly believe that the proposed amendment is outside of the bounds of regulations and would result in significant costs and delays to school districts.

The proposed amendment would have the following impact on schools:

·        A significant increase in the cost of Non-Public School (NPS) placements

·        A shortage of Licensed Psychologists to provide necessary services

·        An inability to provide services currently specified in student IEP’s

·        A negative impact on some of California’s most challenging students by limiting access to services provided by specially trained and appropriately credentialed personnel

·        A full range of services available to students in public school settings would not be available in NPS (which contradicts the underlying purpose for revision of the regulations).

Due to the opposition expressed by CASP and other organizations, these proposed regulations have been pulled from the July 2008 SBE agenda.  However, CASP will continue to fight these proposals.

Next Report >>