Education finance.

(1) Existing law authorizes a county superintendent of schools, with the approval of the county board of education, to temporarily transfer moneys to a school district under specified circumstances. The Charter Schools Act of 1992 authorizes any one or more persons to submit a petition to the governing board of a school district to establish a charter school that operates independently from the existing school district structure as a method of accomplishing specified goals. This bill, until July 1, 2017, would authorize a county board of education, subject to the concurrence of the county superintendent of schools, to loan moneys from the proceeds of revenue anticipation notes to a charter school for which the county board of education or the county superintendent of schools has a supervisory responsibility or, regardless of whether the charter school is within or outside of the county, with which a county board of education or county superintendent of schools has a contractual relationship. The bill would require the county superintendent of schools, before the county board of education makes the loan, to take specified actions regarding the advisability of the loan. The bill would provide that any loan of moneys pursuant to these provisions would not constitute a debt or liability of the county superintendent of schools, the county board of education, or the State of California. The bill would prohibit a charter school from receiving more than one of these loans per fiscal year. The bill would require the county board of education, as a condition of making a loan to a charter school, to report to the State Department of Education by September 15 of each year specified information on loans made to charter schools within the prior fiscal year, and would require the department to compile that information into one report to be submitted by December 1 of each year to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, the Department of Finance, and the Legislative Analyst's Office. (2) Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to apportion state aid to county superintendents of schools in accordance with prescribed calculations. This bill would revise the calculations by subtracting amounts received separately relating to the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund and a proposed constitutional provision relating to education funding. (3) Existing law requires a revenue limit to be calculated for each county superintendent of schools, adjusted for various factors, and reduced, as specified. Existing law reduces the revenue limit for each county superintendent of schools for the 2011–12 fiscal year by a deficit factor of 20.691%. This bill would set the deficit factor for each county superintendent of schools for the 2012–13 fiscal year at 22.549%. (4) Existing law requires the Superintendent to make specified computations relating to the allocation of property tax revenues for each county superintendent of schools. This bill would revise these computations to include as property tax revenues those received by a county superintendent of schools relating to the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund. (5) Existing law requires the Superintendent to administer all California state preschool programs, including, but not limited to, part-day and full-day age and developmentally appropriate programs for 3- and 4-year-old children. Existing law defines 3- and 4-year-old children for these purposes as children who will have their 3rd or 4th birthday, respectively, on or before December 2 of the fiscal year in which they are enrolled in a California state preschool program. This bill would instead provide that the state preschool programs shall include, but not be limited to, part-day age and developmentally appropriate programs designed to facilitate the transition to kindergarten for 3- and 4-year-old children. The bill would instead define 3- and 4-year-old children as children who will have their 3rd or 4th birthday, respectively, on or before November 1 for the 2012–13 fiscal year, October 1 for the 2013–14 fiscal year, and September 1 for the 2014–15 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter. The bill would, among other things, make conforming changes relating to the deletion of references to full-day preschool programs. (6) Existing law requires the State Department of Education to annually report to the Department of Finance and the Legislature a statewide summary identifying, among other things, the number of preschool age children receiving part-time and full-time development services. This bill would instead require the department to annually report to the Department of Finance and the Legislature a statewide summary identifying, among other things, the number of preschool age children receiving part-day preschool and wraparound child care services, as defined. (7) Existing law requires child development and preschool programs, as a condition of receipt of specified funds appropriated in the Budget Act of 2006, to include, but not be limited to, age and developmentally appropriate activities for children that are designed to facilitate their transition to kindergarten, and opportunities for parents and legal guardians to work with their children on interactive literacy activities, as defined. This bill would instead require a participating part-day preschool program, as a condition of receipt of funds being provided for in the annual Budget Act or other statute, to coordinate the provision of (A) opportunities for parents and legal guardians to work with their children on interactive literacy activities, as defined, (B) specified parenting education, (C) referrals, as necessary, to providers of instruction in adult education and English as a second language in order to improve the academic skills of parents of children in participating classrooms, and (D) specified staff development. (8) Existing law requires child development and preschool programs, as a condition of receipt of specified funds appropriated in the Budget Act of 2006, to coordinate the provision of specified parenting education, and referrals, as necessary, to providers of instruction in adult education and English as a second language in order to improve the academic skills of parents of children in participating classrooms. This bill would repeal that provision, which is recodified in regard to part-day preschool programs as described in (7) . (9) Existing law authorizes a local educational agency or a participating program on behalf of one or more participating programs to select a family literacy and education coordinator whose duties may include specified activities. This bill would repeal that provision. (10) Existing law requires child development and preschool programs, as a condition of receipt of specified funds appropriated in the Budget Act of 2006, to provide specified staff development for teachers in participating classrooms. This bill would repeal that provision, as its provisions are recodified. (11) Existing law establishes a schedule for the expenditure, by the Superintendent, of prescribed funds appropriated pursuant to the Budget Act of 2006 for child development and preschool programs. This bill would instead require a family literacy supplemental grant to be made available and distributed to California state preschool classrooms, as determined by the Superintendent, at a rate of $2,500 per class. The bill would, among other things, assign first priority to California state preschool programs that contract to receive this funding before July 1, 2012. The bill would require family literacy supplemental grants to be used for specified purposes. The bill would also provide that implementation of the family literacy supplemental grant program is contingent upon funding being provided for the program in the annual Budget Act or other statute. (12) Existing law requires, subject to the availability of specified funds, the Superintendent to conduct a specified evaluation of the effectiveness of prekindergarten and family literacy programs established pursuant to specified provisions of law. This bill would repeal that provision. (13) Existing law authorizes the use of up to $5,000,000 of specified funds appropriated in the Budget Act of 2005 by the Superintendent to provide direct child care services for children in participating classrooms to meet the child care needs of parents for the portion of each day that is not covered by services provided as part of a specified preschool program. This bill would repeal that provision. (14) Existing law requires the Superintendent to encourage state preschool program applicants or contracting agencies to offer full-day services through a combination of part-day preschool slots and part-day general child care and development programs. Existing law provides specified requirements in order to facilitate a full day of services and requires a child who is enrolled in a preschool program to meet specified eligibility requirements in order to be eligible for part-day child care. This bill would instead require the Superintendent to encourage state preschool program applicants or contracting agencies to offer full-day services through a combination of part-day preschool slots and wraparound general child care and development programs, as defined. The bill would also require fees to be assessed and collected for families with children in part-day preschool programs, families receiving wraparound child care services, as defined, or both. (15) Existing law requires the Superintendent to establish a fee schedule for families using child care and development services pursuant to the Child Care and Development Services Act. Existing law requires that the family fee schedule prohibit the assessment of fees on families whose children are enrolled in the state preschool program. This bill would remove this prohibition, thereby allowing the family fee schedule to include the assessment of fees on families whose children are enrolled in the state preschool program. (16) Existing law provides for income eligibility standards for families to receive child care and development services. Existing law provides that "income eligible," for the purposes of the Child Care and Development Services Act, means that a family's adjusted monthly income is at or below 70% of the state median income, adjusted for family size, and adjusted annually. Notwithstanding this provision, existing law provides that, for the 2011–12 fiscal year, the income eligibility limits that were in effect for the 2007–08 fiscal year are reduced to 70% of the state median income that was in use for the 2007–08 fiscal year, adjusted for family size. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding these provisions, for the 2012–13 fiscal year, the income eligibility limits are to be 70% of the state median income that was in use for the 2007–08 fiscal year, adjusted for family size. (17) Existing law requires the State Department of Education, effective July 1, 2011, to reduce the maximum reimbursable amounts of the contracts for the Preschool Education Program, the General Child Care Program, the Migrant Day Care Program, the Alternative Payment Program, the CalWORKs Stage 3 Program, and the Allowance for Handicapped Program by 11% or by whatever proportion is necessary to ensure that the expenditures for these programs do not exceed the amounts appropriated for them. Existing law requires, effective July 1, 2011, families to be disenrolled from subsidized child care services in a specified order that requires, among other things, families whose income exceeds 70% of the state median income adjusted for family size to be disenrolled first, except as specified, and families with the highest income below 70% of the state median income, in relation to family size, to be disenrolled second. This bill would require the department, effective July 1, 2012, to reduce the maximum reimbursable amounts of the contracts for the General Child Care Program, the Migrant Day Care Program, the Alternative Payment Program, the CalWORKs Stage 3 Program, and the Allowance for Handicapped Program by an additional 8.7% or whatever proportion is necessary to ensure these expenditures do not exceed the applicable appropriations. The bill would also require, effective July 1, 2012, families to be disenrolled in a different specified order that requires, among other things, families with the highest income in relation to family size to be disenrolled first and families that have the same income and have been enrolled in child care services the longest to be disenrolled second. (18) Existing law authorizes the City and County of San Francisco, until July 1, 2013, and as a pilot project, to develop and implement an individualized county child care subsidy plan, requires the city and county, on or before June 30, 2013, to submit a final report to the Legislature and other specified entities that summarizes the impact of the plan, requires the city and county to phase out the plan and implement the state's requirements for child care subsidies as of July 1, 2015, and provides for the repeal of those provisions on January 1, 2016. This bill would instead authorize the City and County of San Francisco to implement the individualized county child care subsidy plan until July 1, 2014, require the city and county to phase out the plan and implement the state's requirements for child care subsidies as of July 1, 2016, require the city and county to submit the final report on or before June 30, 2014, and would repeal those provisions on January 1, 2017. (19) Existing law requires that the cost of state-funded child care services be governed by regional market rates, and establishes a family fee schedule reflecting specified income eligibility limits. Existing law revises the family fee schedule that was in effect for the 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, and 2010–11 fiscal years to be adjusted to reflect specified income eligibility limits. This bill would require that the family fee schedule that was in effect for the 2011–12 fiscal year remain in effect for the 2012–13 fiscal year. (20) Existing law requires the Controller to draw warrants on the State Treasury in each month of each year in specified amounts for principal apportionments for purposes of funding school districts, county superintendents of schools, and community college districts. Existing law defers the drawing of those warrants, as specified. This bill would require the Superintendent to reduce the warrants for the 2012–13 fiscal year by certain amounts as an offset for school district and county office of education apportionments made pursuant to specified provisions. The bill also would require the Superintendent to delay the 2nd principal apportionment from July 2, 2013, to July 15, 2013, to account for all revenues remitted to school districts and county offices of education pursuant to a proposed constitutional provision relating to education funding. The bill would require the Superintendent to reduce the June warrants for the 2012–13 fiscal year for any amounts received pursuant to specified provisions related to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies. The bill, commencing with the 2012–13 fiscal year, would defer additional specified amounts of the warrants for school districts and county superintendents of schools from February, April, and May 2013, to July 2013, and from March 2013 and an additional amount from April 2013 to August 2013. The bill would make these provisions inoperative on December 15, 2012, if the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 (Attorney General reference number 12-0009) is not approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election, or if the provisions of that act that modify personal income tax rates do not become operative due to a conflict with another initiative measure that is approved at the same election and receives a greater number of affirmative votes. If either of these conditions occurs, the bill would require, as of December 15, 2012, for the 2012–13 fiscal year only, the Superintendent, instead of the actions described in the paragraph above, to reduce the June warrants by certain amounts received by school districts and county offices of education due to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and also would offset the revenue limit funding received by school districts and county offices of education by those amounts. If the provisions described in this paragraph do not become operative, they would be repealed on January 1, 2013. (21) Existing law requires the Controller to draw warrants on the State Treasury in each month of each year in specified amounts for purposes of funding school districts, county superintendents of schools, and community college districts. Existing law defers the drawing of those warrants, as specified. Existing law allows up to $100,000,000 of the amount of the warrants for the principal apportionments for June that are deferred until July to be drawn instead in June for a charter school or school district if specified criteria are met, including, in the case of a charter school, that the chartering authority, in consultation with the county superintendent of schools, certifies to the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Director of Finance that the charter school will be unable to meet its financial obligations for June. This bill would require the certification to be made by the governing body of the charter school instead of the chartering authority, and would require a charter school submitting that certification to provide its chartering authority with a copy of the certification, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. (22) Existing law establishes the California School Finance Authority, and authorizes the authority to issue revenue bonds to finance a single or series of projects or financing of working capital for a single or several participating parties, defined as a school district, charter school, county office of education, or community college district that undertakes the financing or refinancing of a project or of working capital, or a joint venture school facilities construction project. This bill would authorize the authority to issue revenue bonds to refinance those projects and would revise the definition of "participating party." (23) Existing law limits the amount a participating party may borrow from the California School Finance Authority to 85% of the estimated amount of funds to be received by the participating party which will be available in the fiscal year of the borrowing. This bill would limit the amount a charter school may borrow to 85% of the estimated amount of funds to be received by the charter school which will be available during the term of the loan. (24) Existing law authorizes a public credit provider, as defined, to require a participating party, with regard to providing credit enhancement for bonds, notes, certificates of participation, or other evidences of indebtedness of a participating party, to agree to specified conditions, including allowing the Controller to allocate specified school district, county office of education, or charter school apportionments to public credit providers if the public credit provider is required to make principal or interest payments, or both, pursuant to the credit enhancement agreement. Existing law imposes those same conditions on securing financing or refinancing for projects or working capital from the California School Finance Authority, in which case the Controller allocates apportionments when a participating party will not make a payment to the authority at the time the payment is required. This bill would authorize the Controller, in the case of a credit enhancement agreement between a charter school and a public credit provider and in the case of financing secured from the authority, to allocate apportionments designated for charter school categorical block grants. (25) Existing law authorizes the California School Finance Authority to assign and distribute the state's 2010 federal tax credit bond volume cap for qualified school construction bonds to or for the benefit of charter schools, or to be further assigned and distributed to one or more issuers in the state for the benefit of charter schools, as determined by the authority. Existing law assigns to the authority $68,406,000 of the state's 2010 federal tax credit bond volume cap for qualified school construction bonds, to be issued for the benefit of charter schools, or to be further assigned and distributed to one or more issuers in the state for the benefit of charter schools, as the authority determines. This bill would delegate to the authority exclusive control over the use and allocation of the volume cap for qualified school construction bonds and would authorize the authority to use, by resolution, the volume cap for obligations issued by the authority or to allocate the volume cap to any party. (25.1) Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district to sell or lease any real property, together with any personal property located on the real property, belonging to the school district which is not or will not be needed by the school district for school classroom buildings at the time of delivery of title or possession. This bill would require the governing board of a school district seeking to sell or lease real property designed to provide direct instruction or instructional support it deems to be surplus property to first provide a written offer for the sale or lease of the surplus property of the school district to any charter school that has submitted a written request to the school district to be notified of surplus real property offered by the school district for sale or lease. The bill would require any real property sold or leased to a charter school to be used exclusively to provide direct instruction or instructional support for no less than 5 years from the date the real property is available to the charter school pursuant to a sale, or, if the charter school leased the real property, until the real property is returned to the possession of the school district. The bill would require the price at which the real property is sold to a charter school to not exceed the school district's cost of acquisition, adjusted as specified. The bill would require the annual rate of real property leased to a charter school not to exceed 5% of the maximum sale price. The bill would require the school district advisory committee to hold hearings to receive community input before selling or leasing real property to a charter school. The bill would require these provisions to only apply to real property identified by a school district as surplus property after July 1, 2012. The bill would make this provision inoperative on June 30, 2013, and would repeal it as of January 1, 2014. (25.3) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to sell, for less than fair market value, any schoolsite that is deemed to be surplus property of the school district to any park district, city, or county in which the school district is wholly or partially situated for specified uses if the governing board of the school district adopts a resolution specifying that it will sell or transfer the property for less than fair market value to those entities. This bill would instead authorize the governing board of a school district to sell the surplus property to those entities only if a charter school has not accepted an offer to purchase or lease the property, as described in (25.1) . (25.5) Existing law authorizes a governing board of a school district seeking to sell or lease any real property it deems to be surplus property to first offer that property for sale or lease to any contracting agency, as defined, that provides child care and development services and pursuant to specified conditions. This bill would instead authorize a governing board of a school district seeking to sell or lease that real property to a contracting agency, only if a charter school has not accepted an offer to purchase or lease the property, as described in (25.1) . (25.7) Existing law requires the sale or lease with an option to purchase of real property by a school district to be made in accordance with specified priorities and procedures, including, among other things, requiring the property to first be offered for park or recreational purposes. This bill would instead require the sale or lease with an option to purchase of real property to first be offered for sale or lease to any interested charter school for purposes of providing direct instruction or instructional support, as described in (25.1) . (25.9) Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, before selling or leasing any schoolsite containing specified land, to first offer to sell or lease that portion of the schoolsite containing the land to certain public agencies in accordance with particular priorities, including, among other things, offering to sell or lease the specified land to any city within which the land may be situated. This bill would instead require the governing board of a school district to only sell or lease any schoolsite containing specified land, as described above, if a charter school has not accepted an offer to purchase or lease the schoolsite, as described in (25.1) . (26) Existing law establishes the School Facilities Emergency Repair Account in the State Treasury, and requires the State Allocation Board to administer the account. Existing law establishes the Proposition 98 Reversion Account in the General Fund, and requires that the Legislature, from time to time, transfer into this account moneys previously appropriated in satisfaction of the constitutional minimum funding requirements that have not been disbursed or otherwise encumbered for the purposes for which they were appropriated. Existing law generally requires an amount, equaling 50% of the unappropriated balance of the Proposition 98 Reversion Account or $100,000,000, whichever is greater, to be transferred in the annual Budget Act from the Proposition 98 Reversion Account to the School Facilities Emergency Repair Account. However, the amount to be transferred under this provision was set at 0 for the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years. This bill would set the amount to be transferred under this provision from the Proposition 98 Reversion Account to the School Facilities Emergency Repair Account at 0 for the 2012–13 fiscal year. (27) The Teachers' Retirement Law, which is administered by the Teachers' Retirement Board, prescribes a comprehensive system of rights and benefits for its members, including disability benefits, retirement benefits, and death benefits. That law specifies the days or hours of creditable service that equal "full time" for the purpose of calculating benefits under the Defined Benefit Program, with a minimum standard applied, as specified. This bill would provide that, if a school district, county office of education, or charter school reduces the number of days of instruction pursuant to a specified provision for the 2012–13 or 2013–14 fiscal years, the minimum standard for full time would be reduced to the number of days of instruction provided by that school district, county office of education, or charter school and the number of hours of instruction equal to the number of days of instruction times 6, as specified. (28) The California Constitution requires the state to comply with a minimum funding obligation each fiscal year with respect to the support of school districts and community college districts. Existing statutory law specifies that appropriations made to service public debt approved by the voters of the state do not apply toward the constitutional minimum funding obligation for school districts and community college districts. This bill would include funds appropriated for the Early Start Program and any appropriation made to service general obligation bond debt on behalf of school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and community college districts in funding that applies toward the constitutional minimum funding obligation for school districts and community college districts. This provision would not become operative until December 15, 2012, and would only become operative if the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 (Attorney General reference number 12-0009) is not approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election, or if the provisions of that act that modify personal income tax rates do not become operative due to a conflict with another initiative measure that is approved at the same election and receives a greater number of affirmative votes. If this provision does not become operative, it would be repealed on January 1, 2013. (29) Existing law requires, for the 1990–91 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, that moneys to be applied by the state for the support of school districts, community college districts, and direct elementary and secondary level instructional services provided by the state be distributed in accordance with certain calculations governing the proration of those moneys among the 3 segments of public education. Existing law makes that provision inapplicable to the fiscal years between 1992–93 and 2011–12, inclusive. This bill would make that provision inapplicable to the 2012–13 fiscal year. (30) Existing law requires the Director of Finance to make a specified adjustment in the percentage of General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts for purposes of the provisions of the California Constitution requiring minimum funding for the public schools. This adjustment is related to the implementation of provisions related to the implementation of specified taxes imposed on gasoline and diesel. This bill would delete the provision requiring the specified adjustment. (31) Existing law prescribes the percentage of General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts for purposes of the provisions of the California Constitution requiring minimum funding for the public schools. Existing law requires the Director of Finance to adjust that percentage in a specified manner for purposes of the 2011–12 fiscal year with respect to the shift to school districts and community college districts of local property tax revenues in connection with the dissolution of redevelopment agencies. This bill would delete this provision. (32) Under existing law, the California Constitution requires the state to comply with a minimum funding obligation each fiscal year with respect to the support of school districts and community college districts. This bill would require, if the moneys applied by the state for the support of school districts and community college districts for the 2011–12 fiscal year exceed the minimum funding required by the California Constitution, that the excess, up to a certain amount, be deemed a payment of a specified fiscal settlement relating to the minimum school funding obligation, as described, for the 2004–05 and 2005–06 fiscal years. (33) Existing law creates the Charter School Security Fund in the State Treasury, and requires moneys in the fund to be available for deposit into the Charter School Revolving Loan Fund in case of default on any loan made from the Charter School Revolving Loan Fund. This bill would require the State Department of Education to monitor the adequacy of the amount of funds in the Charter School Revolving Loan Fund and report annually, as specified, to the Department of Finance and the Controller on the need, if any, to transfer funds from the Charter School Security Fund to the Charter School Revolving Loan Fund to replace funds lost due to loan defaults and would provide for such a transfer to be made, as specified. (34) Existing law requires the county superintendent of schools to determine a revenue limit for each school district in the county pursuant to a specified formula based on the base revenue limit of the school district for the prior year, adjusted for inflation, and the average daily attendance for the entire school district. This bill would require the calculations of the base revenue limit for each school district to be reduced by amounts relating to the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund and a proposed constitutional provision relating to education funding. (35) Existing law requires the county superintendent of schools to determine a revenue limit for each school district in the county and requires the amount of the revenue limit to be adjusted for various factors. Existing law reduces the revenue limit for each school district for the 2011–12 fiscal year by a deficit factor of 20.404%. This bill would provide that the deficit factor for each school district for the 2012–13 fiscal year would be 22.272%. (36) Existing law provides that, in lieu of any inflation or cost-of-living adjustment, state funding for specified educational programs is increased in accordance with a prescribed formula. This bill would provide that child care and development programs would not receive a cost-of-living adjustment in the 2012–13, 2013–14, and 2014–15 fiscal years. (37) Existing law requires the board of supervisors of a county or city and county to order, and the auditor and treasurer of the county or city and county to make, a temporary transfer from funds of the county or city and county not immediately needed to pay claims against them to the school fund of a school district or county school service fund of the amount needed whenever, prior to the receipt by a school district or county school service fund of its state, county, city and county, or district funds, the school district or county school service fund of the county or city and county does not have sufficient money to its credit to meet current expenses of maintenance. This bill would authorize a charter school, after all transfer requests for school districts and county offices of education have been satisfied and in circumstances identical to those of a school district or county school service fund, to receive this type of transfer of funds. (38) Existing law authorizes a county superintendent of schools, with the approval of the county board of education, to make a temporary transfer from the county school service fund to a school district that does not have sufficient money to its credit to meet current operating expenses. This bill would authorize a charter school in circumstances identical to those of a school district to receive this type of transfer of funds. (39) Existing law authorizes a county superintendent of schools, with the approval of the county board of education, to make an apportionment to a school district from the county school service fund conditional on the repayment of the apportionment and to transfer that amount from the general fund of the school district to the county school service fund during the next succeeding fiscal year. This bill would authorize a charter school in circumstances identical to those of a school district to receive this type of apportionment. (40) Existing law sets forth the minimum number of instructional days and minutes school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools are required to offer and allows a school district, county office of education, and charter school to reduce the equivalent of up to 5 days of instruction or the equivalent number of instructional minutes per school year through the 2014–15 school year. If the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 (Attorney General reference number 12-0009) is not approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election, or if the provisions of that act that modify personal income tax rates do not become operative due to a conflict with another initiative measure that is approved at the same election and receives a greater number of affirmative votes, commencing December 15, 2012, this bill, for the 2012–13 and 2013–14 school years, would allow a school district, county office of education, or charter school to provide an instructional year of not less than 160 days or the equivalent number of instructional minutes. The bill would require implementation of this reduction by a school district, county office of education, or charter school that is subject to collective bargaining to be achieved through the bargaining process. This authority would become inoperative on July 1, 2015, and would be repealed on January 1, 2016. The bill, if that measure is not approved by the voters or does not become operative due to the conflict discussed above, for the 2012–13 fiscal year, would reduce the amount of revenue limit funding received by each school district, county office of education, and charter school by a combined total of $2,740,377,000 and would require the Superintendent to adjust the amount of categorical funding allocated to basic aid school districts, as defined, in the 2012–13 fiscal year to achieve the reduction in the amount of revenue limit funding. (41) Existing law states that the law governing charter schools does not prohibit a private person or organization from providing funding or other assistance to the establishment or operation of a charter school. This bill, until July 1, 2017, would authorize a charter school to contract with a county superintendent of schools or a county board of education for purposes of borrowing moneys, as described above. The bill would require the borrowed moneys to be expended by a charter school solely for purposes of meeting the cash management needs of the charter school due to the deferral of apportionment payments and not for purposes of making capital acquisitions. (42) Existing law requires the Superintendent to annually compute a general-purpose entitlement, funded from a combination of state aid and local funds, for each charter school, as specified. This bill would require the computation of the general-purpose entitlement to be reduced by any amount derived from a proposed constitutional provision relating to education funding. (43) The existing Quality Education Investment Act of 2006 effectuates the intent of the Legislature to implement the terms of the proposed settlement agreement of a specified legal action, to provide for the discharge of the minimum state educational funding requirement, to improve the quality of academic instruction and the level of pupil achievement in schools whose pupils have high levels of poverty and complex educational needs, to develop exemplary school district and school practices to create working conditions to attract and retain well qualified teachers and administrators, and to focus school resources solely on instructional improvement and pupil services. The act requires, among other things, $450,000,000 per fiscal year to be appropriated from the General Fund for specified purposes for each of the 2008–09, and 2011–12 to 2014–15 fiscal years, inclusive, and requires those funds to be allocated, as specified, to Sections A and B of the State School Fund. The act requires these appropriations to be deemed General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts for the 2004–05 and 2005–06 fiscal years, as specified. A provision of the act provides that, for the 2013–14 fiscal year, various amounts allocated under the act are to be adjusted to reflect the total fiscal settlement agreed to by the parties to the specified legal action referenced above. This bill would instead appropriate for these purposes from the General Fund $361,000,000 for the 2012–13 fiscal year, and $218,322,000 for the 2013–14 fiscal year, for allocation by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the Superintendent, as specified, to be deemed General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts. This bill would require any funds appropriated as described in (32) to be deemed General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts for the 2004–05 and 2005–06 fiscal years, as specified. The bill would delay the adjustment related to the total fiscal settlement in the specified legal action until the 2014–15 fiscal year. (44) Existing law provides that an essential component of transition services for individuals with exceptional needs is the project workability program that provides instruction and experiences that reinforce core curriculum concepts and skills leading to gainful employment. Existing law requires the Superintendent to develop criteria for awarding grants, funding, and evaluating workability projects and requires workability project applications to include, but not be limited to, specified elements. This bill would define eligible applicants for project workability to include local educational agencies, including school districts, county offices of education, state special schools, and charter schools, and nonpublic, nonsectarian schools, as defined. (45) Existing law, the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-Vasconcellos Cal Grant Program (Cal Grant Program) , establishes the Cal Grant A and B Entitlement awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B awards, the Cal Grant C awards, and the Cal Grant T awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission (commission) , and establishes eligibility requirements for awards under these programs for participating students attending qualifying institutions. Existing law requires the maximum award amounts for students at independent institutions to be identified in the annual Budget Act. Existing law states the policy of the Cal Grant Program that the maximum Cal Grant A and B awards for students attending nonpublic institutions be equal to a specified amount. Commencing with the 2013–14 award year, this bill would set maximum tuition award amounts for Cal Grant A and B awards for new recipients attending private for-profit and nonprofit postsecondary educational institutions, and would require the renewal award amount for a student whose initial award is subject to one of those maximum award amounts to be calculated pursuant to specified law. (46) Existing law requires the Student Aid Commission to certify by October 1 of each year the institution's latest 3-year cohort default rate as most recently reported by the United States Department of Education. Existing law provides that, for purposes of the 2012–13 academic year, and every academic year thereafter, an otherwise qualifying institution with a 3-year cohort default rate that is equal to or greater than 30% is ineligible for initial and renewal Cal Grant awards at the institution. This bill would decrease that 3-year cohort default rate threshold to 15.5%. The bill would, for purposes of the 2012–13 academic year, and every academic year thereafter, make an otherwise qualifying institution ineligible for an initial or renewal Cal Grant award at the institution if the institution has a graduation rate of 30% or less for students taking 150% or less of the expected time to complete degree requirements, as specified, with certain exceptions. The bill also would require the commission to certify by October 1 of each year the institution's latest graduation rate as reported by the United States Department of Education. The bill would require the commission to provide specified notifications and information to initial and renewal Cal Grant recipients seeking to attend, or attending, an institution that is ineligible for initial and renewal Cal Grant awards under the provisions of this bill. (47) The Cal Grant Program prohibits an applicant from receiving one or a combination of Cal Grant awards in excess of a specified amount and from obtaining a baccalaureate degree before receiving a Cal Grant award, except in the case of Cal Grant T awards. This bill would remove that exception for Cal Grant T awards and would allow a recipient who initially qualified for both a Cal Grant A award and a Cal Grant B award, and received a Cal Grant B award, to be awarded a renewal Cal Grant A award if that recipient subsequently became ineligible for a renewal Cal Grant B award and meets the applicable Cal Grant A financial need and income and asset criteria. (48) The Cal Grant Program entitles a student who transfers from a California community college to a qualifying institution that offers a baccalaureate degree to receive a Cal Grant A or B award if the student meets specified criteria. This bill would additionally require that student to have attended a California community college in the academic year immediately preceding the academic year for which the award will be used, except as provided. (49) Provisions of law that became inoperative on July 1, 2003, and that were repealed on January 1, 2004, established the Governor's Scholarship Programs under the administration of the Scholarshare Investment Board. Existing law expresses the intent of the Legislature to provide explicit authority to the board to continue to administer accounts for, and to make awards to, persons who qualified for awards under the provisions of the Governor's Scholarship Programs as those provisions existed on January 1, 2003, and to provide for the management and disbursement of funds previously set aside for the Governor's Scholarship Programs. Existing law provides that the amount remaining in the Golden State Scholarshare Trust following a specified transfer is available as a reserve for funding claims for awards. This bill would additionally state the intent of the Legislature to provide a guarantee should additional funds be needed to cover awards authorized and made pursuant to the program. The bill would require the board to negotiate with the current manager of the program to execute an amended or new management and funding agreement, which would be required to include specified terms. The bill would further state the intent of the Legislature to appropriate the necessary funds to the Golden State Scholarshare Trust for the purpose of funding individual beneficiary accounts if funds retained in the trust after January 1, 2013, are insufficient to cover the remaining withdrawal requests. The bill would require the board to notify the Department of Finance and the Legislature no later than 10 working days after determining that this shortfall in available funding will occur. (50) Existing law requires the governing board of each community college district to charge each resident a fee of $46 per unit per semester, and to charge a tuition fee to nonresident students, with certain exceptions, including, but not limited to, exceptions for nonresident students attending a community college pursuant to specified reciprocity agreements with California governing student attendance and fees. Existing law requires those nonresident students to pay a fee of $42 per course unit. This bill instead would require those students to pay a per unit fee that is 2 times the amount of the resident fee until June 30, 2013, and 3 times the amount of the resident fee commencing on July 1, 2013, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. (51) Existing law requires the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to adopt regulations for the payment of apportionments to community college districts. Existing law, notwithstanding the board of governors' authority in this respect, makes various adjustments to the payment of these apportionments by deferring certain amounts of apportionments for January to June, inclusive, to July and October, as specified. This bill would revise these provisions. Specifically, commencing on December 15, 2012, if the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 (Attorney General reference number 12-0009) is approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election and all of the provisions of that measure that modify personal income tax rates become operative, this bill would require the deferral of certain amounts of apportionments for February to June, inclusive, to July, and would appropriate $801,094,000 for expenditure during the 2013–14 fiscal year, to be expended in accordance with certain provisions of the Budget Act of 2012. If the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 (Attorney General reference number 12-0009) is not approved by the voters at that election, or if the provisions of that act that modify personal income tax rates do not become operative due to a conflict with another initiative measure that is approved at the same election and receives a greater number of affirmative votes, commencing on December 15, 2012, the bill would require the deferral of a greater amount of apportionments for February to June, inclusive, to July, and would appropriate $961,000,000 for expenditure during the 2013–14 fiscal year, to be expended in accordance with certain provisions of the Budget Act of 2012. (52) Under existing law, the California Constitution requires the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the state and each local government to not exceed the appropriations limit of the entity of government for the prior year adjusted for the change in the cost of living and the change in population, except as otherwise provided. Existing law, for purposes of effectively and efficiently implementing these government spending limitation provisions of the California Constitution, requires for the 2008–09 to 2012–13 fiscal years, inclusive, the average daily attendance of public school districts, including county superintendents of schools, serving kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to include the same amount of average daily attendance for classes for supplemental instruction and regional occupational centers and programs that was used in the 2007–08 fiscal year. This bill would require the same amount of average daily attendance for classes for supplemental instruction and regional occupational centers and programs that was used in the 2007–08 fiscal year to also be used in the 2013–14 and 2014–15 fiscal years. (53) Under the California Constitution, whenever the Legislature or a state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, including a school district and a community college district, the state is required to provide a subvention of funds to reimburse the local government, with specified exceptions. This bill, commencing with the 2012–13 fiscal year, would require certain funds appropriated in the annual Budget Act for reimbursement of the cost of a new program or increased level of service of an existing program mandated by statute or executive order to be available as a block grant to school districts, charter schools, county offices of education, and community college districts to support specified state-mandated local programs. The bill would provide that a school district, charter school, county office of education, or community college district that submits a letter of intent to the Superintendent of Public Instruction and receives block grant funding is not eligible to submit a claim for reimbursement for specified mandated programs for the fiscal year for which the block grant funding is received. The bill would make block grant funds subject to required audits. The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to compile a list of all school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education that received block grant funding in the prior fiscal year and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to compile a list of all community college districts that received block grant funding in the prior fiscal year and the total amount each school district, charter school, county office of education, and community college district received. The Superintendent and the chancellor would be required to provide this information to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature, the Controller, the Department of Finance, and the Legislative Analyst's Office on or before September 9 of each year. (54) Existing law authorizes a local agency, defined to include a school district and county board of education, to borrow money and the indebtedness to be represented by a note or notes issued to the lender. Existing law authorizes the local agency to use the money borrowed for any purpose for which the local agency is authorized to use and expend moneys, including, but not limited to, current expenses, capital expenditures, investment and reinvestment, and the discharge of an obligation or indebtedness of the local agency. Existing law requires the notes of certain school districts and county boards of education to be issued by the appropriate county board of supervisors. Existing law requires a note so issued to be a general obligation of the local agency, and, to the extent not paid from the taxes, income, revenue, cash receipts, or other moneys of the local agency pledged for the payment of the note and interest, to be paid from any other moneys of the local agency lawfully available for that purpose. This bill would authorize a charter school to borrow money pursuant to these provisions. (55) Existing law authorizes a school district to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the school district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Existing law authorizes a school district to increase the levy, as prescribed, if state funds for new school facility construction are not available, as specified. This bill would suspend the operation of the provision authorizing the increased levy from the day this bill becomes operative until January 1, 2015, or until an earlier date upon the occurrence of a specified circumstance, including passage of a statewide school facilities bond. (56) The Budget Act of 2011 made numerous appropriations for the support of public education in this state. This bill would reduce by various amounts appropriations made for purposes of supplemental school counseling, special education, partnership academies, instructional support to assist certain pupils to pass the high school exit examination, English language tutoring to limited-English-proficient pupils, incentive grants to support the hiring of more physical education teachers, the Arts and Music Block Grant, certificated staff mentoring, and community colleges, thereby making an appropriation. The bill also would make available for reappropriation the unencumbered balances of specified appropriations made in prior fiscal years for various educational purposes and would reappropriate $220,137,000 to the State Department of Education for apportionment for special education programs. (57) The Administrative Procedure Act, among other things, sets forth procedures for the development, adoption, and promulgation of regulations by administrative agencies charged with the implementation of statutes. This bill would authorize the State Department of Education, notwithstanding the procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act, to implement the provision of the bill related to the reduction of the maximum reimbursable amounts for specified contracts and the order of disenrollment from subsidized child care services, as described in (17) , through management bulletins or other similar instructions. (58) The bill would provide that the implementation of the provision of the bill related to the reduction of the maximum reimbursable amounts for specified contracts and the order of disenrollment from subsidized child care services, as described in (17) , is not subject to the appeal and resolution procedures for agencies that contract with the State Department of Education for these purposes. (59) This bill would set the cost-of-living adjustment for specified items in the Budget Act of 2012 at 0% for the 2012–13 fiscal year, notwithstanding the cost-of-living adjustment specified in existing statutes. (60) Under existing law, the amount of revenue that a school district may collect annually for general purposes, called a revenue limit, is calculated in accordance with various statutory formulas. A basic aid school district is a school district where property tax revenues exceed the revenue limit and the school district consequently does not receive a state apportionment. This bill would express legislative intent that basic aid school districts assume categorical funding reductions proportionate to the revenue limit reductions implemented for nonbasic aid school districts in the 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years. The bill would include calculations to implement these funding reductions. (61) This bill would require that $12,133,000 of the funds appropriated in the Budget Act of 2011 for purposes of special education programs, be provided to fully fund the 2008–09 maintenance of effort required for special education programs. (62) Existing law appropriates funding for class size reduction in kindergarten and grades 1 to 3, inclusive, to be expended consistent with the specified requirements. This bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to certify to the Controller the amounts needed for the 2012–13 fiscal year to fund the Class Size Reduction Program and set forth a schedule for the transfer of that funding. The bill would require the Controller to transfer that funding from the General Fund to the State School Fund. The bill would require the Superintendent, before making each certification, to notify the Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst, and the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature regarding the amounts the Superintendent intends to certify and would require the notification to include the data used in determining the amounts to be certified. (63)   This bill would appropriate $905,700,000 from the General Fund to the State Department of Education for 10 specified programs according to a specified schedule, and would require the department to encumber these funds by July 31, 2013. The bill would provide that, for purposes of satisfying the minimum annual funding obligation for school districts required by the California Constitution, the appropriated funds are General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts for the 2012–13 fiscal year. (64)   This bill would require funds appropriated pursuant to specified items in the Budget Act of 2012 to be encumbered by July 31, 2013. (65)   This bill would appropriate $516,881,000 from the General Fund to the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges in augmentation of specified funds appropriated in the Budget Act of 2012 for the purpose of increasing apportionment funding to community college districts. This provision would become operative on December 15, 2012, only if the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 (Attorney General reference number 12-0009) is not approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election, or if the provisions of that act that modify personal income tax rates do not become operative for a specified reason. (66) Existing law requires the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, in calculating each community college district's revenue level for each fiscal year, to subtract, among other things, the local property tax revenue specified by law for general operating support, exclusive of bond interest and redemption, from the total revenues owed. This bill would appropriate an unspecified amount, on or before June 30, 2012, to be determined by the Director of Finance, up to $116,133,000, from the General Fund to the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges in augmentation of an item of the Budget Act of 2011 related to community colleges if revenues distributed to community colleges pursuant to specified provisions related to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies are less than estimated in the Budget Act of 2011. The bill would require the Director of Finance, in making this determination, to consider any other local property tax revenues and student fee revenues collected in excess of the estimated amount of those revenues as reflected in the Budget Act of 2012. The bill would provide that, for purposes of satisfying the minimum annual funding obligation for community college districts required by the California Constitution, the appropriated funds are General Fund revenues appropriated for community college districts in the 2011–12 fiscal year. The bill would make a similar appropriation of an unspecified amount, without the $116,133,000 limit, on or before June 30, 2013, in augmentation of an item of the Budget Act of 2012 related to community colleges. (67) This bill would also appropriate an unspecified amount, up to $19,347,000, on or before June 30, 2012, to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, in augmentation of an item of the Budget Act of 2011 related to special education programs of local educational agencies. The bill would make a similar appropriation of an unspecified amount, without the $19,347,000 limit, to the extent of excess revenues, as specified, on or before June 30, 2013, in augmentation of an item of the Budget Act of 2012 related to special education programs of local educational agencies. (68) This bill would require the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, as approved by the Department of Finance and on or before November 30, 2012, to reduce community college district based workload measures to match available general-purpose apportionment funding if the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 (Attorney General reference number 12-0009) is not approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election, or if the provisions of that act that modify personal income tax rates do not become operative due to a conflict with another initiative measure that is approved at the same election and receives a greater number of affirmative votes. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature that any necessary workload reductions be made in courses and programs outside of those needed by students to achieve their basic skills, workforce training, or transfer goals. The bill would require the chancellor, on or before September 15, 2013, to provide the fiscal committees of both houses of the Legislature and the Director of Finance with a report on the implementation of the workload reduction. (69) This bill would require that, if the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 is approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election, and all of the provisions of that act that modify personal income tax rates become operative, $50,000,000 would be transferred between specified budget items for the purpose of providing growth funding to community college districts, as specified. (70) This bill would direct the Director of Finance to reduce a specified appropriation made in the Budget Act of 2012 to the State Department of Developmental Services by $197,152,000 and would appropriate that amount to the State Department of Developmental Services for purposes of the Early Start Program. This provision would become operative on December 15, 2012, only if the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 (Attorney General reference number 12-0009) is not approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election, or if the provisions of that act that modify personal income tax rates do not become operative due to a conflict with another initiative measure that is approved at the same election and receives a greater number of affirmative votes. (71) This bill would make conforming changes, correct cross-references, and make other nonsubstantive changes. (72) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. (73) Funds appropriated by this bill would be applied toward the minimum funding requirements for school districts and community college districts imposed by Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. (74) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.