In Nelson v. Jurupa Unified School District (PERB Decision 2309E, March 8, 2013), the Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB") considered whether a school district committed an unfair labor practice by rejecting a teacher’s grievance because she was on the district's 39-month reemployment list after she had exhausted all her sick leave. PERB affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that teachers on the 39-month reemployment list remain employees of the district and have the right to file grievances against the District.
For more information, read the KMTG Legal Alert here.
Meghan Covert Russell
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
Court of Appeal Upholds Invalidation of Parcel Tax That Differentially Taxes Commercial and Residential Property; Legislature Introduces SCA 3 To Ease Parcel Tax Restrictions
The court of appeal recently upheld its previous ruling that a parcel
tax approved by Alameda Unified School District (“District”) voters
violates the Government Code’s restriction that special taxes apply
“uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within the” district.
On rehearing, the court of appeal upheld its previous ruling that the
property classifications and differential tax burdens imposed pursuant
to the voter-approved measure exceed the taxing authority of the
District under section 50079 of the Government Code. The court held
that the special tax imposed by the measure is invalid to the extent it
imposes a different tax rate on commercial property versus residential
property. (Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 1 Dist., March 6, 2013).
In response to the restrictive court of appeal decision in Borikas, legislators have introduced a bill that would ease the requirements for a school district seeking to pass a parcel tax. SCA 3 seeks to amend the California Constitution relating to taxation by amending Section 4 of Article XIIIA, adding Section 4.5 to Article XIIIA, amending Section 2 of Article XIIIC, and amending Section 3 of Article XIIID, and would reduce the voted approval needed for parcel taxes from the current two-thirds to 55 percent. The Constitutional amendment would help school districts that have been subjected to years of continued funding cuts.
Read KMTG's Legal Alert on Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District here.
Read KMTG's Legal Alert on SCA 3 here.
Meghan Covert Russell
In response to the restrictive court of appeal decision in Borikas, legislators have introduced a bill that would ease the requirements for a school district seeking to pass a parcel tax. SCA 3 seeks to amend the California Constitution relating to taxation by amending Section 4 of Article XIIIA, adding Section 4.5 to Article XIIIA, amending Section 2 of Article XIIIC, and amending Section 3 of Article XIIID, and would reduce the voted approval needed for parcel taxes from the current two-thirds to 55 percent. The Constitutional amendment would help school districts that have been subjected to years of continued funding cuts.
Read KMTG's Legal Alert on Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District here.
Read KMTG's Legal Alert on SCA 3 here.
Meghan Covert Russell
Friday, March 15, 2013
SB 559 Proposes to Shift Certificated Layoff Timelines
The March 15 deadline is upon California school districts to issue written notices to certificated employees who will be subject to a layoff.
Right in line with the deadline comes a new bill that proposes to shift the timeline for certificated layoffs to later in the year to better align with budget requirements. Of course this is not the first bill of this type and there have been several attempts in the recent years to streamline and revamp the layoff process.
SB 559 seeks to shift the March 15 layoff notice date to June 1 and the May 15 notice of termination to August 1. The findings of SB 559 explain why lawmakers have repeatedly sought to shift the layoff timelines:
Existing law requires school districts to issue preliminary reduction in force notices by March 15 and final reduction in force notices by May 15 of each year. As a result of this existing law and in order to guarantee that it will remain fiscally solvent, school districts have relied on the January budget proposed by the Governor to determine the number of layoff notices that it must give to its employees. This results in thousands of teachers receiving notices that are later rescinded when more accurate information is available in May when the proposed budget is revised and later when the annual Budget Act is enacted. According to the Legislative Analyst Office, this practice unnecessarily costs taxpayers $706 per teacher, amounting to millions of dollars annually that could be spent in the classroom and employing teachers. Given the evidence that the existing statutory deadlines hurt schools across the State of California, it will be more productive for the schools, pupils, and teachers if the deadlines for giving notice to certificated employees that the school district may terminate their services are extended by two and one-half months.
KMTG will continue to track the progress of this bill and issue updates as developments occur.
Meghan Covert Russell
Right in line with the deadline comes a new bill that proposes to shift the timeline for certificated layoffs to later in the year to better align with budget requirements. Of course this is not the first bill of this type and there have been several attempts in the recent years to streamline and revamp the layoff process.
SB 559 seeks to shift the March 15 layoff notice date to June 1 and the May 15 notice of termination to August 1. The findings of SB 559 explain why lawmakers have repeatedly sought to shift the layoff timelines:
Existing law requires school districts to issue preliminary reduction in force notices by March 15 and final reduction in force notices by May 15 of each year. As a result of this existing law and in order to guarantee that it will remain fiscally solvent, school districts have relied on the January budget proposed by the Governor to determine the number of layoff notices that it must give to its employees. This results in thousands of teachers receiving notices that are later rescinded when more accurate information is available in May when the proposed budget is revised and later when the annual Budget Act is enacted. According to the Legislative Analyst Office, this practice unnecessarily costs taxpayers $706 per teacher, amounting to millions of dollars annually that could be spent in the classroom and employing teachers. Given the evidence that the existing statutory deadlines hurt schools across the State of California, it will be more productive for the schools, pupils, and teachers if the deadlines for giving notice to certificated employees that the school district may terminate their services are extended by two and one-half months.
KMTG will continue to track the progress of this bill and issue updates as developments occur.
Meghan Covert Russell
Thursday, February 28, 2013
March 1, 2013 Deadline for Implementing Requirements of Pupil Fee Laws
AB 1575 was the law which went into effect January 1, 2013 regarding charging of pupil fees in schools. As part of that bill, Education Code section 49013 was added to the code and makes complaints regarding the unauthorized charge of pupil fees subject the uniform complaint process and requires school districts to establish policies and procedures for pupil-fee complaints by March 1, 2013. Please feel free to contact our offices if you need assistance with implementing these procedures.
Chelsea Olson
Chelsea Olson
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Department of Finance Releases Local Control Funding Formula
The Department of Finance released a long-awaited table today that shows how each K-12 District fares in Governor Jerry Brown’s new plan, aptly labeled Local Control Funding Formula, to direct more money to schools with low-income students and English learners. The 80-page chart calculates districts’ base per student funding for 2011-12 as a comparison and lists funding for the next two years and full per-student funding in seven years, if projected State revenues hold up.
In the Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula Proposal, the Department of Finance laid out its purpose:
Current funding for schools is inequitably distributed, not tied to student demographics, largely state-controlled, and lacking appropriate accountability measures. These inequities are primarily the result of how the current general purpose “revenue limit” funding system was created in response to court rulings and Proposition 13, freezing in funding decisions made decades ago. In addition, over time, the state created more than 60 categorical programs, each with accounting and reporting requirements, many of which are not outcome-focused. These categorical program funding allocations have also been frozen due to recent fiscal constraints and no longer are reflective of current demographics.
The Formula would increase flexibility and accountability at the local level so those closest to the students can make the decisions, reduce State bureaucracy, and ensure that student needs drive the allocation of resources.
Starting off with what districts now receive in base funding (known as “revenue limit” funding), it would create a new financing system as additional money becomes available from increased revenues generated by an improving State economy, and as past debts that the State owes to schools are paid off.
Brown’s plan would provide additional funds to districts having to meet the extra costs of educating economically disadvantaged and other high-needs students. There would be a “phase in” period, with annual funding increases, leading to full funding.
Under the plan, no district would receive less than they receive this year in State support, and “the vast majority” – 1,700 districts and charter schools – would get unspecified “moderate to significant” funding increases over the next five years, according to the overview. During this time, the average per-student funding under Proposition 98 is projected to rise $2,700 per student.
Approximately 230 school districts and charter schools are estimated to receive little or no additional funding as a result of the Formula. Almost all of those districts and charter schools are basic aid, where local property tax revenues alone are more than sufficient to finance their funding formula entitlement. Others receive necessary small school funding or have unique funding issues that result in them having current funding levels well above what all other schools are receiving.
EdSource did an analysis of how the formula would work:
• Every district would receive a base grant for every student – an average of $6,800 when fully funded, with more for high schools and less for elementary schools (to reflect the differential costs of educating pupils in different grade spans). Once the Formula is fully implemented, the significant reductions made to current general purpose “revenue limit” funding over the last five years (known as the deficit factor) will be restored, ensuring that the new base grant funding level is equivalent to the statewide average from 2007-2008.
• It would not include money for special education and a few other categorical programs that would be funded outside of the formula. Schools would get an extra $700 per student in grades K-3 for smaller classes, though districts could spend the money otherwise.
• Districts with disadvantaged students – low-income students, English learners and foster youth – would get additional dollars:
o A supplement of $2,385 per student, which is equal to 35 percent of the base grant for every disadvantaged student in the district.
o An additional grant for those districts in which high-needs students comprise 50 percent or more of students, reflecting the need for additional money to counteract the demands on districts with a high concentration of poor children. Districts with 60 percent high-needs students would get 38.5 percent more revenue per high-needs student ($2,624); a district in which every child is an English learner or low-income student would get a maximum of 52.5 percent more ($3,578) in per-student funding than a district with no high-needs children.
Accountability at the Local Level:
In addition, the Governor Brown and the Department of Finance have particular requirements for how to keep districts, charter schools, and county offices of education accountable:
• Each school district, charter school and county office of education will produce a local control and accountability plan that will set annual goals and describe how the local agency would use available resources.
• The proposal will provide greater transparency and allow a local agency to better craft solutions to address local needs; involve principals, teachers, parents, students, and other community members in the planning process; and require governing boards to approve the plan at a public meeting.
• The plans will include actions the local agency will take to provide basic conditions necessary for student achievement (such as credentialed teachers, adequate instructional materials, facilities in good repair); implement the common core standards; improve academic outcomes; and address the needs of English learners, foster children, and students from low-income backgrounds.
• A governing board will be required to adopt a budget that aligns with the agency’s local control and accountability plan. A county office of education will review both a district’s budget and its plan to ensure that they are aligned. The Superintendent of Public Instruction will perform this review function for local plans adopted by county offices.
The Table can be found here.
Nevin Trehan
In the Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula Proposal, the Department of Finance laid out its purpose:
Current funding for schools is inequitably distributed, not tied to student demographics, largely state-controlled, and lacking appropriate accountability measures. These inequities are primarily the result of how the current general purpose “revenue limit” funding system was created in response to court rulings and Proposition 13, freezing in funding decisions made decades ago. In addition, over time, the state created more than 60 categorical programs, each with accounting and reporting requirements, many of which are not outcome-focused. These categorical program funding allocations have also been frozen due to recent fiscal constraints and no longer are reflective of current demographics.
The Formula would increase flexibility and accountability at the local level so those closest to the students can make the decisions, reduce State bureaucracy, and ensure that student needs drive the allocation of resources.
Starting off with what districts now receive in base funding (known as “revenue limit” funding), it would create a new financing system as additional money becomes available from increased revenues generated by an improving State economy, and as past debts that the State owes to schools are paid off.
Brown’s plan would provide additional funds to districts having to meet the extra costs of educating economically disadvantaged and other high-needs students. There would be a “phase in” period, with annual funding increases, leading to full funding.
Under the plan, no district would receive less than they receive this year in State support, and “the vast majority” – 1,700 districts and charter schools – would get unspecified “moderate to significant” funding increases over the next five years, according to the overview. During this time, the average per-student funding under Proposition 98 is projected to rise $2,700 per student.
Approximately 230 school districts and charter schools are estimated to receive little or no additional funding as a result of the Formula. Almost all of those districts and charter schools are basic aid, where local property tax revenues alone are more than sufficient to finance their funding formula entitlement. Others receive necessary small school funding or have unique funding issues that result in them having current funding levels well above what all other schools are receiving.
EdSource did an analysis of how the formula would work:
• Every district would receive a base grant for every student – an average of $6,800 when fully funded, with more for high schools and less for elementary schools (to reflect the differential costs of educating pupils in different grade spans). Once the Formula is fully implemented, the significant reductions made to current general purpose “revenue limit” funding over the last five years (known as the deficit factor) will be restored, ensuring that the new base grant funding level is equivalent to the statewide average from 2007-2008.
• It would not include money for special education and a few other categorical programs that would be funded outside of the formula. Schools would get an extra $700 per student in grades K-3 for smaller classes, though districts could spend the money otherwise.
• Districts with disadvantaged students – low-income students, English learners and foster youth – would get additional dollars:
o A supplement of $2,385 per student, which is equal to 35 percent of the base grant for every disadvantaged student in the district.
o An additional grant for those districts in which high-needs students comprise 50 percent or more of students, reflecting the need for additional money to counteract the demands on districts with a high concentration of poor children. Districts with 60 percent high-needs students would get 38.5 percent more revenue per high-needs student ($2,624); a district in which every child is an English learner or low-income student would get a maximum of 52.5 percent more ($3,578) in per-student funding than a district with no high-needs children.
Accountability at the Local Level:
In addition, the Governor Brown and the Department of Finance have particular requirements for how to keep districts, charter schools, and county offices of education accountable:
• Each school district, charter school and county office of education will produce a local control and accountability plan that will set annual goals and describe how the local agency would use available resources.
• The proposal will provide greater transparency and allow a local agency to better craft solutions to address local needs; involve principals, teachers, parents, students, and other community members in the planning process; and require governing boards to approve the plan at a public meeting.
• The plans will include actions the local agency will take to provide basic conditions necessary for student achievement (such as credentialed teachers, adequate instructional materials, facilities in good repair); implement the common core standards; improve academic outcomes; and address the needs of English learners, foster children, and students from low-income backgrounds.
• A governing board will be required to adopt a budget that aligns with the agency’s local control and accountability plan. A county office of education will review both a district’s budget and its plan to ensure that they are aligned. The Superintendent of Public Instruction will perform this review function for local plans adopted by county offices.
The Table can be found here.
Nevin Trehan
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) Makes Changes to the Prevailing Wage Reporting Process
The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has taken proactive steps to address problems users have had in using MyLCM. Compliance Monitoring Unit staff, contractors and awarding agencies had concerns that MyLCM was not user-friendly and contractors spent a significant amount of time with each certified payroll records (CPR) submission. DIR decided to discontinue their service with MyLCM after several technical requirements were not met by Hill International. DIR and Hill agreed to mutually end the contract effective April 1, 2013.
Contractors should continue to enter their CPRs via MyLCM through the month of February. Effective March 1, the PWC100 application will be activated to allow contractors to submit CPRs online via PDF.
For contractor projects that will not be completed by April 1, contractors should back up their CPRs previously submitted into the MyLCM service. Starting with the first CPR in March, contractors should register into the PWC 100 application and begin uploading CPRs by PDF.
DIR will be hosting a series of webinars for the public. The webinars will cover registration and how to use the online application, PWC 100.
For questions on the new system, please refer to the “Frequently Asked Questions on Filing Certified Payroll Records with the Compliance Monitoring Unit, ” which you can find here.
Sirenia Jimenez, Law Clerk
Contractors should continue to enter their CPRs via MyLCM through the month of February. Effective March 1, the PWC100 application will be activated to allow contractors to submit CPRs online via PDF.
For contractor projects that will not be completed by April 1, contractors should back up their CPRs previously submitted into the MyLCM service. Starting with the first CPR in March, contractors should register into the PWC 100 application and begin uploading CPRs by PDF.
DIR will be hosting a series of webinars for the public. The webinars will cover registration and how to use the online application, PWC 100.
For questions on the new system, please refer to the “Frequently Asked Questions on Filing Certified Payroll Records with the Compliance Monitoring Unit, ” which you can find here.
Sirenia Jimenez, Law Clerk
Thursday, February 7, 2013
USDA Guidelines Seek to Curb Unhealthy Snacks in Schools
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing regulations to keep the nation’s students from buying certain snacks from vending machines and at-campus snack bars during the school day.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, aimed at reducing childhood obesity and related diseases, requires the USDA to establish nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools. While the new rules have a list of prohibited snacks, the rules would not prohibit candy sales and other fundraisers to continue during non-school hours and at off-campus events. Furthermore, parents would still be able to pack whatever they choose in their children’s lunch bags and bring treats for special events such as birthdays.
The California Department of Education’s Nutrition Department is currently reviewing the 160-page document with proposed regulations to determine whether the state needs to make any changes to its extensive regulations for “competitive foods” — those sold outside of the regular school meals. The proposed federal rules set a minimum standard, and states and local schools are allowed to have more stringent regulations. In some areas, California has already implemented what the federal rules propose. For example, the federal proposal would eliminate foods with trans fats, which are linked to heart disease, a regulation California put in place in July 2009.
The USDA based its guidelines, in part, on an April 2007 report by the Institute of Medicine, Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools: Leading the Way toward Healthier Youth. However, the USDA is not recommending all of the institute’s guidelines. For example, the institute’s report says sports drinks are appropriate for athletes and others engaged in rigorous physical activity, but not for all students. The USDA’s proposed regulation would make no such distinction, allowing any high school student to purchase the drink. California currently allows the sale of sports drinks in both middle and high schools.
The proposed regulations are available here.
Sirenia Jimenez, Law Clerk
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, aimed at reducing childhood obesity and related diseases, requires the USDA to establish nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools. While the new rules have a list of prohibited snacks, the rules would not prohibit candy sales and other fundraisers to continue during non-school hours and at off-campus events. Furthermore, parents would still be able to pack whatever they choose in their children’s lunch bags and bring treats for special events such as birthdays.
The California Department of Education’s Nutrition Department is currently reviewing the 160-page document with proposed regulations to determine whether the state needs to make any changes to its extensive regulations for “competitive foods” — those sold outside of the regular school meals. The proposed federal rules set a minimum standard, and states and local schools are allowed to have more stringent regulations. In some areas, California has already implemented what the federal rules propose. For example, the federal proposal would eliminate foods with trans fats, which are linked to heart disease, a regulation California put in place in July 2009.
The USDA based its guidelines, in part, on an April 2007 report by the Institute of Medicine, Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools: Leading the Way toward Healthier Youth. However, the USDA is not recommending all of the institute’s guidelines. For example, the institute’s report says sports drinks are appropriate for athletes and others engaged in rigorous physical activity, but not for all students. The USDA’s proposed regulation would make no such distinction, allowing any high school student to purchase the drink. California currently allows the sale of sports drinks in both middle and high schools.
The proposed regulations are available here.
Sirenia Jimenez, Law Clerk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)