The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a)In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, California pupils are facing impacts from educational disruption unlike anything we have ever seen in our state. The consequences of shuttered schools, uneven distance learning opportunities, and a severe economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic fell disproportionately on California’s most vulnerable pupil populations — English learners, low-income pupils, and foster youth. In a state where only 31.3 percent of Black pupils and 37.3 percent of Latino pupils met standards in English before the pandemic, the disproportionate impact of the pandemic disruptions will only exacerbate existing opportunity gaps.

(b)During this critical time, it is more important than ever to ensure that funding meant to support our most vulnerable pupils will be used for that purpose. Ensuring that supplemental and concentration grant funds are always used to support targeted pupils will safeguard resources needed to meet their unique needs, assist efforts to address the learning loss that has occurred, and ensure the promise of the local control funding formula in times of increases and reductions.

(c)In 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislature unanimously approved Assembly Bill 1835 of the 2019–20 Regular Session (AB 1835), authored by then Assembly Member Dr. Shirley Weber. This bill would have required local educational agencies to identify unspent supplemental and concentration grant funds by annually reconciling and reporting to the State Department of Education their estimated and actual spending of those moneys. The bill would have also required unspent supplemental and concentration grant funds to be expended to increase and improve services for high-needs pupils and would have required each local educational agency to report the amounts of unspent funds in its local control and accountability plan.

(d)Although the Governor vetoed AB 1835 and substituted a remedy included in the Budget Act of 2021, that remedy was only a partial solution to the problems addressed in AB 1835 and one that failed to institute important and necessary transparency and accountability measures.

(e)The problems AB 1835 sought to resolve have been well documented. In 2019, at the request of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the California State Auditor released a report that made the following findings:

(1)The California State Auditor found that the state’s approach to the local control funding formula has not ensured that funding benefits intended pupil groups and closes achievement gaps.

(2)The California State Auditor found that school districts do not always include clear information in their local control and accountability plans regarding their use of supplemental and concentration grant funds.

(3)The California State Auditor found that policymakers and stakeholders lack adequate information to assess the impact of supplemental and concentration grant funds on the educational outcomes of the intended pupil groups.

(f)The California State Auditor concluded that the state should collect additional data so it can better determine how local control funding formula funding affects educational outcomes for high-needs pupils, and to know if further action is needed to ensure pupils receive the services they need.

(g)In addition to the California State Auditor’s report, in 2021, the Public Policy Institute of California studied several large school districts and issued a report concluding that only about 55 cents of every supplemental and concentration grant dollar was spent on the intended pupils — English learners, low-income pupils, and foster youth — and there was a great deal of variation in how school districts spent the remaining 45 cents of every supplemental and concentration grant dollar. Most alarming was that one-quarter of the school districts spent less than their full local control funding formula base grant and none of their supplemental and concentration grant funds. Based on its analysis, the Public Policy Institute of California made the following recommendations:

(1)The state needs to improve tracking and transparency because many educational partners lack full information and understanding about how funding for high-needs pupils is allocated.

(2)The state should consider funding mechanisms based on school need rather than district need because many concentration schools are located in districts that do not receive concentration grants.

(3)The state should consider increasing supplemental grants, lowering the threshold for concentration grants, or both of those, so funding for high-needs pupils is targeted across a broader set of districts.

(h)In November 2021, Policy Analysis for California Education released a report titled, “What’s Next for the Local Control Funding Formula,” and identified four areas needing improvement. Among those four areas was strengthening transparency, engagement, and accountability to ensure that local control funding formula funding is appropriately used, there is access to clear fiscal data, and there is investment in programs to improve stakeholder engagement.

(i)The California system of support is focused on helping local educational agencies tap into rich resources so they can develop the skills and knowledge educators need to improve pupil learning. To better meet the needs of all pupils, particularly historically marginalized pupils, local educational agencies need support to share best practices to solve similar challenges.

(j)A system of local planning and accountability relies on local stakeholders having access to relevant, meaningful, and comparable information about goals, actions, services, expenditures, and outcomes.

(k)The state is providing almost $11.5 billion annually in supplemental and concentration grant funds without an understanding of how those funds are being used and if they are benefiting the targeted pupils.

(l)Chapter 24 of the Statutes of 2020 appropriated $450,000 to the State Department of Education, in partnership with the San Joaquin County Office of Education, for several projects to enhance information about education funding and outcomes, including collecting public input and beginning the development of a Local Control and Accountability Plan Electronic Template System to collect data from local educational agencies’ local control and accountability plans in a systematic way.

(m)A well-designed local control and accountability plan portal would benefit the system of continuous improvement by allowing local educational agencies to learn about what types of actions other local educational agencies are implementing to address specific goals.

(n)A well-designed local control and accountability plan portal will provide information to local stakeholders about the use of supplemental and concentration grant funds. Having consistent and transparent information about goals, actions, and outcomes across local educational agencies is an essential bridge for local communities and education partners to engage effectively in local planning and accountability processes.

(o)A well-designed local control and accountability plan portal will allow for state oversight of the use of supplemental and concentration grant funds, including oversight of any carryover funding.