Advocates for expanding early childhood education and for better preparing low-income high school students for state universities wrested substantial money in the compromise state budget, announced Thursday, that legislative leaders and Gov. Jerry Brown have negotiated. The Legislature will vote next week on the $122 billion plan for the fiscal year starting July 1.

Although less than they wanted, members of the Legislative Women’s Caucus got a down payment on a half-billion dollar increase for child care and state-funded preschools over the next four years. By 2019-20, that will include ramping up to an additional 8,877 slots for full-day state preschool and increases in reimbursement rates for child-care providers to reflect increases in the state minimum wage. The first 2,969 preschool slots will open up in March 2017.

“This is going to be the biggest appropriation in a decade,” Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens,vice chairwoman of the Women’s Caucus, told the Los Angeles Times, referring to the increased costs in future years.  “We’re trying to be progressive and think about the future.”

High schools serving predominately low-income students will be eligible for $200 million in grants to support increasing the number of Advanced Placement courses and “A-G courses,” the sequence of 15 college preparation courses that UC and CSU require for admission. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, formulated the idea in Senate Bill 1050 and had pressed the Brown administration to fund it.

Overall education spending in the 2016-17 General Fund budget largely follows the budget that Brown delivered in May. That includes $71.9 billion for Proposition 98, the primary source of money for pre-K to K-12 and community colleges. Of that, $55.8 billion would go to the Local Control Funding Formula, an increase of $2.9 billion from the current year. (Go here for the budget agreement.)

Most of the haggling over the past month was over several hundred million dollars in one-time money at the margins. There were partial winners and losers along with the winners.

After-school programs: As with child-care providers, operators of after-school programs sought $73 million for increased expenses they’ll face due to a higher state minimum wage. Without higher reimbursement rates, proponents argued in an EdSource commentary, some programs may be forced to close. However, the compromise included no increase.

“The Governor and other leaders have failed to see that nothing else we do in our education system to level the playing field for our most underserved students will be effective, if we don’t provide learning opportunities during the hours after school and in the summer,” Jennifer Peck, executive director of the nonprofit Partnership for Children & Youth, wrote in an email.

Teacher shortage: Faced with an imminent teacher shortage in high-cost-of-living areas like the Bay Area and for special education, math, science and bilingual teachers, legislators and Brown had proposed a variety of initiatives. The compromise included several but no funding for two of the most expensive. Those are reviving a loan-forgiveness program for teachers willing to work in underserved areas, called APLE (Assumption Program of Loans for Educators) and establishing a teacher residency program, in which the state would split the cost of mentoring and paying teacher candidates working under the wing of experienced teachers. Linda Darling-Hammond, an emeritus professor at Stanford University who chairs the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, called residencies an effective long-term solution to teacher preparation and retention in an EdSource commentary.

Programs receiving funding were:

  • $20 million to re-establish a grant program enabling classified employees to pursue their teaching credential;
  • $10 million to provide grants to colleges and universities to develop four-year integrated teacher programs enabling undergraduates to receive both a teaching credential and a bachelor’s degree;
  • $5 million to re-create the California Center on Teaching Careers, or CalTeach, a marketing and information effort to recruit individuals into the teaching profession.

The budget compromise also included $18 million in grants for dropout and truancy prevention programs and $24 million for the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, a new state agency created by the Local Control Funding Formula law to oversee the state’s new school accountability system. The agency will use the money to conduct statewide training on school accountability metrics that the State Board of Education will approve in September and a pilot program to work with districts that have identified areas needing improvement.

EdSource Executive Director Louis Freedberg contributed to this report.

SHARE ARTICLE

Comments (5)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments Policy

The goal of the comments section on EdSource is to facilitate thoughtful conversation about content published on our website. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

  1. aziz@hope for children 11 months ago11 months ago

    What is considered child abuse? Child abuse is typically divided into four separate categories: physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect. While all are different, each one can be extremely damaging to the child’s well-being. • Physical Abuse: This comprises all actions involving touching a child in a manner with the intent the harm him or her. For example, dealing blows to the child’s head or shaking the child in a violent manner both are forms … Read More

    What is considered child abuse?
    Child abuse is typically divided into four separate categories: physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect. While all are different, each one can be extremely damaging to the child’s well-being.
    • Physical Abuse: This comprises all actions involving touching a child in a manner with the intent the harm him or her. For example, dealing blows to the child’s head or shaking the child in a violent manner both are forms of physical abuse.
    • Sexual Abuse: These acts contain elements of both physical and emotional abuse. Sexual abuse can either involve contact between the child and another individual, or it may involve forcing the child to watch sexual acts being performed. With physical sexual abuse, the child may be forced to perform sexual acts alone or with another individual (another child, another adult — not necessarily with the abuser him or herself).
    • Emotional Abuse: This category encompasses all non-physical acts that have some sort of emotional or psychological impact on the child, such as verbal abuse. Examples of emotional abuse include directing hurtful words at the child or refusing to feed the child when he or she has does something wrong.
    • Neglect: This is the most common form of child abuse. It does not necessarily take a conscious effort on behalf of the abuser for him or her to neglect a child. Neglect includes acts such as failure to provide the child with basic necessities for a healthy life: food, water, shelter, bathing, healthcare, or love.
    Obviously, child abuse can come in many different forms. Its effects — both physical and emotional — are long-lasting.Recognizing an abused child
    Abused children often show different symptoms that indicate abuse. Typically, their behavior changes drastically. They might show signs of antisocial behaviors such as acting out more than usual or becoming extremely quiet and aloof. If a child has been physically abused in some form or fashion, then there are normally physical indicators on his or her body, such as bruises, cuts, or soreness.to more know just click on this link https://www.hopeforchildrenfoundation.org

  2. Keesha Gates 1 year ago1 year ago

    It’s not just money for after care. It’s the training of staff to include special needs. Schools in each community with special education classes need designated trainees for elementary, middle and high school in every school district. All children can be a part of the inclusion process pertaining to after-school.

  3. Paul Muench 1 year ago1 year ago

    Just wondering if this is how a categorical funding focus gets started and what this means for LCFF.

  4. Fred Jones 1 year ago1 year ago

    While ensuring all California students have equal access to college-prep coursework is a moral obligation, hasn't the experiments in San Jose, San Diego and LAUSD proven that compelling kids into more A-G courses is an overall loser for most kids? Perhaps our state policymakers should take a more balanced approach to education incentives that take into consideration all of the avenues to success, since there are many pathways beyond just those going through a 4-year college … Read More

    While ensuring all California students have equal access to college-prep coursework is a moral obligation, hasn’t the experiments in San Jose, San Diego and LAUSD proven that compelling kids into more A-G courses is an overall loser for most kids?

    Perhaps our state policymakers should take a more balanced approach to education incentives that take into consideration all of the avenues to success, since there are many pathways beyond just those going through a 4-year college campus?

    It’s interesting that in the same Budget that decreases CTE Incentive Grant funding by $100M, the state will create a new $200M incentive grant for A-G/college prep enrollment. What kind of message does this send to schools about California’s priorities and our policymakers’ notion of educational success?

  5. Jennifer Peck 1 year ago1 year ago

    It is perplexing to me that the budget included money for dropout and truancy prevention, but ignored the needs of our 4,500 publicly funded after school programs in CA, that are dying on the vine because of cost pressures from the minimum wage increases. After school programs for many years have effectively increased student attendance in school and reduced dropout rates. We have the infrastructure in place and these programs work. But the … Read More

    It is perplexing to me that the budget included money for dropout and truancy prevention, but ignored the needs of our 4,500 publicly funded after school programs in CA, that are dying on the vine because of cost pressures from the minimum wage increases. After school programs for many years have effectively increased student attendance in school and reduced dropout rates. We have the infrastructure in place and these programs work.

    But the state chose to totally ignore this, to ignore their responsibility to mitigate impacts from the minimum wage, and ignore the effect of the rising cost of living. We are hurting the very families that the minimum wage is supposed to help – the families that relay on these after school programs, many of which will have to close their doors since the state approved no additional funding. The kids who lose programs will have nowhere to go, they will fall behind in school, they will end up in the juvenile justice system. I hope those truancy prevention programs the state did approve can pick up the pieces…..