Credit: Twitter/Assembly Democrats
Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, chair of the Assembly budget committee, introduced Assembly and Senate Bill 86, the state's plan for reopening schools.

Tackling one of the most contentious issues during the year-long Covid-19 pandemic, California legislators approved a plan Thursday to encourage school districts to bring back more students for in-person instruction.

After often passionate remarks from the floor of both chambers, Assembly and Senate Bill 86 passed unanimously in the Senate and 71-4 in the Assembly.

It provides $2 billion as an incentive for schools that have not already done so to offer in-person instruction beginning April 1, starting with the earliest grades.

The legislation also allocates $4.6 billion for all school districts regardless of whether they meet the timetable Gov. Gavin Newsom called for in his “Safe Schools for All” plan.

For more details on the legislation, see EdSource’s Quick Guide: California’s Plan to Get More Kids Back to School

For schools in counties in the state’s “purple” tier, where the Covid-19 infection rate is still high, schools would receive extra funding if they open for students in kindergarten through second grade beginning on April 1. But in order to do so the daily rate of new Covid-19 cases in their counties would need to be less than 25 per 100,000 residents.

To get the extra funding, districts would also be expected to offer in-person instruction to a range of students with special needs — such as those in special education or others in “prioritized groups,” such as English learners, homeless students or those in foster care, and even “disengaged” students.

If their counties are in the red tier on April 1, they would be expected to offer in-person instruction to students in all elementary grades, as well as to one grade in middle or high school.

For those districts that do not open on April 1, the amount of incentive funding they would receive would be reduced by 1% a day through May 15.

The legislation also includes an additional $4.6 billion that Newsom called for in his proposed January budget. That funding is not specifically tied to school reopening, but is intended to help school districts do so, as well as help them address the significant learning loss that many students in California are experiencing as a result of the pandemic.

The bill is the result of weeks of negotiation between Newsom and the Legislature. He is expected to sign it on Friday.

On Thursday, the bill was the focus of heated debate in the State Capitol — drawing support and criticism from both parties. Some legislators, particularly those in areas hard-hit by the virus, worried the bill didn’t adequately address safety concerns for school staff and families. Others thought the bill should have targeted bringing in more students, given a shorter timeline for implementation, and should have passed months ago.

“The governor has the ability himself to put kids first and sign an executive order, reopening our schools, and he has chosen not to do so,” said Sen. Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita. “He’s chosen to hide behind AB 86. And I have simply one thing to say to the governor: Mr. Newsom, open our schools.”

But the majority of legislators voiced support for the bill, acknowledging it’s an important step toward reopening schools for all students statewide while balancing the need for safety.

“This plan is a work in progress. It’s not the be-all, end-all,” said Assemblyman Mike Gipson, D-Carson. “This plan is about helping students and families who have been struggling. Now is the time to show these students that they are worth the investment.”

Several lawmakers talked about their own experiences as parents managing the challenges posed by distance learning. One of them was Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento noting that he is the “drop-off person in our family.”

“I wish this bill was stronger,” said McCarty, a leading voice on education policy in the Legislature. But he noted that the bill’s purpose is “to spur districts to do more. This is a positive bill. This is going to help.”

Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, chairman of the Assembly budget committee who introduced the bill, said Covid-19 has played out so unequally across California that no one plan will suit every area.

“It often feels like California is separate states,” he said. “But in this case, we’re not going to go our own ways. We’re going to move forward together,” he said. “I believe this bill will allow us to do that.”

All Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill, while four in the Assembly — Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, Kevin Kiley, R-Sacramento, James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, and Frank Bigelow, R-Madera — were the only dissenters. Most of them blamed Newsom for California’s failure to bring back more students to schools earlier.

But Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia, D-Coachella, rejected that analysis, pointing to the multiple complexities and obstacles to opening schools.

He called on his colleagues to “stop the circus barking dog atmosphere” represented by their rhetoric. He said going back to school earlier in his district would have been difficult if not impossible because of the very high rates of infection there.

“I have two teenagers who will be graduating from high school,” he said. “If it is a choice between a (graduation) ceremony, or their health and well-being, then I choose their health along with their prospects for a successful future.”

To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.

Share Article

Comments (3)

Leave a Comment

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

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

  1. Jane 2 years ago2 years ago

    Some school districts are not planning the AB 86 grant as specified in the regulation. Depending on the makeup of the administrators' backgrounds and preferences, they would leave out high-need groups. I am a resident of a school district with 60% Asian population. They have high English learners demographics: both born in the State and immigrant/ dual citizenship with U.S. and another country. Their 2020-21 budget usage of AB 86 grant is … Read More

    Some school districts are not planning the AB 86 grant as specified in the regulation. Depending on the makeup of the administrators’ backgrounds and preferences, they would leave out high-need groups. I am a resident of a school district with 60% Asian population. They have high English learners demographics: both born in the State and immigrant/ dual citizenship with U.S. and another country.
    Their 2020-21 budget usage of AB 86 grant is focused on English Learners who are bilingual dual citizens, often have parents with foreign residencies. Coincidentally, the key administrators are representative of that group. The district budget leaves out other high need groups such as students with disabilities.

    The district’s AB 86 budget should be reviewed by an appointed state committee to ensure that all high need groups are included. If any groups are left out, there should be retro-reductions to non-compliant schools to redirect the funds to more compliant school districts. Without monitoring for compliance, these extra funding would end up widening the achievement gaps rather than reduce it.

    This misuse of ESSA and AB86 funding focused on the administrators’ preferred groups is happening because ESSA gave local LEAs too much control over the decisions. Giving too much local control is not helping the student groups that truly needs the help such as low income, historically underrepresented racial minorities, and handicapped students to reduce the achievement gap.

  2. Avani 2 years ago2 years ago

    Vaccinated adults can still transmit covid to children. Is there a solid vaccine for children? If yes, when? My son can’t go back to school because once kids are in school full fledge I do believe positive cases will increase. I respect the decision but this is not the time for our family.

  3. nancy word 2 years ago2 years ago

    Focus on the need of all citizen to reclaim their Constitutional rights, Natural rights, and dignity to have the freedom to decide what is correct for each individual. We aren’t slaves of the state or unions, nor do we live in a totalitarian country. Sadly the true science of viral infection, masks as treatment, isolation as precautions, and testing without correct tests is alarming for individual rights. Why doesn’t California teach Our Children well?