Source: https://www.mcgeorge.edu/publications/california-initiative-review/initiatives-prior-to-november-2005/1998-november-initiatives/proposition-8
Timestamp: 2019-07-19 12:25:14
Document Index: 132554833

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 33112', '§ 33126', '§ 33127', '§ 44259', '§ 44253', '§ 44256', '§ 44256', '§51054', '§ 60640', '§ 48915', '§ 11053', 'art 20', 'art 25', 'art 28', 'art 29', 'art 33']

Home > Publications > California Initiative Review > Past Initiatives (Before November 2005) > 1998 November Initiatives > Proposition 8
Public Schools, Permanent Class Size Reduction,
Parent-Teacher Council, Teacher Credentialing,
Pupil Suspension for Drug Possession
By James Randall Lewis
University of California Santa Barbara, B.A., 1997
Currently, there is a Superintendent of Public Instruction who is charged with the duty of overseeing the schools of California. Within this general duty is the creation of an annual report card, which contains information on the adequacy of school facilities. Proposition 8 proposes to create the office of Chief Inspector of Public Schools. The Chief Inspector will be charged with the duty to inspect schools once every two years and file a report based on the results of the inspections. The salary for the position of Chief Inspector will be funded from the budget of the State Department of Education.
A second proposal within Proposition 8 would change the requirements to be completed by candidates for preliminary teaching credentials. Currently, candidates have the option of either completing a Commission on Teacher Credentialing approved subject matter program or the passage of a Commission approved subject matter examination. The Commission on teacher Credentialing oversees the issuance of teaching credentials and is responsible for determining the competence of both candidates for certificatees for certification and those already certified. Proposition 8 would eliminate the option of completing a Commission approved subject matter program as satisfaction of the requirements for a preliminary credential. Proposition 8 would require every candidate for a preliminary credential to, at some point, take a Commission approved subject matter examination.
A third component of Proposition 8 would eliminate the ability of certified teachers, with either single or multiple subject credentials, to be authorized to teach subjects for which they are not certified. Currently, credentialed personnel can be authorized to teach a non-credentialed subject provided that they have completed the required number of hours of coursework within that subject. Proposition 8 would eliminate this authorization and only personnel with a credential in a given subject would be able to teach that subject.
A fourth component of Proposition 8 would eliminate the authority of school district boards to assign teachers based on the current criteria. Currently, school boards can assign, or place a teacher within a teacher position based on several criteria, including oral interviews, observation by subject matter specialists, and written examinations. Proposition 8 would eliminate the current criteria and would replace them with two requirements: successful passage of a Commission approved subject matter competence examination, and the submission of a portfolio of lesson plans in the subject area(s) to be taught.
A fifth proposal within Proposition 8 would eliminate the ability of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to waive the subject matter examination requirement for graduates of certain accredited public and private institutions who have completed subject matter programs specified by the Commission. Therefore, these candidates who might currently qualify for a waiver will have to successfully pass a commission approved subject matter competence examination.
The sixth part of Proposition 8 concerns funding for the Class Size Reduction Program (CSRP). Currently, funding for this program is provided for in the annual budget process and is subjected to decreases in funding. Proposition 8 proposes to remove the CSRP from the annual budget process by making the funding a continuing appropriation that would not be subjected to potential decreases that might result in the annual budget process.
The seventh provision within Proposition 8 would create schoolsite councils, comprised of parents and teachers, which would make curriculum decisions at individual schools, determine expenditures, and develop strategies to prevent underachievement of pupils. Currently, curriculum decisions are made by the local school boards and are made within the general guidelines determined by the state Department of Education. Likewise, expenditures are determined in a similar manner.
An eighth component of Proposition 8 would allow principals to make personnel decisions based on the results of pupil performance on assessment tests. Currently, these assessment scores are not used by principals in the evaluation of teaching personnel.
The final proposal within Proposition 8 mandates the immediate suspension of any student found in possession of certain controlled substances, or in possession of 28.5 grams or more of marijuana. Currently, students violating these rules are subject only to a principal's recommendation for expulsion.
This act can be amended by further statute that is passed by a four-fifths vote of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor.
A. SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
Under existing law, there is a Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) whose job is to generally superintend the schools of this state. (Cal. Educ. Code § 33112.) The occupant of this office is charged with other, more specific responsibilities. Included in this list of duties is the responsibility of preparing and furnishing to teachers, and school administrators all the forms and books necessary for the discharge of their duties, including teacher certification forms. In addition, the SPI is also responsible for the designation, appointment and termination of any officers or employees of the Department of Education. Other than administrative duties, the SPI prepares an annual "report card.@ (Cal. Educ. Code § 33126) This report is developed with the Task Force on Instructional Improvement. The Task Force is comprised of teachers, administrators, parents, school board members, classified employees, and educational research specialists. The majority of the Task Force consists of practicing classroom teachers. The report contains information on the public education system and reports on pupil achievement, expenditures, progress toward the class-size reduction goals, quality and currency of text books, safety, cleanliness, adequacy of school facilities, the quality of instruction and leadership throughout the system, and the degree to which the educational system is preparing students to enter the workforce.
Lastly, the SPI, together with the State Controller and the Director of the Department of Finance, develops standards and criteria which are used by the State Board of Education for the development of local annual budgets and local management of subsequent expenditures. (Cal. Educ. Code § 33127.)
Proposition 8 seeks to establish the office of the Chief Inspector of Public Schools. The specific authority given to the occupant includes the power to appoint and discharge employees, determine their compensation, and prescribe their duties. The duties of the Chief Inspector will include the responsibility of inspecting schools once every 2 years, and the filing of an annual report based on the results of the inspections. The term of the Chief Inspector is to be 10 years, and the occupant will be appointed by the Governor, but not subject to state senate approval. The occupant however, is removable by a 2/3 vote of both houses of the legislature. The Chief Inspector office will be funded from the budget of the State Department of Education. The annual salary for this position has not been determined nor is it delineated in the proposition language.
It is assumed by the authors of Proposition 8 that any duties and powers created in the office of the chief inspector which are currently performed and exercised by the SPI will be ceded to the chief inspector and the SPI will cease to perform those duties or exercise those powers. In addition, the more frequent physical inspections of the school sites could lead to more frequent repairs of delinquent sites and the updating of certain lagging sites.
B. TEACHER CREDENTIALING
The Commission on Teacher Credentialing issues preliminary credentials to both in-state and out-of-state candidates who are not yet qualified to be issued full credentials. (Cal. Educ. Code § 44259.) Preliminary teaching credentials can be issued for both single and multiple subjects.
Single subject credentials are generally issued to teachers who will be teaching individual junior high or middle school classes, or high school classes. Multiple subject credentials are generally issued to those teachers who will be teaching at the elementary or kindergarten level.
In addition, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing has given school districts the discretion to authorize certain personnel, whom the districts determine to be qualified, to teach additional non-credentialed subjects.
1. Preliminary Teaching Credentials
Currently, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing issues a preliminary multiple or single subject teaching credential to in-state candidates based on several criteria. One of the criteria required to be completed by an in-state candidate is either the completion of a commission approved subject matter program or passage of a commission approved subject matter examination. Similarly, one of the requirements of out-of-state applicants is the pending completion of a commission-approved subject matter preparation program or examination to verify subject matter competence.
Proposition 8 would authorize the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to issue preliminary teaching credentials to in-state applicants only upon completion of a commission-approved examination to verify subject matter competence. Similarly, out-of-state applicants could only be issued preliminary credentials pending completion of a commission-approved examination to verify subject matter competence. (Cal. Educ. Code § 44253.)
In short, Proposition 8 would eliminate the option for issuance of a preliminary credential based on either pending completion, or actual completion of a subject matter preparation program. This proposed change to the Education Code would require both types of candidates to at some point, prior to consideration by the Commission, to take a commission-approved examination to verify subject matter competence. This proposal would lead to uniform requirements for all candidates for teaching credentials
and would also ensure the uniform competence, according to commission standards, of all newly credentialed personnel.
2. Current Holders of Single-Subject Teaching Credentials and Eligibility to Teach Additional Subjects
A teacher of a single subject may be authorized to teach another subject by having completed either 20 semester hours of coursework or 10 semester hours of upper division or graduate coursework in any subject commonly taught in grades 7-12, other than the subject for which he or she is already certificate to teach. (Cal. Educ. Code § 44256.) For example, a credentialed teacher in the subject of math could be authorized to teach the subject of English based on the teacher's completion of the required hours of coursework.
Proposition 8 would prohibit credential holders in one subject from teaching a non-credentialed subject. A teacher with a single subject credential could no longer be authorized to teach a subject by having completed the enumerated amount of coursework in a given subject.
Teachers would prohibited from teaching subjects for which they have not completed a credential program. This proposal, in conjunction with other provisions of the proposition, would ensure the uniform competency of teaching personnel in all subjects.
3. Authorization of Holders of Multiple Subject Credential Holders to Teach Additional Subjects
Under current law, a holder of a multiple subject teaching credential or a standard elementary credential may be eligible to have another subject appear on the credential as authorization to teach the subject in grades nine and below. (Cal. Educ. Code § 44256(b).) To obtain this authorization, teachers must complete either 20 semester hours of coursework or 10 semester hours of upper division or graduate coursework in any subject commonly taught in grades nine and below. In addition, a school district governing board may authorize a multiple subject credential holder or a holder of a standard elementary credential to teach in grades eight and below any subject for which the holder has completed 12 semester units, or 6 upper division or graduate units, of coursework.
Proposition 8 would prohibit multiple subject credential holders and standard elementary credential holders from teaching a non-credentialed subject. A teacher with a multiple subject or standard elementary credential could no longer be authorized to teach a subject by having completed the enumerated amount of coursework in a given subject.
Again, this proposal, in conjunction with other provisions of this proposition, is meant to ensure the competency of all teaching personnel, according to commission standards. Included in the above proposals with respect to single subject, multiple subject and standard elementary credentials is the assumption that more teachers would need to be hired to fill the gap created by the elimination of this authorization option. The costs of hiring new personnel would more than likely be offset by the departure of non-credentialed personnel.
4. Assignment of Credential Holders to Teach Any Subject as Measured by a School Board Verification Process
Education Code Section 44258.3 provides for the governing board of a school district to assign the holder of a credential, other than an emergency permit, to teach any subjects in departmentalized classes in K-12. The assignment is based on board verification that the teacher has adequate knowledge of each subject to be taught. The verification process or assessment of subject matter competence currently includes observation by subject matter specialists, oral interviews, demonstration lessons, presentation of curricular portfolios, and written examinations. In addition, the verification process includes evidence of the candidate's knowledge of the subject matter to be taught, including knowledge of the curriculum framework for the subject and knowledge of the specific content of the course of study in the school district for the subject, at that specific grade level. This authority of the local school district is subject to suspension by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
Proposition 8 would eliminate the authority of school district boards to assign teachers based on the current criteria detailed above. The criteria would be replaced and assignment of certified (credentialed) personnel would be determined by successful passage of a commission approved subject matter competence examination and by submission, by the teacher, of a portfolio of lesson plans in the subject areas to be taught. The standards for making the determination prior to assignment will be developed by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. This amendment will apply to assignments made on or after January 1, 1999.
This proposal would create uniformity of assignment criteria for teachers and could help to lessen the assignment of teachers to subjects for which they are not competent to teach according to commission standards. Again, included in this proposal is the assumption that more teachers will be hired to fill the gap created by the elimination of a given school board's authority to assign teachers.
C. ADEQUACY OF SUBJECT MATTER PREPARATION AND BASIS FOR ASSIGNMENT OF CERTIFIED PERSONNEL
Education Code Section 44310 permits the Commission to waive the subject matter examination requirement for graduates of accredited public and private institutions who successfully complete subject matter programs specified by the Commission. Eligibility of candidates for a waiver depends upon successful completion of a subject matter program which is listed under Section 44282. Section 44282 lists various criteria for developing general subject matter competence and includes language studies, literature, math, science, social studies, history, the arts, physical education and human development. In addition, candidates who hold approved "diversified" or "liberal arts" degrees from certain accredited institutions may have the examination requirement waived by the Commission.
Proposition 8 proposes to repeal the waiver provisions of the Education Code and thus require each and every candidate for a teaching credential to successfully pass a commission approved subject matter competence examination prior to being issued a preliminary or full teaching credential. This proposal is meant to create uniformity of criteria for the issuance of teaching credentials and would avoid credentialing teachers who may not have the requisite level of subject matter competence according to levels determined by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
D. FUNDING FOR THE CLASS SIZE REDUCTION PROGRAM
Under Education Code Section 52126, the total statewide amount computed for the purposes of implementing and sustaining the Class Size Reduction Program (CSRP) is appropriated to the Superintendent of Public Instruction in the annual Budget Act. Therefore, under current law, the funding for the Class Size Reduction Program is subjected to potential decreases which can occur during the annual budget process.
Proposition 8 would remove the funding for the Class Size Reduction Program from the annual budget process and categorize the source of funding as a continuous appropriation. The amount required to fund the program would be calculated annually by the Director of Finance based on the product of enrollment in kindergarten and in grades one through three under Option One of the Class Size Reduction Program.
The calculations of the Director of Finance as to the amount needed to fully fund the Class Size Reduction Program would be the sole factor in determining the funding of the program. In addition, this proposal would prevent the program from a possible decrease in funding. Generally speaking, the categorization of the funding for CSRP as a continuing appropriation would ensure the success of the CSRP without interruption.
E. CURRICULUM DECISIONS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AND SCHOOL SITE COUNCILS
Under current Education Code provisions local school boards possess the authority to make decisions and changes regarding the curriculum at a given school within their district. (See Cal. Educ. Code §§51054, 60200-60206.) The local curriculum plans are currently made within the general guidelines as determined by the Department of Education.
Proposition 8 proposes to create schoolsite governing councils comprised of representatives of classroom teachers and parents. At least two-thirds of the members of the council will be parents of pupils of that school. The council will be required to attend training sessions provided by the school district or its designee, to gather and examine data on pupil progress toward expected pupil achievement, and at the secondary level seek advice from representatives of local businesses and post-secondary institutions.
In addition, the council will be charged with the responsibility of requesting assistance from the school district if it is determined that an unsatisfactory number of pupils in that school fail to make gains toward expected pupil achievement in any core academic subject for two consecutive years. The council will be charged with the duty to develop or revise an educational quality improvement plan as drafted by teaching personnel at that school which has been approved by a majority of teachers at that school. This quality improvement plan would include a proposed expenditure plan for that school, preventive actions to reduce the chances of pupils completing certain grades without making gains towards expected pupil achievement, and will include preventive actions to ensure that no pupil leaves grade three without basic proficiency in reading. A primary focus of the preventive plan would require the identification of pupils who do not meet specified gains toward improvement and the actions taken to assist in those pupils achieving proficiency.
Another component of the education plan will be staff development activities to improve beginning reading instruction. Additional components of the proposed educational plan would include the identification of core curriculum areas in need of improvement, the instructional strategies that will be used to meet expected pupil achievement, strategies to increase parental involvement in their child's education, and the incorporation or establishment of a technology plan.
A concern of administrators and educators about this provision is the authority of the schoolsite councils to make curriculum decisions. The councils, comprised largely of parents, would lead to a variety of curriculums depending on which district and individual school the pupils attend. While the principals of each school will be present for advice to the councils, uniformity among the schools will not be easy.
In addition, disparate curriculum decisions could potentially lead to certain schools and districts lagging behind in pupil development and could also lead to disparate scores on assessment tests which could in turn lower the state's overall national ranking, thus skewing the success of some districts. Another area of concern as to the authority of the councils is the expenditure of state funds by a council which is comprised largely of individuals who do not necessarily possess the skills of an administrator, accountant or an educator.
F. PERSONNEL DECISIONS BY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
Proposition 8 would allow the school principal to retain the power to make decisions regarding the employment and removal of all personnel at his or her school. In the decision-making process regarding personnel at that school, the principal will utilize the results of pupil performance on assessments tests administered pursuant to article 4 (commencing with (Cal. Educ. Code § 60640) in the determination of the job performance of the employee.
The personnel decisions of principals are assumed to currently include factors other than pupil performance assessments. There are no provisions within this proposal as to when nor how often the assessments will be given to pupils or when they will be reviewed by the principal for purposes of teacher review. In addition, the school district will be responsible for assigning personnel who have been removed from that school by the principal.
In the absence of specific criteria for pupil achievement and the core components to be included in an educational improvement plan within Proposition 8, the authority to make determinations in this area appears to delegated to the schoolsite councils, with input coming from the schoolsite principal.
With respect to the evaluation of teachers by principals and the inclusion of pupil assessment scores in the personnel decision process, Proposition 8 could lead to a disincentive for teachers to instruct remedial courses. This provision could also lead to a shortage of teachers in a district which has historically performed badly on pupil assessments, as teachers may be reluctant to apply for positions in those districts for fear of being fired.
G. CONSEQUENCES OF POSSESSION BY STUDENTS OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
Under current law, students who are found in possession of certain controlled substances are subject to a school principal's recommendation for expulsion. (Cal. Educ. Code § 48915.) Additionally, students found in possession of one ounce or more of marijuana are also subject to a school principal's recommendation for expulsion.
Proposition 8 proposes to mandate the immediate suspension and recommendation of expulsion of any student who is found in possession of controlled substances, including, but not limited to, methamphetamines. (See listing in Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11053). In addition, the proposed amendment would mandate the immediate suspension and recommendation of expulsion of any student found in possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. A student found in possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana would not be subject to immediate suspension or a recommendation for expulsion. This proposed amendment would make the consequences of possession of controlled substances and marijuana on school property or at school events more immediate and possibly more effective in deterring possession.
* Creates a state Office of the Chief Inspector of Public Schools.
* Increases the responsibilities of school site councils and principals.
* Alters the state qualifications that must be met by teachers in California.
* Requires teachers to keep lesson plans on the subjects they teach.
* Prevents the state from reducing funding for the existing kindergarten through grade three (K-3) class size reduction program.
* Mandates the expulsion of students possessing unlawful drugs at school.
Background. The State Department of Education (SDE) provides guidance and support to the state's 8,000 public schools. As part of its duties, SDE staff visit school sites every four to five years to see whether schools are using certain state and federal funds as required by law and to measure the success of these programs. The department also maintains data on school and student performance. The department spends about $34 million in state funds annually on all of its operations.
Proposal. The measure creates the Office of the Chief Inspector of Public Schools, which would report each year on the quality of public K-12 schools. This office would operate independently from SDE. The Governor would select a Chief Inspector, who would serve a ten-year term managing the new office.
The measure requires the office to collect annual data on the quality of each school and inspect all public K-12 schools in the state at least once every two years. With this information, the office would issue an annual report ranking the quality of public schools, identifying strengths and weaknesses of each school, and providing data about student achievement.
Cost. We estimate that performing the duties assigned to the Office of the Chief Inspector would cost about $15 million to $20 million annually. (This is about half of the department's current operating budget.) The initiative directs the state to support the Office of the Chief Inspector by shifting funds that otherwise would pay for SDE staff and expenses. While some of the funding could come from shifting a portion of the current SDE budget, the state would probably provide additional funds to the office given the cost of this new function in relation to the department's total budget.
Background. Local school boards determine how school districts and school sites (that is, individual schools) operate. For instance, school boards establish school curricula, employee hiring and transfer policies, and how district funds are used. Principals are generally responsible for the day-to-day operation of school sites. Most schools in the state have school site councils that assist school administrators in determining how to spend certain funds and improving the school's educational program. The specific responsibilities of principals and site councils vary significantly from school to school based on district policies.
Proposal. This measure changes the way decisions are made in many schools. First, the measure requires each school--as a condition for continued receipt of state funds for special programs (such as class size reduction)--to establish a school site governing council of parents and school site teachers. Since virtually all schools currently receive such funds, almost all schools would have to establish a school site governing council. Each of these councils, with support from its principal, would determine the curriculum used at the school and the use of funds made available to the school by the school board.
Second, the initiative grants principals the authority to hire or remove any school site employee (teachers and nonteachers). Employees that are released by a school site would become the responsibility of the district. Under current law, districts would have to find another job for many of these employees.
Cost. The changes in school site governance would result in annual costs to school districts, but these could vary greatly by district. For instance, districts that have already shifted school decisions to the site level would experience smaller cost increases than districts that do not have school site councils. If, however, each school site spent $1,000 a year to comply with the governance changes, the statewide cost would be about $8 million. Unless the state provided additional funds for these activities, any new costs would be paid for by redirecting funds from other educational programs within the school or district.
Teacher Credentialing and Assignment Requirements
Background. To become a teacher, individuals must demonstrate to the state that they have a thorough understanding of the subject areas they will teach. There are currently two ways a teacher can demonstrate competence: (1) pass specific courses approved by the state Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) or (2) pass a CTC subject-matter test. About half of the 240,000 existing teachers fulfilled this requirement through courses and half through a test. Under certain circumstances, teachers who are credentialed in one subject area may teach in another subject area where they are not credentialed.
Proposal. This measure eliminates the option for new teachers to take courses to fulfill subject matter requirements. Thus, all new teachers would have to pass a subject matter test to demonstrate competence. In addition, all existing teachers would be required to pass a subject matter test before they could be given an assignment to teach in a given subject area. The term "assignment" is not defined in the initiative or in current law.
Cost. The fiscal impact of these requirements would depend in large part on the way the state defines "assignment." Possible definitions include:
* Applies to All Teachers. The initiative could require all existing teachers to pass a CTC subject-matter test. This would occur if an "assignment" is defined as taking place at the beginning of each school year. Because only half of current teachers took a CTC subject-matter test as part of the credential process, this broad definition would apply to more than 100,000 existing teachers.
* Applies Only to New Teachers and Teachers Who Are Not Credentialed in the Subject They Teach. Alternatively, an "assignment" could be defined as taking place when teachers are first hired or when they are assigned to teach in a subject area in which they are not credentialed. This more narrow definition would affect about 7,000 new teachers each year and several thousand existing teachers.
Costs would occur for two main reasons. First, if a significant portion of existing teachers failed to pass the subject-matter test, districts would likely have to pay more to fill all positions (for example, by attracting persons from out of state or who are currently not teaching). Second, districts could be required to find other jobs for existing teachers who were unable to pass the CTC tests.
If the provisions apply to all teachers, these costs could be significant--easily in the tens of millions of dollars annually. Under the more narrow interpretation of the provisions, the costs would likely be modest. Unless the state provides additional funds to school districts for these purposes, districts would have to make spending reductions in other areas of operations to pay for any new costs.
The CTC would incur annual costs in the millions of dollars to provide subject-matter tests to all new K-12 teachers. The measure would also result in a one-time $20 million cost to CTC if the state interpreted the initiative to require testing of current teachers that have never taken a CTC subject-matter test in the subject area that they teach. These new costs would be funded with fees paid by teachers who take the subject-matter tests. (These fees currently average about $200 per test.)
Lesson Plan Requirement
Background. Teachers often create lesson plans to ensure that classes cover the important subject-matter content during the school year. While state law currently contains no requirement that teachers maintain these plans, some districts require teachers to maintain lesson plans for the classes they teach.
Proposal. The initiative requires teachers to have approved lesson plans before they can receive an "assignment" to a class. As discussed in the previous section, the number of teachers that are affected by this provision depends on how the state interprets "assignment." Standards for assessing lesson plans would be developed by CTC. The measure does not identify who would be responsible for reviewing lesson plans to determine whether the plans meet the new standards.
Cost. Reviewing lesson plans could result in costs for school districts--probably in the range of several millions of dollars annually. Districts that do not currently require teachers to maintain lesson plans, or do not review lesson plans, would experience new costs. Unless the state provides additional funds for these purposes, any new costs would require districts to make spending reductions in other educational programs.
Class Size Reduction (CSR) Funding
Background. In 1997-98, the state provided $1.5 billion for K-3 CSR. This funding level assumed that all K-3 students would participate in the program and that a small number of students would participate in smaller classes for only half of the school day (the state provides a lower funding level for these students). In fact, many schools (comprising about 15 percent of eligible students) did not participate in the program. Program savings, however, were redirected by the state to other educational purposes.
Proposal. The measure prevents the state from reducing funding for the existing K-3 CSR program. This would require the state to budget for the program as if all students participated in the CSR program for a full day. Every two years, the Department of Finance would review school district claims for the program and would transfer any unused funds to other educational programs.
Cost. This provision would likely have little or no fiscal impact, as the state currently provides adequate funding for the program. This full-funding requirement, however, would limit the state's ability to reduce annual appropriations for the CSR program in the future.
Student Expulsion Policies
Background. Under current law, a school principal or district superintendent may expel a student for drug possession. Current law also requires the district to continue educating expelled students in a different setting. These alternative settings cost more than regular school programs. According to SDE estimates, approximately 17,000 students are caught each year possessing drugs at school or at a school activity off school grounds.
Proposal. The initiative mandates the expulsion of students who unlawfully possess drugs at school or at school activities off school grounds. The only exception to this requirement is if it is a student's first offense for the possession of a small amount of marijuana.
Cost. We estimate this requirement would result in additional state costs of around $15 million each year to educate expelled students. Additionally, there would be costs--in the millions of dollars--to districts to process expulsion cases.
We estimate the initiative would create up to $60 million in new state programs (Office of the Chief Inspector, CTC testing costs, and the student expulsion policy). Some of these new costs, however, probably would be paid from within the state's existing education budget or be offset by increased fee collections. As a result, the new costs to the state would be substantially less than $60 million.
The initiative would result in new costs to school districts. These costs would be due primarily to the new teacher testing requirements, but also due to various other provisions in the measure. Statewide, the costs could be in the high tens of millions of dollars annually. The actual costs, however, could be significantly less depending on how the state implements the measure (particularly the teacher credentialing requirement). The additional costs would vary significantly by district. Any new costs would require districts to make spending reductions in other areas of operation.
The state also could provide additional funds to districts to pay for new local costs of the initiative. This would reduce the level of spending reductions made by districts. It would, however, increase the state's cost of the measure.
PROPOSITION 8 IS COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION REFORM: guaranteed funding for permanent class size reduction without increased taxes; mandatory expulsion for the possession of dangerous drugs; educational accountability; and active parental participation in their child's school. IT GIVES OUR CHILDREN A SOLID FOUNDATION UPON WHICH THEY CAN SUCCEED IN LIFE.
Despite a booming economy and a whopping 17% increase in school spending in just the last two years--that guaranteed education more than $30 billion last year--our schools still aren't making the grade. AS 1998 TEST SCORES (the first to compare California schools to the national norm since the 1960's) MAKE PAINFULLY CLEAR, CALIFORNIA STUDENTS FELL BELOW THE NATIONAL AVERAGE IN 28 OF 43 CATEGORIES.
We must act now to improve California's schools!
Permanent Class Size Reduction without New Taxes
The National Education Association is outspoken regarding school class sizes stating, ". . . . .SMALLER CLASSES ARE THE BEST INVESTMENT THIS COUNTRY CAN MAKE IN IMPROVING OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS."
In 1996, we made that investment with increased funding going directly into California classrooms. Teachers can now devote more time to individual instruction, so student achievement scores will improve.
To ensure each new kindergartner becomes a proficient reader by grade 3, our commitment to class size reduction must be sustained.
IT CANNOT BE LEFT VULNERABLE TO THE POLITICAL BUDGET AXE. PROPOSITION 8 GUARANTEES FUNDING FOR CLASS SIZE REDUCTION WON'T BECOME A PARTISAN POLITICAL PAWN.
Zero-Tolerance for Drugs and Violence
Before learning is possible, schools must be cleansed of weapons, drugs, and violence.
PROPOSITION 8 FREES CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FROM THE SUFFOCATING GRIP OF DRUGS. Proposition 8 establishes the same "zero-tolerance" for the possession of dangerous drugs as for the possession of guns or knives. Guilty students will be immediately suspended and expelled.
Teacher Competency and Educational Accountability
WITHOUT INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING, PROPOSITION 8 ESTABLISHES--FOR THE FIRST TIME--REAL EDUCATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
TEACHERS MUST PASS A SUBJECT MATTER COMPETENCY EXAM IN SUBJECTS THEY TEACH TO GET A TEACHING CREDENTIAL, and prepare lesson plans based on rigorous academic standards.
PROPOSITION 8 AUTHORIZES PRINCIPALS TO REMOVE TEACHERS FOR POOR PERFORMANCE.
Highlighting exceptional schools while targeting areas where improvement is needed, a Chief Inspector of Schools will evaluate public schools, rank them, and publish the results so that parents, employers and taxpayers can judge for themselves the performance of their schools. Direct and immediate accountability to parents will best guarantee students a quality education.
PARENTS DESERVE A TIMELY AND UNBIASED REPORT CARD ON THEIR CHILD'S SCHOOL.
Parental Involvement/Local Control
Proposition 8 establishes local school site governing councils. Parents will comprise 2/3 of the membership becoming active participants in their school's curricula development and spending decisions.
UNDER PROPOSITION 8, FINANCIAL AND ACADEMIC DECISIONS ARE MADE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL BY PARENTS, TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS--NOT SACRAMENTO BUREAUCRATS.
* Permanent Class Size Reduction.
* Drug-Free Schools.
* Educational Accountability.
* Parental Decision-Making.
* Teacher Competency.
SAY YES TO QUALITY EDUCATION; VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8.
PETE WILSON Governor, State of California
YVONNE LARSEN President, California State Board of Education
KIM JACOBSMA 1996 Teacher of the Year, Mayfair High School
If Prop. 8 would improve our children's education, we'd be first in line to support it. Make no mistake: Prop. 8 would HURT-- NOT HELP--OUR SCHOOLS.
Some of Prop. 8's provisions merely restate existing policies; others are downright harmful to children, parents and taxpayers.
CLASS SIZE AND DRUG POLICIES ALREADY EXIST
Schools already have a class size reduction program and zero tolerance policy for drugs.
BIGGER, LESS ACCOUNTABLE BUREAUCRACY
Prop. 8 steals money from the classroom and existing education programs to triple the size of school bureaucracy.
INCONSISTENT AND CONFLICTING ACADEMIC STANDARDS
Prop. 8 creates a new school governing system that flies in the face
of existing parent councils and statewide efforts to improve student achievement. It authorizes 8000 new committees (not elected by taxpayers) to spend tax-dollars and set 8000 different local academic standards at odds with new uniform state standards (the most rigorous in the nation).
Prop. 8 gives principals new, unchecked power to remove teachers from their school without a hearing or any form of due process. It puts good teachers at risk of being the victim of petty politics and personality conflicts while doing nothing to improve teachers who need help.
Future changes to fix Prop. 8's problems would require another initiative or an 80% vote of each house of the Legislature and the signature of the Governor.
SAY NO to MORE BUREAUCRACY and LESS ACCOUNTABILITY! Our kids deserve better! Keep education dollars IN the classroom! VOTE NO!
STEVE BOCK California Teacher of the Year, 1997
AL ANGELE Executive Director, California Organization of Police & Sheriffs
MIKE SPENCE Chairman, California Taxpayer Protection Committee
Fed up with well-intended, but POORLY CRAFTED initiatives that don't do what they promise? Wait until you read Proposition 8, and please, read it carefully. IF PROP. 8 PASSES, OUR CHILDREN--our most precious resource--STAND TO LOSE THE MOST.
--Rather than improve classroom education, PROP. 8 LETS EACH SCHOOL SET DIFFERENT STANDARDS IN CONFLICT WITH NEW UNIFORM STATE ACADEMIC STANDARDS.
--PROP. 8 TAKES MILLIONS of TAX DOLLARS AWAY FROM EXISTING EDUCATION PROGRAMS to FUND a NEW UNACCOUNTABLE BUREAUCRACY, with NO CHECKS OR BALANCES to guard against abuse. As noted in the Sacramento Bee, Prop. 8 "will erode accountability almost beyond recognition" and make it "virtually impossible to determine who is responsible for what."
--Don't be fooled by Prop. 8's clever promises! For instance, the CLASS SIZE REDUCTION PROGRAM is ALREADY IN PLACE and working effectively in our schools. It was only included in the initiative as window dressing.
--PROP. 8 TRIPLES THE STATE'S EDUCATION BUREAUCRACY--300% THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING BUREAUCRACY. We already have a Superintendent of Public Instruction, a State Board of Education, a Secretary of Education and Child Development, 1000 elected school boards and thousands of committees. Incredibly, PROP. 8 ADDS ANOTHER ARM OF GOVERNMENT and 8000 NEW COUNCILS.
--Prop. 8 creates a new CZAR's OFFICE, which they cleverly gave the voter-friendly title "Office of the Chief Inspector". Unfortunately, the office is NO friend to voters. Prop. 8 gives the new "Chief Inspector" THE POWERS OF A CZAR--a 10-YEAR APPOINTMENT WITH NO LEGISLATIVE CONFIRMATION and NO EDUCATION EXPERIENCE required. Prop. 8 sets no limits on the NEW CZAR'S SALARY or the salaries of ALL THE POLITICAL CRONIES HE WANTS TO HIRE--"inspectors" not subject to taxpayer inspection! Guess who gets to pay for all those new six-figure government bureaucrat salaries?
--Prop. 8 also creates 8000 ALL-POWERFUL COUNCILS--a RECIPE for TAX DOLLAR ABUSE and ACADEMIC CHAOS. Parental involvement is an essential component of successful schools, but Prop. 8 goes about it the wrong way. Unlike existing school site councils, PROP. 8's councils (which are NOT ELECTED by or accountable to taxpayers) would be given unprecedented authority to SPEND OUR TAX DOLLARS and DECIDE WHAT SHOULD BE TAUGHT in our schools.
--8000 separate councils setting 8000 SEPARATE CURRICULUMS would GUARANTEE MANY ACADEMIC STANDARDS WOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM ONE SCHOOL TO THE NEXT and IN CONFLICT WITH THE NEW STATE STANDARDS and COLLEGE ENTRANCE requirements. Educators, parents and the business community have worked hard to put in place rigorous new uniform standards for teachers and students (which finally go into effect next year) and a thorough testing and measurement system to hold administrators, teachers and students accountable. PROP. 8 THROWS THESE GAINS OUT THE WINDOW.
It's our job to give kids the skills they need to become tomorrow's leaders. USING LIMITED CLASSROOMS DOLLARS to CREATE INCONSISTENT ACADEMIC STANDARDS and a LARGER, MORE COSTLY SCHOOL BUREAUCRACY is NOT the way to go!
JOIN EDUCATORS, PARENTS and TAXPAYERS--Vote
LOIS TINSON President, California Teachers Association
LENNY GOLDBERG Executive Director, California Tax Reform Association
BOB WELLS Secretary/Treasurer, Parents, Teachers and Educators for Local Control
Since 1988, public education spending has increased 73%. California invests by far the most in our schools--and should--because a QUALITY EDUCATION IS CRUCIAL to giving our children the ability to win in a highly competitive job market.
But we must demand a greater return on our investment: EXCELLENCE IN PUBLIC EDUCATION IS PRIORITY ONE!
Successful schools combine financial resources with ACTIVE PARENTS, DEDICATED TEACHERS, AND INVOLVED ADMINISTRATORS WORKING TOGETHER TO ENRICH STUDENTS.
Proposition 8 establishes a framework for academic success by GUARANTEEING NEEDED CLASSROOM FUNDING and MAKING SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE TO PARENTS AND TAXPAYERS.
Parent-teacher councils will make CURRICULUM AND FUNDING DECISIONS within ESTABLISHED STATE STANDARDS. Members are selected by their peers and accountable to them.
PROPOSITION 8 DOESN'T INCREASE ADMINISTRATIVE SPENDING. Money is redirected from existing bureaucracy to create the Chief Inspector of Public Schools--INDEPENDENT OF PARTISAN POLITICS--responsible for QUALITY CONTROL and providing ACCOUNTABILITY TO TAXPAYERS. Less than 1/10th of 1% of California's education budget is a small price to pay for DIRECT ACCOUNTABILITY.
Proposition 8 invests in classrooms, not bureaucracy.
PARENTS ARE NOT BUREAUCRATS. Parent-teacher councils in each of California's 8000 public schools are not big government ; it's better education for our children.
PROPOSITION 8 INVESTS WISELY IN EDUCATION; BANS DRUGS FROM SCHOOLS; AND EXPANDS AUTHORITY FOR PARENTS, TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS IN THE LOCAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. Please read it.
Say NO to NEGATIVE PARTISAN POLITICS. Say YES to SMALLER CLASSES AND EDUCATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
JIM BARNES Immediate Past Chairman, California Taxpayers Association
WADIE P. DEDDEH Retired Democratic State Senator
SUSAN HENRY 1995-97 Parent-Teacher Association, President, Masuda Middle School
Proposition 8: Text of Proposed Law
This initiative measure amends, repeals, and adds sections to the Education Code; therefore, existing provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in strikeout type and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Permanent Class Size Reduction and Educational Opportunities Act of 1998.
SEC. 2. (a) The people of the State of California find and declare all of the following:
(1) High expectations for the academic achievement of all children in California are essential elements of the public school system.
(2) Small class sizes, well-trained teachers, a safe learning environment, and parent participation in the public schools are essential components of an educational system that achieves our high expectations for all children.
(3) Information on the quality of education in each public school is essential to identify low-performing schools that are not providing our children with the opportunity to achieve our high expectations.
(b) In enacting the Permanent Class Size Reduction and Educational Opportunities Act of 1998, it is the intent of the people of the State of California to accomplish all of the following:
(1) To give parents a significant role in improving the educational program at the schools attended by their children.
(2) To ensure that persons licensed to teach in California possess essential subject-matter knowledge.
(3) To enable school principals to identify, assist, and, if necessary, remove from their schools, teachers who are not contributing to pupil achievement.
(4) To provide a safe learning environment that fosters learning by keeping mind-altering illegal drugs out of the hands of school children.
(5) To provide a funding guarantee for class size reduction for kindergarten and grades 1 to 3, inclusive.
(6) To provide information to parents, the general public, and elected officials on the performance of individual public schools so that corrective action may be taken in low-performing schools.
SEC. 3. Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 33250) is added to Part 20 of the Education Code, to read:
Chapter 2.5. Office of the Chief Inspector of the Public Schools
33250. The Office of the Chief Inspector of the Public Schools is hereby established in the state government.
33250.5. The Office of the Chief Inspector of the Public Schools shall be an independent entity in the state government. The Chief Inspector of the Public Schools shall appoint and discharge employees, consistent with applicable civil service laws, and shall establish the compensation of these employees and prescribe their duties.
33251. The Chief Inspector of the Public Schools shall be appointed by the Governor and shall serve for no more than one term of 10 years. The appointment of the Chief Inspector of the Public Schools shall not be subject to approval by the Senate, but the Chief Inspector of the Public Schools may be removed from that office by a two-thirds vote of all members elected to each house of the Legislature.
33251.5. The Chief Inspector of the Public Schools, or employees of the Office of the Chief Inspector of the Public Schools, acting at the direction of the chief inspector, shall inspect each of the public elementary and secondary schools in California at least once every two years. The Chief Inspector of the Public Schools shall submit an annual report on his or her findings to the Governor, the Legislature, the State Board of Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
33252. The annual report of the Chief Inspector of the Public Schools shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, all of the following:
(a) A ranking of the public schools in categories of comparable grade levels in order of the quality of education offered by the schools.
(b) Identification of the strengths and weaknesses of each public school.
(c) Achievement scores, dropout rates, attendance rates, college entrance rates, vocational program entrance rates, scores on the SAT and other standardized tests, and other information as determined by the chief inspector.
33252.5. Funding for the Office of the Chief Inspector of the Public Schools shall be provided in the annual Budget Act. However, the annual Budget Act appropriation for support of the State Department of Education shall be reduced by an amount equal to the annual Budget Act appropriation for the Office of the Chief Inspector of the Public Schools.
33253. This chapter shall become operative on July 1, 1999.
SEC. 4. Section 44252.9 is added to the Education Code, to read:
44252.9. (a) The commission may issue a preliminary multiple subject or single subject teaching credential, for a period not to exceed two years, to any applicant qualifying under Section 44227 pending completion of the following requirements in paragraph (1), (2), or (3), or to any applicant for a designated subjects teaching credential pending completion of the requirement in paragraph (3):
(1) A commission-approved examination to verify subject matter competence.
(2) A course or examination on the teaching of reading.
(3) A course or examination on the provisions and principles of the United States Constitution.
(b) This section shall apply to credentials issued on or after January 1, 1999.
SEC. 5. Section 44253 of the Education Code is amended to read:
44253. (a) The commission may issue a preliminary multiple subject or single subject teaching credential, for a period not to exceed two years, to any applicant qualifying under Section 44227 pending completion of the following requirements in subdivision (a), (b), or (c) paragraph (1), (2), or (3), or to any applicant for a designated subjects teaching credential pending completion of the requirement in subdivision (c).
(a) paragraph (3):
(1) A commission-approved subject matter preparation program or examination to verify subject matter competence.
(b) This section shall apply to credentials issued on or before December 31, 1998. Credentials issued after that date shall be subject to Section 44252.9.
SEC. 6. Section 44256 of the Education Code is amended to read:
44256. Authorization for teaching credentials shall be of four basic kinds, as defined below:
(b) (1) "Multiple subject instruction" means the practice of assignment of teachers and students for multiple subject matter instruction, as is commonly practiced in California elementary schools and as is commonly practiced in early childhood education.
(2) The holder of a multiple subject teaching credential or a standard elementary credential who has completed 20 semester hours of coursework or 10 semester hours of upper division or graduate coursework approved by the commission at an accredited institution in any subject commonly taught in grades 9 and below shall be eligible to have that subject appear on the credential as authorization to teach the subject in departmentalized classes in grades 9 and below. The governing board of a school district by resolution may authorize the holder of a multiple subject teaching credential or a standard elementary credential to teach any subject in departmentalized classes to a given class or group of students below grade 9, provided that the teacher has completed at least 12 semester units, or six 6 upper division or graduate units, of coursework at an accredited institution in each subject to be taught. The authorization shall be with the teacher's consent. However, the commission, by regulation, may provide that evidence of additional competence is necessary for instruction in particular subjects, including, but not limited to, foreign languages. The commission may establish and implement alternative requirements for additional authorizations to the multiple subject credential on the basis of specialized needs.
(c) "Specialist instruction" means any specialty requiring advanced preparation or special competence including, but not limited to, reading specialist, mathematics specialist, specialist in special education, or early childhood education, and such other specialties as the commission may determine.
(d) "Designated subjects" means the practice of assignment of teachers and students to designated technical, trade, or vocational courses which courses may be part of a program of trade, technical, or vocational education.
(e) This section shall apply to authorizations issued on or before December 31, 1998. Authorizations issued after that date shall be subject to Section 44256.1.
SEC. 7. Section 44256.1 is added to the Education Code, to read:
44256.1. Authorization for teaching credentials shall be of four basic kinds, as defined below:
(a) "Single subject instruction" means the practice of assignment of teachers and students to specified subject matter courses, as is commonly practiced in California high schools and most California junior high schools.
(e) This section shall apply to authorizations issued on or after January 1, 1999.
SEC. 8. Section 44258.3 of the Education Code is amended to read:
44258.3. (a) The governing board of a school district may assign the holder of a credential, other than an emergency permit, to teach any subjects in departmentalized classes in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, provided that the governing board verifies, prior to making the assignment, that the teacher has adequate knowledge of each subject to be taught and the teacher consents to that assignment. The governing board shall adopt policies and procedures for the purpose of verifying the adequacy of subject knowledge on the part of each of those teachers. The governing board shall involve subject matter specialists in the subjects commonly taught in the district in the development and implementation of the policies and procedures, and shall include in those policies and procedures both of the following:
(e) This section shall apply only to assignments made on or before December 31, 1998.
SEC. 9. Section 44259 of the Education Code is amended to read:
44259. (a) Each program of professional preparation for multiple subject or single subject teaching credentials shall not include more than one year of, or the equivalent of one-fifth of a five-year program in, professional preparation.
(b) The minimum requirements for the preliminary multiple subject or single subject teaching credential, are all of the following:
(1) A baccalaureate degree or higher degree, except in professional education, from a regionally accredited institution of postsecondary education.
(2) Passage of the state basic skills examination that is developed and administered by the commission pursuant to Section 44252.5.
(3) Completion of a program of not more than one year of professional preparation that has been approved or accredited on the basis of standards of program quality and effectiveness pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 44227, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of Section 44372, or Section 44376.
(4) Study of alternative methods of developing English language skills, including the study of reading as described in subparagraphs (A) and (B), among all pupils, including those for whom English is a second language, in accordance with the commission's standards of program quality and effectiveness. The study of reading shall meet the following requirements:
(A) Commencing January 1, 1997, satisfactory completion of comprehensive reading instruction that is research-based and includes all of the following:
(B) (i) For the purposes of this section, "direct, systematic, explicit phonics" means phonemic awareness, spelling patterns, the direct instruction of sound/symbol codes and practice in connected text , and the relationship of direct, systematic, explicit phonics to the components set forth in clauses (i) to (v), inclusive.
(ii) A program for the multiple subjects subject credential also shall include the study of integrated methods of teaching language arts.
(5) Completion of a subject matter program that has been approved by the commission on the basis of standards of program quality and effectiveness pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 44310) or Commencing January 1, 1999, passage of a subject matter examination pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 44280).
(6) Demonstration of a knowledge of the principles and provisions of the United States Constitution of the United States pursuant to Section 44335.
(7) Commencing January 1, 2000, demonstration, in accordance with the commission's standards of program quality and effectiveness, of basic competency in the use of computers in the classroom.
(c) The minimum requirements for the professional multiple subject or single subject teaching credential shall include completion of the following studies:
(1) Study of health education, including study of nutrition, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the physiological and sociological effects of abuse of alcohol, narcotics, and drugs and the use of tobacco. Training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation shall also meet the standards established by the American Heart Association or the American Red Cross.
(2) Study and field experience in methods of delivering appropriate educational services to students with exceptional needs in regular education programs.
(3) Study, in accordance with the commission's standards of program quality and effectiveness, of advanced computer-based technology, including the uses of technology in educational settings.
(4) Completion of an approved fifth year program after completion of a baccalaureate degree at an accredited institution.
(d) A credential that was issued prior to the effective date of this section shall remain in force as long as it is valid under the laws and regulations that were in effect on the date it was issued. The commission may not, by regulation, invalidate an otherwise valid credential unless it issues to the holder of the credential, in substitution, a new credential authorized by another provision in this chapter that is no less restrictive than the credential for which it was substituted with respect to the kind of service authorized and the grades, classes, or types of schools in which it authorizes service.
(e) Notwithstanding this section, persons who were performing teaching services as of January 1, 1991, pursuant to the language of this section that was in effect prior to that date, may continue to perform those services without complying with any requirements that may be added by the amendments adding this subdivision.
(f) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) do not apply to any person who, as of January 1, 1997, holds a multiple subject or single subject teaching credential, or to any person enrolled in a program of professional preparation for a multiple subject or single subject teaching credential as of January 1, 1997, who subsequently completes that program. It is the intent of the Legislature that the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) be applied only to persons who enter a program of professional preparation on or after January 1, 1997.
SEC. 10. Section 44280 of the Education Code is amended to read:
44280. The Commencing January 1, 1999, the adequacy of subject matter preparation and the basis for assignment of certified personnel shall be determined by the successful following:
(a) Successful passage of a subject matter examination as certified by the commission , except as specifically waived as set forth in Article 6 (commencing with Section 44310) of this chapter . For the purpose of determining the adequacy of subject matter knowledge of languages for which there are no adequate examinations, the commission may establish guidelines for accepting assessments performed by organizations that are expert in the language and culture assessed.
(b) Submission of a portfolio of lesson plans in the subject areas to be taught. These lesson plans shall meet standards for lesson plans in the California public schools. These standards shall be developed and adopted by the commission.
SEC. 11. Article 6 (commencing with Section 44310) of Chapter 2 of Part 25 of the Education Code is repealed.
SEC. 12. Section 48915 of the Education Code is amended to read:
48915. (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (c) and (e), the principal or the superintendent of schools shall recommend the expulsion of a pupil for any of the following acts committed at school or at a school activity off school grounds, unless the principal or superintendent finds that expulsion is inappropriate, due to the particular circumstance:
(4) Assault or battery, as defined in Sections 240 and 242 of the Penal Code, upon any school employee.
(b) Upon recommendation by the principal, superintendent of schools, or by a hearing officer or administrative panel appointed pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 48918, the governing board may order a pupil expelled upon finding that the pupil committed an act listed in subdivision (a) or in subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of Section 48900. A decision to expel shall be based on a finding of one or both of the following:
(c) The principal or superintendent of schools shall immediately suspend, pursuant to Section 48911, and shall recommend expulsion of , a pupil that he or she determines has committed any of the following acts at school or at a school activity off school grounds:
(5) Unlawful possession of any controlled substance listed in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11053) of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, except for the first offense for the possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis.
(e) Upon recommendation by the principal, superintendent of schools, or by a hearing officer or administrative panel appointed pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 48918, the governing board may order a pupil expelled upon finding that the pupil, at school or at a school activity off of school grounds , violated subdivision (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), or (m) of Section 48900, or Section 48900.2, 48900.3, or 48900.4, and either of the following:
(f) The governing board shall refer a pupil who has been expelled pursuant to subdivision (b) or (e) to a program of study that meets all of the conditions specified in subdivision (d). Notwithstanding this subdivision, with respect to a pupil expelled pursuant to subdivision (e), if the county superintendent of schools certifies that an alternative program of study is not available at a site away from a comprehensive middle, junior, or senior high school, or an elementary school, and that the only option for placement is at another comprehensive middle, junior, or senior high school, or another elementary school, the pupil may be referred to a program of study that is provided at a comprehensive middle, junior, or senior high school, or at an elementary school.
(g) As used in this section, "knife" means any dirk, dagger, or other weapon with a fixed, sharpened blade fitted primarily for stabbing, a weapon with a blade fitted primarily for stabbing, a weapon with a blade longer than 3 inches, a folding knife with a blade that locks into place, or a razor with an unguarded blade.
SEC. 13. Section 52126 of the Education Code is amended to read:
52126. The amount of funding that each school district implementing a Class Size Reduction Program pursuant to this chapter is eligible to receive shall be computed as follows:
(a) If a school district applies to participate in Option One, pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 52122, the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall apportion to the applicant school district an amount equal to eight hundred dollars ($800) for each pupil actually enrolled in the classes in which the school district implements the program, except that the maximum number of pupils for which a school district may claim funding for any class shall not exceed 20. The number of pupils claimed pursuant to this subdivision shall be pupils actually enrolled in classes participating in the Class Size Reduction Program and shall not be based on the average size of the classes for any grade levels for which funding is claimed.
(b) If a school district applies to participate in Option Two, pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 52122, the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall apportion to the applicant school district an amount equal to four hundred dollars ($400) per pupil actually enrolled in the classes in which the school district implements the program, except that the number of pupils in any class for which a school district may claim funding for the instructional minutes offered shall not exceed 20. The number of pupils claimed pursuant to this subdivision shall be pupils actually enrolled in classes participating in the Class Size Reduction Program and shall not be based on the average size of the classes for any grade levels for which funding is claimed.
(c) (1) If a school district applies to participate in Option One, pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 52122, the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall apportion to the applicant school district an amount equal to six hundred fifty dollars ($650) for each pupil actually enrolled in the classes in which the school district implements the program and at least one of the following conditions exists:
(A) The requirements of subdivision (e) of Section 52122 have been satisfied, except for the requirements of either paragraph (1) or (2) , of that subdivision, or both.
(B) The pupil enrolls in the school district after February 16, 1998.
(2) The maximum number of pupils for which a school district may claim funding for any class does not exceed 20. The number of pupils claimed pursuant to this subdivision shall be pupils actually enrolled in classes participating in the Class Size Reduction Program, and shall not be based on the average size of the classes for any grade levels for which funding is claimed.
(d) (1) If a school district applies to participate in Option 2, pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 52122, the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall apportion to the applicant district an amount equal to three hundred twenty-five dollars ($325) for each pupil actually enrolled in the classes in which the school district implements the program and at least one of the following conditions exists:
(A) The requirements of subdivision (e) of Section 52122 have been satisfied, except for the requirements of either paragraph (1) or (2) of that subdivision, or both.
(2) The maximum number of pupils for which a school district may claim funding for any class shall not exceed 20. The number of pupils claimed pursuant to this subdivision shall be pupils actually enrolled in classes participating in the Class Size Reduction Program, and shall not be based on the average size of the classes for any grade levels for which funding is claimed.
(e) The per pupil amount set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b) shall be increased annually for inflation by the percentage change determined pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 42238.1.
(f) Except for the advance apportionment, the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall apportion funds to a school district only after certification that its Class Size Reduction Program has been implemented for that fiscal year.
(g) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall apportion funds for this program in the following manner:
(1) An advance apportionment shall be made following passage of the annual Budget Act. This apportionment shall be provided to all school districts that participated in the program in the prior fiscal year, and shall be limited to 25 percent of the amount computed by multiplying the appropriate per pupil stipends times the actual enrollment in each participating class in the prior fiscal year, as reported by the district pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 52124.
(2) Each year an apportionment to all applicants shall be made following receipt of applications submitted pursuant to Section 52123, adjusted as necessary by the amount received pursuant to paragraph (1). If a school district that participated in this program in the prior fiscal year fails to submit an application, all funds apportioned to that school district pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be deducted from the district's next monthly principal apportionment payment.
(3) A final adjustment to the amounts paid pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be made following receipt of the actual enrollment in each participating class, to be reported by each school district pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 52124.
(h) Irrespective of the amount that a school district receives pursuant to subdivision (a) on the basis of the application it makes under Section 52123, that district shall not retain any funds it receives for any class that does not actually meet all of the requirements of the Class Size Reduction Program.
(i) It is the intent of the Legislature that the total statewide amount computed for the purposes of this chapter pursuant to this section, commencing with the 1997-98 fiscal year, be appropriated to the Superintendent of Public Instruction in the annual Budget Act.
SEC. 14. Section 52129 is added to the Education Code, to read:
52129. (a) The Class Size Reduction Fund is hereby created in the State Treasury and, notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, is continuously appropriated to the State Department of Education. From any funds that are transferred to the Class Size Reduction Fund, the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall annually apportion to each school district the funds for which the school district is eligible pursuant to the Class Size Reduction Program under this chapter.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the establishment of the Class Size Reduction Fund shall provide a guarantee that the funds necessary to pay the costs of class size reduction for all public school pupils in kindergarten and in grades 1 to 3, inclusive, shall be available.
(c) The Director of Finance shall annually calculate the amount necessary to fully fund the Class Size Reduction Program established pursuant to this chapter. The amount to be calculated pursuant to this subdivision shall be the product of the enrollment in kindergarten and in grades 1 to 3, inclusive, as projected by the Director of Finance and the Option One per-pupil amount. From the total funds allocated to school districts from the General Fund pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, the Controller shall annually transfer to the Class Size Reduction Fund the amount calculated pursuant to this subdivision.
(d) The Director of Finance shall biennially determine if there are excess funds in the Class Size Reduction Fund. Upon certification by the Director of Finance, the Controller shall transfer any excess funds to the Proposition 98 Reversion Account.
SEC. 15. Chapter 14.5 (commencing with Section 52990) is added to Part 28 of the Education Code, to read:
Chapter 14.5. Schoolsite Governing Councils and Teacher Evaluation
52990. As a condition to receiving funds under any program established pursuant to this part or Part 29 (commencing with Section 54000), the governing board of each school district shall ensure that each school in that district establishes a schoolsite governing council that is composed as follows:
(a) The schoolsite governing council shall consist of representatives of classroom teachers selected by classroom teachers at the school and representatives of parents of pupils attending the school selected by the parents.
(b) At least two-thirds of the members of the schoolsite governing council shall be parents of pupils of that school.
(c) The term and procedures for selection and replacement of governing council members shall be specified in the schoolsite governing council's bylaws, which shall be developed in accordance with procedures adopted and promulgated by the governing board of the school district.
52990.5. (a) The schoolsite governing council, in consultation with the principal, shall make all decisions for the school with respect to the school's curricula and expenditure of funds allocated by the governing board to the school, and shall perform the duties prescribed in Section 52991.
(b) The school principal shall make the decisions regarding the employment at the school of all personnel and the removal from the school of all personnel pursuant to Section 52991.5. The school district shall be responsible for assigning personnel who have been removed from the school by the principal.
52991. The schoolsite governing council shall perform the following duties:
(a) Each member of the schoolsite council shall attend training sessions provided by the district or district designee.
(b) Gather and examine available data on the gains made by the pupils enrolled in the school towards meeting the standards of expected pupil achievement. The data shall provide separate information on the gains of pupils from families receiving free or reduced-price meals pursuant to Section 49512, gifted and talented pupils, special education pupils, and the gains of English learners toward meeting the standards of expected pupil achievement. Under no circumstances shall that data reveal the actual names of individual pupils.
(c) At the secondary school level, seek advice from representatives of local businesses and postsecondary institutions.
(d) Request assistance from the school district if it is determined that an unsatisfactory number of the pupils in the school fail to make significant gains towards meeting the standards of expected pupil achievement in any core academic subject for two consecutive years that the identified pupil has spent attending the school.
(e) For each school year, develop a new, or revise an existing, educational quality improvement plan that has #italic#been drafted by the certificated employees of the school, and approved by a majority of teachers of the school. The schoolsite governing council shall make modifications, if any, and approve the plan. The educational quality improvement plan shall be a comprehensive plan for the entire school. The plan shall describe the educational program of the school and shall include a specific plan for improving that program, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following:
(1) A proposed expenditure plan for funds allocated to the schoolsite.
(2) Preventive actions that will be taken to reduce the likelihood that any pupil will complete grades 4, 8, or 10 without making significant gains towards meeting the standards of expected pupil achievement, and preventive actions that will be taken to ensure that no pupil leaves grade 3 without basic proficiency in reading.
(3) Identification of the pupils completing grades 4, 8, and 10 who have not made significant gains towards meeting the standards of expected pupil achievement, the actions that will be taken to improve the performance of those pupils, and how those actions will be funded.
(4) Identification of pupils completing grade 2 who have not mastered basic reading, and actions that will be taken to assist these pupils to become proficient in reading.
(5) Staff development activities to improve beginning reading instruction, including phonemic awareness and systematically explicit phonics, and other staff development opportunities.
(6) Core curriculum areas in need of improvement at the school.
(7) Instructional strategies that will be used to meet the standards of expected pupil achievement.
(8) Strategies to increase involvement of parents in their child's education.
(9) Incorporation of a current, appropriate technology plan or the establishment of an appropriate technology plan.
52991.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the principal of a school shall be responsible for evaluation of the personnel who are employed at that school.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a principal, as part of his or her evaluation of the performance of a certificated employee at the school, shall utilize the results of pupil performance on assessments administered pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 60640) of Chapter 5 of Part 33 in the determination of the job performance of the employee.
52992. On or before February 1, 1999, the State Department of Education shall submit draft regulations for the implementation of this chapter to the State Board of Education for its approval. The State Board of Education shall submit regulations implementing this chapter to the Office of Administrative Law on or before May 1, 1999.
SEC. 16. If any part or parts of this act are found to be in conflict with federal law or with the Constitutions of the United States or California, this act shall be implemented to the maximum extent permitted by federal law and the Constitutions of the United States and California. Any provisions of this act held to be invalid shall be severed from the remaining provisions of this act, which shall be given full effect.
SEC. 17. Except where expressly provided otherwise, this act shall become operative for all school terms that commence at least 60 days after the effective date of this act.
SEC. 18. The provisions of this act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval by the electorate or by a statute to further the act's purpose that is passed by a four-fifths vote of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor.