Legislative Analyst's Office

Analysis of the 2000-01 Budget Bill

---

Other Issues

California School Information Services

The California School Information Services (CSIS) is a multiyear project to develop, implement, and manage a statewide student-level database and information-transfer network. The program is administered by the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), a part of the Kern County Office of Education. The FCMAT, under a contract with the state, provides fiscal advice, management assistance, and training to school districts. Although FCMAT administers CSIS, the Department of Education (SDE) is the state's responsible agent for the local assistance grants to FCMAT and is integrally involved in advising on the student-level data base.

The CSIS has three main program goals:

• Enable school districts and school sites to electronically transfer student records (such as transcripts, test scores, and health records) to any other district or school in the state.
• Transfer student transcripts to institutions of higher education.
• Simplify and increase the accuracy of district data reported to the state.

Meeting these goals will provide the state with several benefits, as summarized in Figure 1 (see next page).

The Proposed Budget for CSIS

The Governor's budget proposes up to $10 million from one-time General Fund monies for local assistance for CSIS. Figure 2 (see page E-109) summarizes what the Legislature provided for CSIS in the 1999-00 Budget Act, and what the Governor proposes for 2000-01.

Based upon concerns about inadequate state oversight of CSIS and potential risks inherent in large database projects, the Legislature provided funding for an ongoing independent evaluator and ongoing project management services. Both the independent evaluator and project management funding are continued in the Governor's budget.

Current Status of CSIS Implementation

Currently CSIS is in Phase I of a multiple phase implementation plan. Phase I involves three main components: (1) providing incentive grants to consortia of districts voluntarily participating in CSIS; (2) establishing the infrastructure of CSIS to administer the transfer of data among school districts, and to the state; and (3) developing a long-term implementation plan including potential costs and benefits. Instead of mandating participation in CSIS, FCMAT is attempting to entice districts to participate with the benefits of a student-level database (outlined below), and incentive grants.

In Phase I, FCMAT provided incentive grants totaling $8.8 million to five consortia of districts representing almost 760,000 students. The five consortia are listed in Figure 3.

Each consortium is working with a specific software vendor to develop its local system to be able to transfer student records to CSIS. The data collected and maintained by each consortia will periodically be transferred to CSIS, which will maintain a data repository to facilitate both records transfer and reporting to the state.

The FCMAT will provide Phase II implementation grants in the late spring 2000. It estimates that it will have approximately $5.3 million for Phase II grants, but this amount could change depending upon available audit recovery funds. An estimate of audit recovery funds will be available in early spring. In Phase I, CSIS was not able to provide incentive grants to 15 consortia which applied due to lack of funds. These 15 consortia represent 690,000 students. Based on this experience, there should be more than enough demand for the estimated $5.3 million for Phase II incentive grants.

Progress Reports Expected Soon

We withhold recommendation on $10 million proposed for the California School Information Services (CSIS) in Item 6110-101-0349 pending receipt and review of the first CSIS oversight report and the CSIS charter.

The SDE has contracted with an independent project oversight consultant funded in the 1999-00 Budget Act, and will be providing its first quarterly CSIS project report to the Legislature by March 2000. In addition, the CSIS administrator is required to submit an annual implementation plan to the State Board of Education (SBE) for approval. The CSIS administrator is planning on submitting a CSIS founding charter to the SBE this spring. The CSIS charter will contain the long-term implementation time line as well as estimated costs and benefits of the project. These documents should contain important information for the Legislature to consider regarding the funding augmentation for CSIS. Thus, we withhold recommendation pending receipt and review of the CSIS oversight report and of the CSIS charter.

Provide CSIS with Funding Assurance

We recommend backfilling audit recovery funds with one-time Proposition 98 reversion funds if audit recovery funds are less than expected.

The budget provides CSIS with up to $10 million in audit recovery funds in 2000-01. Since there is uncertainty in the amount available from audit recovery funds, FCMAT cannot know how much it has available for incentive grants until the end of the budget year. This uncertainty could slow CSIS implementation. If the Legislature determines that CSIS is a worthwhile project, and can effectively use $10 million in the budget year, then it is in the Legislature's interest to assure that the necessary funding will be available. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature adopt budget bill language to backfill audit recovery funds up to the level proposed in the budget with one-time Proposition 98 funds in the event that audit recovery funds are less than expected.

Plan Needed for Electronic Reporting

We recommend that the State Department of Education report to the Legislature prior to budget hearings on its plan to facilitate the California School Information Services' electronic reporting.

The Legislature provided $150,000 to the SDE in 1999-00 to contract for assistance in preparing the department to receive state reporting documents sent electronically by CSIS. The Governor vetoed this augmentation and indicated in his veto message that (1) CSIS conflicted with his Y2K Executive Order and (2) SDE was not adequately prepared to begin this project. Last year, the department was proposing to conduct this study as a first step toward creating an "enterprise database," which would consolidate more than 50 disparate databases at SDE into one main data collection system.

Department of Education Needs to Prepare to Receive Data Electronically. As mentioned above, one of the benefits of the CSIS program is that districts will be able to electronically report information that the state requires instead of sending hard copy reports. Electronic reporting will lead to increased efficiency for SDE, local school districts, and county offices. However, SDE will have to coordinate with the FCMAT, to ensure that CSIS will be able to generate state reporting forms automatically and transfer the data electronically to SDE. The department must be integrally involved in CSIS to ensure that FCMAT's design is coordinated with state reporting goals, and that the department is prepared to receive the data electronically. Based on the CSIS Phase I timetable, the Phase I consortia should be prepared to submit California Basic Education Data System data--the largest set of school and district information reported--electronically by the fall 2000. This will be the first big test of the ability of CSIS to support state reporting. Currently, the department is unprepared to receive the data.

The department advises that it has changed its proposal from developing an "enterprise database" to the less ambitious task of preparing to receive the data that CSIS will be able to provide. This is a significant reduction in scope, and is a much more manageable project. However, at the time this analysis was written, the department had not yet completed a revised plan. We recommend that prior to budget hearings, the department submit a detailed plan to the Legislature, including (1) how it is going to prepare to receive CSIS data and (2) related staffing and equipment needs.

Charter Schools

Charter School Direct Funding Model

We recommend that the State Department of Education report to the fiscal committees prior to budget hearings on charter school enrollment, and that the Legislature adjust the Charter School Direct Funding Model appropriation (Item 6110-211-0001) accordingly. The amount needed to fully fund the Charter School Direct Funding Model is uncertain at present because of (1) lower-than-expected participation in the funding model by existing schools and (2) uncertain enrollment growth at charter schools participating in the model.

The budget provides $22.6 million for the Charter School Categorical Block Grant, an increase of $2.6 million, or 13 percent, from the current year. Chapter 34, Statutes of 1998 (AB 544, Lempert), required the SDE to develop a new "direct block grant" funding model for charter schools. Prior to this direct funding mechanism, charter schools received funding on a program-by-program basis through negotiation with their sponsoring school district or county office of education. Chapter 78, Statutes of 1999 (AB 1115, Strom-Martin), adopted the Charter School Direct Funding Model, which provides funding to charter schools through three funding streams:

• Revenue Limit. Charter schools receive revenue limit funding equal to the state average revenue limit as determined by type (elementary, high school, or unified).
• Charter School Categorical Block Grant. The block grant provides charter schools a per-pupil amount equivalent to what a school district receives for the average student through 34 specified categorical programs. For 33 of those programs the Superintendent of Public Instruction calculates a per-student amount each charter school will receive based upon the school's average daily attendance (ADA). For the remaining categorical program (Economic Impact Aid), the amount is based on the number of English language learners and the number of pupils eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch. The amount is either a fixed amount (for charters with less than 74 eligible students) or a per-student amount (for those with 74 or more eligible students). Figure 4 (see next page) shows the amounts provided for the categorical block grant in 1999-00.
• Direct Application Programs. Charter schools must apply directly for numerous programs, and must adhere to all laws governing those programs. These programs include K-3 class size reduction, staff development buyout, after school and summer school programs, home-to-school transportation, state testing, all federal programs, and numerous other programs.

One-Time Savings From Low-Participation Rate. Schools chartered before June 1, 1999 have the option in 1999-00, 2000-01, and 2001-02 of
(1) continuing their current funding arrangement with their chartering school districts or (2) participating in the Charter School Direct Funding Model. Schools chartered June 1, 1999 or later must participate in the funding model for 1999-00. Beginning in 2002-03 all charter schools must participate. Figure 5 shows that only 153 charter schools chose (or were required) to participate in the direct funding model for 1999-00, accounting for only 44 percent of charter school enrollment. This was much lower than expected. Since the funding model provides a charter school with the state average for revenue limit and categorical aid, some charter schools might have opted out of the model if their sponsoring district received an above average share of revenue limit and/or categorical aid and was willing to pass that above-average share (per pupil) to the charter school.

In the 1999-00 Budget Act, the Legislature provided $20 million for the Charter School Categorical Block Grant on the assumption that all, or nearly all, charter schools would participate in the funding model. Since the participation rate in the funding model was much lower than expected, there will be one-time savings from the block grant. If there is no further enrollment growth for charter schools in the current year, we estimate that approximately $13 million of the $20 million provided in the 1999-00 budget would be needed to fully fund the Charter School Categorical Block Grant. By the end of February, SDE will collect an official ADA count for all schools, including charter schools, as part of the first principal apportionment (P-1). When these data are available, the Legislature will have a better idea both of the amount of one-time savings available from the 1999-00 appropriation, and the appropriate amount to provide in the 2000-01 budget.

Budget-Year Cost Will Depend Largely on Enrollment Growth. The budget-year cost of the categorical block grant will depend upon two factors--increases in noncharter school categorical funding and charter school enrollment growth.

• Per-ADA Cost. The per ADA cost of the block grant will increase slightly in the budget year in response to (1) cost-of-living adjustments given to programs upon which the block grant is based and (2) new categorical programs. We estimate the average per-pupil block grant will increase by about 6 percent in 2000-01.
• Enrollment Growth. Figure 6 (see next page) shows recent trends in enrollment growth. We expect continued strong charter school enrollment growth in the budget year. However, it is difficult to predict the increase in charter school enrollment since new charter schools are being created so frequently. In addition, charter school enrollment growth could jump significantly in the near term if Proposition 26 on the March 2000 ballot passes. Proposition 26 would require school districts to provide charter schools with facilities sufficient to accommodate the charter schools' students.

We recommend that the SDE report to the fiscal committees prior to budget hearings on official ADA numbers reported by charter schools at the P-1 count of ADA, and provide an updated estimate of charter school enrollment growth for the budget year. Based on this information, the Legislature will be able to determine the amount of one-time savings available in 1999-00 from the $20 million appropriated for the Categorical Block Grant, and the appropriate amount to provide for the budget year.

Charter School Evaluation

We recommend the Legislature provide $333,000 in Goals 2000 monies (federal funds) to begin a previously authorized multiyear charter school evaluation in the budget year.

Background on Charter School Law. The Charter Schools Act of 1992 (Chapter 781, Statutes of 1992 [SB 1448, Hart]), authorized the establishment of up to 100 charter schools. Four years later, Chapter 767, Statutes of 1996 (AB 2135, Mazzoni), required the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to contract out for an "interim evaluation of the effectiveness of the charter school approach." SRI International, Inc. conducted this initial Evaluation of Charter School Effectiveness, which was released in December of 1997.

Chapter 34, Statutes of 1998 (AB 544, Lempert), made significant changes regarding how charter schools can be formed and operated. The legislation increased the cap on the number of charter schools to 250 schools for 1998-99, and allowed an additional 100 charter schools each year thereafter. The legislation also required the LAO to (1) contract for a neutral evaluator to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the charter school approach; and (2) using data from that evaluation, report to the Legislature and the Governor, by July 1, 2003, with recommendations to modify, expand, or terminate the charter school approach. Chapter 673, Statutes of 1998 (AB 2471, Mazzoni), later modified that directive so that the LAO and the neutral evaluator each make a report with recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor by July 1, 2003.

The Governor's budget includes no funds for the study in 2000-01.

Begin Evaluation in the Budget Year. With no monies for the evaluation in this year's budget, the earliest it could be funded would be next year (July 2001). With time for selection of an evaluator, that would leave only about 18 months for the evaluation period (prior to the July 2003 report deadline). We recommend instead that the evaluation begin in the budget year, thereby allowing about two and one-half years to complete the evaluation. The longer evaluation period is preferable for three reasons:

• Provide Greater Accuracy. Given the significant public policy questions that the Legislature has asked this evaluation to address, we feel that it is important that the findings be as accurate as possible. Having a longer study allows the evaluator to be more certain that any findings are not simply one-time occurrences, but are ongoing trends. For example, only looking at one year's data on dropout rates, fiscal data, or the charter granting review process could provide insufficient data to support conclusive findings.
• Allow for Longitudinal Study. Longitudinal studies allow the evaluator to collect a set of "baseline" data in the first year of the evaluation, then use that data to make comparisons to data collected in the second year of the evaluation. Sometimes, baseline data can be reconstructed after the fact, but often these data can be incomplete and inaccurate. Being able to compare baseline data would be beneficial in this study, especially in addressing student outcome questions.
• Provide Early Findings. We believe that sufficient data would be available for analysis between fall 2000 and fall 2001 to provide the Legislature and the Governor with valuable initial findings on the effectiveness of the charter school approach prior to the July 1, 2003 deadline. Such findings also may improve the state's charter school policies prior to 2003. The final evaluation would build upon the initial findings.

Provide Goals 2000 Funds in the Budget. The list of topics that the Legislature specified that the evaluation cover is long, and to a large extent, the ability of the evaluator to address all of the areas, and the quality of the analysis, will depend upon the budget for the evaluations. The preliminary evaluation completed in December 1997 pursuant to Chapter 767, Statutes of 1996, required the same extensive list of topics to be covered, but received only $187,000 in funding. As a result, the initial evaluation was not able to address many of the areas outlined in the legislation or the request for proposal. After reviewing significant education evaluations in the state that have been conducted recently or are being conducted, we believe that the cost of a quality charter school evaluation would be at least $1 million. Accordingly, we propose that the Legislature provide $333,000 for each of the three fiscal years in the study, beginning in 2000-01.

The goals of this evaluation are consistent with the federally funded Goals 2000 program, so this is an appropriate funding source. Based on the budget, the administration has committed all available 2000-01 Goals 2000 monies. However, we recommend on page E-120 of this analysis to delete $500,000 in Goals 2000 funding for an evaluation of the Parental Involvement Program because the program has not yet begun.

Voluntary Desegregation Programs

We withhold recommendation on the $8 million proposed for new voluntary desegregation programs at Delano, Alameda, and Visalia Unified School Districts because these districts have not submitted plans or other supporting detail either to the Administration or the Legislature.

The budget includes $8 million (Item 6110-115-0001, one-time funds available from prior-year Proposition 98 savings) for new voluntary desegregation programs at Delano, Alameda, and Visalia Unified School Districts. At the time of this analysis, both the Delano and Alameda school districts had not submitted their plans for voluntary desegregation to the Department of Finance or the Legislature. Although the Visalia Unified School District submitted a plan, it has not provided necessary budget detail. Accordingly, and without prejudice to the proposals, we withhold recommendation on the requested $8 million.

Department of Education--Support (6110)

The Governor's budget provides $240 million to the State Department of Education (SDE) from the General Fund, federal funds, and other sources as displayed in Figure 1. This is an increase of 3.3 percent, reflecting workload increases and new programs. Major new SDE workload results from (1) the special education quality assurance program, (2) the Public School Accountability Act (PSAA), and (3) the After School Learning and Safe Neighborhood program. The budget proposes funding for two new programs--$1 million for a public information campaign on the PSAA, and $1.5 million for the distribution of curriculum frameworks aligned to the state academic content standards. Since the federal government adopted its budget late, the Governor's budget does not reflect numerous changes in federal funds. Those changes will be included in the Governor's May Revise.

Parental Involvement Evaluation

We recommend the Legislature redirect $500,000 in federal Goals 2000 funds from an evaluation of the newly created parental involvement programs to other evaluation needs.

The Governor's budget proposes $500,000 in federal Goals 2000 funds to SDE to contract for an evaluation of the newly created parental involvement programs. Chapter 734, Statutes of 1999 (AB 33, Soto), provided $20 million to support three newly created parental involvement programs--(1) the Nell Soto Parent/Teacher Involvement Program,
(2) Teresa Hughes Family-School Partnership Award and Grant Program, and (3) Tom Hayden Community-Based Parent Involvement Grant. None of the programs have begun yet, and SDE is waiting for guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Education to begin the programs. One of the causes for the delays in implementing these programs is that the Governor vetoed $221,000 from the SDE support budget to implement the program since the budget bill passed before Chapter 734 was enacted. No support funds were provided in Chapter 734. The department reports that the programs will be running in the budget year.

The Governor's budget provides no additional funds to support continuation of the parental involvement programs, so it is uncertain if the program will continue beyond the budget year. We believe that it is premature to be evaluating a program that has not yet begun.

We believe the Legislature should consider evaluating existing programs for which the state provides millions of dollars annually. A partial list of programs not currently being evaluated that we believe would be of higher priority than a new program include charter schools, 9^th grade class size reduction, alternative certification programs, and Assumption Program of Loans for Education. In view of the above, we recommend the Legislature redirect $500,000 proposed for the parental involvement evaluation to higher evaluation priorities.

Public Information Campaign for Accountability

We recommend the Legislature redirect $1 million in one-time funds provided for an information campaign for the state's accountability program because the accountability system attracts significant media coverage on its own.

The Governor's budget provides $1 million (General Fund, non-Proposition 98) to the State Board of Education to conduct a public information campaign explaining the state's K-12 accountability system. According to the Office of the Secretary for Education, the funding would be used to provide information targeted at parents using printed materials and the press, although no formal plan has been developed. We recognize the need for parents to understand how the state's accountability system works. However, parents will be able to obtain that information from various other sources.

The accountability system has already received significant media coverage. In January, the SDE released the baseline Academic Performance Index (API) scores and the growth targets for each school to receive rewards from the state. Within a day, the scores were published in every major newspaper in the state, publicized on the local television news, and on numerous web sites providing information on local schools. Parents also have received information from local school districts and school sites. All of this was accomplished without a publicity campaign. We believe that in July, when the SDE releases the spring 2000 Standardized Testing and Reporting test results (the 1999-00 API scores), and determines which schools receive rewards, the program will be in the news again. Since public outreach on this issue is available at no cost to the state, we recommend the Legislature redirect the $1 million to other legislative priorities. (Reduce Item 6110-001-0001 by $1 million.)

Facility Repairs at California School for the Deaf, Riverside

We withhold recommendation on $1,920,000 of one-time General Fund support requested for roof replacement and bathroom renovations at the California School for the Deaf, Riverside, pending completion of our review of state special schools needs requested by the Legislature in the Supplemental Report of the 1999-00 Budget Act.

The budget includes $1,920,000 of one-time General Fund support under Item 6110-005-0001 to replace roofs on 16 buildings and renovate 57 bathrooms at the California School for the Deaf, Riverside. In the Supplemental Report of the 1999-00 Budget Act, the Legislature asked our office to prepare a report detailing the security, safety, deferred maintenance, and information technology needs, and costs to meet those needs, at the state special schools. In connection with this request, we visited the School for the Deaf in Riverside, the School for the Deaf in Fremont, and the School for the Blind (also in Fremont). We have also been reviewing a substantial amount of material documenting the needs at the schools. At the time this analysis was prepared, we had not completed our review. Accordingly, at this time we withhold recommendation on this facility renovation request.

California State Library (6120)

The goal of the California State Library (CSL) is to make information available to users in a coordinated, effective, and efficient manner. The State Library provides services to the legislative and executive branches of government as well as to members of the public and other California public libraries. It develops and promotes outreach programs such as the California Literacy Campaign and it develops information technology systems to improve resource sharing and access to information.

The library's budget from all sources is $118.3 million for 2000-01. The budget requests General Fund augmentations of $4.5 million, as shown in Figure 1. (Offsetting reductions of limited-term funds and carry-over funds result in a total budget request that is essentially unchanged from the current-year level in terms both of the General Fund and all funds.)

Budget Proposals Lacking Adequate Justification

We recommend that the Legislature deny several budget requests totaling $694,000 because the requests are not adequately justified, and we withhold recommendation on two requests totaling $2 million pending receipt of additional information from the library.

Based on our review, we recommend that the Legislature deny the following requests.

Government Publications. This request is for $176,000 for three new positions to add 6,000 University of California (UC) publications and California state serials records to the library's online catalog. Since materials within the UC library system are already accessible to any borrower through an interlibrary loan, we do not see the need for the CSL to "acquire" this material. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature deny this request.

Photographer. The budget proposes $170,000 for a "chief photographer" (who would be appointed by the Governor and exempt from civil service) and an office technician to establish a unit to coordinate and systematize photographic documentation of the official ceremonies and functions of the State of California. The State of California has managed without an official "chief photographer" for 150 years without suffering any significant problems as a result. We do not see what has changed to justify such a position or the attendant expense. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature deny this request.

Human Resources Staffing. The budget requests $138,000 for two new positions for human resources. According to the budget change proposal, this additional staff is necessary to handle additional workload created by the establishment of new programs, expansion of current operational programs, and new responsibilities. This, however, may just be a temporary situation. Before hiring additional full-time staff, the CSL should consider other alternatives--including temporarily discontinuing low-priority services and delegating some services back to the programs to perform. These alternatives were mentioned in the proposal but not pursued. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature deny this request.

Catalog Staffing. The library requests $132,000 for two new positions to provide timely access to materials in various formats and to make material available for use. The CSL reports that budget change proposals approved in 1997-98 and 1998-99 increased their acquisition budget by $944,000. The need for cataloging should have been anticipated by the CSL. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature reduce the new material budget by $132,000 and redirect the funds to cataloging.

Augmentation for Rent Increase. The library's budget includes $78,000 to offset increased costs for 120,000 square feet of space in which the CSL is a tenant. Our review of all state departments found that only CSL and four other agencies--the Departments of Justice, Industrial Relations, and Fair Employment and Housing, and the State Treasurer's Office--received budget augmentations for rental increases in 2000-01. Presumably, all other state departments will absorb the rent increases. We can find no analytical basis for granting an augmentation to pay rent increases for these five departments when other departments and agencies are not provided such funds. We note that the administration's own budgeting guidelines indicate that departments will not receive funding for such price increases. Thus, we recommend that the requested augmentation be denied. (See the write-up on the Department of Finance in the General Government chapter for more detail.)

Based on our review we withhold recommendation on the following two requests pending further information from the library.

Access to California History. The library requests $228,000 for three new positions to catalog its collection of historic manuscripts and archival material. The library annually receives 150 cubic feet of manuscripts. Materials range from hand-written Gold Rush letters to the plans for the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco. The CSL reports a six-year backlog of over 900 cubic feet of this material and is requesting staff to organize, catalog, and make the materials accessible. Since, according to the CSL, the Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) is the leading manuscript repository in the western United States, we recommend the CSL explore the possibility of locating its California history manuscript collection at UCB. We see no benefit to users of the collection to have it dispersed between these two state-funded libraries. Accordingly, we withhold recommendation on this request pending further information from the library.

Transaction Based Reimbursement (TBR) Program. This request augments the TBR program by $1.8 million, bringing total program support to $10.9 million. The TBR program reimburses local libraries for a portion of the costs they incur when they loan materials to residents outside their normal lending area. There are two rates of reimbursement--one for interlibrary loans and one for direct loans. Interlibrary loans are loans between libraries. Direct loans are over-the-counter loans to people who do not live in the jurisdiction of the loaning library. In 1998-99, 1.2 million interlibrary and 11.1 million direct loans were made. Estimates of the handling costs for these loans are made annually by the CSL and Department of Finance.

The budget request for a $1.8 million augmentation is an estimate based on the number of transactions in 1998-99, with reimbursement rates equal to about 89 percent of the actual 1998-99 cost. Using 100 percent of actual costs increases the program's "shortfall" to $3.1 million, or $1.3 million more than requested. The budget request discusses in detail the problems this program is having due to underfunding. However, the budget proposal does not present a plan to solve this problem. We recommend that the Legislature direct the CSL to consider a small user charge to balance shortfalls. A small charge, with waivers for students and low income users, might contribute in part to a long-term solution. Until the library submits a long-term plan to the Legislature, we withhold recommendation on this program.

Commission on Teacher Credentialing (6360)

The Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) was established in 1970 to ensure that high standards are set and met for teacher preparation and licensing of public school educators. It issues permits and credentials to all classroom teachers, student services specialists, school administrators, and child care instructors and administrators. In total, CTC issues over 100 different types of documents.

The Governor's budget proposes $139 million in funding for CTC in 2000-01. This is an increase of $72 million, or 109 percent, over the current year. Most of this new funding is directed toward the Credentialed Teacher Recruitment Program, discussed later in this section.

Management Study Update

In response to concerns raised in budget hearings regarding CTC's efficiency and customer service, the 1999-00 Budget Act authorized and funded a comprehensive management study to:

• Identify regulations and statutes related to teacher credentialing that may be modified to improve the efficient processing of credentials.
• Evaluate the extent to which CTC's information technology plans achieve improvements in efficiency and timeliness in credential processing and other service areas, and make further recommendations in this area.
• Recommend the appropriate level of staff to process credentials in an efficient and timely matter.
• Recommend any customer service improvements including, but not limited to, those affecting accessibility.
• Recommend an appropriate credential fee structure to support CTC's full average cost to process a credential.
• Recommend further topics for study.

The budget act provided $250,000 for the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to contract for this study. Since the passage of the budget, a triagency group comprised of representatives from LAO, the Department of Finance, and CTC have worked together to develop a request for proposals, select a contractor, and provide oversight to the contractor during the course of the study. The management study will be completed and a report will be distributed to the Legislature by March 1, 2000, as required by the budget act.

Wait for Management Study Findings

Pending release of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) management study report, we withhold recommendation on the $864,000 and 12.5 additional positions requested in the budget for various divisions of CTC because the study's findings should assist the Legislature in making sound budgeting decisions on these matters.

As described above, in the 1999-00 Budget Act, the Legislature decided to invest in a management study to provide information useful in making decisions regarding CTC's budget. Pending our review of the study to be released on March 1, 2000, we withhold recommendation on the CTC's request for the following additional funds and positions:

• $443,000 from the Teacher Credentials Fund for 7.5 positions and overtime in the Certification, Assignment, and Waivers Division.
• $157,000 from the Teacher Credentials Fund and $8,000 from the Test Development and Administration Account for two positions in the Division of Professional Practices.
• $108,000 from the Teacher Credentials Fund for a toll-free information line.
• $99,000 from the Teacher Credentials Fund for two positions in the Office of Governmental Relations.
• $49,000 from the Teacher Credentials Fund for one position in the Executive Office.

Delete Position for Governor's Teaching Fellowship Tracking

We recommend that $79,000 and one position for administration of the Governor's Teaching Fellowships be shifted to the Student Aid Commission to conform with our recommended changes in the design of the proposal.

In our analysis of the California State University (CSU) budget, we recommend shifting $3.5 million provided to establish the Governor's Teaching Fellowship program to the Student Aid Commission (SAC). As part of this program, the budget proposes $79,000 (General Fund) and one position at CTC to track fellowship recipients and identify recipients who fail to complete their commitment to teach four consecutive years in a low-performing school. Our central concern with the proposed program is the large share of the funding that would go to program development and administration--almost 30 percent of the proposed funding is provided to CSU for these purposes. This administrative inefficiency is due, in part, to the multiple parties and administrative layers in the program as proposed. Conforming to the recommendation on the program, we recommend shifting $79,000 and one position proposed in the CTC budget for participant tracking to SAC. (Reduce Item 6360-001-0001 by $79,000.)

Delete Funds and Positions for
Credentialed Teacher Recruitment Program

We recommend that the Legislature delete $52.9 million from the General Fund and ten positions to establish the Credentialed Teacher Recruitment program and, instead, shift the funds to a Hard-to-Staff Schools block grant.

In our section on Teacher Quality and Supply for low-performing schools, we outline our concerns regarding the proposed Credentialed Teacher Recruitment program. Conforming to that recommendation, we recommend reducing Item 6360-101-0001 by $52 million and reducing Item 6360-001-0001 by $896,000. We further recommend that the Legislature, instead, provide these funds to K-12 schools through a teacher recruitment and retention block grant for hard-to-staff schools.