Agenda6-8-2011x - Silicon Valley Leadership Group

confusedsisterΜηχανική

18 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 6 μήνες)

123 εμφανίσεις

1




EDUCATION COMMITTEE


Co
-
Chairs:

Brendan Smith
-
Bentle
y
,

SVB Financial


Kris Tueller
,
Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company



AGENDA

Wednesday
,
June 8
,

20
1
1

9:00


11:00 a.m.

SVB Financial, 3005 Tasman Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95054
-
1191



Phone
Conference


Call
-
in
:
(605)

475
-
4900

Pass code:
981824#




TIME

ITEM

WHO?

DESIRED OUTCOMES / NOTES

9:00 a.m.



Introduction



Approval of Minutes



Setting the Agenda



News & Announcements

Kris


9:
15

a.m.

Consent Items/Legislative Updates



Working Council
Debrief



Budget Update

Dennis


9
:
30

a.m.

Action Items:



AB 18 (Brownley)
-

School Finance



AB 79 (Beall)


UC Venture Development



AB 131 (Cedillo) Dream Act Financial Aid



AB 515 (Brownley) CCC Extension Programs



AB 923 (Fo
ng) Life Long Learning Accounts



SB
266 (Dutton)


Ed Employment



SB 367 (Dutton)


Flexible Work Week



SB 653 (Steinberg) Local Taxing Authority



SB 698 (Li
e
u)
-

Workforce Development: High
Performance Boards



SB 776 (DeSaulnier)
-

Workforce Investment
Boards: Job Trainin
g



S

758 (Franken) STEM
Master Teacher Corps
Act of 201
1

Brendan



Action Items /
Recommendation for Working
Council

2





10:30
a.m.

Education Committee ROI Update and
Work Plan



K
-
12 Statewide Governance



Women and Girls Summit



Superintendent Meetings



Math Initiative



IISME



Workforce
Prep / BACC



Pre
-
K
/Educare



SJ 2020



Legislative Policy & Advocacy



Higher Education Task Force

Dennis



Status Report



Decide on a new Home Run Goal





Looking Ahead



Setting the Next Meeting Date/Time

Kris

Next Meeting:
July 13, 2011

11:00
a.m.

Adjourn


Brendan


3


Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Education Committee

Minutes


Wednesday,
May 11
, 2011

9:00
-
11:00 am


Members in the Room
:

Co
-
Chairs:

Brendan Smith
-
Bentley, SVB Financial



Felicia Nepomuceno, University of Phoenix

David Johnson,

UC Office of the President

Steve Beitler
, Agilent

Staff
:

Dennis Cima, Leadership Group

Brett Barley, Leadership Group


Members on Phone

Paul Lovoi, Tagent

Becky Bartindale, Foothill De Anza

Phyllis Stewart Pires, SAP

Eric Engdahl, CSU East Bay


Introduction



Minutes approved



Dennis briefed the Committee on the Women & Girls Summit and invited them to attend.

Consent and Legislative Update



Working Council Voted to Support
three bills: SB 164 (Simitian) State Children’s Trust
Fund, SB 300 (Hancock)
Science and Social Studies Content Standards, SB 613 (Alquist)
Open Source Materials.



Committee approved a new parcel tax framework.

Action Items



Committee voted to support
SB
885 (Simitian) on Education Data and SB 130 (Cedillo)
on the California Dream
Act.

Future Meetings



Wednesday,
June 8
th



4


June
6
, 2011


TO:



Education Committee

FROM:

Brett Barley




Shannon Johnston

SUBJECT:

AB 18 (Brownley)


School Based Financial Reporting System


Issue:

The 22 studies of the Getting Down to Facts Project and the Governor’s Committee on
Education Excellence were unanimous in their conclusion that California’s current education
finance system is overly complex, irrational, burdensome, and in need of a long
-
term plan for
comprehensive reform.
AB 18 (Brownley) would restructure California’s system for allocating
state funding for public schools
.


Staff Recommendation:

Support

Background:
Analysts agree that California’s education finance system is in need of

change.
The current system is overly complex, which poses major obstacles to transparency and
effectiveness. It is unclear how much revenue each school district receives o
r how those
revenues are spent. It is,
therefore
,

nearly impossible to report this
information to local
communities, stakeholders, and the state. Large revenue disparities exist among schools and
district
s

and school funding is not

aligned to pupil or educator needs. The system places large
restrictions on resources needed by school
s

and

districts, which limits educators from responding
to student needs. California also does not collect adequate financial data for determining resource
effectiveness on all levels, which
can cause

inaccurate
or ineffective
spending. Additionally,
r
esearch c
onsistently finds that successful schools use data to shape teaching practices and
innovation, but many schools and districts lack the tools to evaluate programs and practices.

Analysis
:
AB 18 would create legislative intent to implement comprehensive sch
ool finance
reform that would establish a more simple allocation formula with funding tied to the specific
needs of students. The bill will also hold local education agencies harmless by transition
ing

to
the new system as new funds become available.


Th
e bill would consolidate 25 categorical programs into
a
base funding

amount that every child
would receive
. A second set of eight existing categorical programs
would be consolidated into a
new targeted pupil equity grant for the purpose of creating a weig
hted student formula based on
the number of low income students and English language learners. A third set of nine
categorical would be consolidated into a new quality instruction grant to be used to reduce class
size, provide professional development, pr
ovide leadership coaching, create teacher recruitment
programs, establish intern programs, and provide support to new teachers.


The new funding formulas would take effect in 2015
-
16. This would be the first major overhaul
to
school

funding since the 1970
’s

when a system based on existing property tax value was
created
.
Thus, the

current system does not
adequately

take into consideration student needs or
regional costs. Additionally, the current funding system is overly complex and it is not clear
why so
me districts receive more state funding than others. Compliance under the current system
is both burdensome and costly. The existing system has also never been updated to align with
5


new accountability systems
,

which would hold districts responsible for o
utcomes. The relaxation
of categorical funds would also allow local districts more flexibility to meet their own unique
needs.


Finally, the bill would require the state Superintendent to make recommendations for
modification of the state’s existing fiscal systems to support more comprehensive school level
financial reporting. This would allow constituents to see intra
-
district fu
nding disparities and
which schools are doing more with less.
AB 18

would also allow for easy comparisons between
schools and districts.


Prior Legislation:
AB 2335 (Brownley), AB 8 (Brownley), AB 2159 (Brownley), AB 60
(Coto), AB 2394 (Coto), AB 586 (Cot
o), AB 2890 (Duval).


Bill Status:

Last amended on 5/27/11.
Passed Assembly on 6/3/11
.



Supporters:



American Civil Liberties Union
(prior version)



California State PTA (prior version)



Children Now



Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce



Bay Area Council



EdVoice

Opponents:
None

on file



6


June
6
, 2011


TO:

Education Committee

FROM:

Dennis Cima


Brett Barley



Mark Matsumoto

SUBJECT:

AB 79 (Beall
)


University of California: Venture
D
evelopment

Issue:

AB 79 (Beall)
would create an income and franchise tax credit for contributions made to a
University Venture Development Fund

(UVDF) in

certain

fields including clean tech, bio, and
nano technology.

It would generate private funding for research at the University of California’s
Science Institute for emerging technologies with high job growth potential.


Staff Recommendation:

Support


Background:

Existing federal law allows taxpayers a research cre
dit that is combined with
several other credits to form the general business credit. The research credit is designed to
encourage companies to increase their research and development activities.


To qualify for the credit, research expenses must qualify as an expense or be subject to
amortization, be conducted in the U.S., and be paid by the taxpayer. The research must
also
be
experimental or laboratory research
.


Analysis:

This bill would

authoriz
e the Regents of the University of California to create
the

UVDF,
which would allow

each university campus
to

receive contributions to pay for research
expenses.


T
his bill provides a tax credit in an amount up to 50 percent of the amount contributed to a
UVDF. The maximum aggregate UVDF credit available to all taxpayers would be limited to
$200 million.


Supporters of the bill argue that creating a credit will encourage investment in research activities
performed on a University of California Campus, as we
ll as provide a source of funding to offset
the budget cuts the University system is facing.


Estimated Revenue
Impact

(In Millions)

2011
-
12

2012
-
13

2013
-
14

2014
-
15

2015
-
16

-
$98

-
$35

-
$8

-
$5

-
$4


Status:

6
/
1
/11:
Re
-
r
eferred to Committees on Higher
Education and Rev. and Tax.


Support:

None


Opposition:

None


7


November 18, 2013


TO:

Education Committee


FROM:

Dennis Cima


Brett Barley



Mark Matsumoto


SUBJECT:

AB 131 (Cedillo)


Student Financial Aid

Issue:

AB
131 (Cedillo)

expands eligibility for state
-
administered student financial aid to
nonresident students who are exempted from paying out
-
of
-
state tuition.


Staff Recommendation:

Support


Background:

Under AB 540 (Firebaugh), California nonresidents can be
exempted from paying
nonresident tuition at the University of California, the California State University, and the
California Community Colleges if they meet all of the following conditions:




Attended a California high school for three or more years



Gradua
ted from a California high school or attained an equivalent degree



If an alien without lawful immigration status has an affidavit stating that the student has
filled or will fill an application to legalize his or her immigration status

Students who receiv
e a waiver of non
-
resident tuition at UC, CSU, and the CCC still face
significant costs, including resident fees, books, supplies, food, rent and transportation. In
addition, federal law prohibits undocumented students from receiving any aid from the feder
al
government, such as Pell Grants and federal student loans.


Supporters of AB 131 (Cedillo) argue that, in light of recent reports highlight the state’s need for
one million more workers with college degrees, California cannot afford to exclude people o
r
prevent students from attending college.


Analysis:

AB 131 (Cedillo) would allow students that meet the in
-
state tuition requirements to
apply and receive financial aid at California public colleges and universities. The types of
financial aid these stu
dents would be eligible include: Board of Governors Fee Waiver,
Institutional Aid, and Cal Grants.


AB 130 (Cedillo)
, which the Leadership Group voted to
support last month

allows students who currently qualify for in
-
state college tuition, to apply for
ai
d from private gifts or endowments from the UC, CSU or CCC systems.


AB 131 would also allow two of the three years of required high school attendance to be at an
adult or technical school. The author added this provision, since some high school students

also
attend an adult or technical school, which may jeopardize their eligibility for the nonresident
tuition exemption.


The following is a breakdown of the likely fiscal effect of AB 131:

8




Cal
-
Grants

Institutional Aid

CCC Fee Waivers

Loss from
students, who
would have paid nonresident
tuition

Additional $13
million for Cal
Grants
Entitlement
Awards

For UC and CSU,
institutional aid will not
increase overall, but may
change the mix of
recipients and/or the
amounts they receive

Projected revenue
loss of about $7
million

Projected revenue loss of
about $1.7 million for the
CCC, $400,000 for CSU


The availability of state financial aid to AB 540 students would likely increase their participation
over time, thus increasing all of the above costs.
However, the gains from increased college
participation and graduation rates among this cohort are not accounted for in the above
calculations.


Status:

6/1
/11
, First reading in Senate; Referred to Senate Rules Committee for Assignment


Support:



Adv
ancement Project



AltaMed



American Civil Liberties Union



American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees



California Dream Network



California Federation of Teachers



California Immigrant Policy Center



California Postsecondary
Education
Commission



California School Employees
Association (CSEA), AFL
-
CIO



California State University (CSU)



California State Student Association



California Student Aid Commission



California Teachers Association



Camino Nuevo Charter Academy



Coalition for Humane Immigrant
Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA)



Community Charter Middle School



Community College League of
California



Hispanic Association of Colleges &
Universities (HACU)



Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom



Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce



Los

Angeles Leadership Academy



Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio
Villaraigosa



National Korean American Service
& Education Consortium



Peralta Community College District



San Jose
-
Evergreen Community
College District



Santa Rosa Charter Academy



University
of California (UC)


Opposition:



Concerned Women for America of California

9


November 18, 2013


TO:

Education Committee

FROM:

Dennis Cima


Brett Barley



Mark Matsumoto

SUBJECT:

AB 515 (Brownley
)
-

Community Colleges
E
xtension
P
rogram

Issue:

AB 515 (Brownley) would allow community college districts to offer extension courses
for credit, provided that they meet certain provisions.


Staff Recommendation:

Watch


Background:

CCCs offer four basic types of instruction, including credit, noncredit, community
service, and contract education. Noncredit, community service, and contract education courses
do not
get fully reimburse
d by the state as

do credit courses. Furthermore, Title 5 of the
California Code of Regulations provides a framework for the development and approval of new
curriculum at any CCC district or college, and no course can be offered without thorough local
revi
ew.


Analysis:
AB 515 (Brownley) would give the governing board of any CCC district the authority
to establish an extension program offering credit courses without the approval of the CCC Board
of Governors. This bill would require that community college e
xtension programs must be:




Self supporting; no general fund monies could be used to establish or maintain extension
courses



Open to the public and compliant with the Education Code and Title 5



Subject to collective bargaining agreements


According to CCC
Chancellor Jack Scott, approximately 140,000 students have been denied
access to courses, over 95% of all classes are at capacity, and an estimated 10,000
-
15,000
students are on the wait lists for courses. The $400 million reduction to CCC’s 2011
-
12 budget

will likely result in more course reductions.


Advocates for AB 515 argue that in light of proposed budget cuts, extension classes offered for
credit provide a practical and efficient way for districts to continue teaching some of the courses
that will have to be eliminated.


Credit
-
granting extension

programs offer students an opportunity to keep moving through core
classes after the colleges run out of room in their state
-
funded programs.
CCC could
expand
course offerings to meet local workforce needs, provide

additional credit courses to meet
student
demand, more fully utilize facilities, and provide

greater access to CCC courses

because they
could be offered closer to home and work
-
at no additional cost to the state.

Furthermore,
extension programs are a way to preserve jobs and keep people wo
rking in
community
colleges.


Status
:
6/1
/11
, First reading in Senate Referred to Senate Rules Committee for Assignment

10



Support:


College of the Canyons



Santa Monica College



Foothill
-
De Anza Community
College District

Opposition:



California
Federation of Teachers



Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges


-

T
his bill has not been reviewed, discussed or voted upon by the West Valley
-
Mission
Community College District Board of Trustees

and

the District

currently

has no position.
































11


June 6
, 2
011


TO:


Education Committee

FROM:

Brett Barley




Dennis Cima




Shannon Johnston

SUBJECT:

AB 923 (Fong) Life Long Learning Accounts (LiLAs)


Issue:

This bill would establish the Lifelong
Learning
Accounts (LiLA) Initiative Program,
which provides grants to employers and employees to be used to establish individual lifelong
learning accounts. The program is an effort to help employe
e
s invest in their own education and
training, in addition to saving

for the future educational needs of their children. The account
funds would be employer matched and eligible for third party contributions, which would be
placed in Scholarshare 529 College Savings Accounts. Participants would also have access to
educatio
nal and career
-
advising services, which assists them with a career change or
advancement with their current employer. The program would be administered by the
Employment Development Department, which was created as a part of the federal Workforce
Investmen
t Act of 1998.


Staff Recommendation:
Watch

Background:
California’s technological industries are expanding, bringing in an increased need
for educated labor, but the state’s pool of qualified workers cannot meet its needs. Although the
percentage of colle
ge graduates in California has increased over the past several decades, the
trend has substantially slowed in recent years. As tuition increase
s

workers
having difficulty
covering

the costs. The state currently trails behind the rest of the nation in rates

of high school
graduation (5.9% below average) and Associate Degree completion (2% below average).
Significantly, 15.2 million or 66% of California’s working age adults do not have an Associate’s
degree or higher, 4.3 million have not completed high schoo
l, and 2.6 million speak little or no
English.

Analysis:

This bill
attempts
to
solve
California’s workforce development issue
s b
y incentivizing
employee
s

and employer
s

co
-
invest in

Lifelong Learning Accounts
. This bill provides support
for a broad array of costs, including: tuition, fees, books, and supplies. There is an advising
element

to the program that helps the worker gain a full understanding of all their possible career
paths, guiding them to then mak
e informed decisions about how they will proceed. Ties to
Scholarshare provide a trustworthy base for invested funds to grow and yield the highest benefit
to the employee.


LiLA pilot projects have been demonstrated in six other states, including Illinois
, Kansas,
Missouri, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Traditionally, participants have
been centered in the education and healthcare sectors, using their LiLAs for a variety of training
pursuits, such as
going to
nursing school and improving l
anguage skills. The results of the
projects have thus far been positive.


12


Bill Status:

Passed

Labor and Employment Committee

sent to Appropriations Committee
;
hearing postponed by committee as of 5/27/11



Supporters:
CAEL, Council for Adult and Experienti
al Learning (Sponsor), San Francisco
Jewish Vocational Service (Sponsor)


Opponents:
None on file


Fiscal Implications:
Referred to Fiscal Committee



13


November 18, 2013


TO:


Education Committee

FROM:

Dennis Cima

Brett Barley



Adara Beamesderfer

SUBJECT:

SB 266 (Dutton)
Education
E
mployment:
T
ermination,
R
eappointment, and
O
pportunity for
S
ubstitute
S
ervice

Issue:
Should the Leadership Group take a position on SB 266, which would eliminate the
provision that term
inated teachers, if they substitute at least 21 out of 60 school days, would be
compensated

at a rate

equal to their previous salary?


Recommendation:

Watch


Background:
SB 266 is based
on

a recommendation from the Legislative Analyst’s Office as a
method

to reduce the budget deficit for local government
s
.

75% of

an average school district’
s

budget is used to pay for

teacher pay
. Without flexibility in their budget
s
, districts are not able
to
focus on improvement of services and development of programs.


Districts are required to hire substitute teachers based on seniority instead of based on
effectiveness.
F
orcing
d
istricts to hire the most
senior

teachers first

is costly and might preven
t
the district from hiring the most effective teacher
.


Analysis:

SB 266 will eliminate the provision that terminated teachers who work at least 21 out
of 60 days receive compensation equal to that of their previous salary.


The California Teachers Assoc
iation opposes this bill
. CTA believes

it will penalize experienced
and veteran teachers.
Teachers would retain their salary scale but re
-
hiring would depend upon
effectiveness not seniority.



Numerous
school districts
are
support
ing

this bill.


For exa
mple,
Riverside Unified School
District
expects to pay

more than $268,000 in excess due to substitute teacher pay. Put another
way, just over five additional teachers had to be laid off to support the higher substitute teacher
rates.


Status:
5/11/11
,
Second hearing.
Subsequent hearing date has not been set.


Support:



Numerous school districts



California Association of School
Business Officials



California Association of Suburban

School Districts



Kern
County Superintendent of
School
Opposition:



California Teachers Association



United Teachers Los Angeles

14


November 18, 2013


TO:

Education Committee

FROM:

Dennis Cima


Brett Barley


Mark Matsumoto

SUBJECT:

SB 367 (Dutton)



Employment: Working Hours

Issue:
SB 367

(Dutton) would all
ow

companies with 25 or fewer employees to more easily adopt
a flexible work week schedule.


Recommendation:
Support


Background:
Every year since 2005 the issue of a flexible
workweek has been
introduced

in
either
the Senate and Assembly. In most cases, the
request
for flexibility has come from
employers.


E
mployers see advantage
s

to
flexible schedules
in reduced overhead costs
and

employees’
desires
to reduce their commuting hours. According to the Division of Labor Statistics and
Research, there are currently 20,389 employers that have established
flexible
workweek
s
.


Analysis:

SB 367 (Dutton) would enact the Small Business Workp
lace Flexibility Act of 2011,
which would permit an employer with 25 or fewer employees, to request an employee
-
selected
flexible work schedule.


Specifically, SB 367 (Dutton):



Allows an employee to work up to 10 hours per workday without any obligation
on the
part of the employer to pay overtime if the employee requests this schedule in writing and
the employer approves the request



Allows for the employee to receive overtime compensation after adopting a flexible work
schedule if his or her hours exceed
40 hours in a workweek or over 10 hours in a
workday.



Allows an employer to inform its employees that it is willing to consider a flexible work
schedule, but prohibits the employer from using it to induce a request by promising an
employment benefit or th
reatening an employ
ee
.


Opponents of SB 367 argue that current labor laws already allow employers to adopt alternative
work schedules where employees may work more than eight hours in a day without payment of
overtime. Under current labor law, a two
-
third
s majority of employees and employer consent are
necessary to adopt a flexible work schedule. Opponents argue that this bill undermines the values
of employee cooperation and workplace engagement fostered by the election procedures under
current law.


Pro
ponents of SB 367 argue that while current law allows for setting up alternative workweek
schedules, the process is cumbersome and often requires dedicated human resource staff to set
15


up. Since smaller businesses typically do not have the resources to set
up flexible work
schedules, SB 367 would give them the same opportunities larger businesses have.


Status:
3/23/11


Failed passage in

Sen. Labor and Industrial Relations

Committee but
reconsideration granted.


Support:



Associated Builders and Contractors
of California



California Chapter of the American
Fence Association



California Fence Contractors'
Association



California Landscape Contractors
Association



California Restaurant Association



California Retailers Associat
ion



Engineering Contractors' Association



Flasher Barricade Association



Marin Builders' Association



National Federation of Independent
Busines
s

Opposition:



California Employment Lawyers
Association



California Labor Federation, AFL
-
CIO



California Nurses Association



California Teamsters Public Affairs
Council



Service Employees International
Union



16


June 6
, 2011


TO:



Education Committee

FROM:

Brett Barley


Mark Matsumoto

SUBJECT:

SB 653 (
Steinberg
) Local Taxing Authority


Issue
:

SB 653 (Steinberg)

would authorize counties, cities, county offices of education and
community college districts to impose a local personal income tax, vehicle license fee,

transactions and use tax, extractive business activities tax, oil severance

tax, and excise tax, with
voter

approval.


Staff Recommendation:
Watch

Background:
SB 653 (Steinberg) would allow county boards of supervisors
, county offices of
education, and community college districts
to place personal income taxes, sales and use taxes,
Vehicle License Fee and excise taxes, oil severance taxes, alcohol taxes, soda taxes, marijuana
taxes, and cigarette and tobacco taxes before voters. Under Article XIII C of the California
Constitution,

local tax measures that raise money for special purposes require two
-
thirds
approval of the voters; while local tax measures
that raise revenues for general purposes of a
government agency require majority voter approval. Thus, any county tax proposal wo
uld
require either two
-
thirds or majority voter approval, depending on the use of the funds, while any
school tax measure would require two
-
thirds voter approval.

Senator Steinberg says that if state tax extensions are not approved state budget cuts will

burden
counties with new program costs that could jeopardize public health and safety. This bill would
give local communities the power to generate revenue locally.

Analysis
: There would be limits to the amount of revenue a county or school district cou
ld raise.



Personal income tax would be capped at 1%



Vehicle license fee could not exceed 1.35%



Alcohol tax capped at 5 cents per ounce



Cigarette tax of up to one dollar per pack



Oil severance not to exceed 10% of the gross value of the product



Sweetened be
verage tax not to exceed one cent per ounce


If all counties were to impose the taxes at their highest rates the following revenue would be
generated:



Personal income tax = $8 billion



Sales and use tax = $2.2 billion



VLF = $3.8 billion



Oil Severance = $378

million



Cigarette tax = $813 million



Alcohol tax = $16.1 million


17


There are some questions of equity in allowing counties and school districts to impose these
types of taxes. Due to the taxes being dependent on their passage at the local community level
we could see an increase in disparities across municipalities. A California Supreme Court case
found district level funding of schools based upon property tax to be a violation of the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Cons
titution. The counter to this
argument is that district parcel taxes have existed for decades and have not been challenged on

the equalization argument.


The bill does raise interesting governmental questions. Should all services be funded and
equalize
d throughout the state? How much leeway should different communities have when
deciding their different levels of services? Are Californian’s comfortable with having disparities
in access to vital services like health, welfare, and quality school access?

Should there be any
limits to voter rights as they relate to local taxation?


Bill Status:

5/31/11,
Read second time and amended; ordered to third reading on 6/6/11.



Supporters:



American Federation of State,
County, Municipal Employees, State
Council



California Labor Federation



California School Employees
Association



California State Parent, Teacher
Association



Los Angeles Unified School Dist
rict



San Bernardino Unified School
District



San Francisco Unified Sch
ool
District



Service Employees International
Union, State Council



California State Association of
Counties



Yolo County
Opponents:



Air Logistics Corporation



American Council of Engineering
Companies



Anheuser
-
Busch Companies Inc.



Association of California Life and
Health



I
nsurance Companies



California Aerospace Technology
Association



California Apartment Association



California Association of Bed and
Breakfast Inns



California Attractions and Parks
Association



California Bankers Asso
ciation



California Beer and Beverage
Distributors



California Business Properties
Association California Cable and
Telecommunications Association



California Chamber of Commerce



California Farm Bureau Federation



California Grocers Association



California Hote
l and Lodging
Association



California Independent Grocers
Association

18




California Manufacturers and
Technology Association



California Taxpayers Association



California/Nevada Soft Drink
Association



California New Car Dealers
Association



California Restaurant
Association



California Retailers Association



California Spa & Pool Industry
Education Council



Council on State Taxation (COST)



Direct Selling Association



Distilled Spirits Council of the
United States



Family Winemakers of California



Granite Construction
Incorporated



Grocery Manufacturers Association



Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association



Insurance Brokers & Agents of the
West



Los Angeles County Business
Federation



Motion Picture Association of
America



National Association of Theatre
Owners of California/Neva
da



National Federation of Independent
Business



Personal Insurance Federation of
California



TechAmerica



Western Growers Association



Western States Petroleum
Association



Wine Institute









19


June 6
, 2011


TO:


Education Committee

FROM:

Dennis
Cima




Brett Barley




Shannon Johnston

SUBJECT:

SB 698 (Lieu)


Workforce Development: High Performance Boards


Issue:
The 1998 federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) provides for state workforce
investment activities, including job training and work incentive programs. SB 698 seeks to raise
the standard for the 49 Local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) by establishing a

“high
performance” standard that would hold the WIBs accountable to consistent performance
outcomes. This bill also requires the Governor to establish the High
-
Performance Workforce
Board Fund, which would allocate federal funds to high
-
performance local
workforce investment
boards.


Staff Recommendation:

Watch


Background:
California is facing the toughest job crisis the state has seen in over 50 years.
Following the passage of the federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998, California
established a
state Workforce Investment Board (WIB) and 49 local WIBs to provide oversight
and coordination of many publicly funded workforce development programs. Each workforce
area also created one or more One
-
Stop Centers, which provide access to career information
,
counseling, funding for education, training and supportive services. Every
two

years, the
Governor certifies one local board for each local area in the state. However, a local WIB needs
only to meet the very minimum federal requirements for performance a
nd board composition in
order to be certified. Additionally, federal performance measures and certification requirements
do not hold local WIBs accountable to state policy and high standards for system performance.


Analysis:
In order to grow the economy,

it is crucial for California to ensure strong and
comprehensive workforce investment systems. SB 698 calls for higher standards of workforce
investment that provide quality services and effective returns through employment outcomes.
This bill would includ
e California in the movement of states implementing and developing a
high
-
standard certification process
.


C
urrently Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Michigan and Pennsylvania

employ a results based certification requirement
. By
further
expanding on federal requirements, this bill seeks to hold local WIBs accountable to
consistent performance outcomes.


Bill Status:

6/2/11, First reading in Assembly. Held
at desk in
Senate Appropriations Committee


Supporters:



California Labor
Federation, AFL
-
CIO (Co
-
Sponsor)



California Manufacturers &
Technology Association (Co
-
Sponsor)



State Building & Construction
Trades Council (Co
-
Sponsor)



California Conference Board of the
Amalgamated Transit Union

20




California Conference of Machinists



California Teachers Association



California Teamsters Public Affairs
Council



Engineers and Scientists of
California



International Longshore &
Warehouse Union



Professional & Technical Engineers,
Local 21



United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, Western S
tates
Council



UNITE HERE

Opponents:
None on File


Fiscal Implications:
To be heard in Appropriations Committee


































21


June 6
, 2011


TO:


Education Committee

FROM:

Dennis Cima




Brett Barley

SUBJECT:

SB 776 (DeSaulnier
)


Workforce Investment Boards: Job Training


Issue:
Established in 1998, the California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB) is responsible
for assisting the Governor in the development, oversight, and continuous improvement of
California’s workforce inves
tment system. SB 776 will increase the share of local Workforce
Investment Act resources that are committed to providing effective, longer
-
term training and
support for an increased number of workers. The bill requires local WIBs to spend a certain
percent

of available federal funds for adults and dislocated workers on direct client services,
workforce training programs, and supportive services.


Staff Recommendation:

Watch


Background:
Today, the California job crisis, coupled with declining state revenue
s and
increased pressure on public resources, have made it clear that each dollar of federal workforce
funds needs to be invested in high quality employment services that connect workers to good
jobs. California receives almost $500 million annually in fed
eral Workforce Investment Act
(WIA) dollars for job training and employment services for youth, disadvantaged adults, and
dislocated workers. The majority of the funds (85%) are allocated to 49 WIBs that develop
policies for local WIA investments. The WIBs
, however, spend very little of the funding on
skills training, investing an average of 20% in the area. Federal law allows states significant
flexibility to align WIA funds with their own economic vision. Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and
Wisconsin have al
l taken advantage, adopting policies that help drive more local WIA funds
toward training.


Analysis:
SB 776 requires that local Workforce Investment Boards invest at least 50% of their
Adult and Dislocated Workers fund on quality training programs and se
rvices that support
workers enrolled in skills training. This bill also requires that each local WIB spend no less than
75% of its WIA allocation on direct client services, including skills training, supportive services
for those enrolled in training and i
ntensive services such as career counseling and case
management. The bill is a move to address the pressing need for workforce improvement in
California.


Bill Status:

6/
1
/11,
Third reading in the Senate. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly.


Supporters:



California Labor Federation
(Sponsor)



State Building and Construction
Trades Council (Co
-
Sponsor)



California Manufactures and
Technology Association (Co
-
Sponsor)



California Teachers Association

Opponents:
California Workforce Association

22


January
6
,

2011


TO:


Education Committee

FROM:

Dennis Cima




Brett Barley




Shannon Johnston

SUBJECT
:

S.758 (Franken) STEM Master Teacher Corps Act of 2011


Issue:
The United States trails its international competitors on student outcomes in math and
science. S.758
would create

the STEM Master Teacher Corps, which seeks to address this
problem by elevating the status of the STEM teaching profession by recognizing and

rewarding
outstanding STEM Teachers.


Staff Recommendation:
Support


Background:
Numerous recent reports by national advisory groups, including the President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and National Academies’ committees, have
highli
ghted the need to raise student achievement in the fields of Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Math (STEM). Nearly all of the top 30 fastest growing occupations require
science, technology, engineering, or mathematics skills, according to the Bureau of

Statistics.
However, only one third of U.S. students graduate from high school with the interest and the
preparation to successfully pursue STEM degrees in college. In comparison, well over half the
students in China and Japan follow a career path in STEM

fields. American individuals with
strong STEM skills often choose more lucrative career paths outside teaching, and STEM
teachers that are qualified tend to migrate to better paying jobs at better
-
funded schools, leaving
schools in high
-
poverty communitie
s lacking effective instruction. A Harvard study, however,
showed that more young people would consider teaching if it offered more opportunities for
advancement.
Additionally, r
esearchers at Stanford University, among several others, have
concluded that w
ell
-
prepared teachers have one of the largest effects on student achievement.


Analysis:
S.758 aims to attract and retain effective teachers, particularly in high
-
need schools,
by offering them additional compensation, instructional resources, and instruc
tional leadership
roles. The program will also create a network of outstanding STEM teacher
-
leaders to share best
practices, engage teachers in leadership roles in their participating area, and inform the
development of STEM education policy. Additionally,

teachers will participate in after
-
school
activities to enrich STEM education and research
-
based professional development activities.


Eligible entities for competitive STEM grant funding include local or state educational agencies
acting in partnership w
ith an institute of higher education or a nonprofit organization with a
record of preparing or improving the effectiveness of STEM teachers. The Secretary will award
grants of $15 million or more to each eligible entity for the establishment of the program
, in
addition to planning grants for entities that intend to establish the program. Grants will be
dispensed based on merit, considering the quality and capacity of each entity’s proposed
program. The grant will be dispensed over 5 years, with entities sub
ject to review after 3 years.
Entities must also match the federal grant by at least 50% using funding from non
-
Federal
sources, unless the Secretary determines that the entity is unable to meet the requirement.

23



The top 5% of STEM teachers in each area w
ho demonstrate considerable accomplishments,
leadership, and increased responsibility will be selected to serve as a member of the STEM
Master Teacher Training Corps. At least 75% of teachers selected must be from high
-
need
schools, and up to 5% of selecte
d teachers may be from private schools. Master teachers at high
-
need public schools will receive $15,000 per year, and those at other schools will receive $5,000
per year in supplementary compensation. Master teachers will also mentor their younger or less

effective peers.


This bill
would
address concern
s

over worker and teacher

s
hortages

in the STEM fields by
creating an incentive for individuals in the STEM fields to become teachers

and improving the
education of future workers.


Co
-
Authors:
Senator Lieb
erman (CT
-
I
), Senator Shaheen (NH
-
D)


Bill Status:

In Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions


Supporters:



3M



Alliance for Excellent Education



American Assn for the Advancement of
Science



American Assn of Physicists in Medicine



American
Association of Physics Teachers



American Chemical Society



American Federation of Teachers (AFT)



American Institute of Physics



American Mathematical Society



American Physical Society



American Society for Engineering Education



American Society of Civil Engin
eers



America's Promise Alliance



Boston Scientific



Campaign for Environmental Literacy



College Board



ECOCAD DESIGN GROUP, LLC



Education Development Center



Engaged Education Now



For Inspiration and Recognition of Science
and Technology (FIRST)



LearnOnLine,
Inc.



LifeScience Alley



Materials Research Society



Math for America



Medtronic



Ntl Assn of Secondary School Principals



National Assn of State Boards of Education



National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards



National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics



N
ational Education Association (NEA)



National Institute of Building Sciences



National Institute for Excellence in Teaching



National Rural Education Association



National Science Center



National Science Teachers Association


Opponents:
None on
File


Fiscal Implications:
$35 million approved for 2012, and necessary funds for the following four
years