- Funding Changes
- Financial Accounting
- May Budget Revision
- Local Control and Accountability Plans
- Unduplicated Pupils and California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System
- Free and Reduced-Price Meal (FRPM) Income Eligibility Under the LCFF
- Unduplicated Pupils at Schools with Provision 2 and 3 or Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) Status
- English Learners Under the LCFF
- Foster Youth Under the LCFF
- Categorical Programs
- Necessary Small Schools
- Home-to-School Transportation
- Regional Occupational Centers/Programs and Adult Education
- Economic Impact Aid
- Parent and Community Engagement
- County Office of Education Schools and Alternative Education
- Charter Schools
- K–3 Grade Span Adjustment
- California Collaborative for Educational Excellence
How is the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) different from what was in place under revenue limits?
The goal of the LCFF is to significantly simplify how state funding is provided to local educational agencies (LEAs). Under the new funding system, revenue limits and most state categorical programs are eliminated. LEAs will receive funding based on the demographic profile of the students they serve and gain greater flexibility to use these funds to improve outcomes of students. The LCFF creates funding targets based on these student characteristics. For school districts and charter schools, the LCFF funding targets consist of grade span-specific base grants plus supplemental and concentration grants that reflect student demographic factors. For county offices of education (COEs), the LCFF funding targets consist of an amount for COE operations plus grants for instructional programs.
When will the LCFF be implemented? (Revised 17-Nov-2014)
Implementation of the LCFF began in 2013–14. The state Department of Finance estimates that achieving full funding levels under the LCFF will take eight years based on its current Proposition 98 growth projections. During the intervening years, some LCFF provisions will be phased in (e.g., funding levels and K–3 class size). Regulations and templates to support local implementation were adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE) in early 2014 for use during the 2014–15 program and budget planning process.
How are LCFF target levels calculated for school districts and charter schools? (Revised 17-Nov-2014)
Funding targets under the LCFF consist of:
- Grade span-specific base grants that reflect adjustments for grades K–3 class sizes and grades 9–12 career technical education;
- Supplemental grants equal to 20 percent of the adjusted base grants multiplied by the LEA’s unduplicated percentage of English learners, free and reduced-price meal eligible, and foster youth students;
- Concentration grants equal to 50 percent of the adjusted base grants multiplied by an LEA’s percentage of unduplicated pupils above 55 percent;
- A necessary small school allowance for any qualifying school; and
- Two add-ons equal to the amounts LEAs received in 2012–13 for the Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant and Home-to-School Transportation programs.
Commencing in the 2013–14 fiscal year, the base, supplemental, and concentration grants, as well as necessary small school allowances, will receive cost-of-living adjustments.
How are funding levels calculated in 2013–14 and during phase-in for school districts and charter schools?
The calculation of LCFF funding in 2013–14 and throughout the phase-in is based on an LEA’s prior year funding (funding floor) as well as its LCFF target amount.
In most cases, an LEA’s funding floor consists of 2012–13 deficited revenue limit including basic aid fair share reductions and charter general purpose funding (including the charter school categorical block grant) divided by average daily attendance (ADA), multiplied by current year ADA, plus the sum of any applicable categorical program funding.
Actual funding in 2013–14 and subsequent years is based on the difference between the LEA’s funding floor and its LCFF target (the LCFF gap). For the 2013–14 fiscal year, LEAs received their funding floor amount plus a portion of their LCFF gap. Each fiscal year thereafter, an LEA's funding amount will be based on recalculation of its LCFF target and its funding floor including any prior year transition funding converted to a per-ADA value and then adjusted for current year ADA. Sufficient funding was available in 2013–14 to fund 12 percent of the gap.
Some LEAs are also eligible to receive an Economic Recovery Target (ERT) payment. This payment is based on the difference between the amount an LEA would have received under the old funding system and the amount a district would receive under the LCFF in 2020–21. To determine this difference, assumptions for the old funding system include:
- 2012–13 undeficited revenue limits, or block grant funding for charter schools, with cost-of-living adjustments of 1.57 percent in 2013–14 and 1.94 percent each year from 2014 –15 through 2020–21; and
- Categorical program funding levels restored to the 2007–08 level.
LCFF calculations assume the same cost-of-living adjustments.
Only school districts and charter schools that are at, or below, the 90th percentile of per-pupil funding rates of school districts under the old funding system are eligible for ERT payments. An LEA eligible to receive ERT payments will receive one-eighth of its payment in 2013–14, two-eighths of its payment in 2014–15, and so on, following this pattern until it has reached its full amount in 2020–21, at which time the ERT payment will become a permanent add-on to the LEA’s LCFF formula funding.
LEAs also continued to receive funding from categorical programs that were not eliminated as a part of the LCFF including, but not limited to, Child Nutrition, Mandates Block Grant, State Preschool, and Special Education.
How did 2013–14 LCFF funding levels compare to 2012–13 funding levels? (Revised 17-Nov-2014)
The 2013 Budget Act provided $2.067 billion in new funding for school districts and charter schools and $32 million for COEs to support the first-year implementation of the LCFF. In 2013–14, LEAs received roughly the same amount of funding they received in 2012–13 plus an additional amount to bridge a portion of the gap between 2012–13 funding levels and the 2013–14 LCFF target levels. In future years, additional funding will be provided to eventually enable each LEA to achieve its unique LCFF target funding level. Some school districts and charter schools receive economic recovery target payments if their undeficited 2012–13 funding levels were greater than their 2013–14 LCFF targets.
How will funds be apportioned under LCFF? (Revised 17-Nov-2014)
LCFF funding is distributed using the Principal Apportionment system. The California Department of Education (CDE) completed the necessary system changes required to implement the new formula in time for the Second Principal Apportionment for 2013–14, which was released in July 2014. This apportionment was based on data collected in fall 2013 (enrollment-related data from CALPADS) and spring 2014 (attendance and tax data from the Principal Apportionment Revenue and Attendance Data Collection Software) and reflected the total amount allocated to each LEA under the LCFF for 2013–14. The Second Principal Apportionment “trues up” the amounts provided in the Advance Apportionment (July 2013) and First Principal Apportionment (February 2014), which were not fully based on the LCFF formula.
Are there any changes to calculation of ADA? (Revised-17-Nov-2014)
School districts continue to be funded based on the greater of prior year or current ADA, with exceptions as provided in previously existing law. Charter schools continue to be funded based on current-year ADA.
In the standardized account code structure (SACS), will all the LCFF funding be accounted for as an unrestricted resource? (Revised 17-Nov-2014)All LCFF funding will be accounted for as an unrestricted resource.
How can expenditures be coded to address LCFF state priorities?
Funding is provided in an unrestricted resource code. LEAs may define local codes to track expenditures if they wish.
Does the LCFF result in any modification or elimination of the “Minimum Classroom Compensation” requirements of EC Section 41372?
Will the recommended level for the reserve for economic uncertainties be increased?
The regulations regarding the recommended reserve for economic uncertainties remain in place under the LCFF (California Code of Regulations Title 5, Section 15449 ).
Do LEAs have to update their 2015-16 LCAPs to reflect the new gap closure percentage? (Posted 12-Jun-2015)
Yes. Regulations require LEAs to estimate their Supplemental and Concentration grant amounts and minimum proportionality percentage for the fiscal year for which the LCAP is adopted using "the most recent [gap closure] percentage calculated by the Department of Finance.” (5 CCR 15496(a).) Accordingly, LEAs must use the percentage provided in the May Revision, 53.08%.
Does the new gap closure percentage mean my LEA has to go through the stakeholder engagement process again to modify the 2015-16 LCAP before adoption?
Not necessarily. Each LEA will need to consider its unique circumstances. Some LEAs may determine that additional stakeholder engagement is necessary because the increased funding in the May Revision will allow the LEA to implement actions and services not previously discussed in LCAP planning sessions, but other LEAs may determine that the increased funding will simply accelerate the implementation of the planned actions and services already identified in the LCAP that has not been adopted. The adjustment of the implementation timeline would be consistent with the transparency and stakeholder input inherent in the intent of the LCFF legislation and the LCAP development.
Please note that the LCAP implications for increased projected funding for the upcoming fiscal year are not limited to proportionality sections of the LCAP, of course, and may include potential increases in planned actions and services to meet all LCAP goals.
Our LEA’s 2015-16 LCAP is essentially finished and ready to be adopted. With the increased funding in the May Revision, significant changes need to be made to the LCAP. How does the LEA proceed?
Education Code (EC) sections 52062 and 52068 set forth the specific procedures that school districts and COEs respectively must follow to develop and adopt an LCAP. EC sections 52070 and 52070.5 set forth the respective review and approval processes. These processes provide multiple opportunities for an LEA to respond to feedback and make changes to its LCAP late in the development process, but prior to approval (e.g., in response to recommendations from members of the public at the public hearing prior to adoption and in a public meeting in response to recommendations for amendments from the reviewing COE or the SPI).
The LCAP has been adopted, but not yet approved by the COE or the SPI; can the LCAP be amended?
Yes. Please see the previous question and answer.
If a district or COE made revisions to an adopted and approved LCAP adhering to the process identified in EC sections 52062 or 52068, must the revised LCAP be approved by the district’s COE or the SPI?
Yes. EC sections 52062(c) and 52068(c) allow districts and COEs to adopt revisions to an LCAP during the period the LCAP is in effect if they follow the same process for adopting the LCAP. EC sections 52070 and 52070.5 specify that no later than five days after the adoption of an LCAP or annual update to an LCAP, the plan must be filed with the COE or CDE accordingly. While timelines identified in these sections are reflective of an annual process, statute does provide a process for a revised LCAP to be approved by the appropriate entity.
What is the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP)?
The LCAP is an important component of the LCFF. Under the LCFF all LEAs are required to prepare an LCAP, which describes how they intend to meet annual goals for all pupils, with specific activities to address state and local priorities identified pursuant to EC Section 52060(d).
What does it mean to adhere to the SBE adopted template? (Posted 12-May-2015)
The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and the Annual Update to the LCAP must be completed in conformance with the State Board of Education approved template. (Education Code sections 47606.5, 52060, 52061, 52064, 52066 and 52067;California Code of Regulations,Title 5 (5CCR), Section 15495(c).) The template, as set forth in regulations at 5CCR Section 15497.5, may not be materially altered. This means, for example, that the instructions, headers, guiding questions, and tables (including text in the tables, such as the student subgroup indicators) may not be deleted. The template allows for an LEA to resize pages, attach additional pages, and duplicate and expand fields as necessary in order to facilitate the completion of the LCAP and Annual Update. To improve readability and/or accessibility, minor variations, in spacing, font size, margins, row heights or column widths are not considered material changes.
Does the LCAP replace Local Educational Agency Plans (LEAPs) required under the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)?
The LCAP does not replace the federal requirements related to LEA Plans in Section 1112 of the ESEA. However, the LCAP template will be developed by the SBE in a manner that meets both the LCAP requirements and the federal requirements, and the SBE will take steps to minimize duplication of effort at the local level to the greatest extent possible (EC Section 52064).
What are the planning requirements for LEAs identified for program improvement pursuant to ESEA?
LEAs identified for program improvement must continue to meet current LEA Plan requirements pursuant to ESEA Section 1116(c)(7).
How does the LCAP affect site plans (i.e., Single Plan for Student Achievement)?
According to EC Section 52062, specific actions included in the LCAP, or the annual update of the LCAP, must be consistent with the strategies included in the school plans submitted pursuant to EC Section 64001.
Must all state priorities be addressed in each year or over the three year period? (Posted 12-Mar-2014)
EC sections 52060 and 52066 specify that the LCAP must include a description of the annual goals to be achieved for each student group for each state priority. Goals must address each of the state priorities and any additional local priorities; however, one goal may address multiple priorities. An LEA may identify which school sites and subgroups have the same goals, and group and describe those goals together. If a single goal requires longer than one year to implement fully, the LCAP should reflect the annual incremental actions, services, and expenditures, as well as the annual anticipated progress, that the district expects to achieve for each student group. These annual benchmarks will assist LEAs and the community to monitor the progress of the plan.
What State Standards must the LCAP address as part of Priority 2? (Posted 21-Oct-2014)
The LCAP must include goals and related actions that address implementation of the academic content and performance standards adopted by the State Board. The content standards adopted by the California State Board of Education are listed below:
English Language Arts – Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts, Adopted August 2010
Mathematics – Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, Adopted August 2010 and modified January 2013
English Language Development, Adopted November 2012
Career Technical Education, Updated January 2013
Health Education Content Standards, Adopted March 2008
History-Social Science, Adopted October 1998
Model School Library Standards, Adopted September 2010
Physical Education Model Content Standards, Adopted January 2005
Next Generation Science Standards, Adopted 2013
Visual and Performing Arts, Adopted January 2001
World Language, Adopted January 2009
The list of the standards may also be accessed at the CDE’s Content Standards Web page.
Further, Priority 2 requires the description of how programs and services will enable English Learners to access the English-Language Arts (PDF) and Mathematics (PDF) Common Core academic standards adopted pursuant to Section 60605.8 and the English Language Development standards adopted pursuant to Section 60811.3 for purposes of gaining academic content knowledge and English language proficiency.
Will the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) data collection processes change under the LCFF? (Revised 08-July-2014)
No, however CALPADS data collections will affect your LCFF calculations.
How are “unduplicated pupils” defined for purposes of calculating supplemental and concentration grant amounts? (Revised 08-July-2014)
Supplemental and concentration grant amounts are calculated based on the percentage of “unduplicated pupils” enrolled in the LEA on Census Day (first Wednesday in October). The percentage equals:
- Unduplicated count of pupils who (1) are English learners, (2) meet income or categorical eligibility requirements for free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program, or (3) are foster youth. “Unduplicated count” means that each pupil is counted only once even if the pupil meets more than one of these criteria (EC sections 2574(b)(2) and 42238.02(b)(1)).
- Divided by total enrollment in the LEA (EC sections 2574(b)(1) and 42238.02(b)(5)).
All pupil counts are based on Fall 1 certified enrollment reported in the CALPADS as of Census Day.
What data will be used to determine the unduplicated student count? (Revised 20-Oct-2014)
Data submitted by LEAs to CALPADS is used as the starting point for calculating the unduplicated student count. CALPADS Certification Report 1.17 – FRPM/English Learner/Foster Youth – Count, displays the counts of students by category and an unduplicated total. LEAs may use CALPADS Report 1.18 – FRPM/English Learner/Foster Youth – Student List to review the students included in report 1.17. LEAs are required to certify report 1.17 during the CALPADS Fall 1 submission.
In order to be counted in report 1.17 a student must have an open primary or short-term enrollment in CALPADS over Census Day (the first Wednesday in October) and meet one or more of the following criteria:
- Have a program record with an education program code of Homeless (191), Migrant (135), Free Meal Program (181), or Reduced-Price Meal Program (182), that is open over Census Day
- Have an English Language Acquisition Status (ELAS) of “English learner” (EL) that is effective over Census Day
- Be directly certified in July through November as being eligible for free meals based on a statewide match conducted by CALPADS
- Be identified as a foster youth based on a statewide match conducted by CALPADS
- Be identified as a foster youth through a local data matching process and submitted to and validated by CALPADS (functionality will be implemented fall 2014)
LEAs do not need to submit information to CALPADS for students identified in statewide matches to be included in report 1.17.
What is the role of county offices of education (COEs) in reviewing data on unduplicated students? (Posted 08-July-2014)
EC Section 42238.02(b)(3)(A) requires COEs to “review and validate certified aggregate English learner, foster youth, and free or reduced-price meal eligible pupil data for school districts and charter schools under its jurisdiction to ensure the data is reported accurately.”
To assist COEs to meet this requirement, CALPADS includes a County/LEA Authorizing Report, Report C/A 1.17 – C/A FRPM/English Learner/Foster Youth Counts. This report displays, for the school districts and charter schools in the COE’s jurisdiction, the certified counts of unduplicated students by LEA and schools within the LEA. COEs should review this report for reasonableness and communicate any potential issues to the school district or charter school during the CALPADS Fall 1 amendment window. COEs may want to judge reasonableness based on prior year data. COEs are not required to certify this report.
To access this report, the CALPADS LEA Administrator for the COE must:
- Create a new account with specific roles or add specific roles to the existing account as follows:
- County Role
- Free Reduced Lunch
- Log into CALPADS with appropriate account
- Navigate to the Reports tab and select the County/LEA Authorizing Reports
- Select Report C/A 1.17 – C/A FRPM/English Learner/Foster Youth – Count
Will any adjustments be applied to the unduplicated student count certified in Fall 1 prior to use in LCFF calculations? (Posted 08-July-2014)
The data from CALPADS Certification Report 1.17, FRPM/English Learner/Foster Youth – Count will be used as the starting point for the LCFF supplemental and concentration grant calculations. Adjustments may be made to the certified counts by the CDE. In 2013–14 two sets of adjustments were made. First, the counts were adjusted to include additional students who were (1) directly certified and (2) identified through the statewide foster match. This set of adjustments is posted on DataQuest. Second, these counts were adjusted in the apportionment process to attribute unduplicated students attending COE programs but not funded through the COE LCFF model to the school district of residence, based on data submitted by COEs. (Students on probation, probation referred, and mandatorily expelled, or in juvenile court schools, remain at the COE. All other students are attributed to their district of residence.) The CDE posted details of the adjustments and the final counts used in the LCFF calculations in the Second Principal Apportionment exhibits. In 2014–15 additional data will be available in CALPADS and the adjustment process will be simpler.
Is the calculation of the “unduplicated pupils” percentage based on annual or a multi-year average of data? (Revised 08-July-2014)
The LCFF calculation uses a three-year rolling average based on the current year and two prior years. For the first year of implementation (2013–14), however, it will be based on one year of data only (2013–14). In 2014–15 it will be based on two years of data. In the 2014–15 and 2015–16 calculations, the 2014–15 unduplicated percentage will be used in place of the 2013–14 unduplicated percentage if it is higher.
Which students are “eligible for free or reduced-price meals” under the LCFF? (Revised 20-Oct-2014)
Any student who meets the federal income eligibility criteria or is deemed to be categorically eligible for FRPM under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) will be counted as FRPM-eligible. Except for directly certified and foster students identified through a statewide match, LEAs must submit the appropriate student program (SPRG) records to CALPADS in order for the students to be counted as FRPM-eligible. Based on these criteria, the following students are considered FRPM-eligible:
- Students meeting NSLP income criteria as documented by an NSLP application form on file (code 181—free meal or 182—reduced-price meal).
- Students identified by the LEA to meet the same household income eligibility criteria required by the NSLP as documented on an alternative household income data collection form (program code 181—free meal or 182—reduced-price meal).
- Students categorically eligible for FRPM, including:
- Migrant students (program code 135)
- Homeless students (program code 191)
- Foster students in an out-of-home placement identified through a statewide match with California Department of Social Services foster data (program code not needed)
- Students participating in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) (program code 181—free meal)
(The definition of foster youth for purposes of categorical eligibility under the NSLP, shown above, is narrower than the definition under the LCFF. The LCFF definition includes children and youth who are living at home receiving family maintenance services as well as foster students in an out-of-home placement. Children and youth who are living at home receiving family maintenance services are not categorically eligible for free meals under the NSLP. See the FAQs on definition of foster youth under LCFF.)
- Students directly certified as eligible for free meals based on the CALPADS state-administered automatic match with California’s CalFresh (formerly Food Stamp) and CalWORKs eligibility data (program code not needed).
- Students directly certified as eligible for free meals based on a match conducted by an LEA and its county welfare department of student enrollment and CalFresh and CalWORKs eligibility data (program code 181—free meal).
It is important to note that LEAs may not collect NSLP applications for students enrolled in schools with Provision 2 or 3 status in non-base years or Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) at any time. However, students enrolled in Provision 2/3 or CEP schools may qualify as FRPM-eligible for LCFF purposes through the direct certification process; based on their migrant, homeless, or foster status; or by a local process, such as collection of an alternative household income form to establish that the student’s household meets the income eligibility criteria required by the NSLP.
What is the timeline for determining income eligibility for free or reduced-price meals to qualify for LCFF? (Revised 08-July-2014)
Eligibility based on an NSLP application or alternative household income data collection form. To be included in the LCFF unduplicated student count, an NSLP application or alternative household income data collection form must be submitted by students to their schools between July 1 and October 31 of the school year. For example, a student who submits an application on October 31, 2014 may be included in the 2014–15 LCFF unduplicated student count, if found to be eligible for FRPM. Applications submitted between July 1 and October 31 may be processed and approved by the LEA after October 31 and students found to be eligible may be included in that year. Although students may be considered eligible for free/reduced price lunch programs in the first 30 days of a school year based on the prior year’s eligibility, students may not be coded as FRPM-eligible based on this 30-day eligibility window.
For these students to be included in the unduplicated count, LEAs must submit an open program record with a Free Meal program code of 181 or a Reduced-Price Meal program code of 182 that is open over Census Day. This means that LEAs may use a program start date that is before Census Day for applications processed after Census Day. LEAs may update CALPADS with FRPM program records until the close of the CALPADS Fall 1 amendment window, which is generally in February. (Specific dates are posted on the CALPADS Web Page [http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sp/cl/rptcalendar.asp].)
LEAs are required to verify a percentage of NSLP applications by November 15 of each year. If it is discovered during the income verification that a student should not have been designated as FRPM eligible, then the LEA must submit a correction to the FRPM record during the amendment period.
Eligibility based on direct certification. Students directly certified through the statewide process performed by CALPADS in July through November are included in the unduplicated student count for LCFF. (The direct certification process in CALPADS occurs on the second day of each month. The direct certification November pull is included in order to capture students directly certified in October.) CALPADS Certification Report 1.17 – FRPM English Learner Foster Youth – Count automatically includes these students. LEAs do not need to submit a Free Meal program record for these students.
Students directly certified through a local process conducted between July 1 and October 31 may be included in the unduplicated student count for LCFF. To be counted the LEA must submit a primary or short-term enrollment in CALPADS, and a Student Program (SPRG) File with a Free Meal Program record (program code 181). Both the enrollment and Free Meal program record must be open over Census Day.
Can an LEA share its FRPM data with another LEA for LCFF purposes? (Posted 06-Nov-2014)
Yes. LEAs may obtain FRPM data from other LEAs as students transfer from one LEA to another. Assembly Bill 1599 (Chapter 327, Statutes of 2014) amended EC Section 49558 (that governs the confidentiality of school meal records) to clarify that LEAs may disclose individual FRPM eligibility data with other LEAs for NSLP/meal certification purposes, and for LCFF data collections/calculations.
COEs often run special day classes at a district. The district collects FRPM data, provides meals, and collects reimbursements for those meals. The COE reports enrollment for those students in CALPADS and needs to obtain the FRPM data from the collecting district. Can the district release that information to the COE? (Posted 06-Nov-2014)
Yes. Rules about information sharing apply to school districts, COEs, and charter schools.
Can an LEA provide the actual reporting form (NSLP or alternative household income verification) to auditors? (Posted 06-Nov-2014)Yes. LEAs (in the case of alternative household income forms) and food service departments (in the case of NSLP forms) may allow auditors access to individual forms for review, either for NSLP audits or LCFF audits. However, all documentation and information related thereto provided by the LEA staff (including any food services staff) to auditors is to be kept in strict confidence adhering to all state and federal privacy laws and is to be used solely for the purpose of determining whether a student is correctly designated as FRPM eligible.
LEAs (in the case of alternative household income forms) and food service departments (in the case of NSLP forms) have the discretion whether to allow auditors to leave the campus with the forms, make copies, or have the forms or copies e-mailed or mailed off campus. Further, auditors may be required to review the forms onsite to maintain confidentiality, even if the auditor wants an additional sample of forms and has already left the campus.
Who can an LEA, auditor, or food service personnel contact at CDE if they need further clarification on the documentation that is allowed to be released? (Posted 06-Nov-2014)
- For questions related to LCFF funding and the alternative household income form, please contact PASE@cde.ca.gov.
- For questions about CALPADS, please contact the CALPADS Service Desk at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- For questions related to the NSLP application, please contact your School Nutrition Program County Specialist. The SNP County Specialist list is available in the Child Nutrition Information Payment System Download Forms section entitled “Caseload SNP.” If you do not have access to CNIPS, please call 1-800-952-5609 and you will be directed to your SNP County Specialist.
Unduplicated Pupils at Schools with Provision 2 and 3
or Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) Status
How will the students receiving free and reduced-price meals in Provision 2 and 3 or CEP schools be counted for LCFF purposes? (Revised 20-Oct-2014)
Under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP):
- Schools with Provision 2 and 3 status receive reimbursements for meals served based on participation in a base year (of a four-year cycle for Provision 2; five-year cycle for Provision 3). These schools collect NSLP eligibility applications in the base year, but do not collect eligibility applications in the subsequent years the school is on Provision 2 and 3 status, except to reestablish a base year.
- Schools participating under the CEP receive reimbursements for meals served based on the percentage of identified students each year (in a four-year cycle, plus grace year). Identified students are students directly certified for meals who receive CalFresh, CalWORKs, and Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) benefits, and the extension of these benefits to students within the same household. It also includes students certified as foster, homeless, migrant, runaway, or participating in Head Start Programs. These schools never collect NSLP eligibility applications in the four-year cycle or in the grace year.
To be counted as eligible for free or reduced-price meals for purposes of the LCFF, students must meet income eligibility criteria for the NSLP, be directly certified to receive free meals, or be categorically eligible. This means that in Provision 2/3 and CEP schools, LEAs must determine income eligibility through an alternative process and submit a program record in CALPADS. Identifying a student as income-eligible or not income-eligible in CALPADS does not affect the student’s ability to receive a free meal in a Provision 2/3 or CEP school.
To reduce the burden of data collection, Provision 2/3 and CEP schools may establish a “base year” for LCFF purposes (this is distinct from the Provision 2/3 or CEP base year under the NSLP). Schools using this option to establish an LCFF base year must collect income data for all eligible students at least once every four years. The status determined for a student in the LCFF base year remains the same until an LEA establishes a new LCFF base year for the school. LEAs would collect data only for newly enrolled students during the intervening years. These LEAs must use an alternative household income data collection form to collect this information. Schools may perform the LCFF base year data collection during the same year that they establish a new Provision 2/3 base year under the NSLP, in which case, NSLP applications should be used. Schools never collect NSLP applications when on CEP. LEAs must use an alternative household income data collection form to collect LCFF base year data for students attending a CEP school.
For students in Provision 2/3 schools who are identified as meeting NSLP income requirements based on an FRPM application or alternative household income form, schools will still need to submit a FRPM program record for identified students to CALPADS every year. The application or alternative form collected in the base year can be used as the basis for the submission of the annual program record for each of the subsequent years before re-establishing a new base year. Auditors will review CALPADS data for students in these schools just as they review CALPADS data at other schools, so for students who are not directly certified or categorically eligible, schools should be prepared to show auditors the original documentation that a student is FRPM eligible, which would be the application submitted in the base year (students enrolled after the base year would have an application in the year enrolled).
Please note that a school may use NSLP application forms to collect household income data as permitted under the NSLP. If the use of NSLP application forms is not permitted, a school must use alternative household income data collection forms.
LCFF funding calculations are not the only reason FRPM eligibility data is collected; it is also collected to track the academic achievement of the socioeconomically disadvantaged student group as defined in California’s accountability workbook approved by the SBE and submitted to the federal United States Department of Education as required by federal accountability statute. Therefore any students identified as FRPM-eligible are included in schools’ socioeconomically disadvantaged accountability subgroup.
Do Provision 2/3 schools need to reset their base year? (Revised 08-July-2014)
No. Provision 2/3 schools can continue on that status and do not need to submit new paperwork to establish a new base year under the NSLP.
What information must Provision 2 and 3 schools, schools participating under the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), or schools that do not participate in the NSLP collect on household income? (Revised 23-Oct-2014)
The CDE does not require that all information collected on the NSLP eligibility application forms be collected on alternative household income data collection forms for LCFF and federal accountability purposes. Forms that contain the following minimum information would be considered valid documentation:
- Information to identify the child(ren)
- Information sufficient to determine that the child or household meets federal poverty income eligibility requirements based on family income and household size, and if so, whether household income is below 130 percent of the federal poverty level (eligible for a free lunch) or between 130 percent and 185 percent of the federal poverty level (eligible for a reduced-price lunch). (The distinction between free and reduced-price eligibility is needed for federal data reporting, not the LCFF.)
- Certification that information is true
- Parent/guardian signature, printed name, and date signed
- Confidentiality statement
The CDE has developed several sample forms to collect income eligibility information. Please note that these forms are not designed for and should not be used to determine eligibility for free or reduced-price meals under the NSLP.
- Household Income Data Collection Form Sample 1 (English) (DOC; Revised 14-May-2015)
This form collects information for multiple children in a household. Parents/guardians would calculate their annual income and select among income ranges. Please note that LEAs need to update the form annually to reflect the Household Size and Income Eligibility data located on the California Department of Education's School Nutrition Programs Eligibility Materials Web page [http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/sn/eligmaterials.asp]. Category 1 is the range for free meals and category 2 is the range for reduced-price meals.
- Household Income Data Collection Form Sample 2 (English) (DOC; Revised 14-May-2015)
This form collects information for multiple children in a household. Parents/guardians would list their income sources and amounts. The school would determine whether the income falls within specified ranges.
- Household Income Data Collection Form Sample 3 (English) (DOC; Revised 14-May-2015)
This form collects information for multiple children in a household. Parents/guardians would select among income ranges, which are presented for various frequencies of payment (weekly, monthly, yearly, etc).
Please note that LEAs need to update the form annually to reflect the Household Size and Income Eligibility data located on the California Department of Education's School Nutrition Programs Eligibility Materials Web page [http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/sn/eligmaterials.asp].
- Household Income Data Collection Form Sample 4 (English) (DOC; Revised 14-May-2015)
This form collects information for one child. Parents/guardians would provide their total income and household size. The school would determine whether the income falls within specified ranges.
- Sample Alternative Income Form 5 (English) (XLS; Revised 06-Oct-2014)
This form collects information for multiple children in a household. Parents/guardians would list their income sources and amounts. The school would determine whether the income falls within specified ranges. The form includes other information that the school may wish to collect, such as eligibility for benefits under various federal programs.
It should be noted that the data collection requirements applying to Provision 2/3 and CEP schools also apply to schools that do not collect FRPM applications for other reasons, for example schools that do not participate in the NSLP. Please also note that only Provision 2/3and CEP schools can establish a base year for LCFF purposes (see FAQs above) and collect data less frequently than annually; other schools must collect data every year.
Which students are classified as English learners under the LCFF? (Posted 08-Jul-2014)A student will be classified as an English learner for LCFF purposes if he or she is identified in CALPADS as enrolled on Census Day with an English Language Acquisition Status (ELAS) of “English learner” (EL). Please see the Auditing topic for additional information regarding documentation.
Can a student with an ELAS of “To Be Determined” (TBD) who is later determined to be an English learner be included in the LCFF unduplicated student count? (Posted 08-July-2014)
If an LEA previously submitted an ELAS of TBD for a student, and the LEA determines after Census Day (the first Wednesday in October) that the student is an English learner, the LEA may update the TBD status to “EL” with a start date that is before Census Day. If this update is done before the LEA certifies its Fall 1 data in CALPADS, then the student will be included in the LCFF unduplicated student count.
Who are considered “foster youth” under the LCFF (Posted 08-July-2014)
Pursuant to recent revisions to EC Section 42238.01(b), the following children and youth are considered “foster youth” for purposes of the LCFF:
- A child or youth who is the subject of a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 300 (meaning a court has taken jurisdiction over a child and declared the child to be a dependent of the court due to the presence or risk of abuse or neglect). This includes both children who are living at home while a dependent of the court as well as children who the court has ordered to be removed into the care, custody and control of a social worker for placement outside the home.
- A child or youth who is the subject of a petition filed under WIC Section 602 (meaning a court has taken jurisdiction over a child and declared the child to be a ward of the court due to the child’s violation of certain criminal laws) and has been ordered by a court to be removed from home pursuant to WIC Section 727 and placed in foster care as defined by WIC Section 727.4(d).
- A youth between ages 18 and 21 who is enrolled in high school, is a non-minor dependent under the placement responsibility of child welfare, probation, or a tribal organization participating in an agreement pursuant to WIC Section 10553.1, and is participating in a transitional living case plan.
For foster youth living outside the home, does the type of out-of-home placement matter? (Posted 08-July-2014)
If a child is a foster youth as defined by EC Section 42238.01(b), where that child or youth is placed does not matter. Typical placement types include, but are not limited to, a county shelter/receiving home, court specified home, Foster Family Agency Certified Home, Foster Family Home, Group Home, Guardian with Dependency, Medical Facility, Non-Foster Care Home, Relative/NREFM (Non Related Extended Family Member) Home, Small Family Home, Supervised Independent Living Placement, or Tribe Specified Home. A foster youth as defined under LCFF may also be temporarily living in a Juvenile Hall.
Who is not considered “foster youth” under the LCFF? (Posted 08-July-2014)
- A child or youth who is in a “voluntary placement.” Voluntary placements are not subject to a petition filed under WIC Section 300.
- A child or youth who is living with relatives or friends and who is not a dependent of the court (i.e. is not subject to a WIC Section 300 petition).
- A child or youth who is a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to a petition filed under WIC Section 602 who is either living at home or has been ordered to be placed in a corrective or rehabilitative facility but has not been ordered to be removed from his or her home into a foster care placement pursuant to WIC Section 727.4(d).
What is a Foster ID? (Posted 08-July-2014)
The Foster ID (also referred to as Foster Client ID or Student Foster ID) is a unique 10-digit number assigned by the Child Welfare System/Case Management System (CWS/CMS).
Which foster youth are included in the unduplicated count for purposes of calculating supplemental and concentration grants under the LCFF? (Posted 08-July-2014)
The foster youth included in the unduplicated count are those who the LEA report to the CALPADS as enrolled in a school in the LEA on Census Day (first Wednesday in October) and who have been identified as a foster youth through the statewide match or who have been identified through a local data matching process and submitted to and validated by CALPADS (LEAs will be able to submit this data to CALPADS in fall 2014).
What is the statewide foster match? How does it differ from a local match? (Posted 08-July-2014)
The statewide process matches CALPADS enrollment data to data from the CWS/CMS. CALPADS reports and extracts are available so that LEAs are informed as to the students identified as foster youth from this match. Beginning in fall 2014, the foster data will be updated in CALPADS on a weekly basis so that LEAs will be able to continuously serve the appropriate population. The matches conducted so far have yielded a match rate of over 90 percent; therefore the vast majority of foster students will be identified through this statewide match.
LEAs may conduct local matches with their county welfare departments, in which student enrollment data from their student information systems is matched with data in CWS/CMS. The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and the CDE will communicate to county welfare departments, county offices of education, and LEAs, the categories of youth in CWS/CMS that should be used for local matching processes.
Since both the statewide match conducted between CDE and CDSS and local matches conducted between LEAs and county welfare departments use foster data from the same source system, CWS/CMS, both the statewide and local matches should yield the same results. However, due to differences in matching logic or lag time in updating data systems, a local match may sometimes identify a student as a foster student who is not identified in the statewide match.
What happens if the state match does not identify a youth who is identified as a foster youth through a local match? (Posted 08-July-2014)
If an LEA identifies a student as a foster youth from a local match conducted with its county welfare department who is not identified from the statewide match, the LEA may want to work with its county welfare department to determine why a particular student is not identified in the statewide match. As the state match rate continues to improve, LEAs should be able to rely solely on the statewide match.
LEAs will also be provided a mechanism for submitting to CALPADS students who have not been identified through the state matching process. This mechanism will include submission of and validation of the 10-digit Foster ID or 19-digit Case ID in CALPADS. This functionality will be available in CALPADS in fall 2014. CALPADS will not use the program file for submission of foster data.
What additional information will CALPADS provide to LEAs on foster youth? (Revised 22-Oct-2014)
CALPADS will provide LEA staff with appropriate security roles the following information on foster youth:
- Foster ID (10-digit)
- Case Start Date
- Case End Date
- Case ID (19-digit)
- Episode Start Date (the start of an out-of-home placement)
- Episode End Date (the end of an out-of-home placement)
- Social Worker Name and Phone Number
- Court Appointed Educational Representative and Phone Number
- An indication of whether the student is receiving family maintenance services (and thus is living at home)
- County of jurisdiction
- Whether parental rights are limited (Y/N)
- Responsible Agency (Child Welfare or Probation)
How should LEAs account for changes in the population of foster youth throughout the year in preparing LCAPs? (Posted 08-July-2014)
LEAs should identify services to be provided to any youth who becomes a foster youth during the school year, even though the numbers of foster youth may fluctuate and only a portion of foster youth may be “counted” in the unduplicated student count for the LCFF or in the school’s Academic Performance Index (API) because they change schools frequently.
What foster youth are included in the API foster youth subgroup for state accountability purposes? (Posted 08-July-2014)
A foster youth who is continuously enrolled will be included in the API foster youth subgroup. California Code of Regulations, Title 5, sections 1039.2 and 1039.3, relating to the implementation of EC Section 52052.1(a)(1), define continuously enrolled as a “student enrollment from Fall Census Day (first Wednesday in October) to the first day of testing without a gap in enrollment of more than 30 consecutive calendar days.”
What types of services may a foster youth receive from the child county social services or probation departments? (Posted 08-July-2014)
The overall goal of child social services is the reunification of children and youth with their families. Foster children and youth may go through a continuum of services or “service component types” ranging from pre-placement family maintenance to out-of-home placement to family reunification or permanent placement. The LCFF definition of foster youth includes children and youth receiving services along this continuum from the opening of the court case to its close.
The table below describes the major service component types. It will be useful for educational staff working with foster children and youth to understand where in the process a child or youth is and what services he or she is receiving from the child county social services or probation departments. The data provided in CALPADS will indicate whether a child or youth is in family maintenance; if the child is not in family maintenance, he or she is in an out-of-home placement.
|Symbol||CWS/CMS Service Component Type||Description|
|FM||Pre-Placement (Family Maintenance)||Child/youth is living at home receiving family maintenance services aimed at preventing removal of the child.|
|FR||Family Reunification||Child/youth is in an out-of-home placement receiving services aimed at reuniting the family.|
|FM||Post-Placement (Family Maintenance)||Child/youth is in the process of being permanently reunited with his/her family following an out-of-home placement and is back living at home while the family receives services aimed at keeping the child in the home.|
|PP||Permanent Placement (Previously referred to as “long-term foster care”)||Child/youth is in an out-of-home placement permanently and services to the family have been terminated.|
|ST||Supported Transition||A nonminor dependent age 18–21 participating in a transitional independent living case plan.|
What documentation can LEAs provide their auditors to show that a student is correctly designated as an English Learner (EL) in CALPADS? (Posted 04-June-2014)
If the student is designated as an EL, then LEAs can provide the following:
- A copy of the parent/guardian notification letter that states the student is initially designated as an EL or is a continuing EL, and a copy of the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) individual Student Performance Level Report that indicates the student’s overall performance and domain scores do not meet the CELDT criterion for English proficiency. Please refer to the CELDT Information Guide for examples of the individual student reports; refer to the section titled “Guide to the Student Performance Level Report.” If a continuing student is EL on Census Day, but subsequently takes the CELDT test and is redesignated as English proficient, the LEA does not need to change the program record since the student was appropriately designated as EL on Census Day.
- If the results on the Student Performance Level Report indicate that the student has met the CELDT criterion for English proficiency, then the LEA should provide the auditor its Policy/Procedures for Reclassification and any documentation that was used to determine the student’s EL status consistent with the LEA policy. For more information on reclassification, refer to the CELDT Information Guide section titled “Guidelines for Reclassification.”
What documentation can LEAs provide auditors to show that a student is correctly designated as eligible for free or reduced-price meals (FRPM) in CALPADS? (Revised 05-Nov-2014)
To be correctly designated as FRPM eligible, a student must be part of a household that meets income eligibility requirements or the student must be categorically eligible based on his or her status as a foster, homeless, migrant, or runaway child or on the fact that the student’s household participates in the CalFresh, CalWORKs or Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservation (FDPIR) programs. Students who are members of households that receive CalFresh and/or CalWORKs benefits should have been directly certified to receive FRPM benefits through an automatic state data match conducted in November 2013, and thus should be indicated in CALPADS as “directly certified” to receive benefits.
Under Audit Guide Section 19849, auditors do not need to review documentation for those students who are indicated in CALPADS as (1) “directly certified” to receive FRPM benefits or (2) a foster, homeless, migrant, or runaway child. For other children, an LEA can prove that a student is correctly designated FRPM eligible by providing documentation to support the designation. Supporting documentation may include:
- A copy of a student’s National School Lunch Program (NSLP) application.
- A copy of an LEA’s alternative income eligibility form which demonstrates that a student is a member of a household that meets NSLP income eligibility requirements.
- Any other documentation which demonstrates that the student is categorically eligible to receive benefits under the NSLP, such as (1) documentation that the student is a foster, homeless, migrant or runaway child or (2) direct certification lists obtained from the county welfare department or county office of education.
Please note that, to reduce the burden of data collection, Provision 2/3 and CEP schools may establish a “base year” for LCFF purposes (this is different from the base year under the NSLP). Schools using this option must collect income data for all eligible students at least once every four years, and collect income data for every newly enrolled student in the intervening years. Schools may perform the LCFF base year data collection during the same year that they establish a new base year under the NSLP. Schools will need to submit data for identified students to CALPADS every year. Auditors will review CALPADS data for students in these schools just as they review CALPADS data at other schools, so schools should be prepared to show auditors the original documentation that a student is FRPM eligible, which may be up to three years old.
All documentation and related information provided by LEA staff (including any food services staff) to auditors is to be kept in strict confidence adhering to all state and federal privacy laws and is to be used solely for the purpose of determining whether a student is correctly designated as FRPM eligible.
See the “Free and Reduced Price-Meal (FRPM) Income Eligibility Under the LCFF” topic for additional information about auditors’ access to records.
Are any changes to the Audit Guide anticipated? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
Yes. On February 10, 2014, the Education Audit Appeals Panel (EAAP) amended the Audit Guide for the 2013–14 fiscal year. The Audit Guide is posted at the EAAP Regulations page [http://eaap.ca.gov/audit-guide/rulemaking-activities/] . Proposed changes for 2014–15 are posted on the same page.
For the 2013–14 fiscal year only, the K–12 Audit Guide instructs auditors to verify that each LEA has a signed certification stating that the LEA is aware of the requirements of EC sections 2574, 2575, 42238.02, 42238.03, and 42238.07. The signature should be that of a school district’s, county office of education’s, or charter school’s superintendent, administrator, or authorized designee. If the auditor is unable to verify that a certification exists, the Audit Guide instructs the auditor to issue a finding and recommend that the LEA comply with the requirements in the 2014–15 fiscal year. A sample certification form [http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/au/ag/documents/cert13lcff.doc] (DOC) is available on the Audit Resources Web page [http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/au/ag/statecomp.asp#lcffcert].
The cited EC sections include but are not limited to, requirements related to the K–3 grade span adjustment; maintenance of effort in Adult Education, Regional Occupational Centers/Programs and Home-to-School Transportation; submission of pupil data into CALPADS; and expenditures of supplemental and concentration grant funding.
Which categorical programs are included in the LCFF? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
The LCFF legislation eliminated most state categorical funding streams. Categorical funding received in 2012–13 forms the basis for determining an LEA’s funding in the phase-in period under the LCFF.
More specifically, the LCFF target amount includes grade-span specific base, supplemental, and concentration grants, with add-ons for the former Home-to-School Transportation and Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant Programs. The actual LCFF entitlement in any given year will be determined by adding the following amounts together: (1) 2012–13 general purpose funds and funding from a list of categorical programs, (2) a transition amount that, after full implementation, will bridge the difference between 2012–13 funding and the LCFF target, and (3) an add-on for economic recovery, if applicable. Except for the Home-to-School Transportation program, categorical program amounts included in the 2012–13 funding level calculation will not be separately identifiable funding streams in 2013–14 or thereafter; they will be identified initially only as a means to develop an aggregate funding amount for use in calculations. (Please note: although the separate funding streams will not be identifiable, there are new maintenance-of-effort requirements for Adult Education and ROC/Ps. See topics on each of these programs for more information.)
The CDE does not intend to propose restoration of any Audit Guide provisions discontinued under categorical flexibility or reinstitute any categorical monitoring or data requirements in place prior to categorical flexibility, for any of the programs affected by the LCFF.
2012–13 Categorical Programs Used in the LCFF Calculations
Administrator Training Program
Alternative Certification Programs (Commission on Teacher Credentialing)
Arts and Music Block Grant
Bilingual Teacher Training Assistance
California Association of Student Councils
California High School Exit Examination Intensive Instruction
California School Age Families Education (Cal-SAFE) Program
Categorical Programs for New Charter Schools
Center for Civic Education
Certificated Staff Mentoring
Charter School Categorical Block Grant
Class-Size Reduction, Grade 9
Class-Size Reduction, Kindergarten-Grade 3
SB 1016 (Chapter 38,
Community Based English Tutoring
Community Day School Additional Funding for Mandatory Expelled Pupils
Community Day Schools
County Office Oversight, Williams Audits
County Offices of Education (COE) Fiscal Oversight
Economic Impact Aid (EIA)
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE)
Instructional Materials Funding Realignment
International Baccalaureate/Advanced Placement Fee Reimbursement
Mathematics and Reading Professional Development
Middle and High School Supplemental Counseling
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification Incentive Program
Oral Health Assessments
Peer Assistance and Review
Physical Education Teacher Incentive Grants
Professional Development Block Grant
Pupil Retention Block Grant
Reader Services for Blind Teachers
Regional Occupational Centers and Programs
School and Library Improvement Block Grant
School Safety Block Grant
School Safety Consolidated Competitive
Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant
Teacher Credentialing Block Grant, Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
Teacher Dismissal Apportionments (State Controller's Office)
Are there any changes to funding of necessary small schools (NSSs)? (Revised 04-Nov-2013)
The funding calculations for NSSs under the LCFF are similar to calculations under previously existing law: schools will receive the greater of the NSS amount or the adjusted grade span base grant funding calculated under the LCFF. Under the LCFF legislation, schools may no longer qualify for NSS funding if the school achieved NSS status because it is the only elementary school or high school in a unified district. However, if a school district qualified for NSS funding in 2012–13, the amount of NSS funding the school district received in 2012–13 will be included in its minimum state aid calculation and the school district, at a minimum, will continue to receive state funding at that level (EC Section 42238.03(e)).
Is Home-to-School Transportation included in the LCFF? (Revised 04-Nov-2013)
Home-to-School Transportation is an add-on to the LCFF target calculation. For purposes of LCFF, Home to School Transportation includes entitlements for Home to School, Severely Disabled or Orthopedically Impaired and the Small District and COE Bus Replacement Program.
Does an LEA need to continue to spend LCFF funds on Home-to-School Transportation? (Revised 04-Nov-2013)
The LCFF legislation requires that LEAs spend at least as much of their transportation funding on transportation as they spent in 2012–13. Please see EC sections 2575(k)(1) and 42238.03(a)(6). The language from the latter code section is as follows:
“…of the funds a school district receives for home-to-school transportation programs the school district shall expend, pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 39820) of Chapter 1 of Part 23.5, Article 10 (commencing with Section 41850) of Chapter 5, and the Small School District Transportation program, as set forth in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 42290) of Chapter 7 of Part 24 of Division 3 of Title 2, no less for those programs than the amount of funds the school district expended for home-to-school transportation in the 2012–13 fiscal year.”
The amount of “funds a school district receives” is the amount that the LEA will receive for 2013–14. The maintenance-of-effort is the lesser of (1) the actual 2012–13 expenditures or (2) the amount received in 2013–14. As reference, the amount received in 2013–14 as the Transportation add-on equals the total 2012–13 Pupil Transportation entitlement (including Home to School, Severely Disabled or Orthopedically Impaired and Small District and COE Bus Replacement) less the Control Section 12.42 reduction. Please see Columns O and P on the 2012–13 Adjusted Local Control Funding Formula Categorical State Aid spreadsheet [http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/pa/documents/adjlcffcatstateaid.xls] (XLS) for a listing of 2012–13 entitlements less the Control Section 12.42 reduction.
The legislation also requires LEAs that passed through funds in 2012–13 to transportation Joint Powers Agencies (JPAs) to continue to pass through those funds in the 2013–14 and 2014–15 fiscal years. In addition, JPAs that received transportation funds directly in the 2012–13 fiscal year will continue to receive those funds directly for the 2013–14 and 2014–15 fiscal years.
If an LEA’s 2012–13 expenditures reported on Form TRAN are less than the 2012–13 entitlement (prior to Control Section 12.42 reduction), will the LEA’s entitlement be reduced? (Posted 04-Nov-2013)
No. The add-on included in an LEA’s LCFF entitlement pursuant to EC Section 42238.02(h) will not be reduced if the amount of 2012–13 transportation expenditures reported on Form TRAN is less than the 2012–13 entitlement (prior to Control Section 12.42 reduction).
Are Regional Occupational Center/Program (ROC/P) and Adult Education funds included in the LCFF? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
The ROC/P and Adult Education funding streams were eliminated along with the funding streams for many other categorical programs in the implementation of LCFF. However, these two programs have maintenance-of-effort requirements (see next question).
Does an LEA need to continue to spend LCFF funds on ROC/Ps and adult education? (Revised 15-May-2015)
The LCFF legislation imposes a maintenance-of-effort requirement on ROC/P and adult education. Please see EC sections 2575(k)(2) and 42238.03(a)(7). The language from the latter section is as follows:
“For the 2013–14 and 2014–15 fiscal years only, of the funds a school district receives for purposes of regional occupational centers or programs, or adult education, the school district shall expend no less than the amount of funds the school district expended for purposes of regional occupational centers or programs, or adult education, respectively, in the 2012–13 fiscal year.”
The CDE is interpreting this language as a requirement to maintain the level of 2012–13 expenditures that were paid with state funds, up to the amount available from the applicable budget items (6110-105-0001 and 6110-156-0001, plus related deferral funding) for fiscal years 2013–14 and 2014–15. This requirement would not include expenditures supported by federal funds, adult education fees, or other restricted funding sources. Some basic aid districts may have had a fair share offset to their 2012-13 apportionment. The amount of funds received for purposes of the maintenance of effort requirement is the amount before any fair share reductions.
Please note that the legislation also requires LEAs that passed through funds in 2012–13 to ROC/P Joint Powers Agencies (JPAs) continue to pass through funds to those agencies for two years 2013-14 and 2014-15.
Will LCFF funding include an amount equal to what the LEA previously received as Economic Impact Aid (EIA) funds? What requirements, if any, apply to these funds?
LCFF funding calculations are based on the 2012–13 funding amount for programs folded into the LCFF, plus additional transition funds. The LCFF provides LEAs with funding without reference to past categorical programs thus the portion of LCFF funding attributable to 2012–13 EIA funding will not be separately identified and will not be subject to EIA spending requirements.
Will LCFF include requirements that “supplemental” and “concentration” grant funds be devoted to those students generating this added revenue? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
Yes, AB 97 requires LEAs to increase or improve services for students in proportion to the number of high need students (low-income students, English learners, and foster youth) who generated the additional funds. The SBE adopted regulations regarding how such expenditure of funds will be managed to demonstrate compliance. Refer to EC Section 42238.07 and LCAP regulations (see citations on the LCFF main Web page [http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/]).
Will LEAs have to create a plan to spend “supplemental” and “concentration” grant funds? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
Yes, beginning with the 2014–15 school year, LEAs must develop an LCAP identifying the use of all such funds, using a template adopted by the SBE. The SBE regulations address how expenditure of funds should be managed to demonstrate compliance with EC sections 52065 and 52071. Refer to EC sections 52072 and 52073.
Is it true that LCFF will not take effect until the 2014–15 school year? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
LCFF funds were allocated beginning in 2013–14. A transition period commenced with the 2013–14 school year. The 2013–14 budget package appropriated transition funding of $2.067 billion for school districts and charter schools and $32 million for COEs. The budget also provided $2 million to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to provide assistance to the SBE to adopt specified regulations, evaluation rubrics, and LCAP templates.
Can EIA carryover funds be used for any educational purpose? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
No, funds allocated as EIA must be used as originally purposed for English learners and educationally disadvantaged youth. The categorical intent continues to be in effect for funds previously allocated through the EIA program, pursuant to EC sections 54000 et seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 4200 [http://www.oal.ca.gov/ccr.htm] .
Are the data reported in the Consolidated Application Reporting System and used in EIA allocation formulas now irrelevant?
No. Any current EIA funds carried forward will remain subject to the original requirements for the life of those funds.
Will the CDE’s 2013–14 Federal Program Monitoring (FPM) process still apply compliance standards to LEAs carrying forward unspent EIA funds?
Yes, FPM will continue to monitor the use of EIA carryover funds until all EIA monies have been expended.
Was the new Web posting requirement of SB 754 eliminated? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
No, the requirement to post EIA funding data is still in effect under current law EC Section 54029.
If a district has EIA carryover and distributes to school sites as required, do those sites in receipt of EIA need to continue with their English Learner Advisory Committees (ELACs)?
As long as EIA funds continue to be carried over, the associated requirements will continue to exist, including requirements for ELACs.
Should we include parent groups in conversation regarding expenditures associated with funding increases? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
Statute requires the inclusion of parents, including parents or legal guardians of targeted disadvantaged pupils in the planning and implementation of the LCFF. School districts need not establish new parent advisory groups if the LEA has previously existing groups that satisfy the new requirements. Although regulations were not in place for the 2013–14 school year, the language in the LCFF legislation was in effect in 2013–14. LEAs should strive to meet the intent of the statute.
How will COEs be funded? (Updated 25-Feb-2014)
The LCFF target amount for COEs consists of a COE operations grant and an alternative education grant. The COE operations grant is based on (1) a minimum grant per county, (2) the number of school districts in the county, and (3) the ADA in the county attributable to school districts, charter schools, and schools operated by the county superintendent.
The alternative education grant is based on the category of pupil served.
Certain pupils served by COEs (on probation, probation referred, and mandatory expelled) are funded with an alternative education base grant of $11,046 (plus applicable cost-of-living adjustment). In addition to the base grant, COEs receive a supplemental grant equal to 35 percent of the base grant for targeted disadvantaged students and a concentration grant equal to 35 percent of the base grant for targeted disadvantaged students exceeding 50 percent of enrollment.
Juvenile court school pupils are funded with a base grant of $11,046 (plus applicable cost-of-living adjustment). Additionally, all juvenile court school pupils are deemed to be eligible for the supplemental and concentration grants provided for targeted disadvantaged students. The supplemental grant is equal to 35 percent of the base grant, and the concentration grant is equal to 17.5 percent of the base grant.
For LCFF purposes, enrollment and average daily attendance of other pupils served by COEs will be transferred to (enrollment) or credited to (ADA) their school district of residence (EC Section 2576).
The actual LCFF entitlement in any given year will consist of: (1) 2012–13 general purpose funds and funding from a list of categorical programs and (2) a transition amount that, after full implementation, will bridge the difference between 2012–13 funding and the LCFF target.
Additional frequently asked questions (FAQs) about this topic are available on the COE FAQ page.
Does Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) apply to charter schools? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
Yes, charter schools must comply with the applicable LCFF provisions. Charter schools may review the August 7, 2013, LCFF Legislation Letter for guidance on how to begin implementing the LCFF legislation. Charter schools may also view applicable regulations. See citations on the LCFF main Web page [http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/].
Must a charter school complete a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP)? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
Yes, all charter schools must complete an LCAP, using the template adopted in emergency regulations by the State Board of Education (SBE), as stated in Title 5 California Code of Regulations Section 15497. See citations on the LCFF main Web page [http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/].
How does the content of a charter school’s LCAP differ from the charter petition? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)
A charter school’s LCAP is a separate document from the charter petition. The charter LCAP must describe the goals, for all pupils and each subgroup of pupils, which are aligned to the state priorities identified in Education Code (EC) Section 52060 that apply to the grade level served and the nature of the program.
What is the timeline for charter schools to prepare LCAPs? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Chapter 14.5, a charter school must adopt an LCAP by July 1, 2014 and annually thereafter.
When will the LCAP template be available? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
The template is part of the regulations adopted by the SBE. Please see citations on the main LCFF Web page [http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/].
Does the charter school authorizer approve the LCAP? (Revised 05-Nov-2014)
No. After the charter school governing body adopts the LCAP, statute does not require the authorizer to approve the LCAP.
What is the responsibility of the charter school authorizer as it relates to the LCAP? (Posted 05-Nov-2014)
The chartering authority reviews the LCAP as part of its regular oversight duties pursuant to EC 47604.32.
Are there specific timelines to which the charter school must adhere? (Posted 05-Nov-2014)
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Chapter 14.5, passed by the SBE at the January 16, 2014, meeting, a charter school must adopt an LCAP by July 1, 2014. Pursuant to EC sections 47606.5 and 47604.33, on or before July 1 of each year, a charter school must adopt an LCAP or annual update using the LCAP template adopted pursuant to EC Section 52064.
Statute requires a school district and county office of education to adopt an LCAP or an annual update to the LCAP on or before July 1 of each year and submit the LCAP to the county superintendent of schools or the Superintendent, respectively, for approval. Pursuant to EC sections 52070 and 52070.5, on or before August 15, the COE or Superintendent may utilize the process to seek clarification about the contents of the LCAP, and the county superintendent of schools or the Superintendent shall approve the LCAP on or before October 8, if the LCAP meets the requirements identified.Because the authorizer does not approve a charter LCAP, the timeline to request clarification in writing by August 15 or to approve the LCAP by October 8 does not apply to charter schools’ LCAPs or annual updates.
However, as in the case with charter school budgets and audits, a charter school must prepare and submit the LCAP or the annual update to the chartering authority and the county superintendent of schools by July 1 of each year pursuant to EC Section 47604.33.
When will the LCAP template be available? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)
A downloadable copy of the SBE approved template (DOC) is available on the CDE's Web site now.
When do charter schools need to incorporate the new requirements into their petitions? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)
Pursuant to EC sections 47605 and 47605.6, charter schools that file an initial charter petition or a renewal petition after July 1, 2013, need to incorporate into the charter petition the required state priorities identified in EC Section 52060. Assembly Bill 97 (Ch. 47, Statutes of 2013) amended EC sections 47605 and 47605.6 to require the charter petition to include a description of the annual goals and actions in the eight state priority areas in EC Section 52060 that apply to the grade levels served and the nature of the charter school’s program.
Is an LCAP considered a material revision to the charter petition? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)
The statute is silent; however, the LCAP template adopted by the SBE is a separate document from the charter petition and therefore is not automatically considered a material revision to the charter petition. However, if in completing an LCAP, the charter school or its authorizer determines that changes to the charter petition are necessary, then a material revision may be needed.
Does the charter school governing body need to hold a public hearing to adopt the LCAP? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)
The statute is silent; however, charter schools are encouraged to follow a similar process that is required for a school district, which would be to present to the charter school governing board in a public meeting before submitting the adopted LCAP to the charter authorizer.
May a charter school operator with numerous schools prepare a single LCAP for all of its schools? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)
No. The charter school or its operator must prepare a separate LCAP for each charter school that has a separate petition.
Does the requirement to complete a charter LCAP apply to all charter schools? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)
Yes. The requirements for charter schools to create an LCAP are included in EC Section 47606.5. The adopted SBE California Code of Regulations, Title 5, sections 15494 through 15497 specify that a charter school is to develop an achievement plan that focuses on the state priority areas defined in EC Section 52060(d) that apply for the grade levels served, or the nature of the program operated, by the charter school. Therefore, each charter school with a petition would need to complete an LCAP.
Does a charter school need to have a school site council to review the LCAP? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)
No, a charter school is not required to establish a site council to comply with this requirement. However, EC Section 47606.5 requires charter schools to consult with teachers, principals, administrators, other school personnel, parents, and pupils in developing the LCAP. Consultation with an existing site council may satisfy this requirement if the site council includes membership that meets the requirements of EC Section 47606.5.
Do the grade span adjustment requirements in EC Section 42238.02(d)(3)(B) apply to charter schools? (Posted 28-Feb-2014)
No. EC Section 42238.02(d)(3)(B) applies specifically to school districts.
What are the conditions for receiving the kindergarten through grade three (K–3) grade span adjustment (GSA)? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)
As a condition of receiving the K–3 GSA, which is equal to 10.4 percent of the K–3 base grant, school districts must meet one of the following conditions:
- If a school site’s average K–3 class enrollment was more than 24 pupils in the 2012-13 fiscal year, make progress toward maintaining, at that school site, an average K–3 class enrollment in of not more than 24 pupils.
- If a school site’s average K–3 class enrollment was 24 pupils or less in the 2012-13 fiscal year, maintain, at that school site, an average K–3 class enrollment of not more than 24 pupils.
- Agree to a collectively bargained alternative to the statutory K–3 GSA requirements.
How should a school district determine the required K–3 average class enrollment for each school site under the proposed regulations? (Revised 18-Nov-2014)
If a school site’s average K–3 class enrollment was 24 pupils or less in the 2012–13 fiscal year, the district must maintain, at that school site, an average K–3 class enrollment of not more than 24 pupils, unless a collectively bargained alternative ratio is agreed to by the school district.
- Determine the prior year average K–3 class enrollment at the school site. In 2013–14, this will be the 2012–13 actual level. In subsequent years, this will be the result of the calculation in Step 4 for the prior year.
- Subtract 24 from step 1.
- Multiply the result of step 2 by the percentage of gap funding provided in the current fiscal year (12 percent in 2013–14 and estimated to be 29.56 percent in 2014–15).
- Subtract the result of the calculation in step 3 from the prior year average K–3 class enrollment in step 1, to determine the maximum average K–3 class enrollment at the school site in the current year.
The average K–3 class enrollment at the school site for the current year shall not exceed the maximum average class enrollment, unless a collectively bargained alternative annual average class enrollment for the school site is agreed to by the district for the applicable year:
Does a district need to maintain or make progress towards an average K–3 class size of 24 in both 2013–14 and 2014–15? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)
Yes. Language in the LCFF legislation regarding the K–3 GSA is in effect in 2013–14. School districts should meet the intent of the section. Please see the related Auditing question.
For 2014–15, as indicated in the question above, the starting point for calculating the required 2014–15 average K–3 class enrollment by school site will be the required average K–3 class enrollment by school site determined for 2013–14. In other words, the amount of progress required by the end of the fiscal year will be based on the combined effect of required progress in both 2013–14 and 2014–15.
Must every K–3 classroom at a school site be at the specified average K–3 class enrollment or below? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)
No. An individual classroom may be higher or lower than the specified average so long as the average class enrollment of all K–3 classrooms at the school site is at, or below the specified average K–3 class enrollment.
When may school districts use a collectively bargained alternative to an average K–3 class enrollment of not more than 24? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)
A school district may use this option when the district has collectively bargained an alternative annual average K–3 class enrollment for each school site in contemplation of or subsequent to enactment of EC Section 42238.02. A school district can demonstrate that it agreed to an alternative in different ways. For example, the school district could enter into a new collective bargaining agreement, renegotiate an existing collective bargaining agreement, or mutually agree with its local union that an existing collective bargaining agreement contains an alternative annual average class enrollment for each school site. District legal counsel should be consulted as appropriate.
Do charter schools need to progress toward or maintain an average K–3 class enrollment of 24 to receive the K–3 GSA funding? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)
No. Pursuant to EC Section 42238.02(d)(3)(C) only a “school district” must make progress towards average K–3 class enrollment of 24 at each school site.
May a districtwide average be used instead of a school site average? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)
No. Statute only allows for a school site average.
May the requirements be waived by the Superintendent or the SBE if a school district determines that exceeding the school district’s required average K–3 class enrollment at a particular school site is in the best interest of a student or students? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)
This section of law may not be waived by the Superintendent or the SBE. Please note that school districts may collectively bargain an alternative.
Will school districts need to provide a report similar to the J-7 CSR (class-size reduction) report to get grade-span adjustment funds? (Posted 10-Mar-2014)
What is the Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE)?
The CCEE (EC Section 52074) will provide advice and assistance to LEAs (charter schools, school districts, and county offices of education) in achieving the goals set forth in the LCAPs.
What is the role of the CCEE fiscal agent?
The Superintendent apportions funds appropriated for the operation of the CCEE to the fiscal agent. The fiscal agent is responsible for maintaining accurate, current, and complete records regarding operation of the CCEE, in accordance with all fiscal reporting and auditing standards required by state law and the CDE.
Who is eligible to be the fiscal agent?
Any LEA, or a consortium of LEAs, is eligible to serve as the CCEE fiscal agent. At the May 7-8, 2014 SBE meeting, the SBE approved the Superintendent’s recommendation to approve the Riverside County Office of Education as the fiscal agent. See the SBE May 2014 agenda, Item 11 [http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr14/agenda201405.asp] for more detailed information.
What is the composition of the CCEE governing board?
The CCEE governing board consists of the following five members:
- The Superintendent or his or her designee
- The president of the state board or his or her designee
- A county superintendent of schools appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules
- A teacher appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly
- A superintendent of a school district appointed by the Governor
What is the role of the CCEE governing board?
The CCEE board shall govern the CCEE and direct the fiscal agent to contract with individuals, LEAs, or organizations with the expertise, experience, and a record of success that includes but is not limited to the following areas:
- State priorities as described in subdivision (d) of EC Section 52060
- Improving the quality of teaching
- Improving the quality of school district and schoolsite leadership
- Successfully addressing the needs of special pupil populations, including, but not limited to, English learners, pupils eligible to receive a free or reduced-priced meal, pupils in foster care, and individuals with exceptional needs
What is the timeline for the CCEE to become fully operational?
The CCEE infrastructure (fiscal agent and governing board) may be in place as early as the fall of 2014, and the CCEE could be fully operational by spring 2015 to begin work related to the 2015–16 LCAP cycle.
How will the adoption and use of the evaluation rubric support the work of the CCEE?
The SBE shall adopt evaluation rubrics on or before October 1, 2015. The evaluation rubrics will support the following purposes:
- To assist LEAs with the evaluation of strengths and weaknesses that require improvement
- To assist county superintendents in identifying school districts and charter schools in need of technical assistance pursuant to EC sections 52071 and 47607.3
- To assist the Superintendent in identifying school districts in need of intervention pursuant to EC Section 52072. The CCEE will provide advice and assistance in achieving the goals that are identified in an LEA’s LCAP. The results of the evaluation rubric may inform the work of the CCEE
Do LEAs need to continue to submit the Consolidated Application?
The Consolidated Application will still be required as a condition of receiving certain federal grants. Please also see the Economic Impact Aid topic.
Do LEAs still have the option to reduce the school year by up to five days of instruction or the equivalent number of instructional minutes without incurring penalties? (Posted 04-Nov-2013)
Yes. However, the flexibility to reduce five days from the school year sunsets June 30, 2015 (EC Section 46201.2).