Most notably, among the measures acted upon by the Governor were three CSBA priority bills. Two co-sponsored legislative measures, which were signed into law in late September, and a bill CSBA vehemently opposed, which was vetoed.
Senate Bill 1315 (Archuleta, D-Pico Rivera) was driven by school district and county board member input and co-sponsored by the California Association of School Business Officials. It is an important measure that requires the California Department of Education (CDE), by March 1, 2025, to report to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI), the Governor, and the Legislature on the number and types of reports that school districts, county offices of education and charter schools are required to annually submit. Euphemistically referred to as the “Report on Reports” bill, it requires the inclusion of the purpose of each report and recommendations for which reports can be consolidated, eliminated or truncated — freeing up valuable time and resources for LEAs to support students. It also encourages the Legislature to hold a hearing to allow the SSPI to present the report within 30 days of its release. These efforts will help state lawmakers be informed about what reports are most helpful to policy development while dispensing with others that may have no real benefit.
Co-sponsored with the California High School District Coalition, SB 1244 creates a process for school districts to initiate dual enrollment programs with a neighboring community college district when an agreement cannot be reached with a home community college district, thereby fostering greater collaboration and flexibility in meeting the educational needs of students statewide.
Nearly 700 local education leaders voiced their opposition to AB 2088 via CSBA’s action alert when the bill landed on the Governor’s desk. Ultimately, their voices were heard loud and clear and the bill was vetoed with 10 days left in the signing period — a demonstration of what CSBA’s collective advocacy can do when district and county board members speak with one voice.
The Governor wrote in his veto message:
“This bill is significantly similar to Assembly Bill 1699 of 2023, which I vetoed, and several of the same concerns remain. In particular, like Assembly Bill 1699, this bill may have unintended consequences that are not in the best interest of students. As noted previously, this issue is already bargainable and several local bargaining agreements have such provisions in place. Placing specific requirements in statute — as this bill does — may make it more difficult for local processes to develop an alternative that best meets the needs of the district, employees, and students.”