Despite the many challenges of governing during a pandemic, the final hours of the first year of the 2021–22 legislative session were unusually quiet. While a number of key K-12 bills made it to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk, some of the year’s most prominent education proposals were already accomplished through the budget process, and COVID-era limits on the number of bills legislators could carry whittled down the list even further. Education bills tabled for 2021 include legislation on late start implementation, facilities funding and charter authorization — but these are likely to resurface when the Legislature returns in January 2022.

Several key measures were set aside or recast as two-year bills when, bolstered by unexpectedly high revenues, the ambitious 2021–22 Budget Act and its implementing legislation took the lead on many of this year’s biggest education proposals. Perhaps most significantly, the budget laid out a roadmap to achieving universal access to transitional kindergarten by the 2025 –26 school year, which was proposed by Assembly Bill 22 (McCarty, D-Sacramento). The original bill, on which CSBA took a Support if Amended position, was intended as a vehicle to implement universal TK by 2032–33.

As a result of universal TK being adopted in the budget, AB 22 was amended to address implementation issues, including clarification at CSBA’s urging that any increases in student enrollment for TK would be funded with additional General Fund revenues to increase the Proposition 98 guarantee. It also proposed to require an additional adjustment to the kindergarten and grades 1-3 base grant equal to 14.2 percent for TK, and to require county superintendents of schools to convene local TK planning workgroups to support the implementation of universal TK. Ultimately, the updated AB 22 was made a two-year bill, meaning that it can be taken up again when the Legislature returns in the new year.

Significant teacher pipeline proposals met a similar fate. AB 312 (Seyarto, R-Murrieta) proposed authorizing teacher credential applicants to demonstrate basic skills proficiency through qualifying coursework in lieu of taking the California Basic Educational Skills test (CBEST); similarly AB 437 (Kalra, D-San Jose) would have authorized teaching candidates to demonstrate subject matter competency through the completion of qualifying higher education coursework in lieu of taking California Subject Examinations for Teachers (CSET) examinations. Both proposals, which were supported by CSBA, were ultimately included as part of AB 130, the education budget trailer bill, and consequently did not move forward.

Still other proposals were held back in the committee process. Near the end of the legislative year, the Appropriations committees in each house convened to consider their “suspense file” — bills with a price tag of over $150,000 that are set aside and considered all at once to weigh their state fiscal impact as a whole. Several bills CSBA monitored were “held on suspense” during this process, meaning they failed to pass the Appropriations Committee this year.

One such measure, AB 388 (Medina, D-Riverside), would have expanded permanent status for certificated employees after a two-year probationary period for all small school districts, adult schools and regional occupational programs. CSBA took an Oppose position on this bill. Another, AB 34 (Muratsuchi, D-Torrance), would have placed a $10 billion general obligation bond on the November 2022 ballot to expand public broadband infrastructure. CSBA took a Support position on the bill in recognition of the immense need for adequate internet access for every student.

Other proposals found themselves on hold for 2021 but will survive to fight another day in 2022. Included among these were two proposals related to school facilities funding, Senate Bill 22 (Glazer, D-Contra Costa) and AB 75 (O’Donnell, D-Long Beach), which would have placed bonds to fund school facilities construction and modernization before the voters on the November 2022 statewide ballot. CSBA took a Support position on both measures, which have been tabled for now but will continue on as two-year bills. Facilities needs have been highlighted by the work schools have done to bring students back safely during the COVID-19 crisis, and CSBA’s advocacy on the issue will continue in 2022.

Regarding charter schools, a similar fate befell AB 1316 (O’Donnell, D-Long Beach), which would make various changes to independent study program requirements, modify the authority of small districts to authorize nonclassroom-based charter schools, expand charter school oversight requirements and limit the use of multitrack year-round school schedules. CSBA took an Oppose unless Amended position on the legislation, worked with the author to help address implementation issues, and should the bill return in 2022, will continue working to address remaining concerns.

CSBA also anticipates the possible return of SB 328 (Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge). As follow-up legislation to the bill that created the “late start” law in 2019, SB 328 would: (1) require the California Department of Education and the state Department of Social Services to review all after-school program funding and provide flexibility to school districts to use those funds for before-school programs; (2) define “rural” for purposes of rural school district exemptions from the provisions regarding school start times and extend those exemptions to rural charter schools; and (3) prohibit any local government from imposing any rule, regulation, ordinance, or condition or taking any action that would prohibit or restrict a school district, county office of education or charter school from complying with any state law or regulation. CSBA took an Oppose unless Amended position on SB 328 and will continue to work with the author to resolve the problems posed by the bill as discussions continue in 2022.

The Legislature has entered into the “Interim Study Session,” which will extend through the rest of the calendar year until legislators return to Sacramento on Jan. 3, 2022, for the second year of the 2021–22 legislative session. Time will tell which proposals set aside may return for round two, and which will fall by the wayside as a fresh round of bills are introduced in the new year.