California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB2052

Introduced
2/3/20  
Introduced
2/3/20  
Refer
2/14/20  
Refer
2/14/20  
Report Pass
5/4/20  
Report Pass
5/4/20  
Refer
5/5/20  
Refer
5/5/20  
Report Pass
5/7/20  
Report Pass
5/7/20  
Refer
5/7/20  
Refer
6/2/20  
Refer
6/2/20  
Report Pass
6/3/20  
Report Pass
6/3/20  
Engrossed
6/8/20  
Refer
6/9/20  
Refer
6/9/20  
Refer
6/23/20  

Caption

Pupil instruction: instructional time requirements.

Impact

The bill impacts state laws by altering how instructional time is accounted for and reducing the fiscal penalties previously imposed on LEAs for failing to meet the 175-day requirement. By emphasizing flexibility in meeting instructional time, AB 2052 recognizes the unique challenges faced by educational institutions during adverse events. Furthermore, the bill mandates that local education agencies obtain approval from the bargaining units representing affected employees when utilizing this exemption mechanism. This acknowledgment of collective agreement aims to ensure that the interests of teachers and educational staff are also considered.

Summary

Assembly Bill 2052, introduced by Assembly Members O'Donnell and Kiley, amends the Education Code to establish new provisions regarding instructional time requirements for local educational agencies (LEAs), including school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools. Effective from the 2021-22 school year, this bill allows these agencies to be exempted from penalties associated with not meeting the required minimum of 175 school days if they can demonstrate under specific circumstances that they have added at least the equivalent of 15 instructional days in instructional minutes. This adjustment is particularly relevant for agencies disrupted by emergencies such as natural disasters or public health emergencies.

Sentiment

The sentiment around AB 2052 appears to be largely positive among proponents who advocate for a more flexible approach to instructional time in light of unforeseen circumstances. Supporters argue that this bill will empower schools to better respond to challenges without facing detrimental funding penalties. However, there are concerns regarding accountability, as critics suggest that easing these regulations could lead to a degradation of academic standards if not closely monitored. The balance between providing necessary flexibility and maintaining educational quality is a point of contention amongst stakeholders in the education sector.

Contention

Key contentions surrounding AB 2052 involve the approval process for exemptions, with some stakeholders fearing that it could introduce inconsistencies in how instructional time is managed across different districts. The requirement for negotiations with bargaining units may also complicate the implementation, which could delay timely responses to emergencies. Additionally, the potential for misunderstandings regarding compliance with the new provisions poses lingering concerns about equitable access to education amidst varying local conditions.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB3120

Pupil instruction: instructional time requirements.

CA SB1429

Education finance: emergencies: snowstorms.

CA AB1348

Average daily attendance: emergencies: immigration enforcement activity.

CA AB1391

Education finance: transitional kindergarten: funding for basic aid school districts and necessary small schools.

CA SB527

Education finance: local control funding formula: home-to-school transportation: cost-of-living adjustment.

CA SB1119

Pupil enrollment: Statewide Open Enrollment Act.

CA AB39

Education finance: local control funding formula: aspirational funding level: reports.

CA AB1614

Education finance: local control funding formula: base grants: aspirational funding level: reports.