Volume I, No. 8a

January 8, 2009

CSBA Mandate Case: An Update

By Ernest Silva -- esilva@m-w-h.com  

The December 18, 2008 issue of Education’s Bottom Line included an article written about the CSBA v. State of California  mandates case recently decided in a San Diego Superior Court.  The article included a series of implications for how the Governor and the Legislature could respond to the holding that deferrals of mandate reimbursement were unconstitutional.  Let me be the first to admit, I missed one. 

The Governor’s early release of aspects of his 2009-10 Budget Proposal did not provide for full funding, or minimal funding or arbitrary funding.  Instead, the Governor simply suspended all mandates but three.  Those three will be described below. 

Suspension theoretically means that school districts do not have to perform the mandated actions.  As a result, the State is not required to fund them.  Now a local district could choose to perform these actions and fund them from their general fund.  But why would a rational school district choose to fund state imposed obligations that organizations have long fought to distinguish from necessary local programs?

 A review of just a few of these suspended mandates, may answer that question.  While the Legislature, business and the local community provide laser focus on school finances and accountability, the proposed Budget would suspend both the School District Fiscal Accountability Reporting and the County Office of Education Fiscal Accountability Reporting.  Which district is prepared to respond to parents or the press, “we no longer have to provide that fiscal information, the mandate’s suspended.”  In a public health environment where some childhood diseases nearly eradicated a decade ago are regaining a foothold, which district will tell their parents, “we’ve stopped performing Pupil Health Screenings because the mandate’s suspended?"  And which school or community college district will advise its Board to keep away from union negotiations because the K-14 Collective Bargaining mandate has been suspended?

Of the 38 mandates partially funded in years past, the Governor’s proposal will fully fund three areas at $78.4 million.  First, $6.3 million for costs related to interdistrict and intradistrict transfers.  Second, $7.1 million for mandated costs of the exit exam.  Third, in response to a different CSBA mandate case, $65 million to reimburse for Special Education Behavior Intervention plans that will be funded through special education rather than mandates.

In the worst budget year in decades, we may have both an illusory victory on mandates and a cost of greater than $78 million more to education’s bottom line.  As has always been the case with success on the mandate reimbursement issue, we should be careful of what we wish for.