A proposed California State Senate bill that would have effectively done away with district boundaries was a little less likely to become law when the California State Assembly rejected it in favor of an alternative bill on Thursday, Dec. 10.
Both bills, Senate Bill x 5 1 and Assembly Bill AB x 5 8, intend to reform California education in order to compete for the Race to the Top funds, a competitive federal grant program.
The Race to the Top Program is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which provided $4.35 billion dollars for the program. California, if selected, could potentially earn up to $700 million in grants, according to PRWeb.
Because the California State Assembly turned down SBx5 1, the bill is “almost dead,” according to Lauren Janov, Palo Alto PTA vice president of advocacy.
Within SBx5 1 is a controversial provision not included in the Assembly’s replacement bill. The provision, called the the Open Enrollment Act, would have allowed students in low-achieving schools to transfer to higher-performing schools across district boundaries if passed. Many concerns surround this provision, and there are questions of whether or not it would actually improve California’s chances to earn money, according to Janov.
One concern, she said, is that students who transfer will also bring a portion of money with them, as most schools are paid a certain amount of money per person. Because the low achieving schools would lose money in this way, many might be unable to turn around.
The alternate bill is in many ways the same; however it does not have anything in it resembling the Senate bill’s Open Enrollment Act.
Governor Schwarzenegger made clear his displeasure in the Assembly’s decision, according to a press release.
“Today the Assembly and its leaders let down California’s children, schools and parents,” he said. “President Obama issued a challenge–-this is Race to the Top–-not race to the status quo. And we must do everything in our power to bring these positive reforms and critically needed funds to California’s schools.”