Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lcap Needs Assessment Funding Targeting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairfield‑Suisun Unified staff say state rules require one‑time funds be targeted to schools with greatest ELA, math and absenteeism needs
Summary
District staff told the governing board that a state‑required needs assessment now forces the district to embed plans for remaining one‑time funds into the LCAP and limit spending to three areas: English language arts, mathematics and chronic absenteeism. Staff identified three schools of greatest need and said about $16 million remains to spend.
District staff told the Fairfield‑Suisun Unified School District Governing Board that a change from the California Department of Education requires the district to embed a formal needs assessment into its Local Control and Accountability Plan and to limit the use of certain one‑time funds to three targeted areas: English language arts, mathematics and chronic absenteeism.
The requirement follows earlier local practice of using short‑term funds (discussed by staff as ESSER and other one‑time funds) to provide a ‘‘softer landing’’ as those grants expired. Staff said the state now requires a specific needs‑assessment template, evidence supporting each proposed action, and documentation that will be included in the LCAP and available for audit.
According to staff, the district completed that needs assessment with its LCAP advisory committee in January and identified schools and student groups with the greatest need. The staff presentation named Anna Kyle, David Weir and Talenas as the three schools of greatest need and said roughly $16,000,000 remains to be expended over the next three years, with about $6,700,000 planned for the coming year. Staff said the district intends a gradual reduction in spending so the funds will be exhausted by the end of the three‑year period required by the funding rules.
Staff emphasized that the state limited eligible uses to the three areas above and that each proposed action must be tied to evidence showing it is an evidence‑based practice. The staff presentation noted that the needs assessment required looking beyond dashboard color changes to the underlying assessment results and chronic absenteeism data for specific student groups and schools. Staff said the actions resulting from that assessment will appear in the LCAP draft the board will review in June.
Board members asked whether the district had discretion to support students outside the three identified schools. Dr. Tully asked whether the board was ‘‘forced’’ to spend the funds only on the three sites; staff replied that the overlapping schools are priorities but the district can direct funds to student groups at other sites as long as the expenditures align with the needs assessment and state requirements. Trustee Flynn characterized the approach as ‘‘prioritization’’ of the overlapping schools rather than an absolute prohibition on support at other sites.
Board discussion also raised chronic absenteeism causes and remedies. One trustee suggested transportation barriers and local carpool or faith‑group partnerships as options to address attendance. Staff said some of those ideas and other services will be included in the broader LCAP presentation and that the district will also present related information at the joint city‑district meeting on Safe Routes to Schools.
Staff said the June LCAP presentation will show the specific actions to be added as a result of the needs assessment and how the earmarked funds will be expended. The board did not take formal action on the item at this meeting; staff described the item as informational and a required next step to comply with the state template and LCAP process.
