California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 967 — Special education: COVID-19 Special Education Fund.

Last action — Referred to Com. on ED.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law requires apportionments to special education local plan areas for special education programs operated by, and services provided by, school districts, county offices of education, and special education local plan areas to be computed in a specified manner. Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to continuously monitor and review all special education programs to ensure that all funds appropriated to special education local plan areas are expended for the purposes intended, as provided. This bill would establish in the State Treasury the COVID-19 Special Education Fund and would require moneys in the fund to be used by the State Department of Education, upon appropriation, for purposes of providing matching funds, on a one-to-one basis, to support local educational agencies in conducting activities to prevent and intervene early in conflicts, conduct voluntary alternative dispute resolution, and provide services to pupils with disabilities relating to individually determined impacts to learning associated with COVID-19 pandemic school disruptions, as provided. The bill would require a local educational agency to submit an application for funding to their special education local plan area to be eligible for these funds. The bill would require the special education local plan area to verify in writing that specified conditions have been met, including an individualized determination of pupil needs, as provided, before submitting the application, including the written verification, to the department on behalf of the local educational agency. By requiring new duties of a special education local plan area, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department, within 60 days of the operative date of these provisions, to issue guidance to assist local educational agencies in identifying factors to consider when conducting individualized determinations of any need to address impacts to learning or for services related to COVID-19 pandemic school disruptions, as provided. The bill would require the department, within 30 days of the operative date of these provisions, to notify each local educational agency of the amount of funding it is eligible to apply for according to a specified formula. The bill would make the implementation of these requirements contingent upon an appropriation of specified funds in the annual Budget Act or another statute. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Referred to Com. on ED.

  2. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  3. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 1776.)

  4. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  5. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  6. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (May 20).

  7. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  8. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  9. Read second time and amended.

  10. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 7).

  11. Re-referred to Com. on ED.

  12. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended.

  13. Referred to Com. on ED.

  14. From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.

  15. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Frazier · Primary
  • O'Donnell · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Frazier

Co-sponsors (1)

  • O'Donnell

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 967 Frazier Assembly Third Reading

Passed 79 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 28000
Unaffiliated 41000
Republican 10000
Total 79000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ting — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Medina — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Salas — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Low — Yea
Levine — Yea
Daly — Yea
Gray — Yea
Burke — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Wood — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 16 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 8000
Democratic 6000
Republican 2000
Total 16000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Levine — Yea
Holden — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chau — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

education
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 967 do?
(1) Existing law requires apportionments to special education local plan areas for special education programs operated by, and services provided by, school districts, county offices of education, and special education local plan areas to be computed in a specified manner. Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to continuously monitor and review all special education programs to ensure that all funds appropriated to special education local plan areas are expended for the purposes intended, as provided. This bill would establish in the State Treasury the COVID-19 Special Education Fund and would require moneys in the fund to be used by the State Department of Education, upon appropriation, for purposes of providing matching funds, on a one-to-one basis, to support local educational agencies in conducting activities to prevent and intervene early in conflicts, conduct voluntary alternative dispute resolution, and provide services to pupils with disabilities relating to individually determined impacts to learning associated with COVID-19 pandemic school disruptions, as provided. The bill would require a local educational agency to submit an application for funding to their special education local plan area to be eligible for these funds. The bill would require the special education local plan area to verify in writing that specified conditions have been met, including an individualized determination of pupil needs, as provided, before submitting the application, including the written verification, to the department on behalf of the local educational agency. By requiring new duties of a special education local plan area, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department, within 60 days of the operative date of these provisions, to issue guidance to assist local educational agencies in identifying factors to consider when conducting individualized determinations of any need to address impacts to learning or for services related to COVID-19 pandemic school disruptions, as provided. The bill would require the department, within 30 days of the operative date of these provisions, to notify each local educational agency of the amount of funding it is eligible to apply for according to a specified formula. The bill would make the implementation of these requirements contingent upon an appropriation of specified funds in the annual Budget Act or another statute. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors AB 967?
AB 967 is sponsored by Frazier and O'Donnell.
What is the current status of AB 967?
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 967?
Track AB 967 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 967

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 967

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →