State legislation passed last month to block public school districts from reducing their teaching staffs in the coming school year hasn't resulted in a rush among local districts to rehire all the instructors laid off in May.

Most Sacramento-area school officials say they aren't sure whether the law requires a rehiring blitz. And many state officials seem unclear as well.

Assembly Bill 114 says school districts must ignore – for now – the prospect of a $1.75 billion "trigger" cut that could hit K-12 districts in February if the Legislature's revenue projections fall short. In the meantime, schools are to maintain staffing and program levels based on projections of getting the same funding levels they got last year.

The law, passed with strong support from the California Teachers Association, was crafted in reaction to the flurry of final pink slips that went out to teachers across the state in May. At the time, the state was grappling to bridge a $9.6 billion deficit, and many school districts made cuts based on "worst-case scenario" budget projections.

About 12,000 teachers were laid off statewide, including 1,200 in the Sacramento region.

In July, largely because of rosier revenue projections, legislators instead passed a budget that presented K-12 school districts with the same level of funding as last year, with the possibility of massive midyear trigger cuts if the optimistic revenue projections did not materialize. AB 114 was passed as a companion measure.

The question since has revolved around what the bill means when it says districts should maintain staffing and program levels. Each year, even without making new hires, districts face higher costs because of annual pay increases for staff and the rising cost of medical benefits. It's unclear whether the legislation asks districts to spend the same amount on teachers as it did last year or to employ the same number of teachers.

Gov. Jerry Brown, in an effort to clarify, included a message when he signed the law that appears to give school districts leeway. It acknowledges that some staffing cuts may be necessary because of "cost increases, the loss of federal funds, enrollment declines or other factors."

"School boards should take all reasonable steps to balance their budgets and to maintain positive cash balances," wrote the governor.

Sacramento-area school officials are deciphering the bill in varying ways. Most don't seem particularly pressed to rehire teachers because of it.

"I think you have to be very careful interpreting the state," said Walt Hanline, interim superintendent at Natomas Unified School District.

The Natomas staff is still down 45 teachers from last school year – although all 45 of the teachers laid off this summer were rehired. They will replace teachers who have retired or otherwise left the district, Hanline said.

By contrast, Elk Grove Unified – which had laid off scores of teachers in anticipation of drastic state funding cutbacks – has rehired all 445 teachers it laid off in May.

Sacramento City Unified has brought back about half of the 323 certified employees – generally teachers, counselors and nurses – laid off in May. The teachers were rehired to meet the district's needs "as opposed to working backwards and just shoehorning in people where we are told it is necessary," said district spokesman Gabe Ross.

Officials at Twin Rivers Unified said the decision to hire back more than half their teachers also is based on district needs. They have rehired 54 of 112 pink-slipped instructors and are in the process of rehiring more, said Tom Janis, assistant superintendent.

San Juan Unified officials are interpreting the law to mean districts can't hand out additional pink slips during what would have been an open layoff window this summer, said Trent Allen, district spokesman.

He said 42 teachers and counselors were rehired to fill jobs left empty by retirement and attrition. A total of 238 San Juan Unified teachers and counselors were laid off in May.

The confusion over the intent of the bill isn't limited to school districts.

Even the Legislative Analyst's Office isn't wading into this one, opting to monitor rehiring at school districts instead of analyzing the bill itself.

"I don't even think we have a clear interpretation," said Edgar Cabral of LAO. "It seems like there is some confusion and some ambiguity within the bill itself about whether the districts will have to go back and rehire staff."

State officials are expected to work on cleanup language. Rick Simpson, deputy chief of staff to Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, D-Los Angeles, said the Legislature would act on any revisions after it returns from summer break Aug. 15.

Simpson acknowledged that it could take a few weeks after that to approve any changes. It is conceivable this would mean districts would have to rehire teachers after the school year has already started, he said.

For his part, Dean E. Vogel, the new president of the California Teachers Association, said the mandate provides a year of stability for teachers and students after years of financial crises.

"Districts, in general, are going to do what the law mandates, and some are going to do it kicking and screaming," Vogel said. "I'm going to trust people to follow the law."

EDUCATION

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Call The Bee's Diana Lambert, (916) 321-1090.

• Read more articles by Diana Lambert