SB 374 makes two targeted changes to California’s Education Code. First, it amends Section 33318.2 to keep in law through January 1, 2027 a requirement that the State Department of Education (CDE) review and report on the number and types of annual reports local educational agencies must submit and propose consolidations or truncations.
Second, it repeals Section 52064.3, which had required the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt an IDEA Addendum for improving services to students with exceptional needs and required certain identified LEAs to complete that addendum and related activities.
Those two edits pull in opposite directions: the bill preserves statutory authority to review and recommend reductions in reporting burden for LEAs, but it removes a statewide, statutory mechanism—the IDEA Addendum—intended to drive improvement and accountability in special education. The practical effect is fewer state-mandated special-education planning requirements for LEAs and a continued (but time-limited) statutory framework for reviewing reporting obligations across local agencies.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends Ed. Code §33318.2 to extend that section’s sunset to January 1, 2027, keeping in place a required CDE report (due March 1, 2025) that inventories annual LEA reports and recommends which can be consolidated or truncated. Repeals Ed. Code §52064.3, removing SBE’s duty to adopt an IDEA Addendum and the statutory requirement for identified LEAs to complete it.
Who It Affects
All California local educational agencies (school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools), the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education, special education directors, and legislative education committees that would have reviewed the addendum or hearing on reporting burdens.
Why It Matters
It reduces a newly established, statutory pathway for statewide special-education improvement planning while preserving a legal vehicle to identify and recommend reductions in reporting obligations—shifting where and how special-education improvement and oversight may occur.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 33318.2 directs the California Department of Education to prepare, by March 1, 2025, a detailed inventory of the annual reports that local educational agencies must submit. The statutory checklist must identify each report, explain its purpose, and include concrete recommendations for which reports can be consolidated, eliminated, or shortened.
The statute also requires the department to seek voluntary input from a wide range of LEAs—different sizes, types, geographies, and demographic mixes—when forming those recommendations, and it encourages relevant legislative committees to hold hearings within 30 days after receiving the report.
SB 374 keeps that statutory framework in place for an additional year by moving the section’s sunset date to January 1, 2027. Practically speaking, the CDE still has the March 2025 reporting duty and the obligation to solicit voluntary LEA input; the extension preserves the department’s statutory authority and the Legislature’s encouragement to hold follow-up hearings through calendar year 2026.
The extension does not itself fund follow-up work or mandate that the recommendations be implemented; it simply keeps the review mechanism and the intent language in the Education Code for a longer period.The bill’s other change deletes Section 52064.3. That section had required the State Board of Education to adopt an IDEA Addendum—an instrument focused on improving services for students with exceptional needs—by January 31, 2027, and it required certain districts, charters, and county offices identified by the department to complete the addendum and related activities by July 1, 2027.
Repealing the section removes those statutory deadlines and the SBE’s express obligation to adopt a uniform addendum.Taken together, SB 374 preserves a statutory process aimed at reducing duplicative reporting while eliminating a parallel statutory tool specifically aimed at driving statewide special-education improvement. The result is a retained focus on reducing paperwork burden for LEAs, paired with the disappearance of a mandated, standardized special-education improvement plan at the state level—leaving localities and the SBE/CDE to choose alternative approaches if they wish to pursue coordinated improvement work.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 374 amends Education Code §33318.2 to change the section’s sunset date to January 1, 2027 (it otherwise keeps the CDE’s March 1, 2025 report requirement intact).
Under §33318.2 the CDE’s report must enumerate each type of required annual LEA report, state the purpose of each report, and recommend which reports can be consolidated, eliminated, or truncated.
The statute instructs the department to seek voluntary input from a diverse array of LEAs when forming recommendations—explicitly requiring outreach across size, type, geography, and pupil/staff demographics.
SB 374 repeals Education Code §52064.3, removing the statutory requirement that the State Board of Education adopt an IDEA Addendum by January 31, 2027 and that identified LEAs complete the addendum and related activities by July 1, 2027.
The bill’s digest notes no appropriation is attached, but it was referred to fiscal committee review (fiscal committee: YES; appropriation: NO).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Reporting review: inventory, recommendations, input, and extended sunset
This amendment leaves the CDE’s March 1, 2025 reporting duty in place and extends the statutory authorization—the section’s sunset—from January 1, 2026 to January 1, 2027. The section prescribes what the inventory must include (report types and purposes) and requires the CDE to recommend which reports can be consolidated, eliminated, or truncated. It also requires the department to seek voluntary input from a representative cross-section of LEAs when crafting recommendations and encourages legislative committees to hold hearings within 30 days of the report’s delivery. The practical implication is that the CDE retains explicit statutory authority to review reporting burdens and to solicit LEA input through 2026, though the section does not compel implementation of any consolidation or truncation recommendations nor provide funding for follow-up work.
Removal of the IDEA Addendum requirement
This repeal deletes the statutory command that the State Board of Education adopt an IDEA Addendum aimed at improving services for individuals with exceptional needs and removes the downstream requirement that certain identified LEAs complete the addendum and pursue specified activities by a July 1, 2027 date. Mechanically, the SBE no longer has a statutory deadline to adopt a statewide addendum, and LEAs identified under the prior provision no longer have a statutory duty to complete that instrument. That change eliminates one uniform, state‑level tool for organizing special-education improvement work, shifting responsibility for planning and improvement to existing local processes or voluntary state guidance.
Governor approval and filing
The bill text records gubernatorial approval and filing with the Secretary of State on October 10, 2025. The digest indicates the measure was reviewed by fiscal committees and contains no appropriation language. Those technical entries are part of the enacted chapter and do not create new programmatic obligations beyond the statutory edits described above.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Small and understaffed LEAs (small districts and standalone charter schools): They avoid an additional, mandated statewide planning task (the IDEA Addendum) that would have required staff time and coordination with county offices.
- Local administrators and special-education compliance officers: The repeal reduces a new, prescriptive compliance item on their calendar and preserves CDE’s authority to recommend eliminating or shortening other state reports that consume staff time.
- State fiscal actors and budget analysts: With no appropriation attached to the addendum requirement, the repeal reduces pressure to identify new funding streams for SBE/CDE implementation.
- LEAs that have advocated to reduce duplicative reporting: Keeping §33318.2 in force through 2026 preserves a statutory vehicle for the CDE to identify and recommend report consolidations that could lower administrative burden.
Who Bears the Cost
- Students with exceptional needs and their families: Removing the IDEA Addendum eliminates a statewide, statutory mechanism intended to standardize improvement planning and could reduce systemwide visibility into service gaps.
- County offices of education and special-education technical assistance providers: They lose a uniform state framework that would have guided coordinated improvement work and may need to fill that role locally without additional resources.
- State Board of Education and CDE staff: The repeal alters planning and may strand any invested time and preliminary work on the addendum; the agencies may also face pressure to develop voluntary alternatives or guidance absent statutory direction.
- Legislative education committees and oversight staff: They lose a mandated, time-bound item (the addendum adoption and LEA completion) that would have produced discrete deliverables for legislative oversight of special education.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is trade-off between administrative relief and systemwide accountability: reduce mandated reporting and planning to ease LEA workload, or keep prescriptive, statewide tools like an IDEA Addendum to ensure consistent improvement and oversight for students with disabilities—SB 374 chooses the former and abandons the latter, leaving coordination and accountability to nonstatutory mechanisms.
The bill illustrates a common policy trade-off: it preserves a statutory vehicle for identifying and potentially reducing duplicative reporting (by extending §33318.2) while removing a parallel, prescriptive tool designed to drive statewide special-education improvement (the IDEA Addendum). That creates implementation ambiguity.
Agencies and LEAs that had begun planning for the addendum now face uncertainty: any work already underway may lack statutory footing, and the state has not provided a replacement mechanism or funding to achieve the addendum’s original objectives.
Another practical tension concerns capacity and follow‑through. Extending §33318.2 keeps the CDE’s authority to recommend report consolidations, but the statute does not fund CDE to implement or enforce those recommendations and does not require LEAs to adopt them.
In short, the bill maintains the blueprint for identifying administrative burden but leaves actual reduction efforts voluntary and resource-dependent. Finally, the repeal may produce a patchwork of local practices: without a statewide addendum, counties and districts will likely develop differing approaches to special-education improvement, increasing variation in oversight and complicating cross‑district comparisons.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.