BILL ANALYSIS
AB 272
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 272 (Solorio) - As Amended: April 30, 2009
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:8-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill establishes the Leadership for English Learner Success
(LELS) program to authorize an institution of higher education,
a non-profit organization specializing in English learner
research, or a county office of education (COE), to offer
professional development for school administrators and
counselors until July 1, 2015. Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies that the LELS program not duplicate the existing
English learner (EL) component of the Administrator Training
(AT) program.
2)Requires the LELS program to provide administrators and
counselors with the knowledge and understanding of specified
subjects, including the following: second language
development; the different types of ELs (i.e., languages,
secondary versus elementary pupils); strategies of instruction
for ELs; and parent rights.
3)Requires the school district to provide the necessary
facilities and equipment and the professional development
provider to provide the necessary instructional materials.
4)Requires the State Department of Education (SDE) to submit an
evaluation report of this program to the Legislature by
November 1, 2013, as specified.
5)Requires the LELS program to be implemented with the School
Improvement Grant (SIG) funds of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). This measure further
authorizes a school district to use any other appropriate
AB 272
Page 2
federal and state funds for this program.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)GF/98 costs, likely between $2.6 million and $8.6 million, to
implement the LELS program. This assumes a rate of $3,000 per
participant. This measure requires this program to be
implemented with federal State Improvement Grant funds;
however, the availability of these funds is unlikely (see
comment #4 below).
2)GF administrative costs, of at least $250,000, to the SDE to
conduct an evaluation of the LELS program, as specified.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the SDE, there were 1.6 million EL
pupils (25%) enrolled in public schools in 2007-08. Of these
children, 1.3 million (85%) speak Spanish and 34,712 (2.2%)
speak Vietnamese. Also, 204,020 (66%) teachers provided
services to EL pupils during this time.
According to a report by EdSource titled Similar English
Learner Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do
Better (September 2007), "state policymakers should also be
aware that California has the highest pupil-to school
administrator ratio in the country. Finding out what
additional support is needed for principals to do this
challenging work is critical for administrative credential
programs and professional development. The 237 principals
answering the surveys ranked 'using assessment data' as their
number one professional development priority (54%), but
'training and instructional strategies for EL students' was a
close second (47%)." This bill establishes the LELS program
to offer professional development to administrators and
counselors on subjects related to EL pupils.
2)Current statute provides training programs to teachers,
administrators, and school business officials. The AT program
provides funding to local educational agencies (LEAs) to train
principals and assistant/vice principals, using State Board of
AB 272
Page 3
Education (SBE) approved training providers in the skills and
knowledge necessary for their roles as instructional leaders.
This training ensures the leadership, infrastructure, and
support for full implementation of effective instructional
programs to improve student achievement.
The Mathematics Reading Professional Development (MRPD)
program provides professional development training in English
and mathematics to certificated teachers. AB 472 (Alpert),
Chapter 524, Statute of 2006, reauthorized the MRDP program
and established an EL component to this program that provides
40 hours of training in English language arts (ELA) to
teachers of EL pupils. Specifically, this training focuses on
language development standards, second language acquisition
skills, SBE approved instructional materials, supplemental
instructional materials, and strategies to differentiate
instruction for ELL pupils in the content area of ELA.
----------------------------------------------------------
| | 2009 Budget Acta |
| | (in millions) |
|---------------------------+------------------------------|
|MRPD Programb | $45.4 |
|---------------------------+------------------------------|
|Administrator Training | $2.9 |
|Program | |
|---------------------------+------------------------------|
|School Business Official | $1.0 |
|Program | |
----------------------------------------------------------
aAmounts represent a total reduction of 19.8% (15.4% in the
current year - 2008-09 and an additional 4.4% in the budget
year - 2009-10).
bAmount includes funding for the EL component in ELA.
3)Categorical Program Flexibility . As part of the February 2009
budget process, local education agencies (LEAs) were provided
with unprecedented fiscal and policy flexibility related to
over 40 categorical programs. Specifically, any LEA that
received funding for specified categorical programs in the
2008-09 fiscal year (FY) is authorized to use this funding for
any other educational purpose until the 2012-13 FY. The LEA
may choose to continue operating the categorical program that
it received funding for or redirect it for any other
educational purpose it deems appropriate.
AB 272
Page 4
In its current form, this measure does not include the LELS
program in the categorical flexibility provided to the LEAs
through the budget. The committee may wish to consider whether
or not it is appropriate to establish a new categorical
program that is not treated in the same manner with regard to
flexibility as the majority of categorical programs. Likewise,
the committee may wish to consider whether or not it is
appropriate to establish a new program with the deteriorating
fiscal condition of the state.
4)Federal ARRA funds . In February 2009, the federal government
passed the ARRA, which allocated approximately $100 billion
nationwide for education programs with the purpose of
stimulating the economy. Of this amount, California is
expected to receive approximately $8 billion.
The SIG AARA funds are to be distributed based on an existing
grant program that provides funds to LEAs with schools in
federal program improvement or corrective action (i.e.,
failing to meet federal accountability requirements) that
demonstrate the greatest set of academic challenges and
commitment to raising student achievement. According to the
SDE, California is expected to receive approximately $383
million over the next two years.
This bill proposes to use SIG funds for this program.
However, these federal funds are only available to Title I
schools in program improvement and corrective action to
increase academic achievement for all of its pupils who are
failing to meet federal accountability requirements. For the
most parts, these pupils are ELs and pupils with special
needs. Therefore, it is unlikely that this funding can be
earmarked for professional development that benefits only EL
pupils.
5)Should Proposition 98 funding be allocated directly to a
non-profit organization ? Proposition 98 (GF/98) funding is
allocated for LEAs and community colleges (CCs) to provide
educational services to K-14 pupils. Once this funding
reaches LEAs or CCs, they may contract for services that they
deem necessary to provide their pupils.
This bill establishes the LELS program, which provides GF/98
funds to non-profit organizations to provide EL professional
AB 272
Page 5
development to administrators and counselors. The committee
may consider limiting the allocation of funds to LEAs and
higher education institutions who partner with a COE or school
district for the purpose of providing training under this
program.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081