BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 391|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 391
Author: Torlakson (D), et al
Amended: 6/30/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/23/10
AYES: Romero, Alquist, Liu, Price, Simitian
NOES: Huff, Emmerson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hancock, Wyland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-4, 8/12/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Ashburn, Emmerson, Walters, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 44-27, 1/27/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Pupil assessment: STAR Program
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, on or before April 1, 2011, to contract with
an independent evaluator to evaluate the Standardized
Testing and Reporting program. The report is due by
November 1, 2011, and is intended to help guide
consideration of reauthorizing the program prior to its
scheduled sunset in July of 2013.
ANALYSIS : The Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
Program, initially authorized in 1997, requires the testing
CONTINUED
AB 391
Page
2
of students in grades 2 through 11, including English
language arts and mathematics at most grade levels, and
science and history/social science at specified grade
levels. In 2003, the California Standards Tests (CST)
replaced an earlier "off the shelf" test as the primary
battery of STAR tests. The CSTs are written specifically
to test California's content standards. The state and
federal accountability systems are primarily based on the
aggregated STAR test scores from all pupils in a school or
school district. Many elements of the STAR Program are
used by California to meet the assessment and
accountability requirements of the federal No Child Left
Behind Act. The STAR Program is currently scheduled to
sunset in July 2013.
This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI), on or before April 1, 2011, to contract for an
independent evaluation of the STAR Program that will be a
meta-analysis of existing information and data. The
report is:
1. Based upon information gathered in field testing and
annual administrations of the assessments, all existing
reports and other studies of STAR, state and federal
requirements, a review of research-based alternative
assessment models, and a review of existing and emerging
practices in large-scale assessment from across the
nation.
2. Consider the STAR Program's alignment to statewide
content standards and the tests' content validity; the
standards' grade level continuity/vertical articulation
and the longitudinal validity of the tests across grade
levels; the use of content standards from other core
curriculum areas for test items; pupil performance.
3. Consider the STAR's compliance with testing standards;
usefulness as a diagnostic, formative, interim
assessment or program evaluation tool; and the
feasibility of alternative diagnostic testing in new
grade levels or content areas.
4. Make recommendations for improvements and revisions in
examinations and processes in the program, including
AB 391
Page
3
recommendations for improving the technical
characteristics of the tests for groups and individuals,
including pupils with disabilities and English learners;
improving grade level continuity and vertical alignment
in the tests; improving the ability to produce scores
that are longitudinally comparable; increasing the
integration of content from other core curriculum areas
into test items; improving the alignment to any new
content standards and transitioning to the new
assessment system; using or developing diagnostic
information on assessments; decreasing turn-around time
for test results and testing time; providing formative
and interim assessments to better inform instruction;
assessing a pupil's understanding and skill in the area
of technology; ensuring that no bias is created by the
tests; and developing recommendations regarding
alternatives to the current testing format to allow for
multiple item types and the greatest aggregate base for
assessing district-wide performance on content
standards.
The SPI is required to provide the evaluation to the
Legislature, the Governor, and the State Board of Education
by November 1, 2011.
Prior/Related Legislation
AB 476 (Torlakson), 2009-10 Session, was nearly identical
to this bill, passed the Senate Floor with a vote of 26-13
on September 4, 2009. The Governor vetoed AB 476 with the
following veto message:
The objectives of this bill are duplicative of work
already being done by a variety of sources. Not only
have there been reviews of California's standards and
assessment system by the United States Department of
Education's peer review process, the California
Department of Education has a process which has
included an independent alignment study and review of
test items by various content and test development
experts. Finally, this bill circumvents the State
Board of Education in the selection of the independent
evaluator and approving the evaluation and its
recommendations.
AB 391
Page
4
SB 80 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), Chapter
174, Statutes of 2007, passed the Senate Floor with a vote
of 26-13, on September 4, 2009, among other things,
reinstates second grade testing and reset the sunset on the
STAR Program to July 1, 2011.
SB 1448 (Alpert), Chapter 233, Statutes of 2004, passed the
Senate Floor with a vote of 28-11, on August 21, 2009,
eliminates second grade testing on July 1, 2007, and
extended sunset on the STAR Program for grades 3-11 to
January 1, 2011.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12
2012-13 Fund
STAR evaluation $300 to $500 General
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/16/10)
Association of California School Administrators
California Council for the Social Studies
California Federation of Teachers
California School Boards Association
California School Employees Association
California Science Teachers' Association
California Teachers Association
California Together
San Francisco Unified School District
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/16/10)
Department of Finance
Office of the Secretary of Education
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"the overall STAR model has not been reconsidered since
AB 391
Page
5
1997, and there are numerous models of testing, content and
reporting that should be examined to ensure that the STAR
program is most effective for teaching, learning and
providing performance accountability. With discussions on
a federal level regarding national assessments, and
increasing pressure in the classroom because of focus on
STAR test scores, California must examine this model and
its results to maximize our investment of teacher and
student time and tax dollars. The STAR system is up for
reauthorization in 2013, and the Legislature must be
prepared for discussion of alternative models, particularly
considering the national assessment possibility either
through Race to the Top or the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act a reauthorization projected to happen in
2011."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Department of Finance is
opposed to this bill for the following reasons, "A similar
bill was vetoed in 2009 (AB 476, Torlakson). The veto
message indicated that AB 476 was unnecessary as it would
lave required an evaluation duplicative of work already
done by a variety of sources. Furthermore, the veto
message indicated that AB 476 would circumvent the State
Board of Education (Board) in the selection of the
independent evaluator and approval of the evaluation and
its recommendations. This bill has the same problems."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Chesbro, Coto,
Davis, De La Torre, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes,
Furutani, Galgiani, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber,
Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Monning, Nava, Nestande, John A. Perez, Portantino,
Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Torrico, Yamada
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Emmerson, Fletcher,
Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey,
Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Niello, Nielsen, Silva,
Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Charles Calderon, Carter, De Leon, Hall,
V. Manuel Perez, Torlakson, Bass
AB 391
Page
6
PQ:do 8/16/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****