BILL ANALYSIS AB 451 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Julia Brownley, Chair AB 451 (De Leon) - As Amended: April 13, 2009 SUBJECT : Education finance: The Opportunity to Learn Block Grant SUMMARY : Makes changes in the support of and resources provided to local educational agencies (LEAs) in corrective action, in order to assist those LEAs in their improvement efforts and in improving the academic achievement of PI schools under their jurisdiction. Specifically, this bill : 1)Deletes the Early Warning Program established to identify those LEAs that are in danger within two years of entering Program Improvement (PI) status under the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. 2)Clarifies that the one-year, nonrenewable improvement grants provided to LEAs identified for corrective action are to assist the LEA in its improvement process, including improving the academic achievement of schools under its jurisdiction identified for PI under federal law. 3)Increases the per school grant award for the one-year, nonrenewable improvement grants provided to LEAs identified for corrective action by fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in each of the three severity categories used to group LEAs so as to tie the strength or approach of the corrective actions to the need faced. 4)Requires that the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and State Board of Education (SBE) consider whether an LEA with schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5 received a one-year, nonrenewable improvement grant when determining whether the LEA be required to contract with a District Assistance Intervention Team (DAIT) or other provider. 5)Requires, for the 2009-10 fiscal year only, that a LEA that received a sanction prior to 2009 and received a one-year, nonrenewable improvement grant be provided with an additional one-year, nonrenewable improvement grant in the amount equal to the difference between the amount previously approved and AB 451 Page 2 the new amounts specified in 3) above. 6)Authorizes LEAs with schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5 to apply for a one-year, nonrenewable improvement grant and to contract with an outside entity, including a schoolsite assistance and intervention team (SAIT); requires, as a condition of receiving these funds, the LEA to: a) Provide schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5 with funding to implement technical assistance to improve achievement (with a focus on subgroups), assess the current schoolsite plan within 60 days of receiving funding, identify any deficiencies that exist within operations of the schoolsite, and include the district liaison team. b) Establish a district school liaison team to coordinate with schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5 on these improvement activities, work with schoolsite staff, reexamine the schoolsite plan for academic achievement, and ensure the consistency of the assessment of the schoolsite plan. c) Ensures that all pupils enrolled in schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5 continue to have the option to transfer to another public school served by the LEA. d) Ensures that all pupils enrolled in schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5 continue to have supplemental educational services available to them. 7)Establishes that, subject to the availability of funds in the Budget Act, the funding rate for the one-year, nonrenewable improvement grants available to LEAs with schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5 be one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) per school identified as PI Year 4 or Year 5 in the LEA, and requires that the CDE give first priority for funding to schools in PI Year 5. 8)Authorizes an LEA, with schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5, to provide one-year, nonrenewable improvement funds to PI schools in Year 4 or Year 5 in order to allow the schools to provide: a) Assistance to schoolsite staff in analyzing pupil assessment data to improve academic achievement, with focus on significant subgroups. AB 451 Page 3 b) Professional development that is based on scientifically based research, the state-adopted academic content standards, and addresses the instructional needs of pupils, with focus on English language learners and pupils with special needs. 9)Defines, for the purposes of these provisions regarding LEAs with schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5, LEA to include school district, county office of education and direct-funded charter school, to the extent that these entities serve pupils in kindergarten or any of grades 1-12; also requires that these provisions become operative only if an appropriation is made for this purpose. EXISTING FEDERAL LAW , under NCLB: 1)Requires all states to implement statewide accountability systems based on state standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. 2)Requires the state to annually review the performance of each LEA receiving funding under Title I, and identify any LEA that has not met its Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) criteria for two consecutive years for PI. 3)Requires an LEA not meeting AYP criteria beyond those two consecutive years, to provide certain types of required services and/or corrective actions during each subsequent year it is identified as PI. 4)Allows an LEA to exit PI, if it meets AYP for two consecutive years. EXISTING STATE LAW : 1)Authorizes the CDE and SBE to develop objective criteria by which a LEA identified for corrective action and subject to a sanction is to be evaluated to determine the pervasiveness and severity of its problems, and thus type of sanction to be imposed and the level of federal improvement funding to be provided. 2)Subjects a LEA that is identified for corrective action under AB 451 Page 4 NCLB to one or more sanctions, as recommended by the SPI and approved by the SBE. 3)Allows the SPI and SBE to require, in addition to any approved corrective action, an LEA to contract with a DAIT to provide support for the LEA's instructional reform efforts. 4)Authorizes a LEA identified for corrective action to apply for a one-year, nonrenewable grant of federal improvement funding to assist in its improvement process. 5)Requires that the amount of the one-year, nonrenewable improvement grant be based on whether the agency has extensive and severe, moderate or minor performance problems, and the number of schools in the LEA identified for PI. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown increased allocations of available federal funds to LEAs that are identified for corrective action and have schools in PI. COMMENTS : NCLB establishes specific annual targets for both participation in state testing and for academic achievement. Any school or LEA not meeting those targets (either as a whole or for any numerically significant subgroup) is deemed to not have met AYP and enters PI status. A school or LEA not meeting AYP criteria beyond two consecutive years (i.e., in PI Year 3) is required to provide certain types of services to pupils and/or to implement corrective actions specified by the SPI and SBE during each subsequent year it is identified as PI. A school or LEA is allowed to exit PI if it subsequently meets AYP for two consecutive years. Currently LEAs that advance to PI Year 3 are is subject to one or more of the following sanctions as recommended by the SPI and approved by the SBE: 1)Replacing district personnel who are relevant to the district's failure to make AYP. 2)Removing schools from the district's jurisdiction and establishing alternative arrangements for governing and supervising those schools. 3)Appointing, by SBE, a receiver or trustee to administer the district's affairs in place of the county superintendent of schools and the governing board. AB 451 Page 5 4)Restructuring or abolishing the district. 5)In conjunction with another sanction, authorizing pupils to transfer from a school operated by the district to a higher performing school operated by another district and providing them with transportation to those schools. 6)Instituting and fully implementing a new curriculum that is based on state academic content standards. 7)Deferring programmatic funds or reducing administrative funds. In addition to these sanctions the SPI may recommend, and the SBE may approve, the requirement that an LEA contract with a DAIT. Ninety-seven California LEAs, ninety-six school districts and one county office of education, reached the point in early 2008, where corrective actions were applied. At its March 2008 meeting the SBE approved the SPI's recommendations with respect to those LEAs, which provided an approach that used specific criteria, based on the severity of the problems or reason for failing to meet AYP, to categorize these LEAs into severe, moderate or minor groupings. This approach was intended to tie the strength or approach of the corrective actions to the need faced by the LEA; sanctions applied to those 97 LEAs ranged from assignment of a DAIT and appointment of a trustee (severe) to the requirement that the LEA plan be amended to target those issues that led to the AYP failure (minor). The CDE estimates that an additional 50 LEAs in 2008-09 and 35 LEAs in 2010-11 will require corrective actions, and that more than half of all LEAs will do so by 2012-13. CDE estimates that for the current year there are 250 LEAs in PI status. The SPI's recommendations were grounded in a March 2007 CDE report to the SBE entitled, "Proposal for the Reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001". The CDE reported that California had identified numerous districts under PI and subject to corrective action, and that many more were in the immediate pipeline. The proposal went on to make a number of recommendations related to dealing with these districts and related to the future reauthorization of NCLB. Those recommendations included the following: 1)Given the large number of schools and districts in California AB 451 Page 6 identified as in need of improvement, California needs explicit flexibility within NCLB to develop a tiered system of help (fiscal resources and technical assistance) based on level of need. Schools and districts showing insufficient growth over time should be the first focus of intervention and corrective action. 2)California has begun to provide innovative district level support to build district capacity for improving schools. The state needs greater and more explicit flexibility to devise its own corrective actions to supplement the NCLB district level corrective actions to implement these support structures while still holding districts accountable for results. Consistent with the actions taken with respect to the 97 LEAs earlier in 2008, the Legislature enacted AB 519 (Assembly Committee on Budget), Chapter 757, Statutes of 2008, a trailer bill to the Budget Act of 2008, which provided the authority to allocate $112.7 million in federal funds through the establishment of a funding formula for state intervention for LEAs, who are in the third year of PI and facing corrective actions under NCLB. This bill authorized the CDE and SBE to develop objective criteria by which a LEA identified for corrective action and subject to a sanction is to be evaluated to determine the pervasiveness and severity of its problems and thus the type of sanction or sanctions to be imposed; it also authorized that LEA to apply for a one-year, nonrenewable grant of federal improvement funding to assist in its improvement process and to expend that grant funding over the time period allowable under federal law. The grants are funded by federal monies available for this purpose, including Title I set-aside and school improvement grants. AB 519 established three levels of grant, corresponding to the severe, moderate and minor categories, and specified that a per school identified for PI grant amount would be paid to LEAs identified for corrective actions. Thus the LEA would receive a total grant equal to the appropriate per school grant amount multiplied by the number of PI schools in the LEA. This bill eliminates the existing early warning system designed to assist LEAs who are moving toward being identified for corrective actions, and instead focuses resources on the LEAs and schools in greatest need. The bill provides this focus by increasing the per school amount provided in the one-year, nonrenewable improvement grant available to LEAs in corrective AB 451 Page 7 action, by establishing a process to provide resources to LEAs with schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5 in order to assist those LEAs in their improvement efforts, and by clarifying that improvement funding provided to LEAs identified for corrective action are meant to assist the LEA in its improvement process, particularly in improving the academic achievement of PI schools under its jurisdiction. Assembly fiscal staff report that in 2008-09, California received approximately $1.8 billion in federal Title I funds; of this amount, four percent or approximately $70 million is Title I set-aside funding dedicated by the federal government for improving schools and LEAs in PI status. In addition, the state received $16.6 million in federal funding in 2007 for PI schools under the new School Improvement Grant (SIG). The recently passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) included approximately $1.5 billion for Title I to support supplemental services for needy pupils; this will include an expected $45 million in Title I "set-aside" and approximately $380 million in SIG funding in addition to the annual allocations already mentioned. According to the author, "California has a unique opportunity with base federal Title I "set-aside" funding and ARRA (i.e., both Title I and SIG) to provide PI schools in year four and five with additional resources to gain technical assistance to improve academic achievement. This bill implements a structure that provides federal funding to LEAs with PI schools in year four and five to reassess their schoolsite plans and make recommendations to improve academic achievement. Likewise, the measure establishes a structure for LEAs to work collaboratively with these schools in this process." Committee recommendations: As more information about future federal funding, including funding provided under ARRA, becomes available and more discussion about this bill takes place, additional policy questions in this area will arise and this bill will continue to evolve. Committee staff recommends that the Committee, should it choose to pass this bill, seek a commitment from the author to continue to involve the Committee and its staff in discussions about this bill as the bill moves forward. Related legislation: AB 518 (Mendoza), pending in Assembly Appropriations, requires a school assistance and intervention AB 451 Page 8 team (SAIT) and a district assistance and intervention team (DAIT) to possess a high degree of knowledge, skills, and expertise in meeting the curriculum and instructional needs of prescribed pupil groups. AB 683 (Chesbro), pending in Assembly Education, creates an urgency statute that provides a one-year, non-renewable federal improvement grant to local education agencies (LEAs) that are identified for corrective action and sanctions under the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, but that have no schools in Program Improvement (PI) status. Previous legislation: AB 519 (Assembly Committee on Budget), Chapter 757, Statutes of 2008, a trailer bill to the Budget Act of 2008, provides statutory authority to allocate $112.7 million in federal funds through the establishment of a funding formula for LEAs PI Year 3 status and facing corrective actions under NCLB; also authorizes the CDE and SBE to develop objective criteria by which a LEA identified for corrective action and subject to a sanction is to be evaluated to determine the pervasiveness and severity of its problems, the type of sanction to be imposed, and the level of grant to be funded. AB 2531 (Mendoza), held in the Senate Appropriations Committee in 2008, was substantially similar to AB 518 (Mendoza), currently pending in the Assembly. SB 606 (Perata), failed Senate concurrence with Assembly amendments in 2008, would have made changes to the process whereby California local education agencies (LEAs) are identified for Program Improvement (PI) corrective actions under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and appropriated $47 million in federal funds for purposes of the bill. SB 1074 (Senate Committee on Budget), died on the Assembly Floor in 2008, was substantially similar to AB 519 with respect to the PI provision. AB 953 (Coto), Chapter 513, Statutes of 2005, amends the State program to support LEAs and schools in PI. AB 2066 (Steinberg), Chapter 579, Statutes of 2004, establishes a federally required assessment and intervention process to assist school districts, county offices of education and certain charter schools that are in need of program improvement under NCLB. AB 2066 (Steinberg), Chapter 579, Statutes of 2004, provides additional funding to school districts for schools identified for PI and revises the provisions required for a school to exit the High Priority Schools Grant Program for Low Performing Schools. AB 312 (Strom-Martin), Chapter 1020, Statutes of 2002, establishes the School System of School Support (S4) and allocates federal and state funding for the purposes of school AB 451 Page 9 sanctions related to the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) and federal law. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Association of California School Administrators Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087