BILL ANALYSIS AB 451 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 451 (De Leon) As Amended June 1, 2009 Majority vote EDUCATION 11-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Brownley, Nestande, |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, | | |Ammiano, Arambula, | |Ammiano, | | |Buchanan, Carter, Eng, | |Charles Calderon, Davis, | | |Garrick, Miller, Solorio, | |Duvall, Fuentes, Hall, | | |Torlakson | |Harkey, Miller, | | | | |John A. Perez, Price, | | | | |Skinner, Solorio, Audra | | | | |Strickland, Torlakson, | | | | |Krekorian | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Makes changes in the support of and resources provided to local educational agencies (LEAs) in corrective action, in order to assist in their improvement efforts and in improving the academic achievement of schools under their jurisdiction. Specifically, this bill : 1)Deletes the Early Warning Program established to identify LEAs in danger of entering Program Improvement (PI) status under the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. 2)Clarifies that a one-year, nonrenewable improvement grant (Improvement Grant) provided to an LEA identified for corrective action are to assist the LEA in its improvement process, including improving the academic achievement of its schools identified for PI. 3)Increases the per school grant award for an Improvement Grant provided to an LEA identified for corrective action by $50,000 in each of the three severity categories used to group LEAs to tie the strength of the corrective actions to need. 4)Requires that the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) consider whether an LEA with schools in PI Year 4 or 5 received an Improvement Grant, when recommending sanctions or whether the LEA AB 451 Page 2 be required to contract with a District Assistance Intervention Team (DAIT) or other provider to the State Board of Education (SBE). 5)Requires, for fiscal year (FY) 2009-10 only, that a LEA that received a sanction prior to 2010 and received an Improvement Grant be provided with additional funds equal to the difference between the amount previously approved and the new amounts specified in 3) above. 6)Authorizes LEAs, not in corrective action, with schools in PI Year 4 or 5 and beyond to apply for an Improvement Grant and to contract with an outside entity, including an approved 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 5 and beyond 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 5 and beyond on these improvement activities, work with schoolsite staff, reexamine current schoolsite conditions and efforts to improve school performance, and ensure the consistency of the assessment of the schoolsite plan. c) Ensures that all pupils enrolled in schools in PI Year 4 or 5 and beyond continue to have the option to transfer to another public school served by the LEA, and 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 Improvement Grant available to LEAs with schools in PI Year 4 or 5 and beyond be $150,000 per school identified as PI Year 4 or 5 and beyond in the LEA, and requires that the CDE give first priority for funding to schools in PI Year 5, with a minimum of 85% of the grant utilized to improve academic achievement in those schools in PI Year 4 or 5 and beyond. AB 451 Page 3 8)Authorizes an LEA, with schools in PI Year 4 or 5 and beyond, to provide Improvement Grant funds to PI schools in Year 4 or 5 and beyond 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. 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 "LEA with schools in PI Year 4 or 5 and beyond" to include a 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. 10)Requires, as a condition of apportionment, LEAs receiving an Improvement Grant to provide annual reports of specified evaluation data as requested by the SPI. 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; also requires each 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. 2)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 PI year, and 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 AB 451 Page 4 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 NCLB to one or more sanctions, as recommended by the SPI and approved by the SBE; also 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. 3)Authorizes a LEA identified for corrective action to apply for an Improvement Grant to assist in its improvement process, and requires that the amount of the 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 : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, one-time federal fund costs of approximately $169 million in FY 2009-10 and $99 million in FY 2010-11 to the CDE to implement this measure. 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 or sanctions specified by the SPI and SBE during each subsequent year it is identified as PI. In addition to these sanctions the SPI may recommend, and the SBE approve, the requirement that an LEA contract with a DAIT. A school or LEA is allowed to exit PI if it subsequently meets AYP for two consecutive years. Ninety-seven California LEAs, 96 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. AB 451 Page 5 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). CDE estimates that an additional 50 LEAs in 2008-09 and 35 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. 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 LEAs to apply for an Improvement Grant 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 Improvement Grant available to LEAs in corrective action, by establishing a process to provide resources to LEAs with schools in PI Year 4 or 5 and beyond 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 AB 451 Page 6 under its jurisdiction. Assembly fiscal staff report that in 2008-09, California received approximately $1.8 billion in federal Title I funds; 4%, approximately $70 million, of which is Title I set-aside 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." Related and previous legislation: AB 683 (Chesbro), pending in Assembly Education, creates an urgency statute that provides a one-year, non-renewable federal improvement grant to LEAs that are identified for corrective action and sanctions under NCLB, but that have no schools in PI status. 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 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 AB 451 Page 7 that are in need of program improvement under NCLB. Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0001234