BILL ANALYSIS AB 476 Page 1 GOVERNOR'S VETO AB 476 (Torlakson) As Amended August 19, 2009 2/3 vote ----------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |52-26|(June 3, 2009) |SENATE: |26-13|(September 4, | | | | | | |2009) | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |50-28|(September 10, | | | | | | |2009) | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: ED. SUMMARY : Requires a one-time independent evaluation of the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program. Specifically, this bill : 1)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), on or before April 1, 2010, to contract for an independent evaluation of the STAR Program that is required to: a) Be 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; b) Include, but not be limited to, 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, compliance with testing standards, usefulness as diagnostic or evaluative tools, AB 476 Page 2 and the feasibility of alternative diagnostic testing in new grade levels or content areas; c) Make recommendations for improvements and revisions in examinations and processes in the program, including recommendations for 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, using or developing diagnostic information on assessments, and developing recommendations regarding alternatives to the current testing format to allow the greatest aggregate base for assessing district-wide performance on content standards; and, d) Be provided by the SPI to the Legislature, Governor and State Board of Education (SBE) on or before November 1, 2010. 2)Requires the advisory committee advising the SPI on matters involving the Academic Performance Index to advise the SPI, as specified, on the evaluation of the STAR Program, and requires the SPI to appoint four additional members, educators or large-scale assessment experts, to the advisory committee for the purposes advising the SPI on the evaluation. 3)Specifies that federal funds made available under Title VI pursuant to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), not to exceed $150,000, be used for this evaluation. The Senate amendments provide additional detail and specificity regarding the evaluation and the information on which the evaluation is required to be based, the analyses that the evaluation is required to include, and the recommendations required to be contained in the evaluation report. EXISTING LAW : 1)Requires each charter school, school district, and county office of education to administer designated achievement tests to each pupil in grades 2 through 11, inclusive, as part of AB 476 Page 3 the STAR Program until July 1, 2011. 2)Requires the SPI and the SBE to undertake activities in support of STAR testing in grades 2 through 11, inclusive, as part of the STAR Program until July 1, 2011. 3)Repeals the statute authorizing the STAR Program, the state's content and performance standards, and other related elements as of January 1, 2012. AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar to the version passed by the Senate. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, federal fund costs capped at $150,000 for the STAR Program evaluation. The Committee notes that the author has worked with the California Department of Education to find ways to narrow the bill's cost while maintaining key components of the evaluation, and that the latest version of the bill is more likely to maintain the $150,000 cap on expenditures than the version originally analyzed in the Senate Appropriations Committee. COMMENTS : California's state assessment program is comprised of three major testing components, the STAR Program, the English language development test (the California English Language Development Test, CELDT, is the adopted test), and a high school exit examination (the California High School Exit Examination, CAHSEE, is currently the designated test). The program also includes a number of smaller, more specialized assessments. The STAR Program, initially authorized in 1997, requires testing of students at specified grade levels in English language arts (grades 2-11), mathematics (grades 2-8 and end of course exams in grades 9-11), science (grades 5, 8, and end of course exams in grades 9-11), and history/social science (grades 8-11) . In 2003, the California Standards Tests (CST) replaced a nationally published "off the shelf" test as the primary battery of STAR tests; the CST include only questions written specifically for California's content standards. Today, the STAR Program includes the CSTs, the California Alternate Performance AB 476 Page 4 Assessment (CAPA) administered to students with significant cognitive disabilities, the California Modified Assessment (CMA) administered to students whose disabilities preclude them from achieving grade-level proficiency on an assessment of the California content standards with or without testing accommodations, and a national norm-referenced test in Spanish that is administered to Spanish speaking English learners who have been in school in the U.S. less than 12 months or who are receiving instruction in Spanish. Neither the high school exit exam nor the English language development test are components of the STAR Program; each of those tests is separately authorized in statute. Results for STAR tests are reported for the individual pupil, but no accountability attaches to these individual results; 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 NCLB. NCLB requires each state to administer a standards-aligned achievement test in reading and mathematics to all students in grades 3-8 and grade 10; it also requires science testing in grades 5, 8, and 10. This bill requires an independent evaluation of the STAR Program. According to the author, this bill "would authorize an independent evaluation of the current STAR program's effectiveness in measuring student progress on California academic standards and meeting the requirements of NCLB. This evaluation would also examine the feasibility and cost of a state-wide diagnostic testing model, to achieve both a classroom-focused diagnostic tool and a state-wide data tracking function. This independent evaluation would inform the STAR reauthorization discussion." Given the sunset and potential reauthorization of the STAR Program in 2011, the Legislature's need for an evaluation of the program is clear. The STAR Program has tested millions of students in multiple content areas annually for twelve years; however, no independent evaluation has been required or completed. A technical report on the test is completed annually by the testing contractor responsible for administration, AB 476 Page 5 scoring, and reporting the test and results, but the independence of contractors has been called into question by the California Department of Education and the SBE over the lifetime of the program. A report by the SPI and SBE regarding the status of implementation of the STAR Program was required and provided in 2001; an annual report of test scores from the SPI to the Legislature and SBE is also required. Neither the annual technical reports nor any of the SPI/SBE reports were completed by an independent entity, and none of those reports examine all of the issues that the Legislature should examine prior to the reauthorization of the STAR Program. By contrast California's high school exit examination, authorized in 1999 and first administered in 2001, has had an ongoing independent evaluator that has issued both annual and biennial evaluative reports since 2001. These evaluations are contracted for separately from the contract issued to the vendor or vendors responsible for the administration, development or any other facet of the test, and have been conducted by a firm and staff with backgrounds in measurement, and specializing in research and program evaluation. During this period of economic and budgetary crisis, the imposition of a requirement for a new one-time evaluation and the cost that it creates is a difficult proposal to consider. However, since the cost of implementing a one-time evaluation of the STAR Program is minimal and constrained to be not more than $150,000, this cost will likely be offset by future savings generated by the evaluation's findings that may allow the Legislature to more efficiently use the state's resources to support the reauthorized testing program. Previous legislation: SB 1448 (Alpert), Chapter 233, Statutes of 2004, reauthorized the STAR Program. SB 376 (Alpert), Chapter 828, Statutes of 1997, established the STAR Program and authorized testing in grades 2 through 11. GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE : AB 476 Page 6 "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." Analysis Prepared by: Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0003430