BILL ANALYSIS AB 518 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 6, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Kevin De Leon, Chair AB 518 (Mendoza) - As Amended: April 22, 2009 Policy Committee: Education Vote:8-2 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill requires that members of school assistance and intervention teams (SAITs) and school district assistance and intervention teams (DAITs) to possess a high degree of knowledge, skills, and expertise in order to meet the needs of the students they serve. Specifically, this bill: 1)Defines "high degree of knowledge, skills, and expertise" to include a certification or advanced degree relating to the numerically significant pupil subgroups and either of the following: (a) at least five years of expertise working directly with pupil subgroups and (b) expertise as a provider of professional development, demonstrated through having written or published articles on instruction and programs for pupil subgroups. 2)Requires SAITs and DAITs to use procedures and tools developed specifically for the improvement of language and content instruction for the pupil subgroups that have failed to meet state and federal academic performance targets, as specified. 3)Requires SAITs and DAITS, when making recommendations to schoolsites or districts, to ensure that the recommendations are specific to pupils having access to core curriculum, including reading and mathematics as specified. 4)Requires SAITs and DAITs to ensure parental involvement pursuant to the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This measure further requires the SAIT and DAIT to provide recommendations to improve an alternative program AB 518 Page 2 (i.e., instruction in a pupil's native language), if the alternative program is the reason for federal sanctions. 5)Specifies that the new requirements only apply to SAITS and DAITS established on or after January 1, 2010. FISCAL EFFECT GF/98 and federal fund cost pressure, of approximately $200,000, to require additional qualifications and duties for SAITs and DAITs. Traditionally, SAITs and DAITs have been funded with federal funds; however, in recent years, SAITs have received GF/98 funds. COMMENTS 1)Background . AB 961 (Steinberg), Statutes of 2001 established SAITs for the purposes of sanctioning schoolsites that received funding under the state Immediate/Intervention Underperforming Schools and High Priority Schools Grant programs. These schoolsites were deemed "state monitored" by their failure to meet academic gains as measured by the state Academic Performance Index (API). The SBE, based on a recommendation of the SPI, assigned state monitored schools a SAIT to implement an improvement plan, with the goal of increasing academic achievement. Existing statute requires SAITs to have a high degree of knowledge and skills in the areas of school leadership, curriculum, and instruction aligned to the state academic content and performance standards, classroom management and discipline, academic assessment, parent-school relations, and evaluation research-based reform strategies. According to the State Department of Education (SDE), there are 53 approved SAIT providers. In 2001, the federal government passed NCLB, which requires the state to adhere to a federal accountability system because California will receive approximately $2.7 billion in K-12 federal NCLB funds in the budget year. Of this amount, $1.64 billion are Title I funds, which serve the state's poorest students. The federal accountability system is governed by a status AB 518 Page 3 model, as measured by Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), academic targets as measured by state assessments. Under this model, local education agencies (LEAs) and schoolsites are identified as program improvement (PI) based on failing to meet AYP targets. PI LEAs and schoolsites that do not meet AYP for two consecutive years are subject to one or more corrective actions as recommended by the SPI and approved SBE. In addition to a correction action, the SBE may require an LEA to contract with a DAIT to provide technical assistance in implementing the corrective action (see comment #2 below). Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), with approval from the SBE, to develop standards and criteria to be applied to a DAIT. According to SDE, there are 38 approved DAIT providers. 2)AB 519 (Budget Committee), Statutes of 2008 , established a process for implementing the federal NCLB PI corrective action for LEAs. Federal law requires states to choose a sanction for an LEA in corrective action (i.e., has failed to meet AYP after three consecutive years). These sanctions may include reconstituting the district, replacing district personnel, placing a trustee in the district, and requiring the district to implement a new curriculum. In addition to the sanction, federal law requires states to provide LEAs with technical assistance in implementing the sanction. State law requires the SPI to recommend a sanction to the SBE for approval. To date, the SBE has sanctioned 147 LEAs. Each LEA received the same sanction: to implement a new curriculum. In addition, AB 519 authorizes the SPI to recommend, with SBE approval, that the LEA contract with a DAIT or other technical assistance provider to aid in implementing the sanction. LEAs may receive between $150,000 and $50,000 per PI school within their district to contract with a DAIT or other technical assistance provider. This funding is condition upon the availability of federal funds. 3)Previous and related legislation. a) AB 2531 (Mendoza), which is substantially similar to AB 518 Page 4 this measure, was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file in August 2008. b) AB 683 (Chesbro), pending in this committee, authorizes an LEA in corrective action that received a sanction, but does not have any PI schools, to receive federal funding to implement the sanction, as specified. c) AB 451 (De Le?n), pending in this committee, establishes an intervention structure to provide PI schools in year four and five with technical assistance support to improve academic achievement, with focus on significant subgroups, as specified. Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916) 319-2081