BILL ANALYSIS
SB 19
Page 1
Date of Hearing: September 3, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 19 (Simitian) - As Amended: August 27, 2009
SENATE VOTE : Not Relevant
SUBJECT : Education Data
SUMMARY : Makes statutory changes, related to the collection,
reporting and use of data, some of which may be necessary for
California to qualify for specific one-time funding programs
under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).
Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes the use of federal grant funds, received pursuant
to ARRA and provided for statewide data systems, to fund
activities currently required of the working group created by
the State Chief Information Officer (CIO) related to the
creation of a strategic plan to link education data systems
from K-12 and higher education.
2)Adds an additional issue, to include interagency agreements to
facilitate the transfer of data from one segment to another
and ultimately to include linkages to workforce data, to the
strategic plan being created by the CIO's working group; also
extends the due date for the delivery of the strategic plan by
the CIO to the Legislature and Governor from September 1, 2009
to January 1, 2010.
3)Deletes the current requirement that data in the California
Longitudinal Teacher Integrated Data Education System
(CALTIDES) not be used, either solely or in conjunction with
data from the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data
System (CALPADS), for purposes of pay, promotion, sanction, or
personnel evaluation of an individual teacher or groups of
teachers, or of any other employment decisions related to
individual teachers; also replaces this prohibition with
specific authority to use data from these systems for the
stated purposes.
4)Provides an exception to the prohibition against the
California Department of Education (CDE) requiring state and
federally funded center based child care and development
SB 19
Page 2
programs administered by the CDE to implement or maintain the
unique Statewide Student Identifiers (SSID) being used in
CALPADS until an appropriation for this purpose is provided,
by excepting the extent to which this is required by federal
law, or needed to ensure compliance with federal law.
5)Adds to the authority granted to the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) to add data elements deemed necessary to
CALPADS, with approval of the State Board of Education (SBE),
to comply with the federal reporting requirements delineated
in ARRA. Also specifically requires other data elements
including, but not necessarily limited to:
a) The ability to match teachers to their pupils with the
intent to correlate pupil achievement and performance with
teacher preparation programs.
b) The ability to include evaluation data for teachers and
principals.
c) Pupils' scores on tests measuring whether pupils are
prepared for a postsecondary educational institution,
including, but not limited to, the California State
University Early Assessment Program test.
d) Data on the level of pupils' success in a postsecondary
educational institution, including whether pupils are
enrolled in remedial courses.
e) Data on whether pupils are prepared to succeed in a
postsecondary educational institution.
f) The ability to share data from data systems at all
levels, from preschool through postsecondary education,
inclusive.
6)Requires the Employment Development Department (EDD) to make
wage record system information, necessary for the purposes of
implementing CALTIDES, available to the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CTC).
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes CALPADS and requires the CDE to contract for the
development of a system that will provide for the retention
SB 19
Page 3
and analysis of longitudinal K-12 pupil achievement data on
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program assessments,
the high school exit examination, and English language
development assessments.
2)Authorizes CALTIDES and requires the CDE, in collaboration
with the CTC, to contract for the development of a system that
will streamline processes, improve the efficiency of data
collection by CDE, CTC and EDD, and improve the quality of
data collected from local educational agencies and teacher
preparation programs; these provisions do not specifically
authorize EDD to provide workforce or wage information for
individuals.
3)Requires CDE to establish a process by which local education
agencies (LEA) issue, maintain, and report information using
the unique Statewide Student Identifiers (SSID), being used in
CALPADS, for state and federally funded center based child
care and development programs administered by the CDE, but
prohibits requiring those programs to implement or maintain
the SSIDs until an appropriation for this purpose is provided.
4)Requires each of the three public higher education systems to
establish a process by which colleges and universities within
those systems issue, maintain and report information using
SSIDs, and to provide an annual report to the Governor and the
appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature
that includes a detailed timeline for the implementation,
maintenance, and use of the SSIDs.
5)Establishes the CIO as a cabinet-level position responsible
for coordination and strategic planning in the area of
information technology, and requires the CIO to convene a
working group, representing the SPI, the SBE, the three
systems of California public higher education, and any other
governmental entities that collect, report, or use individual
education data that would become part of the comprehensive
educational data system, to develop a strategic plan that
would provide an overall structural design for the linked data
system, examine current state education data systems, and
examine the interdepartmental data protocols and procedures to
be used by state agencies in collecting, storing,
manipulating, sharing, retrieving, and releasing data in order
to enable the linking of data systems; the strategic plan is
required to be delivered to the Legislature and the Governor
SB 19
Page 4
on or before September 1, 2009.
6)States legislative intent to convene a staff level working
group that is representative of the policy and fiscal staff of
both houses of the Legislature and both parties, the
Governor's office, the SPI, the Legislative Analyst's Office
(LAO), and all three systems of California public higher
education; requires the working group to make recommendations
related to the governance of educational data, including, but
not limited to, the organizational structure of the governing
entity, its relationship to other agencies, the scope of its
authorities and responsibilities, methods for holding the
governing entity accountable, and methods for ensuring that
the governing entity's work primarily serves the purposes of
educational improvement at the same time as ensuring the
privacy of any data under its charge.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill in an earlier version was heard by this
Committee. In that earlier version this bill made one of the
six proposals now made in the bill, and proposed to authorize
the use of the federal funds to cover the CIO's costs related to
a working group created by SB 1298 (Simitian), Chapter 561,
Statutes of 2008.
During the Committee's earlier hearing of this bill, the author
noted that, "Legislation will be needed to enact the statutory
changes necessary to maximize the use of the federal stimulus
funds?", and raised the possibility that substantive amendments,
adding content that would position the state to compete for
these funds, would be made to this bill once additional guidance
related to the state-level data systems grant competition was
released by the federal government. The author also committed to
keeping policy committee staff informed as to the development of
those future amendments, and has met that commitment; in that
hearing the author also stated his understanding that the
Committee may ask for the bill to be re-referred for the purpose
of hearing any substantive amendments made in the future. The
bill has now been re-referred for this hearing. Most of the
proposals in this bill have not been heard in a policy
committee.
According to the author, this bill, as amended, is "intended to
cover the data systems-related changes needed for the purposes
SB 19
Page 5
of competing for federal funds." The bill now proposes to enact
those statutory changes, relating to the collection, reporting
and use of data in both CALPADS and CALTIDES, that are
necessary, according to the author, to meet the requirements
recently proposed by the United State Department of Education
(USDOE) for funding under the competitive grant programs of
ARRA.
One of those programs for which California may compete is the
Grant Program for Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems
administered by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES grant)
under ARRA. Funding provided through this competitive grant
program is to be used for statewide data systems that, in
addition to P-12 data, also include postsecondary and workforce
information. Grants will support the development and
implementation of P-20 systems that have the capacity to link
individual student data across time and across databases,
including matching teachers to students, promote easy matching
and linking of data across institutions and States, and protect
privacy consistent with applicable privacy protection laws. A
total of $245 million is available nationwide, with average
grant awards estimated at from $2 to $20 million over the
lifetime of the project. The submission deadline for the
Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant is November 19, 2009,
and grants awards are expected to be announced in May of 2010.
The six proposals made in this bill, if this bill is enacted,
will work to make California's application for these IES grant
funds more competitive.
ARRA also includes other formula-driven and competitive grants
for K-12 education. Approximately $5 billion in one-time
funding will be available nationwide across three separate
competitive Race to the Top grants: 1) State Incentive Grants
(herein referred to as RTTT grants), totaling over $4 Billion
nationwide; 2) State Standards and Assessments Grants, totaling
approximately $350 million; and 3) District Innovation Grants
totaling approximately $650 million. This bill also deals with
some of the requirements associated with the State Incentive
Grant program; the latter two grant programs are still under
development by the federal government and no guidance has been
released. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO),
it is possible that California could qualify for between $500
million and $1 billion in State Incentive Grant one-time
funding, depending on the number of states that apply and
various other factors; however, since this grant program is
SB 19
Page 6
competitive, it is also possible that California will receive no
funding under this program.
On July 29, 2009, the United States Department of Education
(USDOE) issued a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for states applying for RTTT
grants. Comments on this preliminary guidance was due back to
the USDOE August 28, 2009, final guidance will be announced at a
later date, Phase 1 of the application period will open in late
calendar year 2009, and additional states will be allowed to
apply in Phase 2 during the spring of 2010. Phase 1 and Phase 2
awards will be made in the spring and fall of 2010,
respectively. There appears to be little difference in the
requirements applied to Phase 1 versus Phase 2 applications,
with one notable exception, concerning a state's adoption of a
nationwide common core of academic content standards, that is
ambiguously stated in the notice; this requirement should be
clarified by USDOE in its final guidance. There are also no
stated penalties or rewards for application in Phase 1 versus
Phase 2.
The USDOE preliminary guidance proposes various requirements and
criteria that will be applied to RTT grant applicants and
applications. This includes two requirements and one priority
necessary for eligibility, and eight administrative application
requirements - all of which must be met in order for the
application to qualify; this guidance also includes nineteen
selection criteria that will bear on an application's
competitive score, and four priorities that serve to enhance an
application (only the first of these four will be reflected in
an application's score). Table 1 summarizes these requirements
and criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| TABLE 1: RTTT GRANT REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|1)Eligibility Requirements |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| a) Approval for second-round State Fiscal Stabilization |
| Funding (SFSF), including meeting 33 specific data and |
SB 19
Page 7
| reporting requirements |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| b) No legal barriers to using student achievement data for |
| the purposes of teachers/principal evaluation |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|TABLE 1: RTTT GRANT REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA (cont.) |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|2) Eligibility Priority |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| a) Have a coherent and comprehensive plan for addressing |
| four reform areas: |
| i) Standards and Assessments |
| ii) Data Systems to Support Instruction |
| iii) Great Teachers and Leaders |
| iv) Turning Around Struggling |
|Schools. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|3) Administrative Application Requirements |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| a) Approval of the Governor, Superintendent of Public |
| Instruction, and President of the State Board of Education |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| b) Describe progress to date in and have a coherent and |
| comprehensive plan for addressing four reform areas: |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| i) Standards and Assessments |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| ii) Data Systems to Support Instruction |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| iii) Great Teachers and Leaders |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| iv) Turning Around Struggling Schools. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| c) Provide data to show whether appropriations to |
| elementary, secondary and higher education increased or |
| decreased from FY 2008 to FY 2009 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| d) Show statewide support for the application from |
| stakeholders and local educational agencies, including |
| public charter schools |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
SB 19
Page 8
| e) Include a budget showing how grant funds will be |
| expended and show that 50 percent of the funds will be |
| provided to local educational agencies |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| f) Show the state's status in terms of meeting each of the |
| proposed selection criteria |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| g) Provide a completed plan if that criterion requires a |
| plan |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| h) Submit certification from the California Attorney |
| General that the applications descriptions, statements, and |
| conclusions concerning state law are complete, accurate, |
| and reasonable |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|4)Proposed Selection Criteria |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| a) Standards and Assessments |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| i) Develop and adopt common standards |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| ii) Develop and implement common assessments |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| iii) Have a plan to support transition to enhanced |
| standards and assessments |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| b) Data Systems to Support Instruction |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| i) Intend to implement a statewide longitudinal data |
| system that includes elements of the America COMPETES Act |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| ii) Have a plan to ensure access to and use of state |
| data |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| iii) Have a plan to use data to improve instruction |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| c) Great Teachers and Leaders |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| i) Provide alternative pathways for aspiring teachers |
| and principals |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| ii) Have a plan to differentiate teacher and principal |
| effectiveness based on performance |
SB 19
Page 9
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| iii) Have a plan to ensure equitable distribution of |
| effective teachers and principals |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| iv) Have a plan to report the effectiveness of teacher |
| and principal preparation programs |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| v) Have a plan to provide effective support to teachers |
| and principals |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| d) Turning Around Struggling Schools |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| i) Intervene in lowest-performing schools and districts |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| ii) Increase supply of high-quality charter schools |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|TABLE 1: RTTT GRANT REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA (cont.) |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| iii) Have a plan to turn around struggling schools |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| e) Overall Selection Criteria |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| i) Demonstrate significant progress |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| ii) Make education funding a priority |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| iii) Enlist statewide support and commitment |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| iv) Have a plan to raise achievement and close gaps |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| v) Have a plan to build strong statewide capacity to |
| implement, scale, and sustain proposed plans |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|5)Enhancement Priorities |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| a) Place special emphasis on science, technology, |
| engineering, and mathematics |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| b) Expand Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems into special |
| education, English language proficiency or pre-K programs, |
| health and human services or finance |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| c) Coordinate P-20 Education by planning for improving |
SB 19
Page 10
| coordination between pre-K, K-12, higher education and |
| workforce entities |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| d) Expand School-Level Decision Making through districts |
| providing schools with increased authority to make |
|personnel, budget, or program decisions |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Not all of the changes proposed in this bill will be necessary
to meet the requirements of the RTTT grant programs summarized
above. In addition, it is unclear as to whether the USDOE
guidelines will change between now and the winter 2009/spring
2010 application periods, or whether the changes proposed in
this bill, that are related to the RTTT requirements and
criteria, would satisfy the grant reviewers that USDOE will
employ to judge the applications submitted to the RTTT grant
competition. It is clear that this bill proposes to enact the
only statutory change necessary, according to the LAO, for
California to meet the eligibility requirements of the RTTT
grant program.
The six proposals made by this bill are related to:
1)Authorization of the use of federal funds for activities of
the CIO required under SB 1298.
2)Expansion of the charge given to the CIO under SB 1298, and
extension of a related deadline.
3)Repeal of a perceived prohibition on using pupil data to
evaluate teachers.
4)Repeal of a prohibition on requiring pre-K center based
programs to implement specific data requirements, to the
extent that federal law so requires such data collection
5)Expansion of the data elements required to be collected in
CALPADS.
6)Requirement that EDD provide workforce wage data on teachers
to the CTC.
Authorization of the use of federal funds for activities of the
CIO related to SB 1298
SB 19
Page 11
This proposal was previously heard and passed by the Committee.
According to the author at that time, "SB 19 addresses one
outstanding item from last year's SB 1298 related to the state's
vision for a comprehensive education data system; specifically,
the requirement of the [CIO] to prepare a technical plan to link
statewide information systems and education data... the bill
authorizes use of the federal funds to cover the CIO's costs
related to the SB 1298 linkages work group." This bill merely
authorizes such a use, but does not provide the necessary
expenditure authority to allow these federal funds to be so
used; additional expenditure authority would be required to be
granted by the Legislature in order to have the funds available
to the CIO for this purpose. This proposal relates to
California's RTTT grant proposal only in that it may generally
further the expansion of the state's educational data system;
this action is not specifically required to meet the RTTT grant
requirements and criteria.
Expansion of the charge given to the CIO under SB 1298
SB 1298 requires the CIO to convene a working group,
representing the SPI, the SBE, the three systems of California
public higher education, and any other governmental entities
that collect, report, or use individual education data that
would become part of the comprehensive educational data system.
The CIO, along with this working group, is required to develop a
strategic plan, to be delivered to the Legislature and the
Governor on or before September 1, 2009, that would provide an
overall structural design for the linked data system, examine
current state education data systems, and examine the
interdepartmental data protocols and procedures to be used by
state agencies in collecting, storing, manipulating, sharing,
retrieving, and releasing data in order to enable the linking of
data systems. This group began meeting in early May.
This bill proposes to add "Include interagency agreements to
facilitate the transfer of data from one segment to another and
ultimately to include linkages to workforce data." to the
elements required of the strategic plan. This could be
interpreted as an expansion in the scope of activities with
which the CIO is charged in that the CIO might interpret this as
authority to require, approve or provide oversight on
interagency agreements between agencies which are currently
authorized to enter into such agreements. The amendment is also
SB 19
Page 12
structured in a manner that is inconsistent with the other
requirements of the strategic plan. Committee staff recommends
that this proposal be amended to read, "Identify specific
procedures and policies that would facilitate the sharing and
transfer of data from one segment to another and ultimately to
include linkages to workforce data." so as to be consistent with
other strategic plan requirements placed on the CIO and the
working group.
This bill also proposes to extend the date by which the
strategic plan is to be delivered by the CIO to the Legislature
and the Governor from September 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010.
These proposals relate to California's RTTT grant proposal only
in that they may generally further the expansion of the state's
educational data system; these actions are not specifically
required to meet the RTTT grant requirements and criteria.
Repeal of a perceived prohibition on using pupil data to
evaluate teachers
California has no effective prohibition on the use of pupil
achievement data in making performance evaluations of
certificated employees. In fact, subdivision (b) of Section
44662 of the Education Code (EC) clearly states that:
(b) The governing board of each school district
shall evaluate and assess certificated employee
performance as it reasonably relates to:
1) The progress of pupils toward the
standards established pursuant to [statute]
and, if applicable, the state adopted
academic content standards as measured by
state adopted criterion referenced
assessments.
2) The instructional techniques and
strategies used by the employee.
3) The employee's adherence to
curricular objectives.
4) The establishment and maintenance of
a suitable learning environment, within the
scope of the employee's responsibilities.
However, the perception has developed that EC Section 10601.5
prevents local educational agencies (LEA) from so evaluating
teachers, since that section prohibits the use of CALTIDES data,
either solely or in conjunction with CALPADS data, for the
SB 19
Page 13
purposes of any employment decision related to individual
teachers. This prohibition, of course, would not prevent a LEA
from using data that it possesses in its own local data systems
to make such evaluations; this local data includes, in fact, the
data that the LEA submits to the state and that populates both
CALTIDES and CALPADS. Thus there would be no reason for a LEA
to use CALTIDES and CALPADS to evaluate its own teachers; it
would simply be administratively easier for a LEA to use its own
data.
According to Legislative Counsel, however, in the context of the
RTTT grant applications, the decision as to whether California
has or does not have a prohibition or firewall against the use
of pupil performance data to evaluate teachers is at the sole
discretion of the U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan.
Secretary Duncan has been quoted as saying that California has
such a barrier and will therefore be ineligible to compete for
RTTT grant funding as long as that barrier exists. This bill
proposes to eliminate that prohibition and replace it with
explicit authority to use CALTIDES and CALPADS data to evaluate
individual teachers.
Committee staff recommends that the bill be amended so as to
repeal the perceived prohibition in order to eliminate the clear
barrier to eligibility that faces California's RTTT grant
application, without making a statement of explicit authority.
This explicit authority is unnecessary given the permissive
nature of the EC and existing statute related to teacher
evaluation; providing such explicit authority is redundant.
Repeal of the first sentence in subdivision (c) of EC Section
10601.5 clearly removes the barrier perceived by Secretary
Duncan without adding unnecessary language to statute. In
addition, Committee staff recommends the inclusion of language
clarifying that state and federal law protecting the privacy of
personally identifiable data for all individuals applies to the
uses of data that may occur following the repeal of this
firewall.
According to the LAO, this repeal of the prohibition on the use
of pupil performance data in the evaluation of teachers is the
only statutory change necessary for California to make in order
to meet the eligibility requirements of the RTTT grant program.
It should be noted that there are greater obstacles to any
state, including California, attempting to evaluate teachers
SB 19
Page 14
solely or primarily on the basis of pupil performance as
measured by large-scale assessments; perhaps the most
significant additional obstacle is the fact that most state
testing systems are not designed to produce scores that clearly
measure growth in individual pupil performance from year to year
and/or are not designed to support high stakes decisions for
individual pupils or teachers. For example, in California, even
though individual STAR test scores look the same from one year
to the next and allow a relative comparison to other students in
the same grade level in a given year, a student's scores are not
comparable across grade levels; this means that the student,
parents, and teachers can not tell if a student has improved or
is achieving at a lower level from one year to the next based on
the test scores that they receive. In short, we don't know
whether the 520 that a student scores this year is higher,
lower, or the same as the 500 that student scored in the
previous grade. The primary impact of this shortcoming is that
we are unable to determine whether a specific instructional
program or a specific instructor actually contributed to a
student's academic growth from one year to the next. As long as
these comparisons over time are invalid, any conclusion about
whether specific factors (e.g., programs or teachers)
contributed to a student's performance in a given year will be
equally invalid. In addition, California's STAR tests were not
designed to be psychometrically robust enough to support high
stakes decisions; in fact, the Legislature has never authorized
STAR scores to be used in making high stakes decisions about an
individual pupil, including decisions such as retention,
promotion, or graduation.
Repeal of a prohibition on requiring pre-K center based programs
to implement specific data requirements, to the extent that
federal law so requires such data collection
Current law, as enacted by SB 1298 (Simitian), requires the CDE
to establish a process by which LEAs issue, maintain, and report
information, using the unique SSID being used in CALPADS, for
state and federally funded center based child care and
development programs administered by the CDE, but current law
prohibits requiring those programs to implement or maintain the
SSIDs until an appropriation for this purpose is provided. This
bill softens that prohibition by allowing the CDE to make this
requirement to the extent that it is necessary to comply with or
is otherwise required by federal law.
SB 19
Page 15
The inclusion of the current prohibition in SB 1298 serves to
limit the state's exposure to mandated cost reimbursement
claims; since costs stemming from federal requirements are not
reimbursable, this proposal would continue to limit the state's
liability. This proposal also may make California's RTTT grant
application more competitive under the enhancement criterion
that calls for expansion of state longitudinal data systems to
include pre-K data.
Expansion of the data elements required to be collected in
CALPADS
This bill proposes to expand the scope of "other data elements
deemed necessary," that may be identified by the SPI, with
approval of the SBE, to be required to be retained in individual
pupil records by LEAs, from those data elements necessary for
compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind Act to also
include those necessary for compliance with ARRA. The bill also
specifies six data elements to be included as these "other data
elements." While the expansion of authority for the SPI, with
the approval of the SBE, to require data elements necessary for
compliance with ARRA allows that state to fully adapt to the new
requirements specified in ARRA, the addition of specific data
elements to statutory language that already provides full
authority to administratively add any "other data elements
deemed necessary" is redundant and unnecessary. Committee staff
recommends that the six data elements proposed to be specified
under paragraph (5) of subdivision (e) of EC Section 60900 be
deleted, and that the full authority granted to the SPI and SBE
to include any data elements deemed necessary be retained.
Current law, amended to expand to compliance with ARRA, will
allow the state to include any data elements necessary to
compete for a RTTT grant. Committee staff also recommends
requiring the SPI to submit an expenditure plan, detailing any
state operations and local education agency costs, to the
Department of Finance prior to any additional data elements
being deemed necessary under this authority, and in turn
requiring the Department of Finance to notify the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee within 10 days of receipt of the
expenditure plan; in this way both the administration and the
Legislature will be aware of any cost implications associated
with expansion of the data elements in this system.
Requirement that EDD provide workforce wage data on teachers to
the CTC
SB 19
Page 16
SB 1614 (Simitian), Chapter 840, Statutes of 2006, requires the
development of CALTIDES to serve as a central state repository
of information on the teacher workforce. CALTIDES was created
to enable the analysis of workforce trends, including mobility,
retention, attrition, evaluation of teacher preparation
programs, and monitoring of teacher assignments by consolidating
data that was already collected by state agencies, including CDE
and EDD, and county offices of education and districts. The
data sharing necessary to populate CALTIDES has been hampered by
the lack of explicit authority for EDD to provide individual
wage record information on certificated staff; this bill
proposes to require EDD to provide that data to the CTC.
This proposal relates to California's RTTT grant proposal only
in that it may generally further the expansion of the state's
educational data system; this action is not specifically
required to meet the RTTT grant requirements and criteria.
As a general note, Committee staff also recommends technical
amendments suggested by the Legislative Counsel to avoid
ambiguity when using the word "system" to refer to either the
California Education Information System or CALTIDES.
Previous and related legislation : SB 1 X5 (Romero), pending in
the Senate, proposes language similar to the language in this
bill repealing the perceived prohibition on using pupil data to
evaluate teachers; that bill also makes additional proposals.
SB 2 X5 (Simitian), also pending in the Senate, is substantially
similar to this bill. SB 1298 (Simitian), Chapter 561, Statutes
of 2008, establishes processes by which local education agencies
and public institutions of higher education issue, maintain, and
report information using the unique statewide student
identifiers required under current law. SB 1614 (Simitian),
Chapter 840, Statutes of 2006, requires the development of
CALTIDES to serve as a central state repository of information
on the teacher workforce, and specifies that the California
Education Information System include CALPADS, which maintains
pupil data, and CBEDS, an annual collection of aggregate student
and staff data. SB 1453 (Alpert), Chapter 1002, Statutes of
2002, authorizes the longitudinal data system in its current
form, and specifies that the system be known as CALPADS. SB 90
(Committee on the Budget), Chapter 183, Statutes of 2007, Makes
statutory changes necessary to implement the 2007-08 state
Budget relating to the CIO and the OISPP. SB 834 (Figueroa),
SB 19
Page 17
Chapter 533, Statutes of 2006, makes the statutory changes
necessary to reflect the Governors Reorganization Plan 2, which
became effective July 9, 2005, and creates the Office of CIO in
state government.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Advancement Project
Bay Area Council
California School Boards Association
Children Now
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids
League of Women Voters of California
Preschool California
Regional Economic Association Leaders (R.E.A.L.) Coalition
The Education Trust-West
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087