BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1 X5
Page 1
Date of Hearing: December 9, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION X5
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 1 X5 (Romero, Huff, Alquist and Wyland) - As Amended:
December 3, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 21-12
SUBJECT : Public schools.
SUMMARY : Proposes comprehensive changes to the Education Code
(EC) consistent with the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) program;
this bill addresses the four RTTT policy reform areas of
standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction,
great teachers and leaders and turning around the
lowest-achieving schools. Specifically, this bill :
Standards and Assessments
1)Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to, by November 1,
2010, amend the reading, writing, and mathematics academic
content standards adopted by the SBE in 1997 by adopting the
grade level academic standards developed as part of the Common
Core State Standards Initiative. Requires the SBE to only add
at each grade level any additional standards to ensure that
the rigor of the academic content standards adopted in 1997 is
maintained or exceeded. Requires the revised academic content
standards to be integrated into the curriculum framework and
textbook adoption processes for those academic subjects.
Data Systems to Support Instruction
2)Avoids a technical conflict with Chapter 519 of the Statutes
of 2009 by deleting the prohibition on using data from the
California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System
(CALPADS) and the California Longitudinal Teacher Integrated
Data Education System (CALTIDES) for purposes of employment
decisions, and states explicit authority for the data to be so
used.
3)Requires CALTIDES to include teacher and administrator
performance and evaluation data required under federal law.
4)Prohibits the use of data in the California Education
Information System, which includes CALPADS and CALTIDES from
being used in violation of any state or federal law that is
SB 1 X5
Page 2
intended to protect an individual's right to privacy.
5)Expands the charge of the data working group convened by the
State Chief Information Officer (CIO) pursuant to SB 1298
(Simitian), Chapter 561 of the Statutes of 2008, to facilitate
the transfer of data from one education segment to another,
and ultimately linkages to workforce data, through interagency
agreements or joint powers agreements; facilitate the ability
of the state to publicly report data as specified in the
federal America COMPETES Act to anyone with access to an
Internet connection. Also authorizes the use of federal
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds
for this purpose and requires the California Department of
Education (CDE) and the appropriate postsecondary education
agencies to submit an expenditure plan to the Department of
Finance (DOF), as specified.
6)Authorizes the sharing or disclosure of pupil data, to the
extent necessary to publicly report data as specified in the
federal America COMPETES Act and as allowed by the federal
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
7)Requires CALPADS to be used to publicly report data as
specified in the federal America COMPETES Act to anyone with
access to an Internet connection.
8)Requires CDE and postsecondary education agencies, as
appropriate, to submit an expenditure plan to DOF prior to
adding any data elements to CALPADS required under federal
law, and requires DOF to provide that plan to the Legislature
within 10 days.
9)Authorizes the University of California, the California State
University, and the Chancellor of the California Community
Colleges to obtain quarterly wage data on students who have
attended their respective systems, in order to meet the
requirements of ARRA; also requires the Employment Development
Department (EDD) to permit the use of such data for this
purpose.
Great Teachers and Leaders
10) Establishes the 'Science, Technology, Engineering, Math
(STEM), and Career Technical Education Educator Credentialing
Program,' which requires the Commission on Teacher
SB 1 X5
Page 3
Credentialing (CTC) in consultation with the Committee on
Accreditation, no later than June 1, 2010, to develop a
process to authorize educator preparation programs provided by
community-based organizations and nongovernmental
organizations to offer credentials; requires the CTC to
authorize organizations that are accredited by an organization
that is recognized by the Council for Higher Education
Accreditation and the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE);
and, authorizes the CTC to establish alternative criteria, if
necessary, for participants that are not eligible for
accreditation by one of the accrediting organizations.
Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools
11) Requires, by February 1, 2010, or the effective date of
the bill's enactment (whichever is later), the Superintendent
of Public Instruction (SPI) to make recommendations to the SBE
for criteria to annually identify the lowest five percent of
persistently lowest-achieving schools in the state, requires
the districts to notify parents and employees of the school of
the specific facts and options while initiating specific
renewal efforts, and authorizes the SBE and the SPI to
consider the exclusion of a school that otherwise meets the
criteria if they determine the school is showing significant
progress under existing state intervention programs.
12)Requires a local education agency (LEA) to implement an
Alternative Governance reform pursuant to the federal No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) that is selected by parents for
any school subject to corrective action if at least one-half
of the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending the
school, or a combination of at least one-half of the parents
or legal guardians of pupils attending the school and the
elementary or middle schools that normally matriculate into
the middle or high school, sign a petition making the request.
The LEA may choose another Alternative Governance reform only
if the LEA makes a written finding at a regularly scheduled
public hearing why it cannot implement the option requested by
parents, and notify the SPI and the SBE that the Alternative
Governance option selected by the LEA has substantial promise
of enabling the school to make adequate yearly progress.
13)Requires CDE to contract for an independent evaluation of the
program (unspecified) to determine whether it has been
effective in improving pupil achievement and to identify the
components of successful school renewal. Requires the
SB 1 X5
Page 4
evaluation to be submitted no later than March 1, 2015 to the
Joint Legislative Budget Committee, Assembly and Senate Budget
and Education Committees, the Governor, and DOF.
General
14) Requires the Governor, SPI and the SBE to jointly develop
a single high-quality plan with participating LEAs to submit
as part of a Phase 1 application for RTTT and requires the
plan to include explicit criteria for determining the lowest
achieving five percent of the persistently lowest achieving
schools, strategies for turning around the persistently lowest
achieving schools, a comprehensive reform agenda that
articulates the goals for implementing the RTTT reforms, and a
means of addressing the need for improvement in STEM.
15) Makes findings and declarations that to the extent that
federal guidelines are revised, the state plan also be revised
accordingly; and, that agreements necessary for LEAs to
fulfill the requirements of this program be accomplished using
memorandums of understanding (MOU) between as many LEAs as
possible and the SBE. Also requires that a participating LEA
enter into such a MOU that is signed by the LEA's
superintendent, the president of the local governing board,
and leaders of the local collective bargaining units for
teachers.
16) Eliminates the statutory limit on the number of charter
schools operating in the state beginning with the 2009-10
school year.
17) Requires the SPI to convene a working group, to include
specified representatives, to make findings and submit
recommendations to the Legislature, on or before December 1,
2010, on the adequacy of the existing process for authorizing,
renewing, revoking or not renewing charters schools; the
extent to which the state's charter schools receive equitable
funding compared to traditional public schools; and, the
extent to which the state provides charters schools with
facility funding.
18) Requires that, on or before April 1, 2010, or the
effective date of the measure's enactment (whichever is later)
the Fiscal Crisis Management and Assistance Team (FCMAT)
convene a task force, including specified representatives, to
develop and submit recommendations to the Legislature for a
SB 1 X5
Page 5
standardized process for reporting of financial and accounting
data, and for the provision of annual independent financial
and compliance audits for charter schools. These
recommendations are due on or before December 1, 2010, or the
effective date of the bill's enactment (whichever is later);
the bill also authorizes the task force to consider whether
traditional public school processes or alternative
standardized methods are preferable for charter schools.
19) Establishes the Open Enrollment Act to allow any pupil in
a NCLB Program Improvement (PI) school ranked in the first
three deciles of the Academic Performance Index (API) to
transfer to another school district, and requires the district
of residence to provide notice of the option to transfer to
parents and guardians of students enrolled in these schools no
later than the first day of the school year, as specified.
20) Authorizes the SBE to give participating LEAs signing MOU
a waiver from all provisions of the education code, except
participation in the state teachers retirement system,
attendance accounting, and state building standards, as
specified by EC Section 47610.
EXISTING LAW on standards:
1)Requires the SBE to adopt statewide academic content standards
and performance standards in core curriculum areas not later
than January 1, 1998, based on the recommendation of the
Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and
Performance Standards and the SPI.
2)Authorizes the SBE to modify any proposed content standard or
performance standard prior to its adoption no later than
January 1, 1998.
3)Allows the SBE to adopt content and performance standards in
individual core curriculum areas as those standards are
submitted to the SBE.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW on data systems protects, under FERPA, the
privacy of student education records by requiring written
permission from the parent or eligible student, with specified
exceptions, in order for an LEA to release any information from
a student's education record.
EXISTING STATE LAW on data systems:
SB 1 X5
Page 6
1)Authorizes CALPADS and requires the CDE to contract for the
development of a system that will provide for the retention
and analysis of longitudinal K-12 pupil achievement data on
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) assessments, high
school exit examination, and English language development
assessments.
2)Authorizes CALTIDES to serve as a central state repository of
information on the teacher workforce 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 the EDD, and
improve the quality of data collected from LEAs 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 LEAs 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 a prohibition, and specifies exceptions to the
prohibition, against an agency disclosing or re-disclosing
individually identifiable pupil information in a manner that
would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom
it pertains, and establishes a process for certifying the
security of those data in specified circumstances.
EXISTING LAW on teacher credentialing:
1)Authorizes the CTC to approve an institution of higher
education to recommend to the CTC the issuance of credentials
to persons who have successfully completed a teacher education
program of the institution. Requires institutions of higher
SB 1 X5
Page 7
education to approve and electronically submit teacher
credential applications to the CTC.
2)Requires the CTC to report to the Legislature annually with
specified information, including the total number of teaching
credentials recommended by each of the following accredited
teacher preparation programs authorized by the CTC:
a) The University of California system;
b) The California State University system;
c) Independent colleges and universities that offer teacher
preparation programs approved by the CTC; and,
d) Other institutions that offer teacher preparation
programs approved by the CTC.
EXISTING LAW on interventions for struggling schools:
1)Establishes the Public School Performance Accountability
Program consisting of the API, the Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP), and the
Governor's High Achieving/Improving Schools Program.
2)Requires the SPI, with the approval of the SBE, to develop and
implement the API to measure the performance of schools, and
to include a variety of indicators, including achievement test
results, attendance rates, and graduation rates in that
measure.
3)Provides that schools that failed to meet their API growth
targets in the previous school year relative to all other
public elementary, middle, or high schools, are invited by the
SPI to participate in the II/USP and the High Priority School
Grants Program. If a participating school has not met its
growth targets each year and has failed to show significant
growth as determined by the SBE, it is deemed a
state-monitored school. The SPI, in consultation with the SBE,
is authorized to take specified action with respect to the
operation of a state-monitored school including, but not
limited to, requiring the school district to enter into a
contract with a school assistance and intervention team or a
district assistance and intervention team, reassigning
principals, allowing pupils to attend other schools in the
district, allowing parents to apply for charter status,
SB 1 X5
Page 8
reassigning certificated staff, and closing a school.
EXISTING STATE LAW on school transfers authorizes, under the
District of Choice (DOC) program, a school board to declare the
district to be a DOC willing to accept a specified number of
inter-district transfers. The DOC program provides protections
against districts targeting students in specific residential
neighborhoods, on the basis of a child's actual or perceived
academic or athletic performance or any other personal
characteristic. A DOC may reject the transfer of a pupil if the
transfer of that pupil would require the district to create a
new program to serve that pupil, except that a DOC shall not
reject the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an
individual with exceptional needs, and an English learner. DOCs
are required to collect specific data about the students who
transfer to their district and report that data to surrounding
districts and to the state. This data is required to be
reported annually to the Legislature and the Governor, and the
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) is required to prepare a
comprehensive evaluation of the program.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW on school transfers:
1)Requires schools identified under PI to provide pupils the
option to transfer to another school within the district that
has not been identified for PI. Requires school districts,
where schools within the district have been identified for PI,
to provide transportation for pupils who transfer to other
schools within the school district.
2)Requires school districts identified for corrective action to
authorize pupils to transfer from a school operated by the
school district to another higher performing school operated
by another school district, and provide transportation for the
pupil to that school. The obligation of the school district
to provide transportation for the pupil ends at the end of the
school year if a school district determines that the school
from which a pupil transferred is no longer identified for PI.
EXISTING LAW on charter schools:
1)Authorizes a school district, a county office of education or
the SBE to approve or deny a petition for a charter school.
Authorizes a charter to be granted for not more than five
years, and to be granted one or more renewals for five years.
Requires the renewals and material revisions of the charter to
SB 1 X5
Page 9
be based upon the same standards as the original charter
petition.
2)Commencing in the 1998-99 school year, authorized 250 charter
schools. In 1999-2000 school year, and in each successive
school year thereafter, an additional 100 charter schools are
authorized to operate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, $500,000 to $1 million in Federal Funds for the
evaluation; low millions annually in Proposition 98 General Fund
for the open enrollment program, depending on participation;
and, tens of millions of Federal Funds, annually, for the
renewal efforts, depending on the identification criteria.
COMMENTS : In February 2009, Congress passed and President Obama
signed into law the ARRA, which provides billions of dollars of
support for education that is being provided to states in the
form of both formula and competitive grants. According to the
LAO, California is receiving approximately $6 billion in formula
grants. ARRA also provided nearly $5 billion in funding to be
used nationwide in a discretionary manner, including for
competitive grant programs, by the U.S. Secretary of Education;
this provision of ARRA was the genesis for what has come to be
known as the RTTT program.
This $5 billion in one-time funding will be available nationwide
across three separate competitive grants: 1) State Incentive
Grants (these grants are referred to herein as the RTTT grants
or program), totaling over $4 Billion nationwide; 2) State
Standards and Assessments Grants, totaling approximately $350
million; and 3) District Innovation Grants totaling
approximately $650 million.
According to the USDOE, RTTT is:
A competitive grant program designed to encourage and
reward States that are creating the conditions for
education innovation and reform; achieving significant
improvement in student outcomes, including making
substantial gains in student achievement, closing
achievement gaps, improving high school graduation
rates, and ensuring student preparation for success in
college and careers; and implementing ambitious plans
in four core education reform areas:
1) Adopting standards and assessments that
SB 1 X5
Page 10
prepare students to succeed in college and the
workplace and to compete in the global economy;
2) Building data systems that measure
student growth and success, and inform teachers
and principals about how they can improve
instruction;
3) Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and
retaining effective teachers and principals,
especially where they are needed most; and
4) Turning around our lowest-achieving
schools.
Also according to the USDOE, it is possible that California
could qualify for between $350 million and $700 million in RTTT
one-time funding, depending on the number of states that apply,
the nature of the state's plan, and various other factors;
however, since this grant program is competitive, it is also
possible that California will receive no funding under this
program.
On July 29, 2009, the USDOE issued a preliminary notice of
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for states applying for RTTT grants. After a period of
extensive public comment and revision, final guidance was
released on November 18, 2009. Phase 1 applications for the
grant are due by January 19, 2010, and states that do not secure
a Phase 1 award will be allowed to apply in Phase 2 by June 1,
2010. Phase 1 and Phase 2 awards will be made in April and
September of 2010, respectively. There are no stated penalties
or rewards for application in Phase 1 versus Phase 2, and the
USDOE indicated at a technical conference on the grant
application held in Denver on December 3, that sufficient funds
would be available after Phase 1 to make grant awards in Phase
2. The USDOE regulations and guidance on RTTT set various
requirements and criteria that will be applied to RTTT grant
applicants and applications. Table 1 summarizes these
requirements and criteria.
Under ARRA, California is also separately competing under the
Grant Program for Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems
administered by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES grant).
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
SB 1 X5
Page 11
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Table 1: Race to the Top Selection Criteria |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|A. State Success Factors (125 Points) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) Articulating State's education reform agenda and LEA's |
|participation in it |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (i) Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (ii) Securing LEA commitment |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (iii) Translating LEA participation into statewide impact |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale |
|up, and sustain proposed plans |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (i) Ensuring the capacity to implement |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (ii) Using broad stakeholder support |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (3) Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement |
|and closing gaps |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (i) Making progress in each reform area |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (ii) Improving student outcomes |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|B. Standards and Assessments (70 Points) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) Developing and adopting common standards |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
SB 1 X5
Page 12
| (i) Participating in consortium developing high-quality |
|standards |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (ii) Adopting standards |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) Developing and implementing common, high-quality |
|assessments |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (3) Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and |
|high-quality assessments |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|C. Data Systems to Support Instruction (47 Points) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) Accessing and using State data |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (3) Using data to improve instruction |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|D. Great Teachers and Leaders (138 Points) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Eligibility Requirement (b) - Linking student data to |
| teachers and principals |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and |
|principals |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on |
|performance |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (i) Measuring student growth |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (ii) Developing evaluation systems |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (iii) Conducting annual evaluations |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (iv) Using evaluations to inform key decisions |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and |
|principals |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (i) Ensuring equitable distribution in high-poverty or |
|high-minority schools |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (ii) Ensuring equitable distribution in hard-to-staff |
SB 1 X5
Page 13
|subjects and specialty areas |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (4) Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal |
|preparation programs |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (5) Providing effective support to teachers and principals |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|E. Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools (50 Points) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) Turning around the lowest-achieving schools |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (i) Identifying the persistently lowest-achieving schools |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (ii) Turning around the persistently lowest-achieving |
|schools |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|F. General (55 Points) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Eligibility Requirements (a) - State application must |
| be approved by the Department |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) Making education funding a priority |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing |
| charter schools and other innovative schools |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (3) Demonstrating other significant reform conditions |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Competitive Preference Priority 2: Emphasis on STEM (15 |
|Points) |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standards and Assessments : California has adopted content
standards in the areas of reading/language arts, math,
history/social science, science, visual and performing arts,
career technical education, physical education, health
education, and most recently world languages. The standards in
the four core areas were adopted in 1997 and 1998 and they have
not been revised since their initial adoption.
RTTT selection criteria requires, for Phase 1 applications,
states to demonstrate their commitment to and progress toward
adopting a common set of high quality K-12 standards by August
SB 1 X5
Page 14
2, 2010, or at a minimum by a later date in 2010 specified by
the state, and implementing the standards thereafter in a
well-planned way. Additionally, the selection criteria awards a
state points for participating in a consortium of states that
includes a significant number of states and is "working toward
jointly developing and adopting a common set of K-12 standards
that are supported by evidence that they are internationally
benchmarked and build toward college and career readiness by the
time of high school graduation." For Phase 2 applications the
selection criteria requires states to have adopted a common set
of K-12 standards by August 2, 2010 or at a minimum by a later
date in 2010 specified by the state in a high quality plan
toward which the state has made significant progress, and
demonstrate its commitment to implementing the standards
thereafter in a well-planned way.
There is no process in current law for reviewing, updating, or
revising the academic content standards; however, in order to
comply with the RTTT requirements, a state's application would
have to include evidence of a legal process for adopting a
common set of standards, along with the state's plan, current
progress, and timeframe for adoption.
This bill requires the SBE to adopt the grade level academic
standards developed as part of the Common Core State Standards
Initiative. The bill further directs the SBE to only add at
each grade level, additional standards to ensure that the rigor
of the standards adopted in 1997 is maintained or exceeded, and
requires the revised standards to be integrated into the
curriculum framework and textbook adoption processes.
This bill is deficient in the following ways:
1)This bill does not address the RTTT requirement that 85% of a
state's standards, after adoption of the common set of
standards, be comprised of that common set of standards
developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative
Consortium or other interstate collaboration.
2)It is unclear whether this bill provides a process for the
review of existing standards.
3)This bill does not provide an inclusive process, similar to
the adoption of the 1997 standards, that includes input from
experts and educators on the development of the standards.
4)This bill is silent regarding the state's participation in the
Common Core State Standards Initiative Consortium sponsored by
the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief
SB 1 X5
Page 15
State School Officers or other interstate collaborative, an
important requirement specified in the RTTT guidelines and
regulations.
5)This bill fails to address the adoption of common, high
quality assessments or supporting the transition to high
quality assessments as defined in the RTTT guidelines and
regulations, including assessments, in multiple formats and
with multiple item types, that address all students (e.g.,
English Learners, special education).
Data Systems to Support Instruction : The state currently has
implemented a data system to track individual pupil longitudinal
data and assigns unique pupil identifiers for all students in
kindergarten through grade 12, is developing a system to track
individual teacher data over time, requires the public colleges
and university systems to develop a process for assigning common
unique pupil identifiers to their students, requires the CDE to
develop a process for assigning common unique pupil identifiers
to students in pre-kindergarten programs under that agency's
administration, publicly reports aggregate information for all
schools and LEAs, is developing recommendations for the
technical linking of data systems across all educational
segments and for the governance and administration of the linked
data system, and has state statute that works in conjunction
with FERPA to safeguard the privacy of all of the state's pupils
and protect the confidentiality of pupil records.
The federal RTTT application will be judged on the extent to
which the state has a statewide longitudinal data system that
includes all of the America COMPETES Act elements; a
high-quality plan to ensure that data from the state's
longitudinal data system are accessible to, and used to inform
and engage, as appropriate, key stakeholders in order to support
the continuous improvement of efforts in such areas as policy,
instruction, operations, management, resource allocation, and
overall effectiveness, complies with FERPA; a high-quality plan
to use data to improve instructional practices, to provide
effective professional development on the use of data for
teachers, principals, and administrators, and to make the data
available and accessible to researchers so as to evaluate the
effectiveness of instructional materials, strategies, and
approaches for educating different types of students.
The measure presents the following concerns:
1)The statement of explicit authority for CALPADS and CALTIDES
SB 1 X5
Page 16
data to be used for the purposes of employment decisions is
redundant with the permissive authority that will be clarified
for LEAs by Chapter 519 of the Statutes of 2009.
2)The bill creates a large expansion in the charge of the data
working group convened by the CIO pursuant to SB 1298
(Simitian), Chapter 561 of the Statutes of 2008, even though
that office has not moved forward successfully with the
initial charge. This expansion includes the authority to
enter into interagency agreements or joint powers agreements
which could effectively place the CIO in the position of
governing the educational data system that links across K-12
and higher education; a separate working group authorized by
SB 1298 will soon be making recommendations to the Legislature
on governance structures for educational data, including on
the provision of access to data for researchers. A separate
bill, SB X5 2 (Simitian), pending in the Assembly Education
Committee for the 5th Extraordinary Session, also addresses
this issue. This bill also provides for the expenditure of
federal funds provided under ARRA for these purposes
Great Teachers and Leaders : The state currently provides
numerous programs that ensure high quality teacher preparation
programs through comprehensive state accreditation; alternative
pathways for teachers; teacher and administrator training and
supports through professional development and mentoring;
rigorous, transparent and fair evaluation systems for teachers
that take into account data on student growth; and, incentives
for teachers in hard-to-staff subjects.
The federal RTTT guidelines require states to provide
high-quality pathways for teachers and principals; improve
teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance; ensure
equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals;
improve the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation
programs; and, provide effective support to teachers and
principals. This measure addresses the RTTT guidance by
authorizing the use of student data to be used for purposes of
evaluating teachers and administrators and making employment
decisions; and, by expanding the types of organizations that can
be accredited to offer science and mathematics credentials.
The measure raises the following concerns and fails to address
the RTTT guidance in the following ways:
1)The measure does not require a process for annual
administrator evaluation.
SB 1 X5
Page 17
2)The measure does not address the need for the state to ensure
the equitable distribution of teachers and principals in
high-poverty and/or high-minority schools.
3)The measure does not provide effective support to teachers and
principals through coaching, professional development or
collaboration time.
4)The measure expands the types of organizations that can offer
teacher preparation programs in science and mathematics which
would require the CTC to create a new review process similar
to the initial Western Association of Schools & Colleges
(WASC) accreditation that existing teacher preparation program
undergo to establish the organization's fiscal and
institutional viability as an ongoing provider of teacher
preparation programs. While the CTC currently has a process
for academic accreditation of teacher preparation programs,
this new fiscal review is beyond the scope of existing
practice for the CTC and could require significant ramp up
time and cost to develop high quality fiscal review
procedures.
Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools : Established
pursuant to SB 1 X1 (Alpert), Chapter 3, Statutes of 1999-2000
First Extraordinary Session, the API measures the performance of
schools that include a variety of indicators in that measure,
including, but not limited to, achievement test results,
attendance rates, and graduation rates. Currently only
achievement test results are incorporated into the API, and the
API is configured to produce scores measuring a school's static
performance at each grade level, in each content area, in each
year, at one point in time. In addition, the SPI also produces
a "Growth API" that compares this static performance from one
year to the next by comparing cohort or group scores. In
addition school-level performance is judged against a federal
accountability target, adequate yearly progress (AYP). Schools
that fail to meet their AYP for two consecutive years are in PI.
If there is no academic improvement, pursuant to NCLB
requirements, the SBE can impose a number of corrective actions,
including reassignment of the principal and/or other staff,
reassigning the management of the school to another entity,
closing the school, and assigning a state trustee to monitor and
review the operation of the school. The state has a track
record of assigning sanctions and interventions to schools and
LEAs under NCLB.
Turning around persistently lowest-achieving schools is one of
SB 1 X5
Page 18
the four major components of the RTTT, which requires states to
have legal, statutory or regulatory authority to intervene in
persistently lowest-achieving schools, identify persistently
lowest-achieving schools, and show how the state will support
LEAs identified as persistently lowest-achieving in implementing
one of four intervention models as follows:
1)Turnaround model: Replace the principal and 50 percent of the
existing staff; implement strategies to recruit, place and
retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of
students; use data to improve instructional program; provide
high-quality professional development that is aligned with the
school's instructional program; among others.
2)Restart model: Convert a school to a charter school, or close
and reopen a school under a charter school operator, a charter
management organization, or an education management
organization.
3)School closure: Close a school and enroll the students in
other higher achieving schools in the LEA.
4)Transformation model: Similar to the Turnaround model,
replace the principal and develop strategies focusing on
principal and teacher effectiveness, instructional reform,
increasing learning time and creating community-oriented
schools, and providing operational flexibility and support.
This bill requires the SPI to make recommendations to the SBE on
the criteria for determining persistently lowest-achieving
schools, specifies the parameters for making that determination,
and requires LEAs with persistently lowest-achieving schools in
their jurisdictions to approve at least one of the NCLB locally
developed renewal efforts, including requirements specified in
the RTTT and School Improvement Grants (SIG) guidelines and
regulations.
The criteria and process for determining persistently
lowest-achieving schools are unclear and may not be consistent
with RTTT guidelines as follows:
1)The definition of persistently lowest-achieving school may not
meet RTTT requirements. This bill requires the SPI and the
SBE to only consider schools currently or likely to be subject
to restructuring pursuant to NCLB requirements in the
subsequent school year. Existing law requires schools in PI
year 4 to develop a plan and PI year 5 to implement reforms
that are consistent with NCLB restructuring requirements,
which this bill uses as the bases for calculating the five
percent of lowest-achieving schools. While this appears to
SB 1 X5
Page 19
comply with RTTT requirements, it was discovered at a recent
technical assistance conference on the RTTT program held by
the USDOE that states are required to calculate the five
percent of persistently lowest-achieving schools based on all
schools in PI and corrective action rather than only those in
year four and five.
2)This bill authorizes the SBE to consider other data,
including, but not limited to, results of the California
Standards test, the API, and dropout and graduation rates,
while requiring the SPI and SBE to only consider schools
currently or likely to be subject to restructuring. It is
unclear why the SBE, and not the SPI as well, is authorized to
consider other data, and whether the data is intended to be
used as a way to expand or subtract the number of schools on
the list.
3)This bill requires the SBE and the SPI to consider not
determining schools that are showing significant progress
under existing state intervention programs in the list of
persistently lowest-achieving schools. Whether this exclusion
is to be considered before or after determining the five
percent of persistently lowest-achieving schools is unclear.
4)The bill does not fully capture the RTTT requirements for
defining persistently lowest-achieving schools. In addition
to determining the lowest-achieving five percent of schools in
the state, the RTTT also requires adding secondary schools
that are eligible for but do not receive Title I funds or any
high school that has had a graduation rate that is less than
60% over a number of years. This bill does not include this
requirement.
5)The universe of persistently lowest-achieving schools is
unknown, and the process for making that determination is
unclear and based on criteria that are yet to be determined.
The determination impacts which and how many schools are
required to undergo restructuring and should be defined in
statute.
6)This bill requires the SPI and the SBE to direct a LEA with a
persistently lowest-achieving school in its jurisdiction to
approve at least one of the locally developed renewal efforts
specified in the "Alternative Governance" section of the NCLB
and also requires compliance with activities required in the
RTTT and SIG guidelines and regulations. The NCLB Alternative
Governance reforms are similar, but not identical to the RTTT
intervention models. The NCLB requirements are broad while
the RTTT requirements are more expansive and specific. The
NCLB allows a LEA to develop its own restructuring model,
SB 1 X5
Page 20
which is not authorized in the RTTT program. If a LEA chooses
an alternative model to implement in a persistently
lowest-achieving school, it will not be in compliance with the
RTTT guidelines, which require implementation of one of the
four intervention models specified above.
7)This bill does not comply with the RTTT guidelines requiring a
description of how the state will support LEAs in implementing
one of the four intervention models.
8)This bill requires a LEA to implement one of the five NCLB
Alternative Governance reforms chosen by parents of a school
subject to corrective action (PI 3) if one-half of the parents
sign a petition in support of the option. Is it appropriate
to allow parents to require reform in PI year 3 when the bill
requires NCLB and RTTT reform for persistently
lowest-achieving schools based on schools in PI year 4 and 5?
Would this provision cause principals to avoid making
difficult or controversial school management decisions that
might not be popular with parents?
9)This bill requires the SPI to recommend revocation of a
charter if it is determined to be a persistently
lowest-achieving school, pursuant to EC Section 47604.5, which
authorizes the SBE to revoke a charter when the SBE determines
that there is gross financial mismanagement, illegal or
substantially improper use of charter school funds for
personal benefit, or substantial and sustained departure from
measurably successful practices. While this bill requires the
SPI to make the recommendation for revocation, the revocation
is also seemingly contingent upon the SBE making one of the
specified findings.
10)This bill requires an evaluation of "the program" in Section
7 of the bill titled "Accountability Measures for the
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools." Should an evaluation
be limited to just the persistently lowest-achieving schools
section?
Charter Schools : According to CDE, the 2008-09 count of
operating charter schools is 746 with student enrollment of more
than 285,000 in this state. This includes 4 statewide benefit
charters and 8 SBE-approved charters. Some charter schools are
new, while others are conversions from existing public schools.
Charter schools are part of the state's public education system
and are funded by public dollars.
The RTTT guidance requires states to ensure successful
conditions for high performing charter schools by not inhibiting
SB 1 X5
Page 21
the number of charter schools that operate in the state; specify
how charter authorizers shall mentor and hold charter schools
accountable, especially with regard to student achievement; and,
encourage charter schools to serve student populations that are
similar to local district student populations, especially
relative to high-need students. This measure addresses the RTTT
requirements by removing the statewide cap on charter schools.
This measure does not meet the RTTT guidance in this policy
reform area in the following ways:
1)The measure does not provide any certain accountability
measures that will ensure that high performing charters
thrive, even when many concerns have been raised about the
transparency of charter school management organizations. The
committee should consider whether it is appropriate to remove
the cap on charter schools without also requiring the same
academic or fiscal accountability standards for charter
schools as for traditional public schools.
2)The measure creates two workgroups to study the charter
petition, renewal and revocation process as well as charter
school fiscal, accounting, and audit processes and make
recommendations by December 2010. While recommendations to
improve charter academic and fiscal accountability could
result from these workgroups, it does not ensure that charter
schools will ever be held to greater accountability standards
in these areas because it would require subsequent legislation
to implement any statutory changes recommended by the
workgroups.
Open Enrollment Program : The bill creates a new open enrollment
program to allow students in schools identified in deciles 1-3
that are also in PI, to transfer to any school outside of their
home school district. School choice is not required in the RTTT
Guidance and it is unclear whether this program will make
California's application more competitive.
The Open Enrollment proposal creates the following concerns:
1)The Legislature recently passed and the Governor signed SB 680
(Romero), Chapter 198 of the Statutes of 2009, which extended
the state's school choice program, called Districts of Choice.
Since this program authorizes any student to attend districts
that choose to become DOCs, it is unclear why a new school
choice program is necessary.
2)SB 680 created several new safeguards for the DOC program that
are not included in this measure. The committee should
SB 1 X5
Page 22
consider whether it is appropriate to create a new school
choice program without including the same safeguards as the
DOC program, which include:
a) Requiring an annual audit of the random selection
process and communications to parents.
b) Requiring that communications to parents do not target
individual parents or guardians or residential
neighborhoods on the basis of a child's actual or perceived
academic or athletic performance or any other personal
characteristic.
c) Specifying explicitly that a district of enrollment may
not reject the transfer of a special needs pupil, including
an individual with exceptional needs as defined in EC
Section 56026, and an English Learner.
d) Requiring each district of enrollment to keep records
of: 1) The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn
as well as the reasons for the denials; 2) The number of
pupils transferred out of the district; 3) The number of
pupils transferred into the district; and, 4) The race,
ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, and
the school district of residence of each of the pupils
described above. Requiring this information to be reported
to the governing board of the district of enrollment and to
each school district that is geographically adjacent to the
district of enrollment, the county office of education in
which the district is located, the SPI, and DOF. Requiring
this information to be annually reported to the Legislature
and the Governor.
e) Requiring a comprehensive evaluation of the school
choice program.
3)The DOC program currently authorizes a basic aid district to
receive 70% of the state revenue limit for average daily
attendance (ADA) that otherwise would have gone to the
district of residence, when they enroll a pupil from another
district. This funding mechanism is missing from the Open
Enrollment Program.
4)The federal NCLB requires school choice when a school enters
PI. Students enrolled at that school are allowed to transfer
to higher performing schools within the district that are not
in PI or to higher performing charter schools. This measure
is not consistent with federal law in that it does not require
students to transfer from a PI school to a higher performing
school. The committee should consider whether the state
should create a new school choice program when NCLB school
choice already applies to these same schools and whether it is
SB 1 X5
Page 23
appropriate to authorize students to transfer from one school
to another school in another district that does not have
higher academic achievement.
5)The author has indicated that the intent is to use Title 1
funds to pay for transportation for students who participate
in this program. Would this mean that Title 1 funds received
by the district of residence would be used to fund
transportation of its students outside of the district? Title
1 eligibility is based on the students that attend schools in
the district. If a Title 1 student leaves one district and
enrolls in another district, those Title 1 funds follow the
student to the new district. Over time, this would mean that
a district of residence would be paying for the transportation
of a student when it no longer receives any funding for that
student. Under federal law, transportation funds only follow
the student for as long as there are no high performing
schools to choose from in their residential area. The same
protection does not exist in this measure. The committee
should consider whether this transportation funding
arrangement is equitable.
6)It is unclear whether this measure requires districts to
accept any transfers under this program. The program
specifies that a district can create standards for accepting
and rejecting students, and provides protections for
discrimination against individual students, but the program
may not prohibit a school district from rejecting all
transfers under this program. For example, could a district
create a policy that says they will not accept any transfers
and/or could a district create a policy that rejects all
students from a specific district or school?
7)The measure currently specifies that the district of
enrollment may not include consideration of a pupil's previous
academic achievement, physical condition, proficiency in the
English language, sex, national origin, or race in its written
standards for accepting and rejecting students. The committee
should consider whether other protections, consistent with
other provisions of state law, should also be added to this
list, including but not limited to: special education
instructional needs, family income, religion and sexual
orientation.
8)The program will create increased state costs related to the
declining enrollment adjustment, because school districts in
declining enrollment receive a one-year hold harmless
adjustment. Students who transfer from a declining enrollment
district to another district under this program will generate
SB 1 X5
Page 24
additional state costs for one year.
9)The measure requires the SBE to implement emergency
regulations, but does not require the SBE to implement
permanent regulations for this program.
General Requirements : This bill also makes a number of general
proposals that create concerns.
1)The granting of a blanket waiver, consistent with the
exemption provided to charter schools under EC Section 47610,
to participating LEAs that enter into a RTTT MOU with the
state would remove many statutory requirements that bear on
LEAs, including, but not limited to, criminal background
checks for staff, mandatory pupil expulsions or suspensions,
provision of an expulsion appeal process, administration and
passage of the high school exit exam, the Open Meetings Act
and Brown Act, checking pupil immunization records, completing
pupil health or scoliosis screenings, the removal and disposal
of dangerous chemicals with an elapsed shelf life from school
sites, district fiscal reporting requirements such as for
budgets and financial statements, and the requirements related
to collective bargaining for credentialed or classified staff
under the Stull Act and other provisions of law. In addition,
this waiver clearly exceeds any requirements of RTTT.
2)The bill provides no requirement for conveyance of the state's
RTTT plan or application to the Legislature.
3)MOUs are required to be executed by each participating LEA and
the President of the SBE; requiring the President of the SBE
to execute a contract may create legal issues and certainly
creates administrative difficulties. Even in programs under
current law (e.g., the STAR program) where contracts are
approved by the SBE, those contracts are executed by the SPI
or the SPI's delegates; in addition, the SBE currently has
insufficient staff and expertise to execute and process
binding contracts on behalf of the state. Authority for
execution of these MOUs would be better placed with the SPI.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
APLUS+ Personalized Learning Network Association
California Business for Education Excellence
California Charter Schools Association
California County Superintendents Educational Services
Association
SB 1 X5
Page 25
California State Conference of the NAACP
California State PTA (Support, if amended)
Californians for Quality Education
Central City Association of Los Angeles
City of Fresno, Mayor, Ashley Swearengin
City of Sacramento, Mayor Kevin Johnson
City of San Jose, Mayor Chuck Reed
Clovis Unified School District
Contra Costa Council
EdVoice
Families in Schools
Fresno County Office of Education
Fresno Unified School District
Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
Greater Santa Ana Business Alliance
L.A. Education Partnership
Lakeside Union School District
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Unified School District
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Board of Education
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools
Napa County Office of Education
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Department of Education
Parent Institute for Quality Education
Peace Builders (support, if amended)
San Diego East County Economic Development Council
San Diego Office of Education
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
San Mateo County Office of Education
Sweetwater Union High School District, Office of the Board of
Trustees
University of California, Legislative Affairs
University of California, San Diego, Chancellor Marye Anne Fox
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Vista Unified School District
Walnut Valley Unified School District
Youth Policy Institute
Several individuals
SB 1 X5
Page 26
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California Nurses Association
California School Boards Association
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Californians Together (oppose, unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton, Marisol Avi?a, Sophia
Kwong Kim, Chelsea Kelley /
EDUCATION X5 / (916) 319-2087