BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 203 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 203 (Brownley) As Amended May 11, 2011 Majority vote EDUCATION 7-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | |Buchanan, | |Bradford, Charles | | |Butler, Carter, Eng, | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | |Williams | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, | | | | |Mitchell, Solorio | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Norby, Halderman, Wagner |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, | | | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Makes various changes to the Parent Empowerment Program (PEP). Specifically, this bill : 1)Specifies that a school not identified as persistently lowest achieving, or is identified as a persistently lowest-achieving school but does not receive funding under the federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, instead of the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) program, shall be a school subject to the PEP. 2)Specifies that the following shall apply to the PEP: a) No more than one parent or legal guardian per pupil may sign a petition; and, b) Any written information provided to parents or legal guardians, including a petition, shall meet the requirement under existing law that if 15% or more of the pupils enrolled in a public school speak a single primary language other than English, all notices, reports, statements, or records sent to the parent or guardian of any such pupil by the school or school district shall, in addition to being written in English, be written in the primary language. 3)Requires a local governing board to, at the public meeting AB 203 Page 2 where a local education agency (LEA) designates in writing why it cannot implement the option requested in the petition, allow parents and legal guardians the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the petition or the written findings. 4)Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to provide, on its Internet Web site, information regarding the petition process, the five intervention options that parents and legal guardians may request, and a sample petition that can be used by interested petitioners. Specifies that the petition shall be available in other languages pursuant to existing law that requires translation of materials in alternative languages if 15% or more of the pupils in a public school speak a single primary language other than English. Specifies that petitioners shall not be required to use the sample petitions, but alternate petitions shall contain all components required by law. 5)Establishes the following definitions for the purpose of the PEP: a) "Parents or legal guardians" mean the natural or adoptive parents, legal guardians, or other persons holding the right to make educational decisions for the pupil, including but not limited to, foster parents who hold rights to make educational decisions on the date the petition is submitted; and, b) "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 a middle or high school, as applicable" means one-half of the total number of parents and legal guardians of pupils who attend any of the following: i) The school for which the petition is submitted; or, ii) An elementary or middle school that normally matriculates into a middle or high school for which a petition is submitted, as applicable. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, one time General Fund (GF) administrative costs to the CDE, likely less than $125,000, to provide specified AB 203 Page 3 information on its Internet Web site. Potential, unknown, GF/Proposition 98 state reimbursable mandated cost pressure, likely less than $150,000 annually, to school districts to conduct a verification process. While this bill does not establish a verification process, it does specify who can sign the petition and how many times he or she may sign it. The original legislation, SB 4 X5 (Romero), Chapter 3, Statutes of 2009-10 Fifth Extraordinary Session, established state reimbursable mandated costs, which will not be known until a LEA files a state mandate claim. COMMENTS : In February 2009, the President signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which, among others, established $4 billion for one-time State Incentive Grants known as the RTTT. One of the eligibility requirements for RTTT is identifying, including establishing a definition for, persistently lowest-achieving schools in the state and requiring these schools to implement one of four intervention models that include replacing a principal and 50% of the staff; converting a school to a charter school, or closing and reopening a school under a charter school operator, a charter management organization, or an education management organization; closing a school and enrolling the students in other higher achieving schools in the LEA; and replacing the principal and developing strategies for school improvement. The PEP authorizes parents and legal guardians at a school not identified as a persistently lowest-achieving school under the RTTT, has an Academic Performance Index (API) score of under 800 and is in program improvement, to require a governing board to implement any of the RTTT interventions or an alternative intervention authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) 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 the pupils attending the school and its elementary or middle feeder schools, sign a petition making the request. The bill authorizes a governing board to choose another RTTT or NCLB intervention only if it makes written findings in a regularly scheduled public hearing of the reason it cannot implement the option requested by parents and guardians, and inform the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education (SBE) how the alternative intervention it has AB 203 Page 4 selected has substantial promise of enabling the school to meet adequate yearly progress. SB 4 X5 (Romero) limits the number of affected schools to the first 75 statewide; excludes schools with an API of 800 or higher; and specifies that a LEA is not required to comply with the petition request if the reason for the request is not related to academic achievement or pupil safety. At the legislative hearings on SB 4 X5 last year, concerns were expressed that some of the bill's provisions were unclear and that more specific parameters were needed. In September 2010 and again in March 9, 2011, the SBE adopted temporary, emergency regulations that provide minimal guidelines. The SBE has been deliberating proposed permanent regulations for several months and at the April 21, 2011 meeting, the SBE voted to send revised draft regulations for public comments. During several deliberations on this issue, questions were raised as to whether statutory changes are needed to implement some of the proposed regulations. Thus far, only one petition has been submitted to a local governing board. On December 7, 2010, a petition was submitted to the Compton Unified School District, which was rejected by the Compton governing board on February 22, 2011 after much confusion and conflict over what petitioners and LEAs may or may not, or are required or not required, to do. For example, confusion over verification of signatures resulted in a lawsuit as the law is silent on this issue. That lawsuit is still pending, while the Los Angeles Superior Court recently found the petition noncompliant with one component of the emergency regulations. The author states, "I have been monitoring the SBE and its process of developing regulations. This bill is a vehicle to make necessary clarifications that should be in statute and address any unresolvable issues or any issues deemed to require statutory authority or clarifications in order to implement one or more of the proposals in draft regulations." This bill proposes the following: Delink eligible schools from persistently lowest achieving schools under the RTTT and link, instead, to LEAs that do not receive SIG funds: SB 4 X5 ties eligibility for the PEP to schools not identified as persistently lowest achieving under AB 203 Page 5 the RTTT. RTTT schools considered persistently lowest achieving are required to implement one of the four intervention options. The PEP is intended to provide the same opportunity to specified schools not on the RTTT list. California, however, did not receive a RTTT grant. A persistently lowest achieving schools list was developed for the SIG, another federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act grant program targeting low achieving schools. The SIG provides approximately $68 million to LEAs with persistently lowest-achieving schools as specified by the U.S. Department of Education. Because there are more schools on the list than funding available, this bill specifies that any school not receiving funds under the SIG and meet all other specified requirements of SB 4 X5 are eligible for the PEP. Information by the CDE: The bill requires the CDE to provide information regarding the PEP on its Internet Web site, including the petition process, the intervention options available to parents, and a model petition that is available in languages most frequently spoken by pupils. According to the author, this is to make it easier for parents interested in the PEP to circulate a petition. The bill does not require parents to use the model petition as long as a petition meets requirements specified in law and regulations. Definition: The bill establishes a definition for "parents or legal guardians" as natural or adoptive parents, and a person who has rights to make educational decisions for a student. This is to give individuals making educational decisions for foster kids an opportunity to sign a petition. Signatures: This bill specifies that there shall be one signature per student. This bill specifies that for petitions that include feeder schools, the calculation of the number of required signatures for what constitutes 50% is based on 50% from the school for which a petition is being submitted and 50% from all feeder schools. The bill does not specify where signatures are required to be collected. Translation of materials: This bill reinforces existing law requiring materials to be translated if at least 15% of the pupils at a school speak a primary language other than English. It is important for parents who speak another language to be able to understand what is being proposed in a petition and other options that are available. AB 203 Page 6 Public Comments: This bill requires a local governing board to, at the public meeting where it provides written findings on why it cannot implement the option requested in the petition, allow parents and legal guardians to provide testimony regarding the petition process and the written findings. Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0000992