BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Alan Lowenthal, Chair 2011-2012 Regular Session BILL NO: AB 853 AUTHOR: Blumenfield AMENDED: June 20, 2011 FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: July 6, 2011 URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez SUBJECT : Online education. SUMMARY This bill authorizes, commencing with the 2013-14 fiscal year, a school district, county office of education (COE), or charter school to claim attendance toward average daily attendance (ADA) for the purpose of calculating revenue limit funding for online synchronous and asynchronous courses, as specified. BACKGROUND Existing law 1) Requires the majority of the state's revenue limit funding (general purpose) allocated to local educational agencies (LEAs) be based on average daily attendance (ADA). ADA is the average amount of time a pupil attends class under the immediate supervision of a certificated employee. (Education Code § 46300 et. seq.) Within the current ADA requirements, LEAs are able to provide online courses to pupils in the following ways: (a) Pupils are receiving online instruction in a classroom setting under the immediate supervision of a certificated employee. (EC § 46300 (a)) (b) Pupils are enrolled in a part-time or full-time independent study (IS) program (i.e., the pupil may be taking regular classroom courses AB 853 Page 2 and one or two IS program courses online). If a pupil is enrolled full-time in an IS program, he or she is required to produce a work product, which is assessed by a certificated employee of the district. (EC § 51745 et. seq.) (c) Pupils who have met the minimum instructional requirement and are taking an online course. Under this scenario, the pupil is generating full ADA for meeting the minimum instructional requirement and the pupil is taking the online course in addition to meeting minimum requirements. (d) Pupils are enrolled in a charter school, which has less traditional accounting and attendance requirements for its pupils; and typically must meet statutory requirements, where applicable, or regulatory guidelines adopted by the State Board of Education. 1) Establishes the minimum school day for a high school student to be 240 instructional minutes in a classroom, in IS, or in a combination of the two settings, and requires students taking a combination to meet attendance standards for both the classroom and IS courses in order for a district to claim a pupil's attendance for funding purposes. (EC § 46141) 2) Requires that pupils in grades 9 through 12 attend school for at least 64,800 minutes per year in no less than 180 days (or 175 days under budget flexibility language through 2014-15). (EC § 46201) 3) Existing law requires each school district maintaining any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, to offer courses of study that (1) fulfill the requirements and prerequisites for admission to California public institutions of postsecondary education and (2) provide an opportunity for pupils to attain entry-level employment skills in business or industry. School districts may fulfill their responsibility pursuant to number (2) by adopting a required curriculum that meets or exceeds the model standards the Career Technical Education adopted by the State Board of Education. AB 853 Page 3 (EC § 51228) ANALYSIS This bill authorizes, commencing with the 2013-14 fiscal year, a school district, county office of education (COE), or charter school to claim attendance toward average daily attendance (ADA) for the purpose of calculating revenue limit funding for online classes, as specified. More specifically, this bill: 1) Requires the following conditions apply in order for a school district, COE, or charter school to claim ADA for online classes: (a) the pupil is enrolled in grades 9 through 12; (b) the pupil is enrolled in classes that include courses in a classroom-based setting, courses that are offered through an online program, or both; (c) the pupil meets minimum instructional time requirements, as specified; and (d) each online course in which the pupil is enrolled is a high-quality online course. 2) Defines a high-quality online course as meeting all the following requirements: a) The online course is approved by the governing board of the school district, COE, or governing body of the charter school, such that the online course is certified, through board resolution, to meet these requirements, to be as rigorous as a classroom-based course and meeting or exceeding all relevant state content standards. b) The teacher is either of the following: i) For a synchronous course, the teacher is online at the same time as each pupil, is accessible to each pupil attending an online course to respond to pupil queries, assign tasks, dispense information, and is able to make a visual connection with each pupil for the purposes of verifying attendance or providing immediate supervision of the pupil. ii) For an asynchronous course, the AB 853 Page 4 teacher may be online at different times than each pupil, is accessible to each pupil attending an asynchronous online course to respond to pupil queries, assign tasks, dispense information, and for the purposes of verifying attendance is able to employ at least two of the following: a) Periodic proctored examinations. b) Direct teacher-pupil meetings no less than twice per calendar month. c) A line-of-sight visual connection, including, but not limited to, Internet webcam. a) The ratio of full-time equivalent certificated teachers teaching the online course to pupils enrolled in that course is less than or equal to the ratio of teachers to pupils in traditional classroom study of the same subject matter in the school, school district, or the unified school district with the largest ADA of pupils in that county, or if the course is new or unique, the pupil to teacher ratio cannot exceed 30 to 1. b) The subject matter content for the online course is the same as for the traditional classroom-based course of the same course title in the school district, COE or charter school. c) The teacher of the online course holds the appropriate subject matter credential and meets the requirements for a "highly qualified" teacher as defined under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. d) All statewide testing results for pupils enrolled in the online course are reported to the school, school district, and county in which the pupil is enrolled for regular classroom courses. e) The online course is offered by a high school, continuation school, COE, or charter AB 853 Page 5 school. f) No pupil is assigned to the online course pursuant to this section unless the pupil voluntarily elects to participate in the online course and the parent or guardian of the pupil provides written consent before the pupil participates in an online course. g) No pupil electing to participate in the online course is denied access because the pupil lacks the computer hardware or software necessary to participate in the online course. h) No pupil is charged for their participation in the online course. i) Pupils enrolled in the online course take examinations by proctor or that other reliable methods are used to ensure test integrity, and there is a clear record of pupil work, using the same method of documentation and assessment as used in a classroom-based course. j) The school, school district or COE maintains contemporaneous records to verify the time that a pupil spends online and in related activities in which a pupil is involved, and maintains records verifying the time that the teacher is online. 1) Clarifies that nothing in these provisions be interpreted to mean that a charter school provides classroom-based or nonclassroom-based instruction for the purposes of a State Board of Education determination. 2) Requires that pupil attendance accounted for under this authorization be subject to audit as part of the local educational agency's annual financial audit. 3) Prohibits a pupil from being credited with more than five days of online course attendance per calendar week or more than the total number of calendar days that regular classes are maintained by the school district, COE, or charter school. AB 853 Page 6 4) Prohibits the waiver of any provision of this measure, unless specifically authorized. 5) Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), in consultation with the State Controller and the Director of Finance (DOF), before December 31, 2012, to make: a) Revisions to any attendance accounting manual or guidance that are necessary to conform to the provisions of this measure; b) Revisions necessary to clarify attendance accounting procedures for asynchronous online courses; c) Recommendations regarding statutory changes that would be necessary to allow attendance in asynchronous online courses to be included in the calculation of ADA. 1) Prohibits pupil attendance in asynchronous online courses from being included in the calculation of ADA until the SPI has adopted the rules and regulations specified in # 12 below. 2) Deems a pupil engaged in an online course meeting these requirements to be under the immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee of the district, county office or charter school for the purposes of calculating ADA. 3) Specifies that attendance on an online course meeting these requirements is not required to meet the requirements for the Independent Study Program for the purposes of calculating ADA. 4) Defines (a) "asynchronous" online course as a course where the teacher and pupil may be online at different times and are unable to interact simultaneously; and (b) "synchronous" online course as a course where the teacher and pupil are online at the same time and able to interact at that time. 5) Requires the SPI, in consultation with the DOF, to adopt rules and regulations for the purpose of (a) clarifying or expanding the procedures required for AB 853 Page 7 verifying the identification of pupils participating in asynchronous online courses, and (b) for including pupil attendance in asynchronous online courses in the calculation of ADA. 6) Specifies the measure becomes inoperative on July 1, 2017. STAFF COMMENTS 7 Need for the bill . According to the author, "the state's classrooms remain stuck in the 20th century and have failed to embrace a changed world full of innovation and technology - despite California being the cradle of the technological revolution. If California aspires to compete with other states and nations as an economic engine, it must make dramatic changes in its classrooms to usher in a meaningful 21st century education and it must make them soon. One clear example is the virtual classroom. Technology and the internet provide educators with new tools and students with better options to break down barriers created by geography, poverty, language and other conditions." 7 Funding pupil attendance, promoting educational interaction, and the state's interest . The Legislature, generally, has required instruction for funding purposes, to be when a pupil attends class under the immediate supervision of a certificated employee, with some exceptions (particularly in independent study and in non-classroom based charter schools). The fundamental principal for allocation of funding under California's school finance system is the value of instructional time. The state measures this principal through the average daily attendance (ADA) system, including the ability of the pupil to be under the direct supervision (via a line of sight) of a certificated employee. Further, a critical aspect of education is the spontaneous interaction between teacher and pupil(s), as well as pupil-to-pupil, where instruction is enhanced by ensuing dialogue in a timely question and AB 853 Page 8 answer approach, the ability to work with others, and where a spontaneous social interactive learning experience can enrich a pupil's education by supplementing the acquisition of knowledge and learning, but also assist in the growth of interpersonal skills pupils will need in adult life, promoting the development of well-rounded individuals. From the perspective of protecting the state's interest and ensuring that the state's investment in education is spent directly on providing educational services to students who are on task in terms of learning, online delivery of instruction may not be able to provide total guarantees; certainly in the context of the historical dependence on the immediate supervision of a teacher to guarantee the state's interest, many online delivery approaches create problems; particularly those that involve asynchronous online courses. 3) In a synchronous online course , where teacher and pupil(s) are online at the same time and able to interact at the same time, an argument can be made that there could be or are mechanisms to guarantee attendance of the student and to place a time value on that attendance. For example, in a classroom setting, immediate supervision (and the line-of-sight connection) between the teacher and pupil during that class period provides the mechanism to guarantee that the pupil is attending and to validate the identity of that pupil. In addition, the implicit assumption in a classroom setting that is supervised by the teacher is that the pupil is on-task during the class period, which provides a mechanism for valuing the time that can be credited toward ADA. This bill defines as part of a high quality online synchronous course, the teacher is able to make a visual connection with the pupil for the purposes of verifying attendance or providing immediate supervision of the pupil - the application of the required definition has the added value of insuring that a pupil will be on-task during the class period. Effectively a synchronous online course that meets the same content standards as a traditional AB 853 Page 9 classroom based course, with line-of-sight capability that allows the teacher to see pupils and in real-time interacts with pupils, also insures appropriate accountability of the state's investment in education. Though not identical, an online synchronous course with appropriate accountability mechanisms can be argued is not dissimilar to one provided with a teacher in a traditional classroom setting. 4) In an asynchronous online course , a course where the teacher and pupil may be online at different times and are unable to interact simultaneously, mechanisms that could guarantee that a pupil is attending or participating, that the pupil has spent time on task, or that there is some time value to the pupil's work product are not so easily defined. In addition, elimination of simultaneous teacher-pupil interaction, as would be the case in an asynchronous course (teacher checking the students work online at different times) lack of supervision by a teacher presents numerous risks to student learning, particularly for students with special needs and students in need of remediation. In addition, elimination of immediate teacher supervision means that the state has no mechanism to ensure that a student is actually engaged in the coursework. From the perspective of the state's interest, these are situations where the state would be unable to ensure that its investment in education is spent directly on instruction. For example, in a substantially similar bill in 2010, the author proposed the use of biometric technologies to ensure that a pupil was "attending" an asynchronous online course; however, that mechanism was deleted from the bill in response to issues raised by this Committee over potential privacy concerns that had not been fully examined particularly with a school age minor involved or utilizing a technology that may be cost-prohibitive at a school level. This bill proposes mechanisms to provide these guarantees that include: (a) periodic proctored examinations, (b) direct teacher-pupil meetings of no less than twice per calendar month, and (c) a visual connection including, but not limited to, Internet Webcam. AB 853 Page 10 In addition, this bill requires pupils who enroll in an asynchronous online class to meet minimum instructional day and minute requirements in order to generate ADA, which is the basis for calculating revenue limit funding. There are fiscal questions related to claiming ADA for an asynchronous online course. For example, how does the state, for accounting and audit purposes, ensure that the pupil meets the minimum instructional time and day requirements? This includes basic issues as how attendance is taken in these courses. Are there unintended consequences (e.g., inequities in access to online instruction, loss of the speaking skills required in the language arts standards, or losses in personal and social skills) that might result from increasing this means of delivering education services? The bill acknowledges some of these challenges by prohibiting school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education from claiming ADA for asynchronous online classes until the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), in consultation with the Department of Finance, has adopted rules and regulations for the purpose of verifying pupil identification and calculating ADA in asynchronous courses. 5) Focus of bill is to remove barriers for high school students to access high quality courses . Consistent with the intended approach and to insure that online courses are offered to students making progress toward a high school diploma and to limit any potential abuses that may occur related to the earning of average daily attendance; staff recommends the following amendment "the average daily attendance may not, in any event, be generated by a pupil who is not a California resident. To remain eligible for generating apportionments, a pupil over 19 years of age shall be continuously enrolled in public school and make satisfactory progress towards award of a high school diploma. The SPI shall, pursuant to subdivision (k) of this section adopt regulations defining "satisfactory progress." 6) Staff note . The contents of this measure were AB 853 Page 11 formally in AB 802 which was held under submission by the Assembly Appropriations Committee as of May 2011. 7 Past legislative attempts. In 2002, the Legislature passed AB 885 (Daucher, Chapter 801) that authorized participation by high school students in the Online Classroom Pilot (OCP) program, which allowed the use of an asynchronous, interactive (a teacher and student interact online, but not necessarily at the same time) curriculum. The pilot program addressed the need to provide expanded educational opportunities for pupils attending schools with limited educational offerings; the need to provide access to advanced placement courses where none are available; and the need to provide quality educational access in courses for hard-to-staff subject areas. The pilot program sunset in 2007 and only cursory evaluative information was provided; not a thorough analysis which would assist in decision making for renewing or expanding the pilot. 8) Prior and related legislation. AB 2027 (Blumenfield), substantially similar to this measure, passed this Committee on an 8-0 vote, but was ultimately held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. AB 837 (Torlakson, 2009) established that a school district or COE, beginning with 2010-11, may claim ADA on the basis of a pupil's attendance at a class or classes in the classroom-based setting on that day, for the purpose of learning online. This measure was held on the Assembly Appropriations suspense file. AB 2457 (Walters, 2008) extended the OCP program until 2012; the bill was held on the Assembly Appropriations suspense file. AB 885 (Daucher, Chapter 801, Statutes of 2002), established the Online Classroom Pilot. SUPPORT AB 853 Page 12 California Association for the Gifted California Consortium for Independent Study California Continuation Education Association California County Superintendents Educational Services Association California School Boards Association EdVoice Fresno Unified School District San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools San Bernardino County Office of Education San Diego County Office of Education San Diego Unified School District Santa Clara County Office of Education Torrance Unified School District OPPOSITION None on file.