BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
AB 2193
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 28, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 2193 (Lara) - As Amended: March 20, 2012
SUBJECT : Long-term English learners
SUMMARY : Defines "long-term English learners (LTELs)" and
"English learners (ELs) at risk of becoming long-term English
learners;" requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to report
the number of pupils identified as such, and requires specified
information be provided to parents of pupils who are, or are at
risk of becoming LTELs. Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "Long-term English learner" as an EL who is enrolled
in any of grades 6 to 12, inclusive, has been continuously
enrolled in schools in the United States (U.S.) for more than
six years, has remained at the same English language
proficiency level for two or more consecutive years as
determined by an English proficiency examination, and scores
far below basic or below basic on a standards-based academic
achievement test.
2)Defines "English learner at risk of becoming a long-term
English learner" as an EL who is enrolled in grade 5, has been
continuously enrolled in schools in the U.S. since grade 1,
scores at the intermediate level or below on the English
language development test (ELDT), and scores in grade 4 at the
below basic or far below basic levels on the English and
mathematics standards-based achievement tests.
3)Requires an existing notice to parents, required pursuant to
federal law, to additionally include information on whether
their child is a LTEL or is at risk of becoming a LTEL, the
manner in which the program for English language development
(ELD) instruction will meet the educational strengths and
needs of LTELs or pupils at risk of becoming LTELs, and the
manner in which the program for ELD instruction will help
these pupils meet age-appropriate academic standards.
4)Requires the statewide system of school support consisting of
regional consortia, district assistance and intervention
teams, and other school and district technical assistance
providers to target pupils that are not meeting the federal
AB 2193
Page 2
academic targets, including ELs, LTELs, and those at risk of
becoming LTELs.
5)Requires the standards and criteria that a district assistance
and intervention team or other technical assistance provider
uses in assessing LEAs to address specified areas including
alignment of curriculum, instruction and assessments that
target pupils not meeting the federal academic targets,
including ELs, LTELs, and those at risk of becoming LTELs.
6)Requires a school district, charter school, or county office
of education to annually ascertain the number of pupils in the
LEA who are, or are at risk of becoming, long-term English
learners, as those terms are defined, and to annually report
to the California Department of Education (CDE) the number of
these pupils.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Defines "English learner" or "pupil of limited English
proficiency" to mean a pupil who was not born in the United
States or whose native language is a language other than
English or who comes from an environment where a language
other than English is dominant; and whose difficulties in
speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English
language may be sufficient to deny the individual the ability
to meet the state's proficient level of achievement on state
assessments, the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms
where the language of instruction is English, or the
opportunity to participate fully in society.
2)Specifies that a LEA shall provide instructional services to
limited-English-proficient pupils and immigrant pupils in
conformity with specified federal statutes.
3)Requires, in accordance with federal law, each parent or
guardian of a pupil enrolled in a public school to receive
notice of the assessment of his or her child's English
language proficiency not later than 30 days after the start of
the school year and requires the notice to include the
specified information.
4)Requires the CDE to establish a statewide system of school
AB 2193
Page 3
support for school districts, county offices of education, and
schools in need of improvement and requires the system to
consist of regional consortia, school district assistance and
intervention teams (DAIT), and other technical assistance
providers.
5)Provides that the regional consortia shall work
collaboratively with, and provide technical assistance to,
school districts and schools in need of improvement, by
conducting the specified duties, and requires standards and
criteria developed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) for use in providing assistance to include the alignment
of curriculum, instruction, and assessments to state
standards.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Nearly 1.4 million of the state's 6.2 million
students were identified as ELs during the 2010-11 school year,
representing 23% of the state's total kindergarten through grade
12 (K-12) public school enrollment. A recent study shows that a
large number of ELs, despite their many years in U.S. schools,
are still not English proficient and are not making progress
towards meeting criteria for reclassification, thus staying
classified as ELs for an extended period of time. These pupils
are referred to as "long-term English learners," however, the
state and school districts lack a uniform definition of and
mechanism to identify LTELs. This bill seeks to create a
uniform state definition of LTEL EL and at risk of becoming
LTEL, and requires districts to identify and report to the CDE
the numbers of pupils identified. Additionally, this bill
requires additional notification to parents of ELs regarding
language proficiency status, and requires technical assistance
to school districts to target specified pupils that are not
meeting the federal academic targets.
The problem : The report, Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the Unkept
Promise of Educational Opportunity for California's Long Term
English Learners, includes information from a survey of 40
California school districts and finds that the majority, 59%, of
secondary school ELs in those districts are long-term English
learners, meaning they have been in U.S. schools for more than
six years and have not reached sufficient English proficiency to
be reclassified. Furthermore, the report points out that in one
out of three districts, more than 75% of their ELs are long
AB 2193
Page 4
term. The majority of LTELs have remained at the intermediate
level of English proficiency or below, while others have reached
higher levels of English proficiency but not enough academic
language to be reclassified. Significant gaps in reading and
writing and the lack of rich oral and literacy skills needed to
fully participate and succeed in academic work are common trends
amongst LTELs.
Several factors are acknowledged as contributing to ELs becoming
LTELs and incurring academic deficits, including the lack of
adequate and comprehensive ELD, a "one-size-fits-all"
curriculum, and limited access to the full curriculum thus
impeding development of academic language. The courts have
opined that ELs have unique needs that need to be taken into
account in providing them a meaningful education. In 1974 the
United States Supreme Court ruled in Lau vs. Nichols 414 U.S.
563 that students who were not proficient in English had a
constitutional right to equal access to a meaningful education
in the public schools. The decision states, "Under these
state-imposed standards, there is no equality of treatment
merely by providing students with the same facilities textbooks,
teachers and curriculum; for students who do not understand
English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful
education. We know that those who do not understand English are
certain to find their classroom experiences wholly
incomprehensible and in no way meaningful."
Identification : This bill defines LTEL as an EL who is enrolled
in any of grades 6 to 12, inclusive, has been continuously
enrolled in schools in the U.S. for more than six years, is
unable to advance for two or more years beyond a particular
level on an English proficiency exam, and scores far below basic
or below basic on an academic achievement test. According to
information provided by one of the co-sponsors, the Californians
Together Coalition, the rationale for the six years is based on
linguistic research showing that it normatively takes up to
seven years to reach proficiency in a second language, and on an
analysis of progression rates through the levels on the English
language development test (ELDT).
There are five proficiency levels on the ELDT and the
expectation is for ELs to advance one proficiency level per
year, consistent with federal requirements. The definition in
this bill acknowledges the five levels on the ELDT while trying
to avoid identifying pupils too early if they are making
AB 2193
Page 5
normative progress and hence sets six years in a U.S. school as
one of the indicators. The definition of LTEL in this bill is
not solely based on the number of years an EL has been enrolled
in U.S. schools. It further considers whether these pupils may
have reached a plateau on English proficiency and on academic
achievement tests. The definition would only capture ELs that
have been continuously enrolled in a U.S. school for more than
six years; however, it could be argued that ELs that have
cumulatively been enrolled in a U.S. school for that period of
time should also be considered LTELs. Staff recommends the bill
be amended to also include in the definition of LTEL, ELs that
have been cumulatively enrolled in U.S. schools for six years or
more.
Furthermore, the definition requires consideration be given to
achievement on an unspecified academic achievement test in
identifying LTELs. Since the English language arts (ELA)
achievement test is used for purposes of determining
reclassification, this same test should probably be considered
in determining LTEL status. Staff recommends an amendment to
specify that achievement on the ELA standards test be considered
for purposes of determining whether a pupil is a LTEL.
The definition of "EL at-risk of becoming a LTEL" is narrow and
excludes ELs that may have entered U.S. schools after first
grade, have meet all the other "at risk" criteria and have been
enrolled in a U.S. school for four years or more. The current
definition assumes that all ELs start school in first grade or
kindergarten, which is not necessarily the case. Staff
recommends the bill be amended to instead define EL's at-risk of
becoming LTELs as, English learners enrolled in any of grades
5-11 that have been continuously or cumulative enrolled in U.S.
schools for four years, score at the intermediate level or below
on the ELDT, and score at below basic or far below basic levels
on the ELA and mathematics standards-based achievement
assessments in the fourth year of continuous or cumulative
enrollment in U.S. schools.
Parent notification : Federal and state law require annual
notification to parents of ELs providing parents information
about their children's level of English proficiency and the
manner in which educational programs will meet educational needs
and proficiency development of ELs. This bill builds upon this
existing notification and requires that parents also be informed
if their children have been identified as LTELs or are at risk
AB 2193
Page 6
of becoming LTELs, and requires the notice to also include
information about how the ELD program will help these pupils
develop English proficiency and meet age-appropriate academic
standards. This bill however, appears to require this
information be provided whether or not the pupil is identified
as a LTEL or is at risk of becoming one. Staff recommends a
technical amendment to specify that this information would be
provided to parents only if their children are identified as
LTELs or are at risk of becoming LTELs.
By requiring information be provided on the ELD program, this
bill implies that all schools have an ELD program in place,
which is not necessarily the case. In fact, research on why ELs
become LTELs demonstrates that one of the main reasons ELs
become LTELs is the lack of comprehensive ELD instruction during
the day. This bill could be interpreted to mean that only
schools and districts that have ELD programs would provide
information on notification to parents, which does not appear to
be the intent of the bill. If the intent is to require the
notification to include information on how the overall
instructional program will address the needs LTELs and those
at-risk, staff recommends an amendment to clarify that the
notification shall include how the program of instruction,
including ELD, will meet the specified needs.
Having this additional information gives parents of ELs the
opportunity to take steps necessary to address the language and
academic needs of their children.
Not a new program : In an effort to address the instructional
needs of this population of students, this bill also requires
the regional consortia that provide technical assistance to LEAs
in program improvement, to target LTELs and ELs at risk of
becoming LTEL's in the design and operation of the instructional
program and in developing recommendations for improving pupil
performance. Additionally, the DAITs are required to use
criteria that targets pupils that are, and are at risk of
becoming, LTELs, in the alignment of curriculum, instruction and
assessments.
This bill does not require districts to create a specific
program to address the academic deficits of LTELs or to help
remediate those at risk of becoming LTELs. It can be argued
that, as a first step, this bill raises awareness on this issue
by codifying definitions of, and requiring districts to
AB 2193
Page 7
identify, pupils who are, or are at risk of becoming, LTELs.
After these pupils are identified, districts have the
flexibility to craft programs as they best see fit to meet the
needs of their student population. This bill does not create
new programmatic requirements for school districts but instead
can potentially encourage districts to focus on developing plans
and/or strategies to address the needs of LTELs and ELs at risk
of becoming LTELs within existing programs.
Some LEAs have already taken the initiative to identify and
start to address the needs of LTELs. For example, the Riverside
County Office of Education (RCOE) has established a LTEL Task
Force to identify LTELs and redesignated long-term English
learners (RLTELs). The mission of the RCOE LTEL Task Force is
to "identify sustainable systems from the county level to the
classroom that support best practices in meeting the linguistic
and academic needs of ELs, LTELs, and RLTELs to prepare them for
graduation from high school well prepared for college and the
workforce. While some districts are acknowledging and taking
steps to identify and address the needs of LTELs, many more
districts are overlooking these needs of these pupils.
Preventing LTELs : An argument could be made that comprehensive
and well-designed English language development instruction in
the early grades could go a long way in preventing LTELs, and
that attention and focus should also be placed on providing
high-quality ELD in the primary and secondary levels. To wait
until ELs reach LTEL status to start addressing the academic
deficits of this population of students would be detrimental to
their academic success.
Suggested technical amendment : On page 4, line 8, the bill
refers to age-appropriate academic standards; however,
California's academic content standards are grade-level
standards. This bill should be amended to replace
"age-appropriate" with "grade level."
Author's statement : "AB 2193 defines in the Education Code the
term Long Term English Learner and defines an English Learner at
risk of becoming a Long Term English Learner. By creating
standard definitions in the Education Code, California schools
and districts will be able to properly identify LTEL'S and know
their corresponding grade level. This will ensure that Long Term
English Learners and those at risk of becoming Long Term English
Learners do not become 'invisible' and do not fall through the
AB 2193
Page 8
cracks regarding instruction."
Arguments in support : The California Association for Bilingual
Education, one of the co-sponsors of this bill, writes, "We
believe AB 2193 (Lara) is a critical first step in developing a
systemic approach to address the instructional needs of students
who are LTELs or at risk of becoming LTEL's. California has an
opportunity to correct this situation by the specific actions
called for in AB 2193 (Lara)."
Related legislation : AB 1767 (Norby) requires English learners
(ELs) to be reclassified if they meet the specified criteria and
allows a school district to continue to receive state funding
designated for its ELs for up to two years after the pupil has
been reclassified as English proficient. AB 1767 is pending in
this Committee and is scheduled to be heard today.
SB 754 (Padilla) defines "long-term English learner" as a pupil
in any of grades 6 to 12, inclusive, who has been an EL for five
or more years, and defines "reclassified English proficient" as
an EL who has been redesignated as English proficient pursuant
current law. Expresses the intent of the Legislature to enact
legislation that would require the CDE to provide information
regarding long-term English learners and
reclassified-English-proficient pupils. SB 754 is pending in
the Assembly Rules Committee.
SB 1108 (Padilla) require the EL reclassification procedures to
use only three of the four specified criteria and eliminates the
criteria requiring a comparison of the pupil's basic skills
performance against an empirically established range of basic
skills performance based on the performance of
English-proficient pupils of the same age. SB 1108 is pending
in the Senate Education Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Association for Bilingual Education (Co-sponsor)
Californians Together Coalition (Co-sponsor)
Association of California School Administrators - If amended
(Prior version)
500 plus individuals
AB 2193
Page 9
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Aviņa / ED. / (916) 319-2087