BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1108
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 8, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1108 (Padilla) - As Amended: July 5, 2012
Policy Committee: Education Vote:9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires the State Department of Education (SDE), by
January 1, 2014, to review and analyze the criteria, policies,
and the practices sampling school districts in the state use to
reclassify English learners (ELs), as specified. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Requires SDE to recommend to the Legislature and the State
Board of Education (SBE) any guideline, regulatory, or
statutory changes it determines are necessary to ensure ELs
are prepared for the successful transition to classrooms and
curricula that require English proficiency.
2)Requires SDE to consult with parents of ELs and EL experts,
classroom teachers, administrators, and researchers, as
specified. Requires the group of experts to develop a study
design that may include a sampling methodology for the purpose
of selecting the school districts that will be a part of the
review/analysis, as specified.
3)Requires SDE to examine and report on issues related to the
reclassification of ELs, including data on reclassification,
whether or not school districts are following the
reclassification guidelines suggested by the SBE, and the
different types of reclassification criteria used by
districts, as specified.
4)Requires SDE, by January 1, 2017, to issue an updated report
that reflects any changes in analysis and recommendations as a
result of the state's implementation of the Common Core
Standards in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics and
the revised English language development (ELD) standards.
SB 1108
Page 2
5)Requires this measure to be implemented only if state or
federal funds are appropriated to fully fund this purpose, or
if private funds are made available.
FISCAL EFFECT
One-time GF/98 or federal fund costs, likely between $400,000
and $500,000, to SDE to contract for a review and analysis of
school districts reclassification procedures for EL pupils.
This measure is required to be implemented only if state or
federal funds are appropriated for this purpose or private funds
are made available. It is unclear if federal No Child Left
Behind Act Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English
Proficient and Immigrant Students funds are able to be used to
fund this analysis due to state supplanting issues.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . Existing law defines an EL or a "limited English
proficient child" as one who does not speak English or whose
native language is not English and who is not currently able
to perform ordinary classroom work in English. Statute also
defines an EL pupil as one who does not have clearly developed
English language skills of comprehension, speaking, reading,
and writing necessary to receive instruction in English at a
level substantially equivalent to pupils of the same age or
grade whose primary language is English. According to the SDE,
there were approximately 1.44 million ELs enrolled in schools
in 2010-11, which equals approximately 23% of the total K-12
school enrollment.
There is a growing consensus that EL pupils are not being
reclassified as fluent English proficient at a fast enough
rate. The state's reclassification rate has hovered around
10% for the least several years. The author argues more needs
to be done at the state and local level to ensure ELs are
achieving academically. Before a new statewide policy can be
implemented, policymakers need to review and analyze varied
reclassification policies across the state.
2)Current law requires local education agencies (LEAs) to
develop procedures that use multiple criteria to determine
whether to reclassify an EL pupil as proficient in English.
These criteria include the California English Language
SB 1108
Page 3
Development Test (CELDT), teacher evaluations of the pupil,
parental consultation, and a comparison of the EL pupil's
performance in basic academic skills and basic skills in
English proficiency against the basic academic skills of a
native English speaking pupil of the same age and grade level.
LEAs are required to include each element referenced above,
but have discretion in determining what score on the CELDT is
acceptable to reclassify an ELL pupil or the score on the
California Standards Test (CST) in ELA that an EL pupil must
achieve to be considered academically equivalent to a native
English speaking pupil. The SBE established the following
voluntary guidelines to aid LEAs in their reclassification
determination:
a) Student scores at the early advanced or higher level
overall on the CELDT and scores at the intermediate or
higher in listening and speaking, reading, and writing.
b) Student scores in the range between the beginning of
basic and midpoint of basic on the CST in ELA; however,
each district is free to establish an exact cut point.
c) Students meet the academic performance indicators set by
the school district as determined by the teacher
evaluation.
d) Parent is notified of his or her right and encouraged to
participate in the reclassification process, including
through a face-to-face meeting.
In 2011-12, 1.24 million EL pupils were assessed by the CELDT.
Specifically, 42% of pupils who took the test scored at the
early advanced (33%) and advanced (9%) performance levels on
the CELDT. Many individuals question why more ELL pupils are
not being reclassified as fluent English proficient (FEP) if a
significant number of these pupils are scoring at CELDT levels
that trigger reclassification. In 2010-11, 11.4% (164,854) of
EL pupils were reclassified FEP.
3)Related legislation .
a) AB 2193 (Lara), pending in the Senate Appropriations
Committee, defines "Long-term EL" and "EL at risk of
becoming a long-term EL", and establishes notice, reporting
SB 1108
Page 4
and intervention requirements for purposes of complying
with federal law, based upon the new definitions.
b) SB 754 (Padilla), pending in this committee, requires
school districts to budget Economic Impact Aid budget
information on their Internet websites, as specified.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081