BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1423
AUTHOR: Hernandez
AMENDED: April 19, 2012
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 25, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : English learners.
SUMMARY
This bill expands the responsibilities of regional
consortia (established for purposes of complying with
federal No Child Left Behind Act requirements that states
assist schools in Program Improvement) to additionally
require that they assist these schools in their efforts to
provide the same course options to English learners
enrolled in the school as are available to other pupils at
the same school.
BACKGROUND
Under No Child Left Behind, the California Department of
Education (CDE) and each local educational agency (LEA)
must identify any school that has not made adequate yearly
progress (AYP) for at least two years as in Program
Improvement (PI). Schools in Program Improvement are
subject to increasing requirements and sanctions.
Current law requires that the CDE develop a statewide
system of school support to provide for intensive and
sustained support and technical assistance for school
districts, county offices of education, and schools in need
of improvement. Current law requires that the system of
support consist of regional consortia, as well as district
assistance and intervention teams (DAITs), and other
technical assistance providers. Regional consortia are
required to work collaboratively with school districts and
program improvement schools to 1) review and analyze all
facets of the school's operation, 2) assist the local
educational agency (LEA) or school in developing
recommendations for improving pupil performance and school
SB 1423
Page 2
operations, 3) assist the LEA or school in efforts to
eliminate misassignments of personnel. (Education Code §
52059)
ANALYSIS
This bill would expand the responsibilities of regional
consortia established to assist schools needing support
pursuant to federal and state law requirements to
additionally require that they assist schools in need of
improvement in their efforts to provide the same course
options to English learners enrolled in the school as are
available to other pupils at the same school.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) What is the problem ? According to the author, an
English learner's schedule tends to be filled up with
English/English Language Development courses,
intervention and support classes and math. The author
contends that the number of intervention and support
classes crowd out access to electives and other core
subjects. According to the author, it is the
unintended consequence of corrective action policy for
Program Improvement schools that results in reduced
opportunities for English learner students to learn.
2) Source of the problem ? Although the author contends
that it is the corrective action policies of the state
that result in English learners having limited access
to broader curriculum, staff notes that there are
several examples of school districts that have evolved
successful strategies for engaging English learners in
coursework outside of the language and math courses
linked to state and federal performance and progress
measures. Corrective action policies do not prohibit a
school from offering early morning or after school
classes to meet English learner intervention needs or
from modifying the master schedule at a high school to
ensure that there is no conflict between English
language development coursework and A-G curriculum
offerings. The real obstacles appear to be the
magnitude of the necessary support and intervention
services, the limited fiscal and staff resources
available, and the priority for the use of these
resources at the local level.
SB 1423
Page 3
3) Is this the solution ? This bill focuses upon schools
in Program Improvement, in an effort to address the
issue identified by the author. It appears to be the
intent to limit the cost impact of the bill by
focusing these efforts on a subset of English
learners. But shouldn't English learners throughout
the state, whether or not their school is in program
improvement, be ensured the ability to access the
broader curriculum offered by a school? Should Program
Improvement schools be directed to focus particular
attention on one group of high need students over
other subgroups of students who face similar or other
challenges? Program Improvement schools must implement
required services and interventions because, by
definition, students in these schools have failed to
demonstrate progress or improvement in their academic
performance. In Program Improvement schools in
particular, should the policy be to focus assistance
on an English learner accessing broad course options,
or on the intervention and support programs necessary
to ensure that students' academic deficits can be
addressed so that they not only access, but also
benefit from the broader curriculum offerings?
4) Other options ? This committee recently heard and
passed (by a vote of 7-2) SB 1109 (Padilla) which
requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to
develop an English Learner Master Plan before January
1, 2014, and to include recommendations on any
statutory, regulatory, or administrative changes
necessary for its implementation to the Legislature
and the State Board of Education. This Master Plan is
required to include various elements in order to
expand the support services provided by the CDE to
assist local educational agencies in establishing,
implementing, and sustaining, language instruction and
English language development for English learners.
Rather than focus on English learners in program
improvement schools, wouldn't the more appropriate
policy be to require that the English Learner Master
plan include best practices/strategies for ensuring
that all English learners are able to access
curriculum that offers college preparatory courses and
electives, as envisioned by this bill?
In addition, in order to ensure that all districts
SB 1423
Page 4
have access to information about how they can provide
broader course options to all English learners in the
short term, staff recommends the bill be amended to
delete the current contents and instead require that
the CDE post on its website, information and examples
of best practices and successful strategies for
providing English learners access to coursework beyond
English language development and the intervention and
support programs necessary to meet state and federal
accountability requirements.
5) English learners . The CDE provides the following
information on English learners in California's public
schools:
a) In the 2010-11 school year, there were
approximately 1.4 million
English learners in California public schools,
constituting 23.2 percent of the total
enrollment.
b) Seventy one percent of English learners are
enrolled in the
elementary grades (K-6) with the remaining 29
percent enrolled in grades 7-12.
c) Although English learner data are collected
for 59 language groups,
94 percent speak one of the top ten languages in
the state, which include Spanish (82.7 percent),
Vietnamese, Cantonese, Pilipino (Filipino or
Tagalog), Hmong, Mandarin, Korean, Arabic,
Punjabi, and Russian.
d) During 2010-2011 the CDE administered the
California English
Language Development Test (CELDT) to 1.57 million
students, 1.25 million of whom were tested under
the annual assessment window.
SUPPORT
San Francisco Unified School District
Californians Together
OPPOSITION
SB 1423
Page 5
None received.