BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1892
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Joan Buchanan, Chair
AB 1892 (Bocanegra) - As Amended: March 17, 2014
SUBJECT : School accountability: local control and
accountability plans: English learner pupils
SUMMARY : Adds pupils redesignated as fluent English proficient
to the list of "unduplicated pupils" for purposes of the Local
Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and makes related changes.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Adds redesignated English learners (ELs) to English learners,
low income pupils, and foster youth for purposes of generating
supplemental grant and concentration factor funding under LCFF
for school districts, county offices of education, and charter
schools.
2)Provides that redesignated ELs shall generate supplemental
grant and concentration factor funding for two consecutive
years after the pupil has been redesignated as a fluent
English learner.
3)Provides that redesignated ELs who fall into more than one
unduplicated pupil category shall count only once for funding
purposes.
4)Requires that, as a condition of receiving supplemental and
concentration grant funds, school districts and county offices
of education shall identify any specialized programs or
services provided to pupils redesignated as fluent English
proficient in order for them to maintain proficiency in
English and access the common core academic content standards
and a broad course of study, as specified.
EXISTING LAW establishes the LCFF, which provides funding to
local education agencies (LEAs) in three parts:
1)A base grant, which is the same amount per ADA for all
districts and varies according to four grade spans.
2)A supplemental grant, which is equal to 20% of the base grant,
and is provided for each pupil who is identified as either low
AB 1892
Page 2
income (LI), as determined by eligibility for free or
reduced-price meals, an English learner (EL), or in foster
care.
3)A concentration factor, which provides an additional 50% of
the base grant for each pupil who is eligible for the
supplemental grant and who is in excess of 55% of the
district's or charter school's enrollment (in other words,
those pupils generate the 20% supplemental grant plus the 50%
concentration factor, for an additional 70% of the base
grant).
The formula uses an "unduplicated count," which means that
pupils who fall into more than one category are counted only
once.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill expands the number of unduplicated pupils
by adding ELs who have been redesignated as fluent English
proficient for two years. It is not known at this time how many
pupils this will add to the unduplicated count, but not all
redesignated pupils will add to the count, because many of them
will already be counted as low income. To the extent that this
change increases the LCFF target level of funding for districts,
it will increase the statewide cost of fully funding the
formula. This, in turn, will increase the number of years it
would otherwise take to fully fund the LCFF.
Reason for the bill. This bill is predicated on two
assumptions: one, that EL pupils need continued support after
redesignation to ensure continued academic success; and, two,
that the loss of additional funding for EL pupils after they are
redesignated provides a disincentive to redesignate and
unnecessarily holds pupil back.
Redesignated EL pupils perform well . A 2014 report by the
Public Policy Institute of California ("Redesignation of English
Learner Students in California"') states that "[redesignated]
students achieve much better academic outcomes than EL students,
even after controlling for some systematic differences in
student and district characteristics." What's more,
"[redesignated] students, regardless of when they were
redesignated, are the most successful students in terms of
on-time (or better) grade progression to 12th grade," and
AB 1892
Page 3
"[redesignated] students perform better than [English only]
students in many cases." This may call into question the need
for automatically providing additional funding for all
redesignated students, most of whom apparently don't need the
additional support the funding provides.
But the redesignation bar may be set too high. An alternative
explanation for the apparent success of redesignated pupils may
be that districts set the bar too high when determining whether
to redesignate. There is no statewide standard for
redesignating EL pupils, and as a result districts apply
different criteria. The State Board of Education (SBE) has
adopted minimum guidelines for districts to use in the
redesignation of English learners, consistent with the current
requirement in law that the criteria be based on specified
multiple criteria, but ultimately each district sets its own
cut scores and redesignation requirements, including local
criteria. The SBE guidelines for redesignation are as follows:
1)Pupil scores at the early advanced or higher level overall on
the CELDT and scores at intermediate or higher in listening
and speaking, reading, and writing.
2)Pupil scores in the range between the beginning of basic and
midpoint of basic on the English language arts (ELA)
California Standardized Test (CST), but it is up to each
district to set an exact cut point.
3)Pupils meet the academic performance indicators set by the
school district as determined by the teacher evaluation.
4)Parent is notified of his or her right and encouraged to
participate in the redesignation process, including through a
face-to-face meeting.
A 2005 report by the California State Auditor found wide
inconsistencies among districts in how these minimum standards
are applied, and some districts set the bar higher than others.
The report recommended that the CDE seek legislation to achieve
greater consistency among districts in determining when to
redesignate English learners.
The redesignation dilemma : In determining when the appropriate
time is to redesignate ELs, two issues emerge. One is the
AB 1892
Page 4
potentially premature redesignation of ELs which could result in
the loss of instructional services and supports before they are
ready, and this could eventually lead to greater risk of
educational failure. The second issue is the possibility of
holding ELs back from redesignation longer than necessary, which
may result in ELs experiencing reduced access to courses needed
for postsecondary education. Some have suggested that the LCFF
may provide a disincentive redesignate when appropriate and
beneficial, because it would reduce the number of pupils who
qualify the LEA for supplemental grant and concentration factor
funding. One purpose of this bill is to reduce that
disincentive.
The report, Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on
the Education of English Learners, K-12, which was prepared by
WestEd in 2006, reviewed the redesignation policies and
practices of nine school districts in California to identify how
local and state policies and practices contribute to different
EL outcomes. The report notes that current state guidelines on
criteria and cut-scores generate confusion and ambiguity about
the meaning of redesignation. The report also notes that there
are various perceptions in the field regarding the significance
of redesignation. Some districts view it as ELs reaching
"minimum competency" to participate in mainstream classrooms
with no further specialized services. For other districts,
redesignation means that there is comparability between ELs and
native English speakers' academic performance in the district.
In other instances it is viewed as ELs having recouped the
"academic deficits" that ELs incur while developing English
language skills. Lastly, some believe that redesignation
demonstrates English learners' ability to meet grade-level
standards and to be academically successful. In consideration
of these issues, the report points out, "Virtually all of our
sample districts expressed support for establishing consistent
cut scores statewide on California's two common criteria. At
the same time, these educators also expressed concern that the
state may set these criteria too low, or decide to eliminate the
use of local assessments, which districts highly value as a
source of 'multiple measures' to increase confidence in their
decisions to redesignate."
Local decision making may be a factor . It has been argued that
setting the bar too high holds EL pupils back by denying them
access to higher-level academic courses. But this may be more a
function of administrative decision making at the school and
AB 1892
Page 5
district levels than a function of the EL designation. The 2005
auditor's report found that some pupils who scored well on the
CELDT were denied redesignation on the basis of one or more of
the other criteria. (In fact, 112 of 180 EL pupils reviewed
were not redesignated even after meeting all of the district's
criteria.) If a student's CELDT score indicates that she could
benefit from a higher-level academic course, there is nothing to
prevent districts from allowing her to enroll in that course,
even if she is still designated EL.
CALPADS issues. The California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement
Data System (CALPADS) is the statewide data base that tracks
pupil data. The data in CALPADS are used to calculate each
LEA's funding under the LCFF. According to the California
Department of Education (CDE), CALPADS already tracks
redesignated ELs. However, the system would have to be modified
to track pupils who have been redesignated for two years.
In addition, CDE reports issues with data quality. For example,
some pupils have gone back and forth from EL to redesignated,
even though they're not supposed to. (This can happen when
pupils move between districts, which is another argument for
standard statewide standards.) The CDE has recently adopted
procedures to validate the data they get from LEAs, but they may
need statutory authority to implement stronger procedures to
ensure the accuracy of data used for funding purposes. The
department reports that these changes cannot be done by the fall
of 2014, and that making them would require additional resources
and a reprioritization of existing projects.
Alternative solution . According to the author's office, "the
rates of redesignation very greatly across districts," and more
than 90% of districts report using criteria that are more
demanding than those suggested by the SBE. It is argued that
this bill will encourage districts to be less conservative in
their redesignation decision-making, because they "won't have
the threat of losing precious supplemental funding dollars."
Basically, school districts have created a problem by being too
conservative in their application of redesignation criteria, and
now they argue that additional funding is needed to change their
behavior. However, the solution contained in this bill would
result in all redesignated pupils receiving supplemental grant
and possibly concentration factor funding, even though the PPIC
report suggests that large numbers of them do not need the
services those dollars support. In addition, there is no
AB 1892
Page 6
guarantee that this bill actually would change local decision
making, because districts could still use their existing
redesignation criteria and then benefit from an another two
years of additional funding beyond that. To the extent this
truly is a redisignation problem, a more direct approach would
be to establish statewide redesignation criteria that all
districts would have to follow.
Finally, if the problem is that districts do not give EL pupils
access to the full curriculum until they are redesignated, that
is a local decision-making issue that would not necessarily be
changed by this bill. Supporters of the bill have acknowledged
that some districts have denied access to some courses even to
EL pupils who have scored high on the CELDT for two or more
years, simply because those pupils did not meet the district's
other criteria for redesignation. Such decisions are not a
requirement of existing law and may be in conflict with existing
law. Many districts provide full access to a-g courses for
English language learners. There is no evidence that providing
additional funding after redesignation would change the
course-placement decisions that districts make prior to
redesignation.
For these reasons, staff recommends that the bill be amended to
delete its current contents and instead require the CDE to
report to the Legislature by January 1, 2016 with
recommendations for establishing statewide standards and
criteria for the redesignation of EL pupils. This requirement
would be added to Education Code Section 313.5, which already
requires the CDE to review and analyze the criteria, policies,
and practices that a representative sample of school districts
use to redesignate EL pupils and to recommend best practices to
the Legislature and SBE by January 1, 2014.
Related legislation . SB 1108 (Padilla), which is pending in the
Senate, extends the deadline for the CDE to recommend best
practices to the Legislature by January 1, 2016. However, the
recommended standards and criteria provided by the CDE already
constitute best practices, and districts are choosing to exceed
them. The recommended amendment for this bill would instead
require recommendations for statewide standards and criteria
that all districts would use.
Arguments in support. Supporters argue that the change in
status, itself, has important consequences for pupils and that
AB 1892
Page 7
it is needed to allow former EL pupils access to "mainstream
academic programs." Allowing districts to retain EL funding for
pupils for two years after redesignation will remove the
disincentive to redesignate when it is academically appropriate
and provide funding for needed follow up support services.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of California School Administrators
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Association of Latino Superintendents
California Communities United Institute
California Immigrant Policy Center
California School Boards Association
Californians Together
Central Valley Education Coalition
Education Trust-West
Los Angeles Unified School District
Public Counsel
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
San Diego Unified School District
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087