BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 344
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 14, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Joan Buchanan, Chair
SB 344 (Padilla) - As Amended: August 7, 2013
SENATE VOTE : Vote not relevant
SUBJECT : Schools
SUMMARY : Establishes new requirements for program
accountability and parent participation for local education
agencies (LEAs) including school districts, county offices of
education (COEs), and charter schools. Specifically, this bill :
1)Adds parents to the list of representatives that must be
included on the committee convened by the Superintendent of
Public Instruction (SPI) to review and comment on proposed
standards and criteria that are used to evaluate school
district and COE budgets.
2)Requires the annual external audit of LEAs to include a
determination of whether expenditures were in compliance with
regulations adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE)
governing the expenditure of funds apportioned based on the
number and concentration of English learners (ELs), low income
(LI) pupils, and pupils in foster care.
3)Requires that, when county superintendents of school reviews
school district budgets and when the SPI reviews COE budgets,
they determine whether the proposed expenditures comply with
regulations adopted by the SBE governing the expenditure of
funds apportioned based on the number and concentration of
EL/LI pupils and pupils in foster care; and requires them to
disapprove a budget if it is not in compliance with the
regulations.
4)Prohibits LEAs from spending unexpended funds received for the
Economic Aid Program for purposes other than those authorized
by the program.
5)Adds reclassified English learners to the subgroups of pupils
whose academic achievement must be measured by the Academic
Performance Index (API) for accountability purposes.
SB 344
Page 2
6)Adds the following elements to the Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP) that each LEA is required to adopt
by July 1, 2014:
a) A program budget implementing the specific actions
included in the LCAP for the initial year covered by the
plan;
b) A program budget for the initial year of the LCAP that
will serve EL/LI pupils, foster youth, and redesignated EL
pupils; and
c) The expenditures, as classified using the California
School Accounting Manual, necessary to implement the LCAP.
7)Specifies that it is a state priority that parental
involvement includes the maintenance of schoolsite councils
and English learner parent advisory committees.
8)Requires the LCAP to include a description of the extent to
which teachers, administrators, and staff receive professional
development or participate in induction programs.
9)Provides that the annual update of the LCAP applies to each
school within the school district, as well as to the district
at large.
10)Requires that notifications to members of the public
regarding their right to comment on the LCAP be effective, as
well as efficient, and requires that any written notifications
provided to parents be in the primary language of the parent,
in accordance with existing law.
11)Changes the conditions under which a district must establish
an English learner parent advisory committee from enrolling at
least 15% EL pupils and enrolling at least 50 EL pupils to
enrolling at least 15% EL pupils or enrolling at least 50 EL
pupils.
12)Provides that the English learner parent advisory committee
is required as a condition of receiving supplemental grant
funds through the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).
13)Requires, as a condition of receiving LCFF supplemental grant
SB 344
Page 3
funds, that LEAs establish a parent advisory committee on
education programs and services for EL pupils in each school
with more than 20 EL pupils in attendance.
14)Requires the members of the schoolsite advisory committees to
be elected by the parents or guardians of the EL pupils and
provides that each schoolsite advisory committee shall have
the opportunity to elect at least one member of that committee
to the school district advisory committee, except that
districts with more than 30 schools may use a system of
proportional or regional representation.
15)Requires school district parent advisory committees to advise
the district governing board on the following:
a) Developing a district master plan (which shall take into
consideration schoolsite master plans) for education
programs and services for EL pupils;
b) Conducting a districtwide needs assessment on a
school-by-school basis;
c) Establishing school district goals and objectives for
programs and services for EL pupils;
d) Developing a plan to ensure compliance with any
applicable teacher or teacher aide requirements;
e) Administering the annual language census; and
f) Reviewing and commenting on the district's
reclassification procedures and the written notifications
to parents and guardians regarding the LCAP.
16)Requires LEAs, as a condition of receiving LCFF supplemental
grant funds, to provide training materials and training to all
members of school and district parent advisory committees, and
authorizes LEAs to use the supplemental funds to meet the cost
of providing the training and materials, including the costs
associated with the attendance of members at training
sessions.
17)Clarifies that LEAs are not required to establish a new
English learner district or schoolsite parent advisory
committee if one already exists.
SB 344
Page 4
18)Requires the LCAP template to be adopted by the SBE to meet
the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act
related to the Single Plan for Pupil Achievement and to ensure
that the following are included in the LCAP of each LEA that
receives federal or supplemental funds for EL pupil:
a) A description of how base, supplemental, and
concentration funds will be used to meet all of the
following:
i) All annual measurable achievement objectives for EL
pupils;
ii) State common core standards and English language
development standards; and
iii) Activities described in the LCAP.
b) A listing of the services and programs providing access
to a full curriculum for English learners, categorized by
proficiency level, and a description of how the services
and programs are aligned to the core program of
instruction;
c) A description of how the LEA's procedures will hold
schools accountable for the monitoring of the English
proficiency programs and services provided to English
learners so they meet state common core standards and the
English language development standards to the same extent
as their English-speaking peers and the monitoring of the
reclassification of EL pupils;
d) A description of the procedures used to confirm that
each member of the school district or schoolsite staff
assigned to teach EL pupils is informed of which pupils are
designated as EL, and the programs and services that are to
be provided under the LCAP for their benefit and how the
district will confirm the appropriate programs and services
are provided;
e) Language census data from the prior three years
regarding the types of instructional services received by
EL pupils in each year, including the unduplicated counts
of EL pupils receiving each type of instructional service
and the total number of EL pupils;
SB 344
Page 5
f) Differentiated instructional program options for diverse
English learner types;
g) A description of the comprehensive program of English
language development;
h) A listing of the instructional materials provided for
English learners, in English and home language;
i) Positions, credentials, and authorizations for each
member of the school district or schoolsite staff assigned
to teach EL pupils to promote successful implementation of
the plan;
j) Professional development plans targeting skills needed
to instruct the different profiles of English learners for
school district and schoolsite staff;
aa) A description of how professional development and
induction programs assist in meeting English learner annual
measurable objectives; and
bb) A description of the monitoring of reclassified EL
pupils.
19)Requires county superintendents to determine the need for
additional staff and authorizes them to employ additional
staff for assistance in financial information related to the
review and approval of district LCAPs and to provide technical
assistance.
20)Requires county superintendents to provide training to
persons involved in reviewing school district budgets for
compliance with the LCAP.
21)Authorizes the SPI to intervene in a school district or COE
if it has failed to improve the outcomes for one or more pupil
subgroups in regard to three or more state or local priorities
in three out of four consecutive years.
22)Provides that a complaint that an LEA has not complied with
statutory or regulatory requirements governing the expenditure
of supplemental and concentration grant funds may be filed
through the Uniform Complaint Procedure (UCP).
SB 344
Page 6
23)Provides that a remedy to a complaint shall be implemented by
the beginning of the school year following submission of the
complaint and, if not by that time, then during the school
year following the submission of the complaint.
24)Provides that a remedy required by the SPI shall require the
LEA to file the corrective action plan with the SPI, subject
to approval by the SBE.
EXISTING LAW
1)Requires each LEA to adopt an LCAP by July 1, 2014, based on a
template to be adopted by the SBE by March 31, 2014.
2)Requires LEAs to update their LCAPs annually and renew them
every three years.
3)Requires each LCAP to identify annual goals and the specific
actions the LEA will take to achieve those goals for all
pupils and each of the following pupils subgroups:
a) Ethnic subgroups;
b) Socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils;
c) English learners;
d) Pupils with disabilities; and
e) Foster youth.
4)Requires LEAs to establish an English learner parent advisory
committee if the enrollment of the LEA includes at least 15%
English learners and the LEA enrolls at least 50 pupils who
are English learners.
5)Establishes several oversight, review, and audit requirements
to ensure LEA compliance with statutory and regulatory LCAP
requirements and that LEA budgets provide sufficient resources
to achieve LCAP goals.
6)Requires, consistent with the English Learner and Immigrant
Pupil Federal Conformity Act and Title III of the federal No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, an eligible local educational
agency desiring a subgrant under Title III to submit a plan
SB 344
Page 7
around English learners to the California Department of
Education (CDE) outlining programs, activities, accountability
measures, parental engagement and participation, assurances of
consultation with specified entities, and a description of how
language instruction education programs ensure that English
learners served by the programs will develop English
proficiency.
7)Existing federal law requires that each state:
a) Establish English language proficiency standards
b) Conduct an annual assessment of English language
proficiency. The California English Language Development
Test (CELDT) is California's state test of English language
proficiency. The CELDT is required to be administered
within 30 calendar days upon initial enrollment in a public
school to all students whose home language is not English.
The first administration of the CELDT is used to determine
if a student is initially fluent English proficient (IFEP)
or an EL.
c) Requires, once identified as an EL, each EL pupil to
take the CELDT each year during the annual assessment (AA)
window of July 1 to October 31, until he/she is
reclassified as fluent English proficient (RFEP).
d) Define two Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives
(AMAOs) for increasing the percentage of EL pupils
making progress in learning English and attaining
English proficiency. An AMAO is a performance
objective, or target, that Title III subgrantees must
meet each year for their EL populations.
e) Include a third AMAO related to meeting Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) for the EL subgroup.
f) Hold Title III-funded LEAs and consortia accountable for
meeting the three AMAOs.
SB 344
Page 8
FISCAL EFFECT : State mandated local program
COMMENTS : The LCAP requirements were adopted as part of the
LCFF with the 2013-14 budget. This bill clarifies and expands
upon existing LCAP requirements, and adds new requirements that
are not directly related to the LCAP.
Provisions that clarify LCAP. This bill provides that the
initial LCAP adopted by LEAs shall include program budgets and
expenditures necessary for implementing the actions included in
the LCAP. This is consistent with the existing requirement that
each annual update of the LCAP include a listing and description
of expenditures necessary to carry out the plan. This bill also
provides that the annual update of the LCAP applies to each
school within a district, which parallels the requirement for
the initial plan.
Provisions that expand LCAP. This bill expands existing
provisions related to LCAP in the following ways:
1)Expands the scope of the annual external audits and the review
of school district and COE budgets to include a determination
of whether funds have been spent (in the case of the audit) or
will be spent (in the case of the budget reviews) in
accordance with SBE-adopted regulations governing the
expenditure of funds on the basis of the number and
concentration of EL/LI pupils and pupils in foster care.
2)Adds reclassified EL pupils to the subgroups of pupils whose
academic achievement must be measured by the API for
accountability purposes.
3)Specifies that it is a state priority that parental
involvement includes the maintenance of schoolsite councils
and English learner parent advisory committees.
4)Requires the LCAP to include a description of the extent to
which teachers, administrators, and staff receive professional
development or participate in induction programs.
5)Changes the conditions under which a district must establish
an English learner parent advisory committee from enrolling at
least 15% EL pupils and enrolling at least 50 EL pupils to
enrolling at least 15% EL pupils or enrolling at least 50 EL
SB 344
Page 9
pupils.
6)Requires the establishment of schoolsite English learner
advisory councils with specified representation, duties, and
training.
7)Adds numerous specified elements to be included in the LCAP
template to be adopted by the SBE.
8)Requires county superintendents of schools to provide training
to persons involved in reviewing school district budgets for
compliance with LCAP requirements and to determine the need
for addition staff to conduct LCAP reviews and technical
assistance.
9)Changes the conditions under which the SPI may intervene in a
school district or COE based on pupil performance. Existing
law authorizes the SPI to intervene if the district or COE did
not improve the outcomes for three or more pupil subgroups
)or, if the district or COE has less than three subgroups, all
of the subgroups) in regard to more than one state or local
priority in three out of four consecutive school years. This
bill also authorizes intervention if a school district or COE
has failed to improve the outcomes for one or more pupil
subgroups in regard to three or more state or local priorities
in three out of four consecutive years
In addition, existing law requires districts and COEs to
establish an English learner advisory council if specified
condition are met. While existing law does not specify a
funding source for the council, this bill requires that it be
established as a condition of receiving LCFF supplemental grant
funds.
Provisions not directly related to LCAP . The following
provisions of this bill are not directly related to LCAP:
1)Prohibits LEAs from spending unexpended funds received for the
Economic Aid Program for purposes other than those authorized
by the program.
2)Expands the scope of the UCP by allowing complaints that an
LEA has not complied with statutory or regulatory requirements
governing the expenditure of supplemental and concentration
grant funds.
SB 344
Page 10
3)Requires the remedy to a complaint to be implemented by the
beginning of the school year following submission of the
complaint and, if not by that time, then during the school
year following the submission of the complaint.
4)Provides that a remedy required by the SPI shall require the
LEA to file the corrective action plan with the SPI, subject
to approval by the SBE.
English learners. In the last 25 years the EL population in
California has doubled. Approximately 1.35 million, or 22% of
all pupils, are EL. Academically, EL pupils underperform most
other subgroups. For example, on the 2012 API, the statewide
average score for all subgroups and all grades was 791, compared
to 719 for EL pupils. EL pupils have the highest dropout rate
of any subgroup.
Reclassified English learners. The reclassification of ELs is
conducted through a local process used by school districts to
determine if a student has acquired sufficient English language
fluency to perform successfully in academic subjects without
English language development (ELD) support. The
reclassification of ELs to fluent English proficient is a
process that varies widely across districts in the state. The
SBE has adopted minimum guidelines for districts to use in the
reclassification of English learners, consistent with the
current requirement in law that the criteria be based on
specified multiple criteria, but ultimately each district sets
out its own cut scores and reclassification requirements,
including local criteria. The SBE guidelines for
reclassification are as follows:
1)Student 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)Student 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)Students meet the academic performance indicators set by the
school district as determined by the teacher evaluation.
SB 344
Page 11
4)Parent is notified of his or her right and encouraged to
participate in the reclassification process, including through
a face-to-face meeting.
The reclassification dilemma : In determining when the
appropriate time is to reclassify ELs, two issues emerge. One
is the potentially premature reclassification 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 reclassification longer than necessary,
which may result in ELs experiencing reduced access to courses
needed for postsecondary education.
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 reclassification 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 reclassification. The report notes that there
are various perceptions in the field regarding the significance
of reclassification. Some districts view it as ELs reaching
"minimum competency" to participate in mainstream classrooms
with no further specialized services. For other districts,
reclassification 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
reclassification 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."
State-wide test scores suggest that those pupils who have been
reclassified from English Learners to Fluent English Proficient
score higher on English Language assessments. However, this
SB 344
Page 12
performance wanes over time. A September 2012 publication from
the Public Policy Institute of California reports that 90% of
reclassified EL pupils in grade 4, but only 47% of reclassified
EL pupils in grade 11 score proficient or above on the
California Standards Test.
CDE/SBE guidance on LCFF implementation. On August 7, 2013, SPI
Tom Torlakson and SBE President Michael Kirst jointly signed a
letter addressed to county and district superintendents and
direct-funded charter school administrators to provide
preliminary guidance on the implementation of LCFF. Several
issues addressed in the letter relate to provisions of this
bill. Among other things, the letter advises LEAs to consider
aligning budgets to the following priorities:
1)Compliance with Williams requirements-appropriate teacher
assignment, sufficient instructional materials, and facilities
in good repair.
2)Implementation of the academic content and performance
standards adopted by SBE, including how the programs and
services will enable English learners to access the common
core academic content standards and the English language
development standards.
3)Parental involvement, including efforts the school district
makes to seek parent input in making decisions for the school
district and each individual school site, and including how
the school district will promote parental participation in
programs for economically disadvantaged pupils, English
learners, foster youth, and individuals with exceptional
needs.
In addition, the letter includes the following among specific
actions LEAs should take in 2013-14:
1)Follow federal regulations. LEAs should continue to prepare
federally-required improvement plans and meet federal
maintenance of effort and supplement-not-supplant
requirements. The LCAP may affect options for planning in
subsequent years, but in no way will such changes diminish
federal requirements.
2)Maintain local advisory groups. While the terminology and
details for local advisory groups may be refined under LCFF,
SB 344
Page 13
LEAs are expected to continue to engage parents and community
members broadly in the preparation of LEA and site-level
planning activities, as most of these groups are required for
federal purposes. For instance, LEAs should continue to
engage district and site-level advisory groups, including
those charged with providing input to planning for English
learners' needs.
Arguments in support. Supporters argue that this bill will help
improve outcomes for EL pupils by clarifying the role of the
English learner advisory council in the development and review
of the LCAP and providing more specificity to the SBE in its
development of the LCAP template. In addition, the author's
office argues that parent involvement is an important factor in
the success of EL pupils, therefore if it important for
districts to provide opportunities for parent involvement and
training through English learner advisory committees and school
site councils.
Arguments against. Opponents cite three concerns. First, they
argue this bill is premature, given that the required regulatory
process to implement the provisions of the LCFF and LCAP has not
been completed. Specifically, they disagree with the
assumption, implicit in this bill, that the critical
accountability issues will not be addressed in regulations.
Second, opponents are concerned with this bill's requirement
that the SBE-adopted LCAP template include "a description of how
the base, supplemental and concentration funds, as applicable,
will be used to meet all of the following in its local control
and accountability plan?" Their concern is that the inclusion
of base funds in this requirement may result in reduction to the
core programs that benefit all students, including disadvantaged
students.
Third, opponents argue that including reclassified English
learners as a pupil subgroup is premature, because, pursuant to
SB 1108 (Padilla, Chapter 434, Statutes of 2012), the CDE is
developing a list of best practices of how districts handle the
reclassification of EL pupils. Presumably, the CDE study will
eliminate or at least reduce the ambiguity surrounding the
meaning of "reclassified English learner" and lead to more
consistently-applied reclassification standards among districts.
Opponents argue that should happen before designating
reclassified English learners as a new subgroup.
SB 344
Page 14
Staff recommendations. According to the author's office and the
bill's supporters, the primary purpose of this bill is to ensure
adequate transparency and accountability for English learners.
They argue that the recently-adopted LCAP falls short of this
objective. While this bill achieves its goal, in part by
clarifying and in part by augmenting requirements of LCAP, it
also goes beyond that by adding new and in some cases costly
requirements. The cost of implementing those new requirements
would come from supplemental and concentration grant
funds-monies intended to be used to expand and improve direct
services to EL/LI pupils and pupils in foster care. In
addition, this bill amends a recently-enacted accountability
system that has yet to be implemented. The concerns that this
bill addresses arise from a pre-LCAP world. It remains to be
seen whether the LCAP, without further changes, is sufficient to
correct pre-LCAP inadequacies.
In order meet the author's objective to enhance transparency and
accountability for English learners while retaining as much of
the fundamental structure of LCAP as possible and to minimizing
the redirection of resources away from direct services to
pupils, staff recommends the following amendments:
1)On page 26, lines 10 through13, strike the reference to
schoolsite councils. This conforms to the deletion of the
schoolsite council requirement from the bill.
2)On page 30, lines 25 and 32; and on page 31, line 1, clarify
that the parent advisory committees are to be "districtwide"
committees.
3)Beginning on page 31, strike all references to schoolsite
advisory committees and to required training for advisory
committee members. Federal law (Title III) already requires
schoolsite parent councils for English learners. The
additional requirements imposed by this bill, including
training, could impose costly new requirements on schools and
districts, redirecting resources away from services to pupils.
4)On page 33, line 7, strike the requirement that the
SBE-adopted LCAP template include a description of how base
funds, as well as supplemental and concentration funds, will
be used to address specified objectives for English learners.
Including base funds in this requirement is inconsistent with
SB 344
Page 15
the requirements of LCFF, which is that supplemental and
concentration factor funds be used to increase and improve
services EL/LI pupils and foster youth.
5)On pages 33 and 34, strike the following requirements from the
SBE-adopted template, because they add a level of detail that
is beyond the scope of the existing LCAP requirements and may
delay the adoption timeline:
a) A description of procedures for holding schools
accountable for the monitoring of English proficiency
programs, as specified;
b) A description of the procedures used to confirm that
each member of the school district or schoolsite staff
assigned to teach EL pupils is informed of which pupils are
designated as EL, and the programs and services that are to
be provided under the LCAP for their benefit and how the
district will confirm the appropriate programs and services
are provided;
c) Three-year census data regarding the types of
instructional services received by English learners in each
year;
d) Differentiated instructional program options, as
specified;
e) Positions, credentials, and authorizations for each
member of the school district or schoolsite staff assigned
to teach EL pupils to promote successful implementation of
the plan; and
f) Professional development plans targeting skills needed
to instruct the different profiles of English learners for
school district and schoolsite staff.
6)On page 43, lines 11 through 18, strike the requirement for
county superintendents of schools to determine the need for
additional staff and the authorization to employ short-term
staff, if needed. This makes a mandate of something county
superintendents already have the authority to do.
7)On page 49, lines 23 to 31, change the timeline for the
implementation of a remedy from the year following the
SB 344
Page 16
submission of a complaint to the year following the
determination of the corrective action, because it may take
more than a year to determine and agree upon a corrective
action. Also strike the requirement that a corrective action
plan be filed with the SPI, because this is redundant
recordkeeping.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Civil Liberties Union of California
EdVoice
Families in Schools
Public Advocates
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators
Central Valley Education Coalition
California Association of School Business Officials
California Association of Suburban Schools
California School Boards Association
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt /Jill Rice/ ED. / (916)
319-2087