BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1012
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 1012
Jones-Sawyer - As Amended April 7, 2015
SUBJECT: Student instruction: course periods without
educational content
SUMMARY: Defines "course periods without educational content,"
prohibits school districts from assigning students in grades
7-12 to any such course period without specified certifications
from school administrators, prohibits students from being
assigned to a course they have already completed, and
establishes a complaint process for violations of these
requirements. Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines a "course period without educational content" as a
course period during which the student is expected to engage
in activities with no assigned or planned substantive
curricular content. This includes a course period during which
a student is assigned to a room in which no certificated staff
is designated to provide instruction or assistance with
assignments or curricular content from other assigned courses,
is sent home or released from campus before the conclusion of
the designated school day, or is not assigned to any course
for the relevant course period.
AB 1012
Page 2
2)Prohibits school districts from assigning students to attend
course periods without educational content because there are
not sufficient curricular course offerings for the student to
take in that period.
3)Prohibits a school district (with the exception of alternative
schools, community day schools, continuation high schools, and
opportunity schools) maintaining any of grades 7 to 12 from
assigning any students to any course period without
educational content for more than one week in any semester,
unless certain conditions are met:
a) For students who have not met the A-G requirements of
the University of California or California State
University, or high school graduation requirements:
1. the principal an assistant principal of the school
certifies in a document to be placed in the student's
cumulative file that the student will benefit from being
assigned to the course period, and provides an
individualized explanation in the written certification
for that conclusion, which may include an individualized
determination that the student will benefit from
mentorship that will be provided by the certificated or
certified employee supervising the student during the
relevant period
2. the principal or an assistant principal of the
school certifies in a document to be placed in the
student's cumulative file that providing a course period
with educational content is not likely to benefit the
student to the same extent as providing the course period
without educational content, and provides an explanation
AB 1012
Page 3
in the written certification for that conclusion
3. the principal or an assistant principal of the
school certifies in a document to be placed in the
student's cumulative file that the student is not being
assigned to the course because there are no other courses
with curricular content for the student to take during
the relevant period in the designated schoolday.
4. the principal or an assistant principal of the
school certifies in a document to be placed in the
student's cumulative file that the student and the
parent, legal guardian, or educational rights holder of
the student have consented to the student's enrollment in
the course period without educational content and that
the school has obtained a consent form, signed by the
student and the parent, legal guardian, or educational
rights holder of the student.
5. the student is assigned to no more than one course
period without educational content during a single
semester.
a) For students who have fulfilled both the A-G and
graduation requirements:
1. the principal or an assistant principal of the
school certifies in a document to be placed in the
AB 1012
Page 4
student's cumulative file that the student will benefit
from being assigned to the course period and provides an
individualized explanation in the written certification
for that conclusion, which may include an individualized
determination that the student will benefit from
mentorship that will be provided by the certificated or
certified employee supervising the student during the
relevant period or identification of the educational or
employment opportunity that assigning the course period
will allow the student to pursue and reason for
concluding the student will pursue that opportunity
2. the principal or an assistant principal of the
school certifies in a document to be placed in the
student's cumulative file that the student is not being
assigned to the course because there are no other courses
with curricular content for the student to take during
the relevant period in the designated schoolday
3. the principal or an assistant principal of the
school certifies in a document to be placed in the
student's cumulative file that the student and the
parent, legal guardian, or educational rights holder of
the student have consented to the student's enrollment in
the course period without educational content and that
the school has obtained a consent form, signed by the
student and the parent, legal guardian, or educational
rights holder of the student
1)States that nothing in this section shall be interpreted to
limit the authority of a school district to establish and
maintain evening high school programs, to offer independent
study, to provide courses of work-based learning or work
AB 1012
Page 5
experience education, or to offer distance learning, if the
program otherwise meets all of the requirements of law
governing that program.
2)Prohibits a school district (with the exception of alternative
schools, community day schools, continuation high schools, and
opportunity schools) from assigning any student to a course
that the student has previously completed with a grade
sufficient to meet the A-G requirements and graduation
requirements, unless all of the principal or assistant
principal certifies that:
a) the course is designed to be repeated because students
are exposed to a new curriculum year-to-year and are
therefore expected to derive educational value from
repeating the course
b) the student is not being assigned to the course because
there are no other courses with curricular content to take
during the relevant period
c) a school official met with the student and obtained the
student's signed consent to enroll in the course.
1)Requires that if a school district determines that, at any
point during the current or preceding academic year, one or
more of its schools has not satisfied the above requirements,
it immediately notify the SPI and with a description of the
circumstances that caused the school district not to satisfy
AB 1012
Page 6
the pertinent requirement, the number of students affected,
the steps that the school district has taken to resolve the
situation, and any changes to the school district's policies
or procedures to ensure that all of its schools satisfy those
requirements.
2)Allows any member of the public to file a complaint directly
with the CDE alleging that, at any point during the current or
preceding academic year, a school district has not satisfied
these requirements. Allows a complaint to be filed
anonymously under certain circumstances.
3)Requires that within 21 days of receiving a complaint the CDE
complete an investigation.
4)Requires that, to the extent that the CDE concludes that the
school district has not taken appropriate action to resolve
the situation, the SPI immediately convene a local assistance
committee to develop a written plan to ensure that the school
district satisfies these requirements.
5)In developing the plan, requires the local assistance
committee to consult with students, parents, legal guardians
or educational rights holders, and teachers at the affected
schools, and to complete the plan no later than 21 days after
the CDE makes the determination.
6)Requires the SPI to prepare an annual report detailing actions
taken pursuant to this section and report to the Legislature.
AB 1012
Page 7
EXISTING LAW:
1)Specifies requirements for graduation from high school,
including: three courses in English; two courses in
mathematics; two courses in science; three courses in social
studies; one course in visual or performing arts, foreign
language, or career technical education; and two courses in
physical education. Authorizes school districts to adopt
additional requirements for graduation.
2)Establishes course requirements for admission to the
University of California and the California State University,
known as the A-G requirements.
3)Requires that only the attendance of students under the
immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee
is counted toward the computation of average daily attendance.
4)Establishes the minimum day in middle school and high school
as 240 minutes.
5)Through regulation, requires LEAs to adopt uniform complaint
procedures through which the public can register complaints
regarding educational programs and rights. (California Code
of Regulations, Title 5, Section 4600).
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has been keyed a state-mandated local
program by the Office of Legislative Counsel
AB 1012
Page 8
COMMENTS:
Need for the bill. The author's office states, "Thousands of
high school students across California are tracked into
so-called "classes," where they are given meaningless "credits"
for sitting at home, in the office, or taking a course they've
already passed.
School districts have given these courses different names
("home," "service," "work-experience," "college," "adult"), but
they all have a common trait: they rob students of learning time
and the opportunity for a real education. And many of the
affected students need real, academic classes to fulfill
graduation or college access requirements.
The schools where this occurs serve almost exclusively
low-income students of color. Although this is not the norm
across California, it is all-too common in communities where
students can least afford to lose learning time. It is time to
ensure that all of our schools have the support they need to
provide real classes to every student until they graduate."
Bill related to lawsuit filed by the sponsor. This bill is
related to Cruz v. State of California, a class action lawsuit
filed May 29th, 2014 in Alameda County Superior Court against
the state on behalf of students in seven schools.
The suit names as plaintiffs a class of current or future
students attending Castlemont High School in the Oakland Unified
School District, John C. Fremont High School in the Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD), Nystrom Elementary School in
the West Contra Costa Unified School District, Franklin S.
Whaley Middle School in the Compton Unified School District,
AB 1012
Page 9
Fremont High School in the Oakland Unified School District,
Florence Griffith Joyner Elementary School in the LAUSD, and
Compton High School in the Compton Unified School District.
The suit names as defendants the State of California, the State
Department of Education, the State Board of Education (SBE), and
the Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson.
The plaintiffs allege that the state has violated the rights of
the plaintiffs provided by the Equal Protection clauses of the
state constitution "by failing to provide them with basic
educational opportunities equal to those that other students
elsewhere in the State receive" with regard to meaningful
learning time. The complaint alleges that at certain schools:
"the disparity in the availability of meaningful learning
time, which is created and perpetuated by the State's
systematic failure to adequately staff and resource
Plaintiffs' schools and by the State's failure to monitor
practices at these schools responsible for such deprivations,
denies Plaintiff students and their peers an equal chance to
obtain essential basic literacy and mathematical skills, and
the opportunity to meet the mandated academic content
standards that assume students have these skills."
They allege that the defendants' "actions and inactions
resulting in the creation and exacerbation of these disparities
are deliberate and conscious, in that they are aware of the
causes of these disparities, yet have failed to establish any
system to monitor the provision of meaningful learning time in
schools throughout California and remedy identified gaps."
They allege that this lack of instructional time is due to
several factors, including:
AB 1012
Page 10
"assignment of students to administrative tasks or free
periods instead of assignment to classroom periods of
instruction because of insufficient curricular offerings
and a lack of available qualified teachers;
violence or security disruptions, which result in
cessation of instruction and traumatic after-effects, and
insufficient access to mental health professionals to
assist students and faculty in coping with these
disruptions;
late changes to the master course schedule requiring
course and teacher changes well into the semester;
unstable, transient teaching faculties and
administrative teams (including principals, assistant
principals, and counselors), resulting from under-resourced
and stressful campuses not conducive to professional
development and growth; and
unaddressed student absenteeism, resulting in whole or
part from campus conditions"
The complaint requests that the court address the state's
monitoring system and its intervention to prevent and remedy the
causes of lost learning time.
On February 5th of this year the plaintiffs filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction. Last week (April 24th), Alameda County
Superior Court Judge George C. Hernández, Jr. denied this
motion, stating that "If, at this stage, Plaintiffs cannot
supply reliable evidence regarding the actual practices of most
California high schools with regard to the use of contentless
classes and the timely implementation of appropriate master
schedules, the court lacks a fair standard against which to
measure the performance of Plaintiff's own high schools and
cannot determine, even preliminarily, whether Plaintiffs have
some possibility of prevailing on their claims."
According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the Legislature
approved $3.4 million in the current year for the CDE and SBE to
contract for legal services related to this case, and the
AB 1012
Page 11
Governor's Budget proposes providing an additional $3.7 million
for this contract in 2015-16.
Why introduce this measure while litigation is pending? This
bill addresses one of the five parts of the Cruz v. State of
California complaint, and is before the Legislature while the
court is reviewing the case. Counsel for the plaintiffs in the
case has stated that any remedy ordered by the court will only
apply to the schools in question, and that if these practices
are occurring anywhere in the state they should be stopped
immediately.
Because this bill is related to pending litigation, state
information resources normally available to staff have been
limited. As a result, staff is not aware of activities of the
state to remedy the alleged problems through monitoring or
intervention, nor is staff apprised of the state's defense,
except as refuted in the plaintiffs' complaints. The Committee
may wish to consider that, as a result, the analysis of this
bill relies heavily on the evidence made available by the
attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case, and does not have the
full benefit of information which would normally be available.
Districts respond to lawsuit by curtailing some practices.
According to a reply brief submitted in support of the motion
for preliminary injunction, Compton High School has ceased
scheduling students in "home" periods and has placed "sharp
limitations" on service periods since this suit was filed, and
LAUSD has indicated that it will take some measures to limit
"home" and "service" periods and produce timely, complete master
schedules.
2014-15 scheduling problems in LAUSD caused by data system
failure. The author's office points to scheduling problems in
the LAUSD in the current school year as evidence of the problem
this bill is designed to address.
AB 1012
Page 12
In August, 2014 students at Jefferson High School in the Los
Angeles Unified School district (LAUSD) walked out of class
during their third week of school in protest over a new
scheduling system which failed to assign students to classes and
assigned some to classes they'd already taken. Students
reported sitting in auditoriums all day for days while course
schedules were worked out, and being assigned to classes they
had already completed. Teachers found elementary school
students listed on high school attendance sheets.
The problems which occurred in LAUSD were related to a new data
system, called MiSis, which was developed by the district and
introduced this year. School district officials acknowledged
significant problems with the system, and reported that nearly
all scheduling problems were addressed by the end of 2014. The
Committee may wish to consider that, while the problems of the
current school year were significant and had serious
consequences for students, they appear to represent an acute
problem caused by a data system failure, and are not necessarily
reflective of a chronic problem.
Evidence of management problems presented in student and staff
interviews. Sudent and staff declarations provided by counsel
for the plaintiffs paint a picture of five high schools in the
Oakland, Compton, and Los Angeles school districts with numerous
management problems. These include:
Scheduling problems (evidenced by students being placed
into courses late, being placed in courses already
completed, overcrowding of courses, and cancelled courses)
Staffing problems, including high teacher and
administrator turnover (evidenced by students being
AB 1012
Page 13
instructed by multiple substitute teachers, report of high
administrator turnover)
Counseling services pro
blems (evidenced by overwhelmed counselors and poor
counseling)
Insufficient course offerings for A-G completion
(evidenced by students not able to enroll in A-G courses)
Some statements also indicated that the limited elective course
offerings was associated with a decision on the part of the
school districts to focus their resources on remedial
instruction, which the plaintiff's acknowledge is necessary for
many students in these schools. They state,
"Fremont has invested its limited resources in providing
intervention classes, which are necessary for many students to
graduate, but this has come at the expense of offering
sufficient classes and electives to fill the course schedules of
students who are on track to graduate."
Author states that this is not the norm. If so, why is a
statewide mandate needed? While proponents of this bill have
presented evidence of serious management problems in certain
schools, they have not provided evidence that this is a problem
common to many districts in the state. Indeed, the author's
office states that these practices are "not the norm across
California."
The class action complaint in Cruz v. State of California
acknowledges this as well, stating that "most California public
high schools offer sufficient courses such that students enroll
as a routine matter in the courses they need to complete for
AB 1012
Page 14
graduation and college eligibility and students on track to meet
graduation requirements have the option to take meaningful
elective courses that enhance their education and keep them
engaged in learning."
In spite of this, AB 1012 proposes a state mandate which (see
comments below) could have significant consequences for course
offerings at all schools. This bill would have the effect of
requiring all 1,000 school districts to review all of their
elective courses to determine whether they meet the requirements
of the law, when there is no evidence of a problem in most
districts. The Committee may wish to consider why a statewide
mandate is needed if this problem is limited to some school
districts.
Administrative requirements for enrolling students in "courses
without educational content" would effectively eliminate these
courses. This bill requires that, in order to place a student
in a "course without educational content," a principal or
assistant principal would have to certify, with an
individualized determination, that the student would benefit
more from such a course than one with educational content. The
bill would also require that signed consent be obtained from the
student's parent or guardian.
Given the demands already placed on school administrators, the
time required to make an individualized determination of
educational benefit, the difficulty schools experience obtaining
signed consent from parents, and other factors, the requirements
of this bill would have the effect of, for all practical
purposes, of eliminating "contentless courses."
AB 1012
Page 15
Valuable courses could be eliminated. What are those
"contentless courses?" In some cases they may be the "service,"
"home," and "inside work experience," and "academic literacy,"
courses with no academic value to which students are assigned to
fill holes in their schedules. These "courses" impede students'
progress toward graduation and college readiness.
But in other cases they may be valuable courses. Staff has
heard concerns expressed that many such courses might be
eliminated by this bill, and has also reviewed the course
catalog of several school districts to try to identify courses
which could be eliminated by this bill. These may include:
AVID
AVID peer support
AVID tutor
special education peer support
study hall
mentoring
coaching assistant
student council
student newspaper
IHigh Lab (online A-G courses)
science research techniques
International Baccalaureate support
peer counseling
yearbook
conflict resolution and mediation
teaching assistant
peer resources
AB 1012
Page 16
rehearsal and performance
advisory
literary publications
peer tutoring
leadership
math intervention
homeroom
pregnant and parenting peer support
The CDE does not collect information about many elective
offerings. Given the diversity of elective course offerings in
the state and the paucity of information about them at the state
level, no matter how precisely drafted, any such legislation is
likely to eliminate worthwhile course offerings for students.
The Committee may wish to consider that the Legislature does not
have, and may never have, enough information to create a
definition which does not eliminate some valuable learning
opportunities for students.
Would this bill eliminate homeroom and study hall? A good
example of the problem the Legislature faces in determining what
is "contentless" is study hall. This bill requires that study
hall only be considered a course with education content if it is
being staffed by a certificated employee.
CDE data on course enrollments show that for the course titled
"Homeroom/Study Hall," total enrollment in 2012-13 was just
under 150,000 students at 413 schools. This may understate the
number of students enrolled in study hall because reporting for
homeroom and study hall is optional.
Staff has asked many parties whether study hall is generally
staffed by certificated employees, and no one has been able to
provide an answer. The Committee may wish to consider whether
it is appropriate for the Legislature to approve course
prohibitions when it is not able to determine how it will affect
thousands of schools - and in this case as many as 150,000
AB 1012
Page 17
students.
A curriculum solution for a management problem. Proponents of
this bill argue that "contentless courses" are used to fill the
gaps in the schedules of students when there are no course
offerings available to that student. Not making key courses
available to students, as stated above, is indicative of serious
management problems. These courses could be viewed as a "patch"
on a broken system. The Committee may wish to consider whether
fixing this problem gets at the root causes of problems at these
schools.
A new complaint process for this issue? This bill establishes a
new complaint system which allows individuals to submit
complaints directly to the CDE, establishes new timelines for
the state's response, and establishes new remedies.
This bill requires that, if through the investigation of a
complaint an LEA is determined to have violated the law, the SPI
"immediately" intervene by creating a local assistance committee
to resolve the problem. The bill requires that the committee
consult relevant stakeholders and prepare a written plan to
remedy the problem in 21 days. As written, this intervention by
the state could be triggered by as few as one student's
complaint.
Staff is unaware of any precedent for this kind of immediate
state intervention regarding individual complaints. There is,
however, precedent in statute for a requirement that when merit
is found in a complaint, the LEA must "provide a remedy to all
affected students, parents, and guardians."
Since 1991, LEAs and the state have operated a system known as
the Uniform Complaint Procedures, with the goal of making the
complaint system easier to administer and more transparent to
AB 1012
Page 18
the public. These regulations require the adoption of the UCP
by school districts, county offices of education, charter
schools receiving federal funds, and local public or private
agencies which receive direct or indirect state funding to
provide school programs or special education or related
services. The UCP is used for complaints regarding more than a
dozen state and federal programs, as well as discrimination,
harassment, bullying, intimidation, unlawful student fees,
certain charter school requirements, and violations of the law
establishing LCAPs.
The existing process for complaints is available and appears
suitable for resolution of complaints regarding courses with no
educational content. Given that the proposed process would add
complexity to the complaint system, that in the proposed process
there is no opportunity for the LEA to receive and resolve a
complaint before involving the state, and given the poor
precedent this would set, the Committee may wish to consider
whether the bill should be amended to require use of the UCP
instead of creating a new process.
Additional concerns. There are additional questions raised by
this bill: How could it be implemented half way through the
coming academic year (given the January 1, 2016 effective date)?
Since there are no A-G requirements for middle school grades,
how would an administrator determine what is required for
enrollment of a middle school student?
Given these concerns, the Committee may wish to consider the
following alternative means of addressing this problem:
1) Do not define and effectively prohibit "contentless
courses," as this may result in students being denied
valuable educational opportunities.
AB 1012
Page 19
2) Prohibit the most clear examples of poor course
assignment, such as students being sent home because no
course is available, and being assigned to a class they
have already satisfactorily completed.
3) Address management problems by directing the California
Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) to work
with the districts in question to improve master
scheduling, course availability, and course assignment.
The CCEE was established to provide advice and assistance
to local educational agencies (LEAs) in achieving the goals
set forth in the Local Control and Accountability Plans
(LCAPs). The CCEE will contract with LEAs, among other
entities, to provide this assistance. Problems related to
master scheduling, course availability, and course
assignment, to the extent they affect college and career
readiness (state priorities addressed by LCAPs) are
squarely in the purview of the CCEE, and other LEAs which
have successfully addressed these problems could assist
these districts. These districts would likely benefit
from, for example, the experience of San Diego Unified
School District, which has in recent years eliminated
service and tutoring courses and replaced them with support
courses attached to core academic courses. San Diego also
uses an Interdivisional Curriculum Committee to review all
course offerings for educational value. Through the CCEE,
this school district might provide valuable peer guidance
to the districts in question.
4) Use the established method of complaint resolution: the
Uniform Complaint Process.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
AB 1012
Page 20
Support
American Civil Liberties Union of California (sponsor)
Black Organizing Project
Californians for Justice
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
EdVoice
Equal Justice Society
PICO California
Public Advocates
Public Counsel
Opposition
None on file
AB 1012
Page 21
Analysis Prepared by:Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087