BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1876
Page A
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 1876
(Lopez) - As Amended March 28, 2016
SUBJECT: Pupils: diploma alternatives: language options
SUMMARY: Requires high school equivalency exams to be offered
in languages other than English. Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes findings and declarations regarding the need to reduce
language barriers in all areas of government, including in
obtaining high school equivalency certificates.
2)Prohibits the California Department of Education (CDE),
commencing January 1, 2019, from approving or renewing
approval of a contractor or testing center to administer a
high school equivalency exam unless the contractor or testing
center provides the general educational development tests that
have been approved by the State Board of Education (SBE) in
the top five primary languages used in the state, as
determined by the CDE based on United States Census data.
3)Provides that an examinee shall be permitted to take the test
in the offered language of his or her choice of the top five
primary languages used in the state.
AB 1876
Page B
4)Specifies that these requirements are intended to supplement
and not supplant any other requirements the CDE adopts for
approval of contractors or testing centers.
EXISTING LAW: Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) to issue a high school equivalency certificate to any
individual who has not completed high school and who meets all
of the following requirements:
1)Is a resident of this state or is a member of the armed
services assigned to duty in this state.
2)Has taken all or a portion of a general educational
development test that has been approved by the State Board of
Education (SBE) and that is administered by a testing center
approved by the department, with a score determined by the
state board to be equal to the standard of performance
expected from high school graduates.
3)Meets one of the following:
a. Is at least 18 years of age;
b. Would have graduated from high school had he or she
remained in school and followed the usual course of study
toward graduation;
c. Is at least 17 years of age, has accumulated fewer
than 100 units of high school credit, and is confined to
a state or county hospital or to an institution
maintained by a state or county correctional agency; or
AB 1876
Page C
d. Is at least 17 years of age, has accumulated fewer
than 100 units of high school credit prior to enrollment
in the academic program described in this paragraph, and
has successfully completed the academic program offered
by a dropout recovery high school that provides the pupil
with all of the following:
i. Instruction aligned to state academic
content standards;
ii. The opportunity to complete the
requirements for a high school diploma; or
iii. At least one year of instruction or
instruction followed by services related to the
academic program.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: The SBE has approved three high school equivalency
tests for use in California: the General Educational
Development Test (GED), the High School Equivalency Test
(HiSET), and the Test Assessing Secondary Completion (TASC).
The SBE has approved Spanish language as well as English
language versions of each of these tests.
In 2013 (the most recent year for which data are available),
64,983 Californians took the GED, 57,422 completed it, and
44,864 (69.0% of test takers and 78.1% of test completers)
passed it. Of the 64,983 Californians who took the test, 37,430
(57.6%) were reported as Hispanic, and 8,624 (15.3%) took the
test in Spanish.
This bill prohibits the California Department of Education
AB 1876
Page D
(CDE), commencing January 1, 2019, from approving or renewing
approval of a contractor or testing center to administer a high
school equivalency exam unless the contractor or testing center
provides the general educational development tests that have
been approved by the SBE in the top five primary languages used
in the state, as determined by the CDE based on data from the U.
S. Census Bureau. Presumably, the top five languages include
English, so the bill effectively requires the tests to be
offered in English plus the top four non-English languages in
each service area. According to an October 2015 report from the
Census Bureau, the top five languages spoken in California are:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| | |Number Who Speak English |
| | | |
| | | |
| Language | Number of Speakers | "Less than Very Well" |
| | | |
| | | |
|-----------------+---------------------+-------------------------|
|English | 19,782,598 | N/A |
| | | |
| | | |
|-----------------+---------------------+-------------------------|
|Spanish | 10,105,385 | 4,539,249 |
| | | |
| | | |
|-----------------+---------------------+-------------------------|
|Chinese (all | 1,058,231 | 593,816 |
|dialects) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|-----------------+---------------------+-------------------------|
|Tagalog | 764,743 | 258,008 |
| | | |
| | | |
|-----------------+---------------------+-------------------------|
|Vietnamese | 521,534 | 311,142 |
AB 1876
Page E
| | | |
| | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These data are based on the population aged 5 and over. It is
not known how many of those reporting they speak English less
than very well would have an interest in, a need to, or be
eligible to take a high school equivalency test.
Multiple non-English versions do not currently exist. According
to the CDE, it would take about two years to develop non-English
versions of the equivalency tests in languages other than
Spanish, and the development process is very expensive. It is
not a simply matter of translating the English version, which
may not be culturally relevant to non-English speakers. The
process involves, developing the test, conducting field tests to
ensure validity and reliability, and setting performance
standards.
Non-English tests have questionable value. The author's office
argues that this bill would improve access to college and career
opportunities by enabling non-English speakers to receive an
equivalency certificate and cites a study that found measurable
economic benefits to foreign-born individuals who obtained an
equivalency certificate.<1> While this is a laudable goal, the
study cited by the author's office was based on individuals who
took the test in English and does not support a conclusion that
the observed benefits would accrue to individuals who took the
test in a language other than English. In fact, the CDE reports
that, even though the Spanish language versions of the tests are
approved by the SBE, there is anecdotal evidence that it is not
---------------------------
<1> Melissa A. Clark and David A. Jaeger, "Natives, the
Foreign-Born and High School Equivalents: New Evidence on the
Returns to the GED." Working Paper #462, Princeton University,
Industrial Relations Section, April 2002.
AB 1876
Page F
recognized by employers and some postsecondary institutions as
being equivalent to the English language version.
Unintended consequences. The high cost of test development
would leave test providers with three options. The first, and
least likely option, would be to absorb the cost of new test
development and scoring. This is not likely, because even the
not-for-profit providers need to recover their costs through
fees. The second, and perhaps most likely consequence, would be
to recover the additional costs by increasing the fees charged
to test takers. Since 90% of test takers are low income, this
option could result in reducing opportunities for many by making
the test too expensive. This would be especially true if the
additional costs were recovered by higher fees on only the
non-English versions of the tests. Those test takers would pay
a premium for a certificate that has less value than the
English-language one. The third option would be to discontinue
offering the tests in California. While the size of the
California market makes this seem unlikely, it cannot be ruled
out as a possibility if the test providers determine that they
cannot expect to recover the increased costs through higher
fees. Options 2 and 3 would both reduce opportunities for the
very population that this bill is intended to help.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None received
AB 1876
Page G
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by:Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087