BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                       AB 2259|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520    Fax: (916)      |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                                   THIRD READING 


          Bill No:  AB 2259
          Author:   Medina (D) 
          Introduced:2/18/16  
          Vote:     21 

           SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE:  9-0, 6/8/16
           AYES:  Liu, Block, Hancock, Huff, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan,  
            Vidak

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE:  7-0, 8/11/16
           AYES:  Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  79-0, 4/21/16 (Consent) - See last page for  
            vote

           SUBJECT:   School accountability:  dropout recovery high  
                     schools


          SOURCE:    School for Integrated Academics and Technologies


          DIGEST:  This bill extends the sunset by three years on the  
          ability of dropout recovery high schools to use an individual  
          student growth model for purposes of school accountability.


          ANALYSIS:  

          Existing law:

          1)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), with  
            the approval of the State Board of Education (SBE), to develop  








                                                                    AB 2259  
                                                                    Page  2


            an Academic Performance Index (API) to measure the performance  
            of schools and school districts, especially the academic  
            performance of students.  (Education Code § 52052(a)) 

          2)Requires the SPI, with approval of the SBE, to develop an  
            alternative accountability system for schools under the  
            jurisdiction of a county board of education or a county  
            superintendent of schools, community day schools non-public  
            schools (special education), and alternative schools serving  
            high-risk students.  Existing law allows these schools to  
            receive an API score, but prohibits them from being included  
            in the API rankings of schools.  (EC § 52052(g))

          3)Requires that the SPI and the SBE, as part of the alternative  
            accountability system or any successor system, to allow up to  
            10 dropout recovery high schools to report, in lieu of other  
            indicators, the results of an individual student growth model  
            that is proposed by the school and certified by the SPI.  

          4)Requires a dropout recovery high school to submit a proposed  
            individual student growth model, and requires the SPI to  
            review and certify that model if it meets all of the following  
            criteria:

             a)   The model measures learning based on valid and reliable  
               nationally normed or criterion-referenced reading and  
               mathematics tests.

             b)   The model measures skills and knowledge aligned with  
               state standards.

             c)   The model measures the extent to which a student scored  
               above an expected amount of growth based on the individual  
               student's initial achievement score.

             d)   The model demonstrates the extent to which a school is  
               able to accelerate learning on an annual basis.

          5)Defines "dropout recovery high school" as a school offering  
            instruction in any of grades 9-12, in which at least 50% of  
            its students are either designated as dropouts, as defined, or  
            left a school and were not otherwise enrolled in a school for  
            a period of at least 180 days, and the school provides  
            instruction in partnership with any of the following:







                                                                    AB 2259  
                                                                    Page  3



             a)   The federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998.

             b)   Federally-affiliated Youthbuild programs.

             c)   Federal job corps training or instruction provided  
               pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with the federal  
               provider.

             d)   The California Conservation Corps or local conservation  
               corps.  (EC § 52052.3)

          6)Sunsets provisions related to an individual student growth  
            model for dropout recovery high schools on January 1, 2017.

          This bill extends the sunset by three years on the ability of  
          dropout recovery high schools to use an individual student  
          growth model for purposes of school accountability.   
          Specifically, this bill:

       1)Extends by three years, from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2020,  
            the sunset on the requirement that the SPI and the SBE allow  
            up to 10 dropout recovery high schools to report the results  
            of an individual student growth model that is proposed by the  
            school and certified by the SPI.

       2)Updates terminology, from the federal "Workforce Investment Act"  
            to the federal "Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act."

          Comments
          
          Individual pupil growth model.  Dropout recovery high schools  
          serve students whose skills are generally credit deficient, and  
          enter and exit high school on an irregular schedule.  For these  
          reasons, using an annual "point in time" measure to gauge the  
          performance of these schools does not yield useful data,  
          particularly for evaluation of a school's performance.  To get a  
          more accurate picture of student and school achievement, current  
          law authorizes the state to instead use an individual pupil  
          growth model, which measures student growth over time relative  
          to grade level content standards, using nationally normed  
          assessments.  According to the author, California Department of  
          Education (CDE) has not yet certified an individual pupil growth  
          model authorized by current law.  The authorizing legislation  







                                                                    AB 2259  
                                                                    Page  4


          for this model was enacted after the alternative school  
          accountability model was rendered inoperative.  

          Status of the K-12 school accountability system.  The existing  
          school accountability metric, the API, has been suspended due to  
          the shift to new assessments that are aligned to the common core  
          academic standards.  The SBE is in the process of designing a  
          new accountability system for the state's schools, built on the  
          foundation of the local control funding formula, local control  
          and accountability plans, evaluation rubrics, and the California  
          Collaborative for Educational Excellence.  The API was developed  
          prior to the creation of the alternative school accountability  
          model.  There is a desire to allow the new accountability system  
          to be fully developed prior to the recreation of an  
          accountability system for alternative schools.  This bill helps  
          keep the focus on the use of an individual student growth model  
          for accountability for alternative schools.

          Recent report on alternative school accountability.  A May 2016  
          report by the Legislative Analyst's Office found that the state  
          does not have sufficient information to determine how well  
          alternative schools are educating students, and recommended that  
          the alternative accountability system should use indicators that  
          parallel the state's regular school accountability program  
          whenever possible, better short-term alternative performance  
          indicators should be developed, and longer-term student success  
          should be measured.  The Analyst notes that annual standardized  
          test scores are not a good measure of student achievement in  
          alternative schools because those students are enrolled in  
          school for less than a full school year.  The Analyst also notes  
          that current dropout and graduation rate data are also not  
          useful because they do not reflect transfers back to traditional  
          schools, and that a four-year cohort graduation rate does not  
          work for alternative schools because students seldom enroll for  
          four years.  [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/  
          report/R_516PWR.pdf]


          FISCAL EFFECT:   Appropriation:    No          Fiscal  
          Com.:YesLocal:   No


          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, extending the  
          program's sunset would continue to allow up to 10 dropout  







                                                                    AB 2259  
                                                                    Page  5


          recovery high schools to propose an individual student growth  
          model to the SPI.  This bill could result in potentially  
          significant one-time General Fund costs to the CDE to review and  
          certify that any proposed growth models submitted meet certain  
          criteria.  The CDE would also incur lesser ongoing costs to  
          develop and maintain a Web site displaying the growth model  
          data.  To date, no models have been submitted to the CDE.   
          However, if in a given year 10 schools submit a model, the CDE  
          cites General Fund costs of up to $100,000 over two positions.




          SUPPORT:   (Verified8/12/16)


          School for Integrated Academics and Technologies (source)
          Association of California School Administrators
          California School Boards Association
          Riverside County Superintendent of Schools


          OPPOSITION:   (Verified8/12/16)


          None received


          ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  79-0, 4/21/16
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker,  
            Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke,  
            Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,  
            Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth  
            Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto,  
            Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper,  
            Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim,  
            Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis,  
            Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte,  
            O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Rodriguez, Salas,  
            Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner,  
            Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Ridley-Thomas

          Prepared by:Lynn Lorber / ED. / (916) 651-4105







                                                                    AB 2259  
                                                                    Page  6


          8/15/16 20:22:18


                                   ****  END  ****