BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2350
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |O'Donnell |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 27, 2016 Hearing |
| |Date: June 22, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Kathleen Chavira |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: English learners
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits English learners (ELs) from being prevented
from enrolling in courses required for graduation or to meet
college admission requirements, requires that English Language
Development (ELD) course designed for long-term ELs confer
graduation credit, defines specified English language
development instruction methods for purposes of the English
Language Arts/English Language Development Framework, and
requires the development of specified professional development
materials regarding integrated English language development for
voluntary use by local educational agencies.
BACKGROUND
Existing law requires the State Board to approve standards for
English language development for students whose primary language
is other than English. These standards are required to be
comparable in rigor and specificity to the adopted standards for
English language arts, mathematics, and science. (EC § 60811)
Existing law requires the State Board of Education to adopt
revised curriculum frameworks that are aligned to the common
core standards in English language arts by July 30, 2014.
Existing law also requires State Board policies to ensure that
the English Language Arts curriculum frameworks include the ELD
standards and related strategies in the core subjects of
AB 2350 (O'Donnell) Page 2
of ?
mathematics, science, and history-social science. (EC § 60207)
Existing law requires that the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CTC) issue an authorization for a teacher to
provide specified services to limited-English proficient pupils
and defines various terms for this purpose. (EC § 44253.2 and §
44253.3)
Existing law requires the California State University (CSU) and
requests the University of California (UC) to establish a model
uniform set of academic standards for high school courses that
satisfy university admission requirements. In addition, both
the CSU and the UC were directed to implement a speedy process
whereby schools could obtain approval of their courses for
admission purposes, and require that this process notify
applicant schools whether a submitted course has been approved
or denied by August 1 each school year. (Education Code §
66205.5)
ANALYSIS
This bill:
1) Defines "designated English language development" and
"integrated English language development" instruction to
align statute with the newly adopted content standards and
English Language Arts/English Language Development
Framework. It:
a) Defines "designated English language
development" as instruction during a protected time in
the school day in which English Language Development
(ELD) standards are used as focal standards in order
to develop language needed for ELs to access content
learning in English.
b) Defines "integrated English language
development" as instruction in which all teachers with
English learners (ELs) in their classroom use English
Language Development standards in tandem with content
standards regardless of course content.
AB 2350 (O'Donnell) Page 3
of ?
2) Conforms the definition of "specially designed content
instruction delivered in English" within existing law
relative to Commission on Teacher Credentialing
authorization to teach ELs with the newly adopted content
standards and English Language Arts/English Language
Development Framework.
3) Provides that a middle or high school student classified as
an EL or enrolled in ELD courses be granted access to core
curriculum courses. Specifically it:
a) Prohibits preventing such a student from:
i) Enrolling in core
curriculum courses required for graduation, grade
promotion or to meet a-g subject requirements for
college admission.
ii) Taking a full course load in subjects
required for graduation, grade promotion or to
meet a-g subject requirements for college
admission.
b) Makes these requirements inapplicable
to a student participating in an "articulated newcomer
program," as defined.
4) Requires, if a local educational agency offers ELD courses
designed for long-term ELS, that the course confer credits
in English language arts necessary to meet grade promotion
or graduation requirements.
5) Declares the intent of the Legislature that local
educational agencies (LEAs) submit ELD courses designed for
long-term ELs to the University of California (UC) and
California State University (CSU) for a-g approval.
6) Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to
contract for the development of a series of vides for
demonstrating best practices for implementing ELD, as
specified, and requires that the videos and related
documents be made available for the voluntary use of local
educational agencies by the beginning of the 2019-20 school
year.
AB 2350 (O'Donnell) Page 4
of ?
7) Makes a number of technical changes.
8) Makes a number of related declarations and findings.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill. According to the author, recent
evidence has pointed to a number of institutional barriers
to English learners' (ELs) success. These include poor
access to the core curriculum and insufficient teacher
preparation and professional development to address the
instructional needs of ELs, particularly in light of the
state's new English Language Development (ELD) standards.
This bill will ensure that ELs are not kept from enrolling
in core curriculum courses necessary for graduation. It
will also ensure that special courses designed for
long-term ELs will allow these students to continue to move
along the path toward graduation. Finally it will
establish a professional development resource for teachers
on California's new ELD standards.
According to the author, ensuring access to core academic
subjects and prohibiting the substitution of English
language development classes for English language arts
courses will begin to address the sizable gap in academic
achievement that persists for ELS relative to their peers.
In addition, the opportunity to address ELD needs under new
standards that call for "integrated and designated"
instruction will require support and professional
development to realize this major shift in pedagogy.
2) Related budget activity. The provisions of the bill
establishing the development of professional development
materials for implementing effective ELD instruction were
recently enacted in the budget. Staff recommends the bill
be amended to delete section 60083 to remove these
provisions from the bill.
3) English learner achievement gap. There are approximately
1.4 million English learners in California public schools,
representing 22 percent of the state's enrollment.
California's English learner students score substantially
lower on state assessments than non-English learner
AB 2350 (O'Donnell) Page 5
of ?
students. While there has been incremental growth in
achievement among students in both the general population
and English learners, the rate of growth in the general
population has significantly outpaced that of English
learners and the achievement gap has widened over time.
a) On the 2013 California Standards Tests of English
language arts, 23 percent of English learners scored
at the proficient or advanced levels, compared with 63
percent of English-only peers, and on the tests of
mathematics 37 percent scored at those levels compared
with 55 percent of their peers.
b) On the 2015 administration of the California
Assessment of Student Performance and Progress
(CAASPP), 11 percent of English learners (ELs) in all
grades met or exceeded standard in English language
arts/literacy and 11 percent in math, compared with 69
percent and 55 percent for those subjects,
respectively, for students proficient in English.
c) According to the California Department of
Education (CDE), the overall 2013-14 four-year cohort
graduation was 81 percent, while the rate for English
learners was 65 percent, the lowest of any subgroup
besides students in special education. The dropout
rate for English learners, at 21 percent, was the
highest of any subgroup.
d) In 2014, the pass rate of English learners on the
California High School Exit Examination language arts
test was half the rate of English only peers (17
percent vs. 34 percent), and was also lower on the
mathematics portion (13 percent vs. 20 percent).
4) Recent related report. In October 2015, the Policy
Analysis for California Education's (PACE) issued,
"Improving the Opportunities and Outcomes of California's
Students Learning English," a report on research examining
English learner needs, policies, practices, and outcomes.
Among other things, researchers found that ELs are less
likely than non-ELs to be enrolled in core academic subject
courses and, as a result, earn fewer credits toward
graduation than non-EL students. The research further
AB 2350 (O'Donnell) Page 6
of ?
found that limited access to English language arts (ELA) is
largely due to 1) English Language Development (ELD)
courses being used as a substitute, rather than a
complement, for ELA courses, and 2) the enrollment of
elementary and secondary ELs in intervention classes for
language arts and math which were not designed for ELs'
language and academic needs.
This research found that in one large urban school
district, 30 percent of ELs were not enrolled in ELA
courses, and 35 percent were not enrolled in a full course
load. PACE concluded, "Research from the three
partnerships suggests that English learners often suffer
from restricted educational opportunity compared to that of
non-English learners, particularly with regard to their
academic learning needs."
The report also noted that the most common barrier to
reclassification for middle and high school ELs was passage
of the English Language Arts content standards criterion.
Given the findings that enrollment in ELD prohibits some
students from taking ELA courses; it is unclear how
students are expected to obtain the course content
necessary to successfully meet criteria for
reclassification.
This bill, in an effort to respond to these concerns,
prohibits ELs from being prevented from taking core
curriculum courses necessary for graduation, grade
promotion, or meeting a-g requirements for college
admission.
5) Articulated newcomer programs. This bill makes its
provisions requiring core curriculum access inapplicable
to students participating in "articulated newcomer
programs." The intent is to grant some flexibility to
districts implementing quality programs designed to meet
the academic and transitional needs of newly arrived
immigrants. This bill establishes an exception for a
"program" which is not generally defined or acknowledged in
any other state or federal statutes applicable to English
learners.
Staff recommends the bill be amended on page 6 to delete lines
AB 2350 (O'Donnell) Page 7
of ?
3-18 and insert
"(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to a pupil participating in
a program designed to meet the academic and transitional needs
of newly arrived immigrants unless the pupil meets the local
educational agency's exit criteria for transition into a general
education program. The department may provide guidance on the
implementation of this subdivision."
6) Can ELD courses be more rigorous? This bill requires that
districts confer credit for purposes of grade promotion or
graduation for ELD courses specially designed for long-term
English learners (ELs). According to California Department
of Education (CDE), preliminary data indicates that about
26.5 percent (90,000) of ELs that had been in a U.S. school
for more than six years are long-term ELs.
According to the author, some school districts have begun
designing courses for long-term ELs which are both English
Language Development (ELD) and English Language Arts (ELA)
courses, and which offer credit toward graduation requirements.
This practice addresses the issue of access to the core
curriculum and also the "crowding out" of EL students'
schedules, a problem which occurs when the need to take courses
in both ELD and ELA prevents students from enrolling in other
courses.
Additionally, current California State University (CSU) and
University of California (UC) policy allows advanced-level
English courses for second language learners to be approved to
meet the English ("b") subject requirement, provided that they
meet specified measures of rigor and are comparable to other
mainstream college-preparatory English courses. UC does not
grant credit for an ELD course taken during the senior year.
Sheltered English and Specially designed academic instruction in
English courses can be approved as meeting "a-g" requirements
without approval, but ESL and ELD courses must be submitted
separately for approval.
As currently drafted, the bill would require that an ELD course
designed for long-term ELs be granted graduation or grade
promotion credit. But should credit be extended if a district
offers a course that is not rigorous?
AB 2350 (O'Donnell) Page 8
of ?
Staff recommends the bill be amended on page 6, line 21 to
insert "be sufficiently rigorous to" after "shall", to ensure
that school districts are designing ELD courses that ensure
long-term ELs are receiving content that prepares them for
graduation.
7) Course approval for college admissions. Generally, the
process of assessing the suitability of specific courses
for meeting subject area requirements has been in the
purview of the faculty of the UC, through the Board of
Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) which
oversees all matters relating to the admissions of
undergraduate students. A course's "a-g" approval is based
on the "a-g" course evaluation guidelines and the
subject-specific course criteria established by UC faculty.
California high schools can submit their courses to UC for
"a-g" certification and once approved, the "a-g" course is
added to the school's "a-g" course list.
In 2003, both the CSU and the UC made slight changes to their
"a-g" subject matter requirements in order to align them for any
students wishing to apply to both universities. Since then, the
CSU has deferred recommendations of additions or revisions to
the "a-g" subject matter requirements to the UC. According to
the CSU, campuses generally use the UC's a-g determination for
evaluation of courses for purposes of admission.
This bill makes reference to a-g requirements in several places,
including articulation of intent that courses be submitted to
the California State University (CSU) for approval as such.
Staff notes that the classification of courses as meeting a-g
requirements is established via policy of the University of
California (UC) faculty and is not currently a classification
that is, or should be, specified in statute. However, the a-g
classification is the current means by which the UC responds to
statutory direction to establish a model uniform set of
standards for high school courses for purposes of recognition
for UC and CSU admissions, pursuant to section 66205.5.
Staff recommends the bill be amended on page 6, lines 24 and 25
to delete "and California State University" as the CSU plays no
role in a-g course review.
Staff further recommends the bill be amended to replace
AB 2350 (O'Donnell) Page 9
of ?
"a-g subject requirements" with "subject matter
requirements for purposes of recognition for college
admission pursuant to section 66205.5."
8) Evolution of ELD instruction. This bill defines English
Language Development (ELD) instruction to align statute
with the newly adopted English Language Arts/English
Language Development Framework, which offers guidance for
providing all California students with English language
arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and
technical subjects. In addition, it offers guidance for
supporting English learners' progress in English language
development.
Instruction for English learners has evolved significantly in
the last 40 years. Initial "English as a Second Language" (ESL)
approaches used from 1900 to the 1970's focused solely on
English acquisition. Content-based ESL emerged in the 1980's,
providing support for English acquisition through academic
content. Models known as Specially Designed Academic
Instruction in English and Sheltered English, in use from the
1980's to the present day, have focused on providing English
learners access to content through modified (sometimes referred
to as "scaffolded") instruction.
The English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework
adopted by the State Board of Education in 2014 provides a
comprehensive strategy for meeting both the content and language
learning needs of ELs. This model is known as the "integrated
and designated" model of ELD. Under this model,
"integrated ELD instruction" occurs throughout the school day in
every subject area by every teacher who has an EL student in the
classroom. The California ELD Standards are used in tandem with
the California Common Core State Standards for ELA/Literacy and
other content standards to ensure students strengthen their
abilities to use academic English as they learn content through
English. "Designated ELD" is provided to ELs during a protected
time in the regular school day, during which teachers use the
ELD Standards as the focal standards in ways that build into and
from content instruction to develop critical language ELs need
for content learning in English.
According to the California Department of Education, curriculum
frameworks offer guidance for implementing content standards and
AB 2350 (O'Donnell) Page 10
of ?
describe the curriculum and instruction necessary to help
students achieve proficiency. They specify the design of
instructional materials and professional development. In 2015
the State Board of Education approved a list of adopted
instructional materials aligned to the newly adopted English
Language Arts/English Language Development Framework. Local
educational agencies (LEAs) are expected to select from the
adopted instructional materials within the next few years.
9) Related legislation. AB 2785 (O'Donnell) also on the
committee's agenda today, requires the California
Department of Education to develop a manual for the purpose
of providing guidance to LEA on identifying, assessing, and
supporting, English learners who may qualify for special
education services by July 1, 2018.
SUPPORT
Association of California School Administrators
Association of California School Administrators
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Federation of Teachers
California Immigrant Policy Center
California State PTA
California Teachers Association
Californians Together
Education Trust West
Los Angeles Unified School District
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson (sponsor)
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --