BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2548 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Patrick O'Donnell, Chair AB 2548 (Weber) - As Amended April 11, 2016 SUBJECT: School accountability: statewide accountability system SUMMARY: Establishes a Statewide Accountability System, as specified. Specifically, this bill: 1)Expresses the intent of the Legislature to do the following: a) Establish a coherent, aligned local-state-federal accountability system that addresses state, local, parent, community, and public needs, as well as federal requirements; b) Ensure ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement that encourage continuous improvement and the closure of opportunity and achievement gaps; and c) Establish a mechanism using multiple measures that meaningfully differentiates the performance of schools and identifies schools and local educational agencies in need AB 2548 Page 2 of technical assistance, support, and intervention. 2)Expresses the intent of Legislature that the accountability system continue to support and advance the framework established by the local control funding formula (LCFF) and California's emphasis on continuous improvement, technical assistance, and support. 3)Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt a statewide accountability system that does the following: a) Satisfies the accountability system requirements of the recently-enacted federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA); b) Aligns California's local control framework with the need to identify, support, and improve California's highest need schools. In doing so, requires the SBE to do all of the following: i) Set clear, ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement toward specified key indicators, and requires these standards to be differentiated by pupil subgroup so that subgroups that start off at lower performance levels make greater growth to achieve the statewide standards; ii) Establish a mechanism to meaningfully differentiate the performance of all public schools, to identify local educational agencies for purposes of support and intervention on an annual basis based on outcomes for all pupils and for each subgroup of pupils using specified multiple measures identified in paragraph, and to do all AB 2548 Page 3 of the following: (1) Distinguish multiple levels of performance for purposes of continuous improvement, transparency, meaningful stakeholder engagement, recognition, and support, including the identification of the following: (a) Not less than the lowest-performing 5 percent of all schools receiving federal Title I funds and all public high schools in the state failing to graduate one-third or more of their pupils; (b) All schools in which any subgroup of pupils is consistently underperforming, as determined by the state board, based on specified key indicators; and (c) All schools where any one subgroup of pupils, on its own, would lead that school to be in the lowest 5 percent of schools for pupils overall. (2) Support parents and guardians in making informed school decisions on behalf of their children; and (3) Enable school districts, county offices of education, the CDE, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) to identify schools for recognition, support, and assistance and ensure that support and assistance is provided to at least those schools identified as in need of improvement. AB 2548 Page 4 iii) Comply with all notification, stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities required by ESSA. c) Relies upon data from key indicators established pursuant to evaluation rubrics adopted by the SBE. At a minimum, those key indicators shall include, all of the following: i) For elementary and middle schools: (1) A measure of pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science; (2) A measure of academic growth; (3) A measure of progress toward English proficiency; (4) A measure of chronic absenteeism; and (5) A measure of school climate. ii) For high schools: (1) A measure of pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science; AB 2548 Page 5 (2) A measure of graduation rates (3) A measure of progress toward English proficiency; (4) A measure of college and career readiness; (5) A measure of chronic absenteeism; and (6) A measure of school climate. d) Specifies that the SBE is not precluded from including additional statewide measures that can be disaggregated by subgroup in the accountability system for purposes of meaningful differentiation of all schools or from grouping the measures into common clusters e) Expresses the intent of the Legislature that the state will continue to use the SBE-adopted evaluation rubrics and all indicators identified as state priorities and specified pupil subgroups for purposes of continuous improvement and to guide the provision of technical assistance, support, and intervention. f) Provides that, in order to comply with ESSA, the following academic indicators shall receive substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight than is afforded to all other indicators: i) A measure of pupil achievement in at least English AB 2548 Page 6 language arts, mathematics, and science; ii) A measure of academic growth; and iii) A measure of progress toward English proficiency. g) Provides the CCEE, county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multitiered system of review and assistance. Notwithstanding the key indicators used for purposes of paragraph (2), in identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local educational agency, the CCEE and the county superintendents of schools shall analyze data aligned with all the state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school or schools. h) Ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform and gives parents and the public the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the state's priority areas. i) Expresses the intent of the Legislature to ensure that any Web-based data and analysis tools should enable all stakeholders to readily identify strengths and weaknesses, identify inequities between schools and subgroups of pupils across multiple measures, monitor academic achievement and improvement, provide for meaningful differentiation, and enable users to download data and reports in AB 2548 Page 7 machine-readable formats. 4)Requires key indicators to be used to identify schools, school districts, and county offices of education for intervention and assistance. EXISTING LAW: 1)Requires the SPI, with the approval of the SBE, to develop an Academic Performance Index (API), to measure the performance of schools and school districts, especially the academic performance of pupils. 2)Requires a school or school district to demonstrate comparable improvement in academic achievement as measured by the API by all numerically significant pupil subgroups at the school or school district, including: a) Ethnic subgroups; b) Socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils; c) English learners; d) Pupils with disabilities; e) Foster youth; and f) Homeless youth. AB 2548 Page 8 3)Requires the API to consist of a variety of indicators currently reported to the CDE, including, but not limited to, the results of the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP); attendance rates for pupils in elementary schools, middle schools, and secondary schools; and the graduation rates for pupils in secondary schools. 4)Authorizes the SPI, with the approval of the SBE, to also incorporate into the API the rates at which pupils successfully promote from one grade to the next in middle school and high school, and successfully matriculate from middle school to high school. 5)Requires the SPI to develop and the SBE to adopt statewide performance and expected annual percentage growth targets for all schools based on their API baseline score from the previous year. 6)Requires school districts and county offices of education (COEs) to adopt and annually update local control and accountability plans (LCAPs), which describe the annual goals for all pupils and each subgroup of pupils and the specific actions that will be taken to achieve those goals. 7)Requires each LCAP to address eight state priorities: a) The degree to which the teachers of the school district are appropriately assigned and fully credentialed in the subject areas, and, for the pupils they are teaching, every pupil in the school district has sufficient access to standards-aligned instructional materials. AB 2548 Page 9 b) 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 adopted by the SBE. c) Parental involvement, including efforts the school district makes to seek parent input in making decisions for the school district and each individual schoolsite, and including how the school district will promote parental participation in programs for unduplicated pupils and individuals with exceptional needs. d) Pupil achievement, as measured by all of the following, as applicable: i) Statewide assessments; ii) The API; iii) The percentage of pupils who have successfully completed courses that satisfy the requirements for entrance to the University of California and the California State University, or career technical education sequences or programs of study that align with state board-approved career technical education standards and frameworks; iv) The percentage of English learner pupils who make progress toward English proficiency as measured by the California English Language Development Test or any subsequent assessment of English proficiency, as certified by the state board; AB 2548 Page 10 v) The English learner reclassification rate; vi) The percentage of pupils who have passed an advanced placement examination with a score of 3 or higher; and vii) The percentage of pupils who participate in, and demonstrate college preparedness pursuant to, the Early Assessment Program or any subsequent assessment of college preparedness. e) Pupil engagement, as measured by all of the following, as applicable: i) School attendance rates; ii) Chronic absenteeism rates; iii) Middle school dropout rates; and iv) High school dropout and graduation rates. f) School climate, as measured by all of the following, as applicable: i) Pupil suspension rates; ii) Pupil expulsion rates; and iii) Other local measures, including surveys of pupils, parents, and teachers on the sense of safety and school connectedness. g) The extent to which pupils have access to, and are enrolled in, a broad course of study; and h) Pupil outcomes, if available, in other specified, as applicable. AB 2548 Page 11 8)Establishes a system of interventions and support for school districts and COEs that fail to meet performance or growth standards. 9)Establishes the CCEE to provide advice and assistance to LEAs upon request of the LEA or if the LEA has been identified as needing intervention and support. 10)Requires the SBE, on or before October 1, 2016, to adopt evaluation rubrics for all of the following purposes: a) To assist a school district, COE, or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement; b) To assist a county superintendent of schools in identifying school districts and charter schools in need of technical assistance, and the specific priorities upon which the technical assistance should be focused; and c) To assist the SPI in identifying school districts for which is warranted. 11)Requires the evaluation rubrics to reflect a holistic, multidimensional assessment of school district and individual schoolsite performance and shall include all of the eight state priorities. 12)Requires the SBE, as part of the evaluation rubrics to adopt standards for school district and individual schoolsite performance and expectations for improvement in regard to each of the eight state priorities. 13)Establishes the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which requires states to establish their own accountability systems that include the following indicators: a) Proficiency in reading and math; AB 2548 Page 12 b) Graduation rates for high schools; c) English language proficiency; d) For elementary and middle schools, student growth or another indicator that is valid, reliable, and statewide; and e) At least one other indicator of school quality or success, such as measures of safety, student engagement, or educator engagement. 14)Requires the accountability system to have substantial weights on indicators a) through d) and, in aggregate, indicators a) through d) mush weigh more than indicator e). 15)Requires states, at least once every three years, to identify the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools and all high schools with a graduation rate that is below 67% for comprehensive support. FISCAL EFFECT: State-mandated local program COMMENTS: A brief history of accountability in California. In 1999, the Legislature and Governor enacted the Public School Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA), which established a state-wide accountability system based primarily on student scores on state, standards-aligned assessments. The PSAA set a target API score of 800 for all schools. If a school's base API was below 800, that school was assigned an annual growth target equal to 5% of the difference between 800 and its base API. Thus, the PSAA held schools accountable for growth. AB 2548 Page 13 The PSAA was followed by the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which established a federal accountability system. NCLB evaluated schools on the basis of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). AYP measured the percentage of pupils who meet grade level standards. This measures increases in the number of pupils who meet minimum standards, but it was not a measure of overall academic growth. More recently, California adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which created a need to revise the state assessments to bring them into alignment with the new standards. The new assessments were developed by the multi-state SmarterBalanced consortium, of which California is a member. Except for pilot and field tests, the SmarterBalanced tests, which are computer-assisted, were administered for the first time in the Spring of 2015. During this time, it also became clear that an accountability system based primarily on student scores has undesirable consequences, such as teaching to the test and narrowing the curriculum to only those academic areas (English language arts, mathematics, and science) that are tested, which result in providing incomplete and inaccurate information about the performance of individual schools. Accordingly, the Legislature enacted legislation directing the SPI to make recommendations regarding a new approach to accountability based on multiple measures (SB 1458, Steinberg, Chapter 577, Statutes of 2012 and AB 484, Bonilla, Chapter 489, Statutes of 2013.) In the meantime, California has suspended its use of the API. Current status of accountability. In 2013, California enacted the LCFF and established the requirement for districts and COEs to adopt and annually update LCAPs. While this was a fundamental change in how the state funds its schools, it was AB 2548 Page 14 also a fundamental change in the state's approach to accountability by putting more emphasis on local accountability through the LCAP process and establishing a system of continuous improvement for all schools. However, schools and school districts may still be identified by county superintendents of schools and the SPI as needing intervention and support In this changing context, the SPI established the Accountability and Continuous Improvement Task Force to make recommendations regarding the state's accountability system. The Task Force, which began meeting in September 2015, consists of 30 members representing a broad cross section of the education and academic communities, as well as organizations representing parents and other stakeholders. Children Now, the sponsor of this bill, is represented on the Task Force. The Task Force is in the process of preparing a final report, which will be presented to the SBE in May. One of the guiding principles of the Task Force is to align state and federal accountability and continuous improvements systems to create one single integrated system for use by the state, COEs, LEA's, and schools. At its February 2016 meeting, the SBE received information from the CDE on the potential architecture of this unified system. The diagram below shows this potential system. As the diagram shows, the first level of accountability is at the LEA level, and centers on the LCAP, which must address the eight state priorities. Each LCAP describes the goals of the LEA with respect to the priorities and the specific actions the district will take to achieve those goals. After the evaluation rubrics are adopted, LEAs will use them to measure their own progress toward achieving their goals. LEAs are required to involve all local stakeholders in the development of the LCAP. The next step is the establishment of the evaluation rubrics AB 2548 Page 15 (represented by the middle column), which the SBE is required to adopt by October 1, 2016. Existing law requires the rubrics to be based on the eight state priorities, and they will also be used to develop the key indicators for ESSA accountability. The rubrics will also be used to support the local planning and review processes that are part of developing the LCAP. This step also includes organizing the evaluation rubrics into key indicators, which is needed for compliance with ESSA. The third column represents the use of the rubrics and key indicators to identify districts and schools in need of assistance and to inform the assistance and support that is needed. The goal is have the key indicators be congruent with the evaluation rubrics to establish clear, consistent criteria for evaluating LEAs and that LEAs can use to evaluate themselves. This bill preempts an ongoing process. As directed by the Legislature, the CDE has been engaged in a process of consulting stakeholders, convening task forces, and working with the SBE to establish a new accountability system. This bill imposes a new accountability system before this process has been allowed to play out. In addition, by enacting provisions related to the requirements of ESSA, this bill presupposes the outcome of final regulations from the U. S. Department of Education, which are not expected until later this year. This bill narrows accountability. Under existing law, LEAs will be identified for technical assistance based on their performance relative to the eight state priorities, which include academic outcomes, but also includes other factors such as parental involvement, pupil engagement, and school climate. The statutory goal is to have a system that "reflect[s] a holistic, multidimensional assessment of school district and individual schoolsite performance" (Education Code Section 52064.5. This bill bases the identification of LEAs for AB 2548 Page 16 technical assistance only on the key indicators, which are based solely on academic performance. This reverses the direction the Legislature has taken to have a multiple measures approach to accountability. Arguments in support. Supporters argue that this bill is needed to ensure compliance with ESSA and that "California's new multiple measure system of accountability needs to provide greater emphasis on growth, equity and transparency in ways not currently being considered." In addition, supporters argue that this bill will strengthen efforts to increase equity and transparency and close achievement gaps. Arguments in opposition. Opponents argue that this bill is premature, because the SBE is still in the process of identifying the key indicators and other metrics for implementation of the evaluation rubrics. Also, establishing new statutory requirements at this time impedes the collaborative process already underway to develop and implement a new accountability system. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support Children Now (Co-Sponsor) Education Trust-West (Co-Sponsor) AB 2548 Page 17 A World Fit For Kids! Abriendo Puertas/Opening Doors Alliance for Boys and Men of Color Asian American Advancing Justice-California Asian & Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus Black Parallel School Board Bohbot & Riles, PC Brea Chamber of Commerce CA Charter Schools Association California Alliance of African American Educators California Chamber of Commerce California Charter Schools Association Advocates Cambridge Child Development Center AB 2548 Page 18 Center for Ecoliteracy Center For Leadership Equity and Research Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa Children's Defense Fund-California Congregations Building Community Desert Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce Dolores Huerta Foundation Educators 4 Excellence EdVoice Families in Schools Fight Crime: Invest in Kids - California First 5 Santa Clara County Foster Care Alumni of America, CA Chapter AB 2548 Page 19 Future Is Now Gatepath Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce Green Dot Public Schools Half Moon Bay Brewing Company Harbour Consulting Honor Kids International, Peace Village Sanctuary Innovate Public Schools InsideOUT Writers Issokson and Associates Jumpstart California KIDS' OWN WISDOM LA Voice AB 2548 Page 20 Lutheran Office of Public Policy-California Making Change For Children Mission Readiness Mothers' Club Family Learning Center Multicultural Council of America National Center for Youth Law Our Family Coalition Parent Revolution Partnership for Children and Youth PICO California Public Counsel Raineth Housing ReadyNation AB 2548 Page 21 Sacramento Area Congregations Together Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce StudentsFirst Students Matter Teach For America Teach Plus The GreenHouse The L.A. Trust for Children's Health United Way of Greater Los Angeles Women's Empowerment Youth Policy and Programs Consultant AB 2548 Page 22 Opposition California Teachers Association Analysis Prepared by:Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087