BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2548
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
2548 (Weber)
As Amended May 27, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Education |5-0 |Olsen, Kim, McCarty, | |
| | |Santiago, Weber | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |19-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonilla, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Obernolte, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt a
statewide accountability system aligned to California's local
AB 2548
Page 2
framework and that satisfies the federal accountability system
requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the SBE, with regard to developing the statewide
accountability system, to rely upon data from key indicators
established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics adopted by the
SBE. Requires, at a minimum, the key indicators to include
all of the following:
a) For elementary and middles schools, a measure of: pupil
achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics,
and science; academic growth; progress toward English
proficiency; chronic absenteeism; school climate.
b) For high schools, a measure of: pupil achievement in at
least English language arts, mathematics, and science;
graduation rates; progress toward English proficiency;
college and career readiness; chronic absenteeism; and
school climate.
c) Requires substantial weight and, in aggregate, much
greater weight, to be given to the measure of: pupil
achievement in ELA, math and science; academic growth and
progress towards English proficiency.
2)Requires, in identifying appropriate assistance for a school
or LEA, the CCEE and the county superintendents of schools to
analyze data aligned with all the state priorities in order to
align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to
the needs of the LEA or individual school or schools.
3)Requires the accountability system to ensure 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.
Parents and the public must have 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
for purposes of local control and accountability plans and the
AB 2548
Page 3
local control funding formula.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Unknown General Fund costs, potentially in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars, for California Department of Education
(CDE) to comply with the data components of this bill. The
current school data systems, CALPADs and DataQuest, do not
present data in formats required under the bill. It is not
clear if CDE would be able to adapt existing systems or if a
new data system would need to be developed. Either way,
significant resources would be needed to present data in the
manner prescribed in the bill.
2)Unknown Proposition 98/General Fund cost pressures, in the
millions of dollars, to the extent this expanded
accountability system identifies more school districts or
school sites in need of state intervention and assistance.
3)The CDE estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $320,000 for
two positions to support the development, implementation, and
maintenance of a new state/federal aligned accountability
system. These positions are needed irrespective of this bill.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to co-sponsors of this bill, Children Now
and Education Trust West, this bill will align the state and
federal accountability requirements, avoiding the confusing
and sometimes conflicting systems of the past, and bringing
AB 2548
Page 4
together the strengths of both systems to promote high levels
of achievement and equity. Specifically, according to the
sponsors, the bill proposes to establish common "key
indicators" that apply to both districts and schools and also
align with the state's values. The bill also sets forth
criteria for identifying districts and schools in need of
support and improvement and clarifies that the CCEE and county
superintendents shall analyze data aligned with all of the
state priorities in order to align the level of support,
collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local
education agency or individual school or schools. The bill
also requires the development of a data dashboard, showing
student outcomes from multiple measures.
2)Background. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was
enacted to provide a more equitable distribution of education
dollars - especially among districts with populations of low
income pupils, English learners, and pupils in foster care -
and to provide more local discretion over the use of those
dollars. Accountability for the use of those dollars is
achieved though the requirement for local education agencies
to adopt and annually revise their local control
accountability plans (LCAPs). Each LCAP must address eight
state priorities that include a mix of inputs (such as
appropriate teacher assignment and level of parental
involvement) and outputs (such as performance on academic
assessments or English learner reclassification rates). The
law also provides that schools and school districts may be
identified by county superintendents of schools and the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) as needing
intervention and support. The state created the CCEE to
assist the state with these supports and interventions.
While much of the structure for these new requirements is set
in statute, the law also gave significant authority to the SBE
AB 2548
Page 5
to develop regulations governing the expenditure of funds and
to develop a system of continuous improvement for all schools.
As the state was in the middle of redesigning its
accountability system, the federal government adopted the ESSA
in December 2015. This has presented California with the
opportunity to craft one single, coherent state-federal system
of accountability.
The SPI established the Accountability and Continuous
Improvement Task Force to advise the state in the development
of the new 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 presented its final report to the SBE in May.
Many of the recommendation in the Task Force report are
consistent with the requirements of this bill.
3)Opposition. The California Teachers Association is opposed to
this bill. The CTA states this bill is premature in its
assertion of key indicators for determination of intervention
and technical support for districts and COEs for each of the
state priority areas. They note the SBE is still in the
process of identifying key indicators and other metrics for
implementation of the LCAP rubrics. Establishing additional
requirements in legislation hinders adjustments and changes
that may be needed as the state continues to implement the
components of the statewide accountability system and align
the system to new federal policies that are also still under
development. CTA believes the process for developing an
AB 2548
Page 6
accountability program requires time and should be deliberate
and sequential. They believe this bill would impede the
current process.
Analysis Prepared by:
Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0003236