BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 2548 (Weber) - School accountability: statewide
accountability system
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: May 27, 2016 |Policy Vote: ED. 8 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 8, 2016 |Consultant: Jillian Kissee |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: This bill requires the State Board of Education
(Board) to establish state performance standards for key
indicators and adopt an accountability system for kindergarten
through grade 12 public schools that is aligned to the
requirements of federal law, relies upon data from specified key
indicators, and ensures the creation of a data and reporting
system that provides meaningful and accessible information on
school and school district performance.
Fiscal
Impact:
Unknown, but likely significant costs in the hundreds of
AB 2548 (Weber) Page 1 of
?
thousands, to the California Department of Education (CDE)
related to the creation of a data and reporting system on
school performance according to the specifications provided in
this bill. See staff comments. (General Fund)
Possible reimbursable state mandate costs for county
superintendents of schools to analyze data related to the
state priorities to align the level of support and
intervention provided to the needs of the local educational
agencies (LEAs). See staff comments. (Proposition 98)
Background: The Budget Act of 2013 established a new formula to allocate
funding to LEAs. The formula consolidated most of the state's
numerous separate funding streams and associated restrictions.
The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), among other things,
requires LEAs to develop and annually update a local control and
accountability plan that includes a description of the annual
goals to be achieved for each of the eight state priorities and
a description of the specific actions that will be taken to
achieve the identified goals. The LCFF statute directed the
Board to develop significant components of the accountability
system through regulations. The Board is currently developing a
system that relies upon multiple measures and includes a system
of continuous improvement and support for schools. In addition,
the federal government adopted the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) in December 2015 which provides an opportunity to create
one coherent accountability system.
The Board is scheduled to adopt evaluation rubrics in September
2016 to assist LEAs in evaluating its strengths and weaknesses;
to assist a county superintendent of schools in identifying
school districts and charter schools in need of technical
assistance; and for the Superintendent to identify school
districts in need of intervention. As part of the evaluation
rubrics, the Board must adopt standards for school district and
individual school performance and expectations for improvement
regarding each of the state priority areas outlined in existing
law.
Proposed Law:
This bill requires the Board to adopt a statewide
accountability system that ensures alignment with the state
AB 2548 (Weber) Page 2 of
?
priorities established in current law and with the
accountability system requirements of the federal Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA).
In addition to satisfying federal law, the Board must adopt a
statewide accountability system that:
1. Aligns the state's framework of identifying and
supporting LEAs with the additional need to identify,
support, and improve the state's highest need schools. In
doing so the Board is required to:
a. Set clear, ambitious statewide standards for
performance and expectations for improvement toward
each of the key indicators for all students and for
each numerically significant subgroup. The bill
provides that, to comply with federal law, the
standards must be differentiated by subgroup so that
subgroups that start off from at a lower performance
level makes greater growth to achieve statewide
standards.
b. Establish a mechanism to:
i. Meaningfully differentiate the
performance of all public schools to identify
LEAs in need of intervention on an annual basis
based on outcomes for all students and for each
subgroup of students using multiple measures.
ii. Distinguish multiple levels of
performance for continuous improvement,
transparency, meaningful stakeholder engagement,
recognition, and support, including the
identification of: at least the lowest performing
five percent of all school receiving federal
Title I funds and all high schools failing to
graduate one-third or more of their students; all
schools in which any subgroup of students is
consistently underperforming; and all schools
AB 2548 (Weber) Page 3 of
?
where any one subgroup of students would lead
that school to be in the lowest five percent of
schools for students overall.
iii. Support parents in making informed
decisions on behalf of their children.
iv. Enable LEAs, the CDE, and the
Collaborative to identify schools for
recognition, support, and assistance, and ensure
that support and assistance is provided to at
least those in the lowest-performing five
percent.
v. Comply with all notification,
stakeholder engagement, school support, and
implementation activities required by federal
law.
2. Relies upon data from key indicators established
pursuant to the evaluation rubrics adopted by the Board.
At a minimum the key indicators must include, if not
already included by the Board, a measure of all of the
following:
a. Student achievement in at least in English
language arts, math, and science
b. Academic growth
c. Progress toward English proficiency
d. Chronic absenteeism
e. School climate.
AB 2548 (Weber) Page 4 of
?
Key indicators specific to high schools also include a
measure of graduation rates and a measure of college and
career readiness. Certain high school key indicators as
well as the performance of subgroups are required to
receive additional weight.
3. Provides the Collaborative, county superintendents of
schools, and the public with data to be used in a
multi-tiered system of review and assistance.
4. 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.
Staff
Comments: The actual costs attributed to this bill are
difficult to identify at this time as the net effect of the
bill's requirements is unclear. Some of the requirements in
this bill are consistent with recent Board actions, some preempt
decisions that have yet been made, or conflict with past
decisions. In addition, it is difficult to know if the
requirements in this bill will be inconsistent federal law as
federal regulations are still under development.
With regard to including specified key indicators in the state
accountability system, the Board included a high school college
and career readiness indicator, consistent with this bill. It
has also included chronic absenteeism, but there has been no
final decision on including this as a key indicator specific to
high school. In addition, this bill requires two separate key
indicators for student achievement in statewide assessments and
academic growth. However, the Board has adopted a state
indicator that combines student achievement, when available,
with a measure of individual student growth. Therefore, if
enacted, the Board would have to revisit this decision. Staff
notes that the new statewide science assessment is in
AB 2548 (Weber) Page 5 of
?
development, and no data are currently available to be included
in the indicator. Also, the Board has not yet taken action
relative to weighting certain key indicators and subgroup
performance as federal regulations are still being developed.
The major cost driver of this bill relates to the creation of a
data and reporting system that provides information on school
and school district performance that is displayed through an
electronic platform. It further specifies that parents and the
public are required to have the ability to easily access,
compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, student
performance results, and the progress made by schools and school
districts in reaching all of the state's priority areas. The
bill establishes the Legislature's intent that the web-based
data and analysis tools enable stakeholders to identify
strengths and weaknesses, identify inequities between schools
and subgroups of students across multiple measures, monitor
academic achievement and improvement, provide for meaningful
differentiation, and to allow users to download data and
reports.
Though this bill requires the Board to ensure the development of
this data and reporting system, the CDE is the entity with this
responsibility. CDE currently provides comprehensive data on
school, district, and statewide performance and the Budget Act
of 2016 includes funding for the San Joaquin County Office of
Education for the development of the evaluation rubrics, the
School Accountability Report Cards, and a data dashboard.
Existing data systems do not include the analytical and
reporting features required in this bill. Therefore it is
likely that significant resources would be needed to fulfill
these specifications. According to the CDE, it is unclear
whether this could be accomplished through enhancements to
existing systems or whether a new system would need to be
developed.
Finally, this bill could result in possible reimbursable state
mandate costs for county superintendents of schools to analyze
data related to the state priorities to align the level of
support and intervention provided to the needs of the LEAs.
Incremental costs beyond existing law are unclear as county
AB 2548 (Weber) Page 6 of
?
offices of education are currently required to provide technical
assistance under certain circumstances, including to any school
district that fails to improve student achievement across more
than one state priority for at least one student subgroup. The
evaluation rubrics will be used to assist county superintendent
of schools in identifying school districts and charter schools
in need of technical assistance. It is unclear how existing law
and this bill's requirement will interact and whether it will
create additional workload for county offices of education.
However, by specifically mandating this activity in statute, a
county office of education may be able to submit a claim for
reimbursement of related activities to the Commission on State
Mandates.
-- END --