BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 460
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Allen |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 6, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: April 22, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Kathleen Chavira |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Pupils redesignated as fluent English proficient:
local control funding formula: ????..local
control and accountability plans
SUMMARY
This bill, until July 1, 2019, or whenever the state adopts
statewide English learner redesignation standards, whichever
comes first, requires that local educational agencies continue
to receive a percentage of supplemental and concentration grant
funding under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) for two
additional years after an English Learner (EL) student has been
reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP), and requires
that the local educational agency provide specified information
regarding these pupils in their Local Control Accountability
Plan (LCAP).
BACKGROUND
The 2013-14 budget replaced the previous K-12 finance system
with a new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). For school
districts and charter schools, the LCFF created base,
supplemental, and concentration grants in place of most
previously existing K-12 funding streams, including revenue
limits and most state categorical programs. County Offices of
Education (COEs) also receive base, supplemental, and
concentration grants and the LCFF creates separate funding
streams for oversight activities and instructional programs.
The base grant provides the same amount per Average Daily
Attendance (ADA) for all districts and varies according to four
SB 460 (Allen) Page 2
of ?
grade spans. A supplemental grant (equal to 20 percent of the
base grant for school districts and charter schools, 35 percent
of the base grant for COEs) is provided for each pupil who is
identified as either low income, as determined by eligibility
for free or reduced-price meals, an English learner (EL), or in
foster care. A concentration factor provides an additional 50
percent of the base grant for each pupil who is eligible for the
supplemental grant and who is in excess of 55 percent of the
district's or charter school's enrollment (35 percent of the
base grant for COEs). The formula uses an "unduplicated count,"
which means that pupils who fall into more than one category are
counted only once. (Education Code § 2574 and § 42238.02)
As part of the LCFF, school districts, COEs, and charter schools
are required to develop, adopt, and annually update a three-year
Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP), beginning on July
1, 2014, using a template adopted by the California State Board
of Education (SBE) on or before March 31, 2014. Current law
requires that the LCAP include a description of the annual goals
to be achieved for all students and subgroups of students in
each of eight areas of statutorily identified state priority.
Goals must also address any additional local priorities
established by the local governing board. (Education Code §
52060)
Both federal and State law require that each school district
with English language learners annually assess these students'
English language development until they are redesignated as
English proficient. The assessment, the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT), must be administered to all
students whose primary language is not English within 30
calendar days after they are enrolled in a California public
school for the first time, and annually thereafter during a
period of time determined by the Superintendent of Public
Instruction and the State Board of Education (SBE) until they
are reclassified as fluent English proficient.
Current law requires the California Department of Education
(CDE), with the approval of the SBE, to establish procedures for
conducting the CELDT and for the reclassification of a pupil
from English learner to English proficient. Current law
requires the reclassification procedures developed by the CDE to
use multiple criteria, including, but not limited to, all of the
following:
SB 460 (Allen) Page 3
of ?
1. An assessment of language proficiency.
2. Teacher evaluation, including, but not limited to, a
review of the pupil's curriculum mastery.
3. Parental opinion and consultation.
4. Comparison of the student's performance in basic skills
against an empirically established range of performance in
basic skills based upon the performance of English
proficient pupils of the same age that demonstrates whether
the pupil is sufficiently proficient in English to
participate effectively in a curriculum designed for pupils
of the same age whose native language is English.
(Education Code § 313)
ANALYSIS
This bill, until July 1, 2019, or until statewide pupil
redesignation standards are adopted, whichever comes first:
1. Expands the definition of "unduplicated pupil" to include a
pupil who is redesignated as Fluent English Proficient
(RFEP) and provides that the pupil shall count only once
for funding purposes.
2. Requires that a county office of education, a school
district, or a charter school receive 50 percent and 25
percent of the supplemental grant and the concentration
grant add on calculated for a pupil who is redesignated as
Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) for the first and second
fiscal years, respectively, after the redesignation.
3. Expands LCAP state priority reporting requirements
regarding English learners to include identification of any
specialized programs or services provided to RFEPs in order
for them to maintain proficiency in English and access the
common core
academic content standards and a broad course of study that
includes specified subject areas.
SB 460 (Allen) Page 4
of ?
4. Makes other technical and clarifying corrections.
STAFF COMMENTS
1. Need for the bill. According to the author, while the
Local Control Funding Formula provides supplemental and
concentration funding to meet the needs of English Learner
(EL) students, this additional funding could serve as a
disincentive to redesignate students as fluent in English.
Once an EL student is reclassified, an LEA will not receive
supplemental or concentration grant funding unless the
pupil is also low-income. The author is concerned that
this creates an unintended incentive for districts to
maintain students as ELs, rather than reclassify them as
fluent English proficient (RFEP).
2. Reclassification practices. As required under current law,
the State Board of Education has issued guidelines for
districts' use in determining reclassification. These
guidelines are not mandatory, and districts are authorized
to adopt local reclassification standards that differ from
the State Board's guidelines. Districts may set higher or
lower minimum scores on assessments and include other forms
of evidence, such as grades or scores on other tests, as
part of the reclassification decision. In the 2013-14
school year there were approximately 1.4 million English
learners in California public schools, constituting 22.7
percent of the total enrollment. Approximately 12 percent
of English Learner students were reclassified as English
proficient in 2013-14.
Several reports have recently been issued regarding the
reclassification practices of districts. These reports
have focused upon narrow cohorts of students, primarily
focusing upon larger urban districts and limiting research
to students identified as ELs in second grade. It is
unclear whether the policy recommendations in these reports
can be broadly applied to a population of ELs outside of
the more urban districts, and who enter the public school
system after second grade, as this type of comprehensive
information remains unavailable. It also remains unclear,
for the majority of EL students, what reclassification
criteria have any relationship to the successful transition
of English learners into classrooms and curricula that
SB 460 (Allen) Page 5
of ?
require English proficiency.
3. Related legislation. Current law, enacted by SB 1108
(Padilla, Chapter 434, Statues of 2012), requires the
California Department of Education (CDE), if state federal
or private funds are provided for this purpose, to review
and analyze the criteria, policies and practices that
school districts use to reclassify English learners and to
recommend any policy changes necessary to identify when
English learners are prepared for reclassification. The
CDE was required to issue a report of its findings,
research, analysis, recommendations, and best practices by
January 1, 2014, and by January 1, 2017, to issue an
updated report that reflects changes in analysis and
recommendations as the result of the adoption of the common
core standards and the adoption of a common core standards
aligned English language development test. (EC §313.5)
In response to the requirements of SB 1108, the CDE
contracted with the Public Policy Institute of California
(PPIC) and provided data from the California Longitudinal
Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) to conduct an
analysis of reclassification practices in California school
districts However, there is concurrence that the report
provided by the Public Policy Institute of California
(PPIC) did not provide sufficient analysis and information
to implement statewide policy regarding reclassification of
English learners. According to the California Department
of Education (CDE), conducting the comprehensive study
envisioned by the bill requires additional resources.
Staff notes that although the CDE requested funding through
the budget process to conduct the more extensive research
and analysis envisioned by SB 1108 (2012), no such funding
was proposed in the 2014-15 Budget.
In addition, SB 1108 (Padilla, 2014) proposed extension of
the deadline for the CDE to issue its report and added
RFEPs as a numerically significant pupil subgroup for the
purposes of the Academic Performance Index (API). SB 1108
was heard and passed by this Committee in March 2014 by a
vote of 9-0, but was subsequently held under submission in
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
4. Recent related reports. In January 2014, the Public Policy
SB 460 (Allen) Page 6
of ?
Institute of California (PPIC) issued a report,
Reclassification of English Learners (EL) in California
Schools, which provided a longitudinal analysis of the
transition from English learner to Reclassified Fluent
English Proficient (RFEP) in California school districts.
According to the report:
RFEP students not only outperform EL students, but also
often do as well as native English speakers when it comes
to measures of academic outcomes, such as standardized
tests and on-time grade progression.
A survey of school districts indicates that more than 90
percent of responding districts report using more demanding
reclassification criteria than are suggested by the State
Board of Education (SBE) guidelines.
Districts using more stringent reclassification criteria
have lower reclassification rates. However, using stricter
criteria is also associated with slightly better outcomes
(in terms of ongoing language proficiency, for example) for
RFEP students. Stricter criteria are also associated with a
greater likelihood of on-time grade progress among students
reclassified in the 8th grade.
In May 2014, PPIC issued Pathways to Fluency: Examining the
Link between Language Reclassification Policies and Student
Success, which examined reclassification policies and the
academic performance of ELs and former ELs in the two
largest California school districts, San Diego Unified and
Los Angeles Unified. This research was focused on students
identified as ELs in second grade, who remained ELs through
the end of 5th grade, and students who were reclassified by
the end of 5th grade. This research found that students
reclassified in elementary school have very strong academic
outcomes throughout middle and high school. Researchers
found no evidence that removal of language supports for
these reclassified English Learners (ELs) hurt their
academic progress relative to that of native English
speakers.
In both reports, researchers acknowledge that many elements
of EL instruction, funding and testing will be changing,
SB 460 (Allen) Page 7
of ?
that the criteria for EL reclassification will necessarily
change in the coming years, and that new reclassification
criterion will need to be crafted carefully and based upon
research and analysis.
5. Net effect? This bill adds Reclassified Fluent English
Proficient (RFEPs) to the definition of unduplicated pupils
and provides that the student may only be counted once for
funding purposes. According to a Senate Appropriations
Committee analysis of similar legislation last session, in
2013-14 there were 65,298 pupils statewide that were in the
first two years of RFEP, and were not low-income. These
students would have generated approximately $34.1 million
to $41.1 million in supplemental grant funding, depending
on their grade span distribution. If 50 percent of those
students were eligible to receive concentration grant
funding, the bill would result in an additional $50 million
to districts.
6. Related and Prior legislation.
RELATED LEGISLATION
SB 409 (De Leon) modifies the unmet reporting requirements
established by
SB 1108 (Padilla, Chapter 434, Statues of 2012) to
establish a new due date of January 1, 2017, and to
additionally require the review and analysis of the
reclassification activities used by a sampling of districts
to meet the eight state priorities in their local control
accountability plans (LCAPS) in relation to the education
of English learners. The bill also requires the California
Department of Education (CDE) to report on how
implementation of the eight state priorities in the
districts' LCAPs supports the transition of English
learners to classrooms and curricula that require English
proficiency.
PRIOR LEGISLATION
AB 1892 (Bocanegra, 2014) was essentially identical to this
bill when it was heard and passed by this Committee by a
vote of 7-0 on June 18, 2014.
AB 1892 was subsequently amended in the Appropriations
SB 460 (Allen) Page 8
of ?
Committee to delete the funding component but retain the
accountability and reporting requirements. AB 1892 was
never acted upon on the Senate Floor.
SB 344 (Padilla, 2013) proposed new requirements related to
the Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) that local
educational agencies (LEAs) are required to adopt beginning
July 1, 2014. Among other things, SB 344 added
reclassified ELs to the subgroups of pupils whose academic
achievement must be measured by the Academic Performance
Index (API) for accountability purposes. SB 344 was vetoed
by the Governor, whose veto message read, in pertinent
part:
This bill interferes with the work of the State Board
of Education as it implements, through an open and
transparent process, the Local Control Funding
Formula. Moreover, it contains provisions contrary to
the July budget agreement.
SUPPORT
Los Angeles Unified School District
The Education Trust West
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --