BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
SB 911
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 22, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
SB
911 (Hertzberg) - As Amended June 16, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
SUBJECT: California American Indian education centers
SUMMARY: Deletes the January 1, 2017 repeal of the California
American Indian Education Center (AIEC) program thereby
extending the operation of the program indefinitely.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Deletes the January 1, 2017 sunset of the AIEC program thereby
extending the operation of the program indefinitely.
2)Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to
continue to report on the evaluation of the program every five
years, starting in January 2021, and to make this information
available to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of
the Legislature.
EXISTING LAW:
SB 911
Page 2
1)Establishes the AIEC program to provide community-based
educational resource centers to American Indian students,
parents, guardians, and public schools in order to promote the
academic and cultural achievement of American Indian students.
2)Requires each Center to submit an annual report to the CDE and
requires the report to include appropriate data that reflects
each Center's ability to:
a) meet its stated objectives
b) measure pupil academic performance
c) meet the continued educational and cultural needs of the
community that the Center serves
3)Requires the CDE, by January 1, 2011 and again by January 1,
2016, to report consolidated results for all AIEC programs and
supply information that is required for a comprehensive
evaluation of those results, and make recommendations for
program improvement.
4)Sunsets the AIEC program on January 1, 2017.
5)Establishes within the CDE an American Indian Education Unit,
to provide technical support and administration of the AIEC
program.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, the Budget Act of 2015 provides $4.1 million
Proposition 98 for this program and removing the AIEC program's
statutory sunset will likely result in similar annual costs,
indefinitely. The CDE indicates that it currently spends about
$77,000 General Fund between two positions to administer this
SB 911
Page 3
program. If this bill were enacted, this support would continue
to be needed.
COMMENTS:
Need for the bill. According to the author, while American
Indian student performance has improved in recent years,
American Indian students continue to perform below state
averages at all levels of schooling. The American Indian
Education Centers, established in the 1970's, have a long
history of offering educational and cultural support to this
group of students. By eliminating the sunset on this program,
this bill aims to ensure that American Indian students continue
to receive services provided through AIEC programs.
Demographics of American Indian students in California.
According to CDE's 2016 report to the Legislature on the AIEC
program, as well as information maintained on its website
(except where noted):
California schools enrolled 37,000 American Indian/Alaska
Native students during the 2014-15 school year, representing
0.6% of total enrollment.
This enrollment number represents the number of students who
reported American Indian as their sole race; those indicating
more than one race were not included in this number.
California has third largest population of American Indian
students in the country (CDE) but a below average percentage
enrollment of American Indian students (National Center for
SB 911
Page 4
Education Statistics).
The enrollment of American Indian/Alaska Native students has
declined significantly in the last fifteen years, from a high
of 53,000 (.9% of enrollment) in 2001-02 to the current
enrollment of 37,000 (.6% of enrollment).
Enrollment of American Indian students is more concentrated in
rural areas. While the number of American Indian students is
highest in large population centers such as Los Angeles and
San Diego, some rural areas have higher numbers and
percentages of students. For example, rural and sparsely
populated Humboldt County has American Indian enrollment
(1,754) exceeding that of Los Angeles Unified School District
(1,309), the second largest school district in the country.
While statewide American Indian enrollment is just over one
half of one percent, in Humboldt County American Indian
students comprise nearly 10% of enrollment.
32.1% of California American Indian/Alaska Native children
living in regions of 10,000 or more are living in poverty.
Data show achievement gap between American Indian students and
their peers. Data from the CDE suggest that there is a
significant achievement gap between American Indian students and
their peers, and that this gap may be growing:
On the 2015 administration of the California Assessment of
Student Performance and Progress, (CAASPP) test of English
language arts, 33% of American Indian/Alaska Native students
scored at "met standard" or above, compared to 61% of their
white peers.
SB 911
Page 5
On the 2015 administration of the CAASPP) test of mathematics,
22% of American Indian/Alaska Native students scored at "met
standard" or above, compared to 49% of their white peers.
On the 2013 English language arts test, 47% of American
Indian/Alaska Native students scored at proficient or higher,
compared with 72% of white students. On the mathematics
assessment, 42% scored at this level, compared with 62% of
white students.
While it is not possible to directly compare the CAASPP
assessments with the state's former assessments, the
California Standards Tests (CSTs), it is notable that the gap
between American Indian students is wider on current
assessments. Compared to achievement on the CSTs, the
achievement gap reflected in the 2015 CAASPP assessments was
11 percentage points larger in English language arts, and 2
percentage points larger in mathematics.
The cohort graduation rate for the class of 2014 for American
Indian/Alaska Native students was 71%, compared to 87% of
white students. American Indian/Alaska Native students had
the second lowest graduation rate of any ethnic group, and the
second highest annual dropout rate (4.4%).
CDE 2016 report describes services provided. CDE's 2016 report
SB 911
Page 6
to the Legislature on the AIEC program indicated the following
about the program:
There are currently 23 AIECs serving students in 19 counties.
In 2013-14, 2,850 students received services through the AIEC
program, representing 4% of the state's American Indian/Alaska
Native students.
Expenditures per student ranged from $596 to $4,783 per
student.
All AIECs reported that they provided academic services, with
particular emphasis on reading and mathematics. Over 92
percent of the AIECs reported they provided summer
recreational and academic experiences to participants.
All AIECs reported that they provided programs that are
designed to improve the self-concept of participants.
Over 90 percent of the AIECs reported they provided programs
designed to increase the employment of American Indian adults.
All of the AIECs reported that they provided services to
American Indian students who are struggling in school.
SB 911
Page 7
CDE recommendations for the AIEC program. In its 2016 report
the CDE made the following recommendations for the AIEC program:
Expand the program to meet the needs of all 38,616 American
Indian K-12 students in California.
Include data on student participation in AIECs, as well as
metrics for associated student outcomes, in state data systems
and projects, including the California Longitudinal Pupil
Achievement Data System, the California Healthy Kids Survey,
and CDE's Smarter Balanced Assessment System.
Provide funding to expand the provision of services to
American Indian parents to pursue on-site programs and
trainings or obtain referrals to trainings that will prepare
them to successfully join California's competitive workforce.
Create an American Indian Education Unit within the CDE, as
required in statute.
The CDE should collaborate with other state agencies that
serve American Indian students and their families, including
the California Department of Social Services, the California
Department of Public Health, and the California Employment
Development Department.
SB 911
Page 8
CDE report lacks outcome information. Current law requires the
each AIEC program
annually submit a report to the CDE that includes data that
reflects each center's ability to meet its stated objectives,
measure pupil academic performance, and meet the continued
educational and cultural needs of the community that the center
serves. Current law requires the CDE, by January 1, 2016, to
report consolidated results for all centers and supply
information that is required for a comprehensive evaluation of
those results, and make recommendations for program improvement.
The CDE reports that up until the recession these reports
included outcome data for students participating in the program.
However, in 2009 the AIEC program became part of categorical
budget flexibility, and as a result the Centers did not have to
comply with the program's statutes, including the requirements
to report outcome data to the CDE. CDE curtailed its monitoring
because compliance with statutes was not required, and it did
not conduct the last required, which was due in 2011. In 2013,
the AIEC program was one of the few programs which was not
eliminated in the establishment of the Local Control Funding
Formula. Current law program requirements are in effect.
2016 report contains useful information on activities conducted
through the AIEC program (shown above). However, with the
exception of one statement about attendance rates for students
participating in the program (92%), it does not include
information on the center's "ability to meet its stated
objectives, measure pupil academic performance, and meet the
continued educational and cultural needs of the community that
the center serves." As a result, is it not possible for the
Legislature to determine whether the Centers are meeting their
identified goals.
SB 911
Page 9
Staff recommends that the bill be amended to require the AIEC
program report to include information on each center's progress
toward meeting its stated goals, and that results reported by
the CDE conform to federal student privacy law.
Policy issues for the Legislature to consider. CDE's report on
the AIEC program raises a number of policy considerations
regarding American Indian students:
Does the state's identification criteria for American Indian
students significantly underrepresent the actual population of
students? As noted above, American Indian students are
identified for purposes of education programs only if they
indicate American Indian as their sole race.
According to the United States Census Bureau, on the 2010
Census nearly half of all American Indians identified
themselves as of more than one race (2.5 million single race,
2.3 million more than one race). The Census Bureau also noted
that American Indians and Alaska Natives have the highest rate
of reporting more than one race after Native Hawaiians, and
that the percentage of American Indians indicating more than
one race is outpacing those who indicate only one. This
definition also appears to be misaligned with the federal
definition used to identify students for purposes of the Title
VII Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education
program of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
This is particularly salient question given the steep decline,
SB 911
Page 10
noted above, in the number of students identified as American
Indian in the last fifteen years, from 53,000 in 2002 to
37,000 in 2015.
Does the small and diffuse population of American Indian
students, especially given current identification criteria,
reduce local accountability for these students? Current law
requires that school districts monitor and work to improve the
academic performance of ethnic subgroups of students through
their Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs). The
enrollment threshold for these subgroups is 30 students in a
district. Given the small and declining number of American
Indian students (especially given current identification
criteria), and the large number of small school districts in
the state, is this group of students too small to count?
For example, San Mateo County school districts have a total
enrollment of 169 American Indian students. But among its 24
school districts, only one district has enrollment (of 30 or
more) constituting a subgroup for accountability purposes.
Santa Cruz County's 12 districts enroll 135 students, but none
of those districts have enrollment of 30 or more American
Indian students.
Should AIEC program be expanded to serve more than 4% of
eligible students? The CDE, in its 2016 report to the
Legislature, recommended that the AIEC program be expanded to
serve all eligible students. Any such future decision is
likely to involve review of outcomes for students
SB 911
Page 11
participating in the current program, but such information
appears to be lacking at the state level. In a related
recommendation, the CDE proposed that outcome data for
students participating in the AIEC program be included in
state data systems and projects, including the California
Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System, the California
Healthy Kids Survey, and CDE's Smarter Balanced Assessment
System.
Should the state restore the American Indian Education Unit
within the CDE, as established by statute? Current law
establishes an American Indian Education Unit within the CDE
to provide technical assistance and oversight for the AIEC
program, led by a manager appointed by the Superintendent of
Public Instruction. According to the CDE, prior to the
recession and associated budget cuts and categorical program
flexibility, the department was staffed with a manger and two
program staff to oversee the AIEC program. They currently
have a .6 position to run the program. In its 2016 report to
the Legislature the CDE recommended the reestablishment of the
American Indian Education Unit as created in statute.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (sponsor)
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Bishop Indian Education Center
SB 911
Page 12
California Teachers Association
Campo Band of Mission Indians
Fernandeņo Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
Foothill Indian Education Alliance, Inc.
Four Winds of Indian Education, Inc.
Grindstone Indian Rancheria
Indian Action Council of Northwestern California
Lake County Citizen's Committee on Indian Affairs
Local Indians for Education, Inc.
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Northern California Indian Development Council, Inc.
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Pechanga Band of Luiseņo Indians
SB 911
Page 13
Resources for Indian Student Education, Inc.
Rincon Band of Luiseņo Indians
Rincon Indian Education Center
Roundhouse Council Indian Education Center
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseņo Indians
Southern California American Indian Resource Center
Southern California Tribal Chairmen's Association
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson
Sycuan Band of Kumeyaay Nation
Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations
Tule River Indian Tribe of California
Several individuals
SB 911
Page 14
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916)
319-2087