BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 911
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
911 (Hertzberg)
As Amended August 15, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Education |7-0 |O'Donnell, Olsen, | |
| | |Kim, McCarty, | |
| | |Santiago, Thurmond, | |
| | |Weber | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonilla, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Obernolte, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood, | |
| | |McCarty | |
| | | | |
SB 911
Page 2
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
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)Repeals the sunset provision for 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.
3)Requires that information reported by the CDE about this
program be consistent with federal law regarding the privacy
of pupil information.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Although this bill extends the AIEC program indefinitely,
funding for the program is still subject to an appropriation
in the annual Budget Act. The 2016-17 Budget Act provides
$4.1 million (Proposition 98) for the program. This level of
support is likely to be ongoing.
2)Ongoing costs of at least $70,000 (General Fund) to maintain
the existing .6 full time equivalent (FTE) position at the CDE
SB 911
Page 3
to administer the AIEC program.
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.
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:
1)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.
2)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.
3)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
SB 911
Page 4
white students.
4)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.
5)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
to the Legislature on the AIEC program indicated the following
about the program:
1)There are currently 23 AIECs serving students in 19 counties.
2)In 2013-14, 2,850 students received services through the AIEC
program, representing 4% of the state's American Indian/Alaska
Native students.
3)Expenditures per student ranged from $596 to $4,783 per
student.
4)All AIECs reported that they provided academic services, with
SB 911
Page 5
particular emphasis on reading and mathematics. Over 92% of
the AIECs reported they provided summer recreational and
academic experiences to participants.
5)All AIECs reported that they provided programs that are
designed to improve the self-concept of participants.
6)Over 90% of the AIECs reported they provided programs designed
to increase the employment of American Indian adults.
7)All of the AIECs reported that they provided services to
American Indian students who are struggling in school.
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
SB 911
Page 6
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.
Analysis Prepared by:
Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN:
0004059