BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                              Senator Carol Liu, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:             SB 1156              
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Huff                                                 |
          |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
          |Version:   |March 28, 2016                          Hearing      |
          |           |Date:     April 13, 2016                             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:     |Yes             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|Lenin Del Castillo                                   |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          
          Subject:  School accountability:  Open Enrollment Act:   
          low-achieving schools


           SUMMARY
          
          This bill amends the Open Enrollment Act by replacing the  
          Academic Performance Index with new eligibility criteria for  
          identifying low-achieving schools.  Specifically, the bill  
          provides that a low-achieving school is either a school that is  
          identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the  
          State Board of Education for comprehensive support and  
          improvement, as specified, or a school that is receiving  
          mandatory assistance by the California Collaborative for  
          Educational Excellence. 

           BACKGROUND
          
          Existing law:

             1)   Establishes the Open Enrollment Act as follows:  

                   a)         Allows the parent of a pupil attending a  
                     school identified by the Superintendent of Public  
                     Instruction (SPI) as "low-achieving" to submit an  
                     application for the pupil to attend another school  
                     within the same district or transfer to another  
                     school district (school district of enrollment).  A  
                     list of 1,000 "low-achieving schools" ranked by  
                     increasing Academic Performance Index (API) is  







          SB 1156 (Huff)                                          Page 2  
          of ?
          
          
                     identified by the SPI each year.

                   b)         Provides that a school district of  
                     enrollment may adopt specific written standards for  
                     acceptance and rejection of transfer applications,  
                     including consideration of the capacity of a program,  
                     class, grade level, or school building, or adverse  
                     fiscal impact.  

                   c)         Prohibits a school district of enrollment  
                     from considering a pupil's previous academic  
                     achievement, physical condition, and proficiency in  
                     the English language, family income or any of the  
                     individual characteristics set forth in Section 200  
                     of the Education Code, and shall ensure that pupils  
                     are enrolled in a school with a higher API than the  
                     school in which the pupil was previously enrolled.  

                   d)         Requires that pupils are selected through a  
                     random, unbiased process, except that pupils applying  
                     for transfer are assigned specific priorities, with  
                     the first priority given to siblings of children who  
                     already attend the desired school and second priority  
                     for pupils transferring from a program improvement  
                     school ranked in decile 1 on the Academic Performance  
                     Index (API).  (Education Code § 48350, et seq.)    

             2)   Authorizes inter-district transfers known as "school  
               districts of choice" in which the governing board of a  
               school district may declare a district to be a district of  
               choice that is willing to accept a specified number of  
               inter-district transfers.  A district of choice is not  
               required to admit pupils but the pupils that it does elect  
               to admit must be selected through a random process that  
               prohibits enrollment based on academic or athletic  
               performance.  School districts of choice must give priority  
               for attendance to siblings of children already in  
               attendance in that district.  A district of choice may  
               reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that  
               pupil would require the district to create a new program to  
               serve that pupil, but prohibits a district of choice from  
               rejecting the transfer of special needs pupils, individuals  
               with exceptional needs, and English learners.  Districts of  
               choice are required to collect specific data about the  








          SB 1156 (Huff)                                          Page 3  
          of ?
          
          
               students who transfer to their district and report that  
               data to surrounding districts and the state.  These  
               provisions are currently scheduled to become inoperative on  
               July 1, 2017. 
          (Education Code § 48300, et seq.)

             3)   Establishes the California Collaborative for Educational  
               Excellence (CCEE) for the purpose of advising and assisting  
               school districts, county superintendent of schools, and  
               charter schools in achieving the goals set forth in a local  
               control and accountability plan (LCAP).  (Education Code §  
               52074)

             4)   Requires the county superintendent of schools to provide  
               technical assistance, including any of the following, if  
               the county superintendent does not approve an LCAP or  
               annual update of a school district, or if the governing  
               board of a school district requests technical assistance:

               a)        Identification of the school district's strengths  
                    and weaknesses in regard to the state priorities.

               b)        Assignment of an academic expert or team to  
                    assist the school district in identifying and  
                    implementing effective programs that are designed to  
                    improve the outcomes for all student subgroups.

               c)        Request that the Superintendent of Public  
                    Instruction (SPI) assign the CCEE to provide advice  
                    and assistance to the school district.  
                    (EC § 52071)

             5)   Requires the SPI to provide technical assistance,  
               including any of the following, if the SPI does not approve  
               an LCAP or annual update of a county office of education,  
               or if the county board of education requests technical  
               assistance:

                  a)        Identification of the county board of  
                    education's strengths and weaknesses in regard to the  
                    state priorities.











          SB 1156 (Huff)                                          Page 4  
          of ?
          
          
                  b)        Assignment of an academic expert or team, or  
                    the California Collaborative for Educational  
                    Excellence (CCEE), to assist in identifying and  
                    implementing effective programs that are designed to  
                    improve the outcomes for all student subgroups.  (EC §  
                    52071.5)

             6)   Authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction  
               (SPI) to direct the CCEE to advise and assist a school  
               district, county superintendent of schools, or charter  
               school in any of the following circumstances:

                  a)        If the governing board of a school district,  
                    county board of education, or governing body or a  
                    charter school requests the advice and assistance of  
                    the CCEE.

                  b)        If the county superintendent of schools  
                    determines, following the provision of technical  
                    assistance, that the advice and assistance of the CCEE  
                    is necessary to help the district or charter school  
                    accomplish the goals described in the local control  
                    and accountability plan (LCAP).

                  c)        If the SPI determines that the advice and  
                    assistance of the CCEE is necessary to help the school  
                    district, county superintendent of schools, or charter  
                    school accomplish the goals set forth in the LCAP.   
                    (EC § 52074)

             7)   Requires the governing board of each school district and  
               each county board of education to adopt an LCAP, and to  
               update the plan annually.  Existing law requires LCAPs to  
               include both of the following:

                  a)        A description of the annual goals, for all  
                    students and each subgroup of students, to be achieved  
                    for each of the state priorities and for any  
                    additional local priorities identified by the  
                    governing board.  

                  b)        A description of the specific actions the  
                    school district will take during each year of the LCAP  
                    to achieve the goals, including the enumeration of any  








          SB 1156 (Huff)                                          Page 5  
          of ?
          
          
                    specific actions necessary for that year to correct  
                    any deficiencies in regard to the state priorities.   
                    (EC § 52060 and § 52066)

             8)   Requires the State Board of Education to adopt  
               evaluation rubrics, by October 1, 2016, for all of the  
               following purposes:

                  a)        To assist a school district, county office of  
                    education or charter school in evaluating its  
                    strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require  
                    improvement.

                  b)        To assist a county superintendent of schools  
                    in identifying school districts and charter schools in  
                    need of technical assistance, and the specific  
                    priorities upon which the technical assistance should  
                    be focused.

                  c)        To assist the SPI in identifying school  
                    districts for which intervention is warranted.  (EC §  
                    52064.5)

             9)   Requires the evaluation rubrics to reflect a holistic,  
               multidimensional assessment of school districts and  
               individual schoolsite performance and include all of the  
               state priorities.  Existing law requires, as part of the  
               evaluation rubrics, the State Board of Education to adopt  
               standards for school district and individual schoolsite  
               performance and expectations for improvement in regard to  
               each of the state priorities.  (EC § 52064.5)

            ANALYSIS
          
          This bill:

          1)   Removes the existing definition of "low-achieving school"  
               under the Open Enrollment Act, effective July 1, 2017,  
               which means any school on the list created by the  
               Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) ranked by the  
               Academic Performance Index (API), as specified.  

          2)   Establishes the definition of low-achieving school to mean  
               either of the following for purposes of the Open Enrollment  








          SB 1156 (Huff)                                          Page 6  
          of ?
          
          
               Act:

                    a)             A school that is identified by the SPI  
                    and the State Board of Education for 
                    comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to the  
                    accountability system requirements of the federal  
                    Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as  
                    amended by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act  
                    (Public Law 114-95), including all of the following: 

                    i)             A school identified as being in the  
                  lowest performing five percent of 
                         all schools.

                    ii)            A high school that fails to graduate  
                  one-third or more of its pupils.

                    iii)           A school subject to a mandatory  
                  targeted support and improvement 
                         plan.

                    b)             A school receiving mandatory assistance  
                    from the California Collaborative 
                    for Educational Excellence, as directed by the SPI.

          3)   Removes the existing prohibition in which charter schools,  
               and court, community, or community day schools shall not be  
               included on the list of schools eligible for the Open  
               Enrollment Act.

          4)   Provides that a school district of enrollment shall ensure  
               that pupils enrolled pursuant to standards adopted pursuant  
               to this section are enrolled in a school that is not  
               identified as being low-achieving and are selected through  
               a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of  
               whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based on his or  
               her individual academic or athletic performance, or any of  
               the other characteristics set forth, except that pupils  
               applying for a transfer shall be assigned priority for  
               approval, as follows:

                    a)             First priority for the siblings of  
                    children who already attend the desired school.









          SB 1156 (Huff)                                          Page 7  
          of ?
          
          
                    b)             Second priority for unduplicated  
                    pupils, as specified, transferring from a  
                    low-achieving school.

                    c)             If the number of pupils who request a  
                    particular school exceeds the number of spaces  
                    available at that school, a lottery shall be conducted  
                    in the group priority order to select pupils at random  
                    until all of the available spaces are filled.   

          STAFF COMMENTS
          
          1)   Need for the bill.  According to the author's office, "the  
               Academic Performance Index (API), along with a specified,  
               sometimes confusing legislatively mandated calculation has  
               been the previous method for identifying the 1,000  
               low-achieving schools whose enrollment assignment would  
               trigger a student's eligibility for Open Enrollment.  The  
               last published list of 1,000 is outdated with no new API's  
               being produced in the last two years.  And, some schools  
               objected to the current formula, which resulted in some of  
               the lowest-performing schools in California not being on  
               the list at all.  With the state adoption of a new system  
               called the California Assessment of Student Performance and  
               Progress (CAASPP), and the temporary and possibly permanent  
               hiatus on the publication of a new API, there is an  
               interest in using updated definitions and information more  
               accurately reflecting the concept of persistently low  
               school performance.  The API is no longer being updated and  
               the last published list is based on the old STAR Program  
               instead of the CAASPP scores." 

          2)   Federal Every Student Succeeds Act.  The Every Student  
               Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorizes and updates the  
               Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was signed into law  
               on December 10, 2015.  The 2016-17 school year is a  
               transition year for local educational agencies (LEAs), as  
               most of the provisions of ESSA will take effect in the  
               2017-18 school year, including the new accountability  
               provisions.  One notable change under ESSA is the  
               elimination of the requirement for LEAs to provide  
               low-income students attending Title I schools in Program  
               Improvement year 2 and beyond with supplemental educational  
               services and public school choice and spend a portion of  








          SB 1156 (Huff)                                          Page 8  
          of ?
          
          
               their Title I funds for these purposes.  In eliminating  
               these provisions, the ESSA will allow LEAs the flexibility  
               to choose what services and activities will be provided to  
               students using Title I funds.  Another key difference under  
               ESSA is that states will have the ability to create their  
               own accountability system based on multiple measures and  
               not just on test scores.  States will be required to  
               identify their lowest-performing schools-those falling in  
               the bottom five percent.  However, there will be a reduced  
               federal role in determining interventions, leaving it up to  
               states to decide.     

          3)   State's evolving accountability system.  The exact details  
               of the state's new accountability system have not been  
               finalized, yet major themes have been determined, including  
               ensuring that the new system emphasizes a culture of  
               continuous support and on-going learning.  And with the  
               enactment of ESSA, the state will have the opportunity to  
               streamline state and local requirements into a single,  
               coherent accountability and continuous improvement system.   
               A critical component of the accountability system will be  
               the evaluation rubrics, which the State Board of Education  
               is required to adopt by October 1, 2016.  The rubrics are  
               intended to serve several purposes, including assistance  
               for local educational agencies (LEAs) to evaluate their  
               strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement,  
               and also to assist the Superintendent of Public Instruction  
               (SPI) in identifying school districts for which  
               intervention is warranted. 

          4)   Committee amendments.  In light of the recent changes in  
               federal law as well as the state's evolving accountability  
               system, staff recommends several amendments to this  
               measure, some of which are either technical or conforming  
               to federal law, while others are more substantive and  
               provide the state additional flexibility in determining its  
               own eligibility criteria upon adoption of the  
               accountability system.

               a)        With the evolving nature of the state's  
                    accountability system, it is premature to amend the  
                    eligibility criteria for the Open Enrollment Act?   It  
                    may be prudent to wait until after the state's  
                    adoption of a new accountability system and more  








          SB 1156 (Huff)                                          Page 9  
          of ?
          
          
                    specifically, how that system will identify schools in  
                    need of support or intervention.  It is possible that  
                    a more appropriate method of identifying low-achieving  
                    schools (for purposes of the Open Enrollment Act)  
                    could result.  However, the bill proposes eligibility  
                    criteria that are derived from new federal Every  
                    Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requirements, which appear  
                    to be reasonable because it is expected that the state  
                    will adopt a more streamlined and coherent  
                    accountability system, rather than having two separate  
                    state and federal accountability structures.  To  
                    ensure an opportunity for the state to utilize its own  
                    criteria to develop the list of eligible schools that  
                    may result from its adoption of a new accountability  
                    system, staff recommends that the bill be amended to  
                    require the SPI to make recommendations on any  
                    additional or revised eligibility criteria for the  
                    Open Enrollment Act based on the new accountability  
                    system no later than one year after adoption,  
                    including the use of Local Control Funding Formula  
                    unduplicated subgroup criteria.  

               b)        In February 2009, the American Recovery and  
                    Reinvestment Act was passed, which among other things,  
                    established $4 billion for one-time state incentive  
                    grants known as Race to the Top (RTTP).  One of the  
                    eligibility requirements for RTTP is identifying  
                    persistently lowest-achieving schools in the state and  
                    requiring them to implement one of four intervention  
                    models, which include closing a school, converting a  
                    school to a charter school, and replacing a principal  
                    and other staff.  When the Legislature passed and the  
                    Governor signed SBX5  4 (Romero, Chapter 3, Statutes  
                    of 2010), which established the Open Enrollment Act  
                    program, part of the rationale was that it would  
                    enable the state's Race for the Top (RTTP) application  
                    to be more competitive.  

                    As indicated under comment No. 2, the new federal ESSA  
                    eliminates the requirement for local educational  
                    agencies to provide low-income students attending  
                    Title I schools in Program Improvement year 2 and  
                    beyond with the public school choice option.  To the  
                    extent that part of the rationale for establishing the  








          SB 1156 (Huff)                                          Page 10  
          of ?
          
          
                    Open Enrollment Act was in response to federal law at  
                    the time and now that ESSA has changed some of those  
                    provisions, the Committee may wish to revisit the  
                    state's public school choice options.   Therefore,  
                    staff recommends that the bill be amended to require  
                    the Superintendent of Public Instruction to complete  
                    the evaluation of the Open Enrollment Act specified in  
                    Education Code Section 48360 and provide that it may  
                    also include recommendations on whether to continue  
                    the program in light of recent changes to federal law.  
                         

               c)        The accountability provisions of the Every  
                    Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) will not take effect until  
                    the 2017-18 school year.  While the State Department  
                    of Education (SDE) anticipates it will begin  
                    identifying the lowest five percent of schools during  
                    that school year, it is unclear when the SDE will have  
                    completed the list. The bill's provisions would become  
                    operative, July 1, 2017, and specifies that enrollment  
                    applications would be due by January 1st, so to the  
                    extent that the list has not been completed by this  
                    date, the bill's effective date may not be practical  
                    to implement.  For this reason, staff recommends that  
                    the bill's operative date be amended to July 1, 2018.   
                     

               d)        Staff also recommends that the bill be amended to  
                    clarify that the list of the bottom five percent of  
                    schools be applied to only Title I schools, not all  
                                                                                 schools, to be consistent with ESSA.  Staff further  
                    recommends that the bill be amended to prohibit  
                    charter schools, and court, community, or community  
                    day schools from being included on the list of  
                    eligible schools, to be consistent with existing Open  
                    Enrollment Act provisions.    

          5)   Suspension of the API.  The Academic Performance Index has  
               been suspended for several years now and in its absence,  
               the SDE has not compiled a new list of eligible schools for  
               the Open Enrollment Act.  It is unclear at the local level  
               if school districts are continuing to use this "outdated"  
               list.









          SB 1156 (Huff)                                          Page 11  
          of ?
          
          
          6)   Program evaluation.   The Open Enrollment Act has been  
               operative for approximately six years.  An evaluation of  
               the program by the Superintendent of Public Instruction was  
               due to the Legislature, Governor, and SBE by October 1,  
               2014, and was to include the changes in academic  
               achievement of pupils that transfer, fiscal and  
               programmatic effects on school districts, and demographic  
               and socioeconomic characteristics of pupils that transfer.   
               However, the evaluation was predicated upon federal funds  
               being appropriated for that purpose and that never  
               materialized.  

          7)   Related legislation.

               SB 1432 (Huff) repeals the sunset date of the District of  
               Choice program thereby extending the operation of the  
               program indefinitely.  This bill was heard by and passed  
               this Committee on April 6, 2016, by a vote of 9-0.   

          8)   Previous legislation.

               SB 451 (Huff, 2013), proposed to expand the Open Enrollment  
               Act to authorize the parent of a pupil, regardless of  
               whether the pupil attends a "low-achieving school", to  
               submit an application for the pupil to attend another  
               school within the same district or to a school outside  
               their district of residence.  SB 451 was heard by this  
               Committee on April 10, 2013 and failed passage, by a vote  
               of 2-4. 

               SBX5 4 (Huff, 2010), Chapter 3, Statutes of 2010,  
               established the Open Enrollment Act to allow any pupil in a  
               low-achieving school, as defined, to transfer to another  
               school in the district or any school outside of their  
               district of residence.  

               SB 680 (Romero), Chapter 198, Statutes of 2009, extended  
               the sunset date of the District of Choice program to July  
               1, 2016.

            SUPPORT
          
          EdVoice









          SB 1156 (Huff)                                          Page 12  
          of ?
          
          
            OPPOSITION
           
           None received.

                                      -- END --