BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1156|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1156
Author: Huff (R)
Amended: 6/1/16
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 9-0, 4/13/16
AYES: Liu, Block, Hancock, Huff, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan,
Vidak
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/27/16
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen
SUBJECT: School accountability: Open Enrollment Act:
low-achieving schools
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill amends the Open Enrollment Act by replacing
the Academic Performance Index with new eligibility criteria for
identifying low-achieving schools. Specifically, this 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 (CCEE).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Establishes the Open Enrollment Act as follows:
SB 1156
Page 2
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
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
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
SB 1156
Page 3
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 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 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) Requests that the 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.
b) Assignment of an academic expert or team, or the CCEE,
to assist in identifying and implementing effective
programs that are designed to improve the outcomes for all
SB 1156
Page 4
student subgroups. (EC § 52071.5)
6)Authorizes the 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 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 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,
SB 1156
Page 5
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)
This bill:
1)Removes the existing definition of "low-achieving school"
under the Open Enrollment Act, effective July 1, 2018, which
means any school on the list created by the SPI ranked by the
API, as specified.
2)Establishes the definition of low-achieving school to mean
either of the following for purposes of the Open Enrollment
Act:
a) A school that is identified by the SPI or 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 Title I 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)Provides that a low-achieving school shall not include court,
community, or community day schools, or charter schools.
SB 1156
Page 6
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 a low-achieving school 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.
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.
5)Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to complete an
evaluation of the open enrollment program, as specified, and
to make recommendations on any additional or revised
eligibility criteria based on the state's new accountability
system adopted for purposes of complying with federal law,
including the use of local control funding formula
unduplicated subgroup criteria. Provides that the LAO may
also include recommendations on whether other open enrollment
program provisions should be altered, expanded, or deleted.
Requires the final evaluation report to be submitted to the
Legislature, Governor, and State Board of Education on or
before December 1, 2021, and for the SPI to provide the data
necessary to complete the report to the LAO by December 1,
2020, or on an otherwise agreed upon date between the SPI and
the LAO.
6)Requires the final evaluation report to be submitted to the
Legislature in conformance with Section 9795 of the Government
Code.
SB 1156
Page 7
Comments
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."
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 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.
State's evolving accountability system. The exact details of
SB 1156
Page 8
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 LEAs to evaluate their strengths,
weaknesses, and areas that require improvement, and also to
assist the SPI in identifying school districts for which
intervention is warranted.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Costs, potentially in the tens of thousands, to the
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) for existing staff to
produce an evaluation and recommendations for the program.
(General Fund)
Minor costs to California Department of Education (CDE) to
enter into a memorandum of understanding with the LAO
regarding data sharing. (General Fund)
SUPPORT: (Verified5/27/16)
EdVoice
OPPOSITION: (Verified5/27/16)
None received
SB 1156
Page 9
Prepared by:Lenin DelCastillo / ED. / (916) 651-4105
6/1/16 18:41:38
**** END ****