BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1156
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 22, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
SB
1156 (Huff) - As Amended June 1, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
SUBJECT: School accountability: Open Enrollment Act:
low-achieving schools
SUMMARY: Makes changes to the Open Enrollment Act by replacing
the Academic Performance Index with new eligibility criteria for
identifying low-achieving schools; and deletes the requirement
that the list of low-achieving schools to be 1,000.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Deletes the existing definition of "low-achieving school" and
instead establishes the definition of low-achieving school to
mean either of the following, effective July 1, 2018, for
purposes of the Open Enrollment Act:
a) A school that is identified by the Superintendent of
Public Instruction (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:
SB 1156
Page 2
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 (CCEE),
as directed by the SPI.
2)Provides that a low-achieving school shall not include court,
community, community day schools, or charter schools.
3)Provides that a school district of enrollment shall ensure
that pupils enrolled 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, 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.
4)Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to complete an
SB 1156
Page 3
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.
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
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
SB 1156
Page 4
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 (EC) 48350, et seq.)
2)Under the District of Choice (DOC) authorization, established
by AB 19 (Quackenbush), Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993, a
school board may declare the district to be a DOC willing to
accept a specified number of inter-district transfers. A DOC
is not required to admit pupils but it is required to select
those pupils that it does elect to admit through a random
process that does not choose pupils based upon academic or
athletic talent. Either the district of residence or DOC may
prevent a transfer under this law if the transfer would
exacerbate racial segregation. Each DOC is required to keep
records of: 1) The number of requests granted, denied, or
withdrawn as well as the reasons for the denials; 2) The
number of pupils transferred out of the district; 3) The
number of pupils transferred into the district; 4) The race,
ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status and the district of
residence for each student in #2 and #3 above; and, 5) The
number of pupils in #2 and #3 above who are English Learners
or individuals with exceptional needs. The DOC program becomes
inoperative on July 1, 2017 and repealed on January 1, 2018.
(EC 48300-48316)
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). (EC 52074)
4)Authorizes the SPI to direct the CCEE to advise and assist a
SB 1156
Page 5
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)
FISCAL EFFECT: 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)
COMMENTS: The Open Enrollment Act was created during a time
when the State was competing for Federal funding called Race to
the Top. Despite making several changes to state law, California
was not awarded Race to the Top funding. The statutory changes
made at the time have continued despite the State's lack of
participation in the Race to the Top program. The Open
Enrollment program requires the SPI to create a list of the
1,000 lowest achieving schools based on the Annual Performance
Index (API) and requires that parents at those schools be
notified that their child attends a school on this list.
Students that attend the 1,000 lowest achieving schools are then
authorized to transfer to higher achieving schools. The State
has replaced the API with a new assessment system and the API is
SB 1156
Page 6
now outdated. The Open Enrollment program has largely been
duplicative of federal law which, until the recent
reauthorization of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),
allowed students who attend schools in program improvement to
transfer to higher achieving schools. Federal law no longer
specifies that students in low achieving schools must be allowed
to transfer, therefore this program is no longer a requirement
of federal law. For these reasons, the committee should consider
whether the Open Enrollment program needs updating, or whether
the program should be eliminated.
This bill changes the calculation of how the schools are
identified to participate in the Open Enrollment program.
Specifically, this bill provides that a low-achieving school is
a school that is identified in the lowest 5% of Title 1 schools,
has high dropout rates, 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).
According to the author, "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 out dated with
no new APIs 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 assessment 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.
SB 1156 updates the eligibility for additional public school
SB 1156
Page 7
options for students enrolled in persistently low performing
schools by maintaining the Open Enrollment Act, and referencing
definitions of persistently low performance in the newly enacted
federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and state Local
Control Funding Formula statutes as the criteria for defining
low performing schools. The Open Enrollment Act provides
students who are otherwise zip-code assigned to the lowest
performing schools a choice to attend a higher performing public
school even if the neighborhood school is persistently low
performing. Accordingly, SB 1156 helps the state protect
students' constitutional guarantee to equitable opportunity for
a quality public education in California."
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
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
SB 1156
Page 8
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.
Calculating the list of low achieving schools: Existing law
requires the SPI to create a list of 1,000 low achieving schools
and limits the number of schools identified in any one district
to 10%. This bill eliminates the requirement that the list be no
more than 1,000 schools and the bill eliminates the requirement
that no more than 10% of a school district's schools be
identified as low achieving. The committee should consider
whether to continue to limit the number of schools identified as
low achieving to 1,000. According to the author, the new
definition of low achieving school identifies approximately 355
schools. While the number of schools identified today may not
reach the 1,000 limit, this limit could be important in the
future. The committee should also consider whether to limit the
number of schools identified in a single school district to 10%.
Similarity to the District of Choice program: There are
safeguards in the District of Choice (DOC) program that are not
included in the Open Enrollment program, though these programs
are similar. The committee should consider whether it is
appropriate to continue a school choice program without
including the same safeguards as the DOC program, which include:
1)Requiring that communications to parents do not target
individual families or neighborhoods.
2)Requiring an annual audit of the random selection process and
communications to parents.
3)Requiring a sunset date for the program after the evaluation.
SB 1156
Page 9
4)Specifying explicitly that a district of enrollment may not
reject the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an
individual with exceptional needs as defined in EC Section
56026, and an English learner.
5)Requiring each district of enrollment to keep records of: 1)
The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as well
as the reasons for the denials; 2) The number of pupils
transferred out of the district; 3) The number of pupils
transferred into the district; and, 4) The race, ethnicity,
gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, free and reduced
priced meal eligibility, and the school district of residence
of each of the pupils described above.
6)Requiring the information listed above to be reported to the
governing board of the district of enrollment and to each
school district that is geographically adjacent to the
district of enrollment, the county office of education in
which the district is located, and the SPI in CALPADS or other
system.
7)Requiring the information listed above to be annually reported
to the Legislature and the Governor by the SPI.
8)Authorizing either a district of residence or district of
enrollment to limit the number of students transferring if it
would negatively impact a voluntary desegregation plan.
Charter Schools: The committee should consider whether to add
charter schools to the list of schools required to participate
in the open enrollment program. Existing law requires the list
of low achieving schools be based on the API Decile 1 rankings
from the 2008-09 school year. Of the 945 schools ranked in
Decile One based on the API in 2008-09, there were 103 charter
schools. This means that 103 of California's lowest achieving
charter schools will be excluded from the open enrollment
program and an equal number of higher achieving traditional
public schools will be required to participate in this program.
Since charter school pupils who leave a charter school only have
enrollment rights in their district of residence, this exclusion
will limit the opportunity for charter school students to move
to a higher-performing school if they choose to leave their low
performing (charter) school. There is no clear rationale for
SB 1156
Page 10
limiting the opportunity for charter school pupils to leave a
low-performing school, and treating charter pupils differently
than non-charter pupils in this respect.
Racial Segregation in Schools. According to an April 2016,
Government Accountability Office report entitled, Better Use of
Information Could Help Agencies Identify Disparities and Address
Racial Discrimination, "The percentage of K-12 public schools in
the United States with students who are poor and are mostly
Black or Hispanic is growing and these schools share a number of
challenging characteristics. From school years 2000-01 to
2013-14 (the most recent data available), the percentage of all
K-12 public schools that had high percentages of poor and Black
or Hispanic students grew from 9 to 16 percent, according to
GAO's analysis of data from the Department of Education
(Education). These schools were the most racially and
economically concentrated: 75 to 100 percent of the students
were Black or Hispanic and eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch-a commonly used indicator of poverty. GAO's analysis of
Education data also found that compared with other schools,
these schools offered disproportionately fewer math, science,
and college preparatory courses and had disproportionately
higher rates of students who were held back in 9th grade,
suspended, or expelled."
The committee should consider whether the Open Enrollment
program will exacerbate racial segregation in California schools
as limited evidence shows is happening with the similar District
of Choice program. The committee should consider whether the
program should be amended to provide some of the same safeguards
that currently exist in the District of Choice program or
whether the program should be eliminated.
Committee Amendments: Make the following substantive amendments
to the Open Enrollment program:
1. Reinstate the requirement in existing law that the list
of low achieving schools not exceed 1,000 and reinstate the
requirement that a local education agency shall not have
more than 10 percent of its schools on the list.
SB 1156
Page 11
2. Require districts of enrollment to ensure that
communications to parents do not target individual families
or neighborhoods and that any communication regarding
transferring into their district be translated into the
necessary languages for parents in the district of
residence pursuant to Section 48985.
3. Include charter schools on the list of schools required
to participate in the open enrollment program.
Require the Open Enrollment program contain all the same
safeguards provided in the DOC program:
4. Require each district of enrollment to keep records of:
1) The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as
well as the reasons for the denials; 2) The number of
pupils transferred out of the district; 3) The number of
pupils transferred into the district; and, 4) The race,
ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, free
and reduced priced meal eligibility, and the school
district of residence of each of the pupils described
above.
5. Require the information listed above to be reported to
the governing board of the district of enrollment and to
each school district that is geographically adjacent to the
district of enrollment, the county office of education in
which the district is located, and the SPI through CALPADS
or other system.
6. Require the information listed above to be annually
reported to the Legislature and the Governor.
7. Require this program be included in the district's
annual audit.
8. Include a July 1, 2022 sunset date for the program, to
coincide with the evaluation of the program.
9. Specify explicitly that a district of enrollment may not
reject the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an
individual with exceptional needs as defined in EC Section
56026, and an English learner.
10. Authorize a district of residence to limit the number of
students transferring if it would negatively impact a
voluntary desegregation plan.
SB 1156
Page 12
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
EdVoice
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916)
319-2087