BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1156| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 1156 Author: Huff (R) Amended: 6/30/16 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 SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 6/2/16 AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/29/16 - See last page for vote 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. Assembly Amendments specify that the list of low achieving SB 1156 Page 2 schools not exceed 1,000 schools; and, specifies that no more than 10% of schools in a local education agency shall be identified on the list of low achieving schools. The amendments also make other requirements for school districts participating in the Open Enrollment Act, as specified, including the requirement for communications to parents by school districts of enrollment to be factually accurate. ANALYSIS: 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 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.) SB 1156 Page 3 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 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 SB 1156 Page 4 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 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) 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 SB 1156 Page 5 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. 4) Specifies that the list of low achieving schools not exceed 1,000 schools; and, specifies that no more than 10% of schools in a local education agency shall be identified on the list of low achieving schools. 5) 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: SB 1156 Page 6 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. 6) Requires communications to parents by school districts of enrollment to be factually accurate and not target individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a child's actual or perceived academic or athletic performance or any other personal characteristic; and requires all communications from the school district of enrollment regarding the transfer opportunities pursuant to this article shall be available in all languages required for the school district of residence. 7) Specifies that a school district of enrollment shall not prohibit a transfer of a pupil based upon a determination by the governing board of that school district that the additional cost of educating the pupil would exceed the amount of additional state aid received as a result of the transfer. A school district of enrollment shall not reject the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs, as defined, or an English learner. 8) Authorizes, on July 1, 2018, a school district of residence, upon notification of the pupil's acceptance to the school district of enrollment, to prohibit the transfer of a pupil or limit the number of pupils so transferred if the governing board of the school district of residence determines that the transfer would negatively impact any of the following: SB 1156 Page 7 a) The court-ordered desegregation plan of the school district of residence. b) The voluntary desegregation plan of the school district of residence, consistent with the provisions of Proposition 209, an initiative measure adopted by the voters at the November 5, 1996, General Election. c) The racial and ethnic balance of the school district of residence, consistent with the provisions of Proposition 209, an initiative measure adopted by the voters at the November 5, 1996, General Election. 9) Requires each school district of enrollment to keep an accounting of all requests made for alternative attendance and records of all disposition of those requests; requires the data to be reported to the school board, the school boards of adjacent school districts, the county board of education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and, requires this data to be reported annually to the Legislature and Governor, as specified. 10)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 SB 1156 Page 8 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. 11)Extends the sunset date to July 1, 2022, and repeal date to January 1, 2023. 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 SB 1156 Page 9 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 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 Assembly Appropriations Committee, there would be administrative costs to the California Department of Education of approximately $230,000, starting July 1, 2018, to maintain a list of open enrollment schools, develop a template to assist districts with the collection and maintenance of data on transfers, and to comply with reporting requirements to the Legislature, Governor and LAO. Unknown, potentially reimbursable, state mandated costs for school districts of enrollment to track and report data on transfer requests and report information to their school board, county office of education and the SPI. Unknown costs to the LAO, likely in the tens of thousands, however, for existing staff to produce an SB 1156 Page 10 evaluation and recommendation of the Open Enrollment program. SUPPORT: (Verified8/29/16) EdVoice OPPOSITION: (Verified8/30/16) American Civil Liberties Union ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/29/16 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon Prepared by:Lenin DelCastillo / ED. / (916) 651-4105 8/30/16 14:15:09 **** END **** SB 1156 Page 11