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