BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Dede Alpert, Chair
1999-2000 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1504
AUTHOR: Escutia
AMENDED: April 13, 2000
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 26, 2000
URGENCY: Yes CONSULTANT:Diane Kirkham
SPECIAL NOTE: This bill, one of the Governor's 6 major
education bills this year, was discussed at an information
hearing held by the Committee on April 5, 2000. The bill
was subsequently amended on April 13, 2000 to reflect the
following changes: 1) Allows schools on multi-track year
round education schedules to count the number of AP courses
available on each track for the purposes of qualifying for
the new AP Grant Program; 2) Adds a 4th year to the AP
Grant Program, to be funded at $5000 per school;
3) Permits a school district that qualifies for first
priority under the AP Grant Program to also qualify for
first priority under the Governor's proposed Education
Technology Grant Program; 4) Includes feeder middle
schools in developing a pre-AP program; 5) Provides that
pre-AP programs shall include specified components; 6)
Allows high schools to utilize the services of county
offices of education for the purposes of participating in
the AP Grant Program; 7) Requires school districts to
notify parents of the availability of state funds to cover
the costs of AP examination fees; 8) Makes other
minor changes to the bill.
SUMMARY
This bill, an urgency measure, establishes the Advanced
Placement Challenge Grant Program.
BACKGROUND
The Advanced Placement (AP) program was established over 40
years ago by the College Board (a national nonprofit
organization) to provide high school students the
opportunity to take college-level courses. The College
Board provides secondary teachers with curriculum guides
SB 1504
Page 2
for 32 AP courses in 21 subject areas. At the end of the
AP course students may take a standardized test
administered by the Educational Testing Service which is
graded on a scale from 1 to 5 (5 is the highest score).
Grades of 3, 4, or 5 qualify students for credits and/or
placement into advanced courses at most of the nation's
colleges and universities. The student is charged a fee to
take the AP test, currently set at $76 per test.
In 1998, the Legislature enacted and the Governor signed SB
2216 (Escutia) to establish a 5 year pilot program to award
grants to school districts for the purpose of reducing the
AP exam fee to $5 for economically disadvantaged students.
Current law requires each school district, at the beginning
of the first quarter or semester, to notify parents of
specified rights and responsibilities.
ANALYSIS
This bill , an urgency measure:
1) Establishes the Advanced Placement Challenge Grant
Program to assist high schools in providing
college-level courses to interested and prepared
pupils.
2) Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) to administer the program beginning in
2000-2001.
3) Specifies that high schools may receive funding under
the grant program in the following priority order:
a) First, schools offering 3 or fewer AP
courses, or the case of multi-track schools, 3 or
fewer AP courses per track.
b) Second, schools not offering AP courses in
either math or science.
c) Third, schools with low college
participation rates.
d) Fourth, schools with a majority of pupils
who qualify for free or reduced price meals.
SB 1504
Page 3
4) Limits the maximum number of schools that may
participate in the program to 400 high schools.
5) Requires the SPI to award nonrenewable four-year
grants for the program in 2000-01 on a competitive
basis. The annual amounts of the grants are $20,000,
then $15,000, then $10,000 and finally $5000 over the
four-year life of the grant award.
6) Specifies that a school district that qualifies for
first priority under the AP Grant Program may also
qualify for first priority under the Governor's
proposed Education Technology Grant Program in order
to provide access to on-line AP courses, upon the
enactment of AB 1942.
7) Specifies that the grants shall be used exclusively
for:
a) Establishing, training and supporting
"vertical teams of teachers". (Defines "vertical
teams of teachers" as a group of teachers from
different grade levels in a given discipline.)
b) Purchasing instructional materials and
equipment.
c) Tutoring and instructional support services
for pupils, both in preparation for and during,
AP coursework.
8) Requires a high school that participates in the grant
program to:
a) Provide students with access to a minimum of
four AP courses in core curriculum areas by
2001-02.
b) Commit to increase the number of pupils in
each AP course who take the AP test to at least
50% or to a 10% increase, whichever is greater.
c) Ensure that pupils and parents are informed
about the school's effort to provide access to AP
courses.
SB 1504
Page 4
d) Utilize services under the Advancement Via
Individual Determination (AVID) program and
encourage students to utilize distance learning
options.
e) Include feeder middle schools in developing
a pre-AP program.
f) Pre-AP programs shall include specified
components.
9) Requires the SPI to contract for an independent
evaluation of the Advanced Placement Challenge Grant
Program and report findings by August 1, 2002.
10) Requires that the funds provided in the program will
supplement and not supplant existing programs and
services.
11) Allows high schools to utilize the services of county
offices of education for the purposes of participating
in the AP Grant Program;
12) Requires school districts, as a part of
already-required parent notifications, to notify
parents of the availability of state funds to cover
the costs of AP examination fees.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Sponsor
This bill is sponsored by Governor Gray Davis as part of
his 6-bill education package that accompanies his
2000-01 Governor's Budget.
SB 1504
Page 5
2) Funding
This bill does not contain an appropriation. However the
Governor proposes to fund this grant program with $8
million to be appropriated in the Budget Bill. If the
program is enacted it would also need an appropriation
of $6 million in 2001-02, $4 million in 2002-03 and $2
million in 2003-03, , for a 4-year program total of
$20 million. The bill proposes to offer nonrenewable
four-year grants, with $20,000 made available in the
first year, $15,000 in the second year, $10,000 in the
third and $5,000 in the fourth. It is not clear if
this is sufficient funding to accomplish the goals of
the program. The Administration has provided staff
with the following breakdown of a school's likely
first-year expenditures under the program:
Professional Development (5 teachers @ $1000 each
$5,000
Instructional Materials (2 courses @ $3000 each)
$6,000
Coordinator stipend
$5,000
Tutors (4 tutors @ $1000 each; $5.75/per hour)
$4,000
Total $20,000
The Governor's Budget also proposes increases to other
programs that are funded through the Budget Bill and
support the Administration's efforts to increase
access to AP courses:
a) An increase of $5 million for the
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID)
program, for a total program of $12 million.
AVID is a college readiness program for
underachieving students in middle and secondary
schools.
b) An increase of $3 million for the University
of California's project for the development of
on-line AP courses, for a total of $7 million.
c) An appropriation to the Office of Secretary
of Education of $500,000 to contract for services
SB 1504
Page 6
to assist school districts that do not currently
offer AP courses in developing options to ensure
access to such courses and to study the current
availability of AP courses. (The Governor's
Budget proposes no additional funds for the
Department of Education for administering the
Advanced Placement Challenge Program.)
3) Legislative Analyst Office Recommendations
The Legislative Analyst's Office finds that the proposal to
establish a $8 million Advanced Placement Challenge
Grant program is premature. The LAO indicates: "We
recommend that the Legislature adopt budget bill
language requiring the Office of the Secretary for
Education to submit a report addressing the problem of
access to Advanced Placement (AP) courses, including a
comprehensive solution. We further recommend that the
Legislature redirect $8 million for the AP grant
program to other legislative priorities, because the
grant funds are premature until the Secretary
completes his study, identifies the problem and
develops a plan to address the issue."
4) Why does it matter? The benefits of taking AP
courses.
AP courses give high school students significant advantages
in college admission and in college placement/credit.
University Admissions: The University of California and
the California State University offer extra grade
point credit for grades earned in AP courses. For
example, a student who earns an "A" in an AP course
receives 5 grade points, rather than 4; a student who
earns a "B" receives 4 grade points, rather than 3.
This advantage becomes especially important at the
most competitive universities. For example, the
average high school grade point average of the
entering freshman classes at both Berkeley and UCLA
exceeded 4.0, a feat achievable only with the boost
obtained through AP or other honors courses. This
practice first began in 1984.
College Placement and /or College Credit: Most colleges,
including UC and CSU, grant college credit and/or
SB 1504
Page 7
higher placement in the college curriculum for
students that receive a 3, 4 or 5 on AP exams. The
final decisions on the amount of college credit and
the level of placement in college courses appear to be
made by individual departments on each campus of UC
and CSU.
These admission and college credit/placement benefits have
led to significant growth in enrollment in AP courses
in the last decade. According to a report prepared by
the California State University Institute for
Education Reform entitled The Advanced Placement
Program - California's 1997-98 Experience, "The AP
program has grown dramatically in California in the
last decade. In 1988, 39,040 public high school
students took 56,668 AP exams. By 1998, these numbers
had grown to 87,683 students sitting for more than
145,000 exams."
5) Should it matter so much?
Although the growth in AP courses over the last decade has
occurred largely out of the limelight, a "conventional
wisdom" seems to be developing that says substantial
AP course taking is synonymous with a "high quality"
and "rigorous" high school. This line of thinking is
clearly evidenced in the recent Newsweek article
(March 13, 2000) "The 100 Best High Schools" that
ranks schools solely on the basis of the number of AP
(and IB) tests per graduating senior. But, is it in
the best interests of students to be pushing more and
more college-level work into the high schools? Or
have we gotten to this point because of perverse
incentives such as the college admission advantages
given for taking AP courses? Should we be focused
more on keeping kids from dropping out, getting kids
to complete the high school graduation requirements or
complete college entrance requirements? Do we need to
step back and examine this "conventional wisdom"
before we expect schools to offer more and more
college-level work as part of the high school
curriculum?
6) Availability of AP Courses
Despite the huge growth in AP course-taking in the last
SB 1504
Page 8
decade, California high schools vary widely in the
number of AP classes that are offered. In addition,
for those schools that offer AP classes, high schools
vary widely in the level of scores that their students
achieve on the AP exams. The Department of Education
reports that out of the over 800 regular public high
schools in California:
a) 243 high schools had 3 or fewer AP courses
in 1998-99 (thus qualifying for priority 1
funding under this bill).
b) Between 50 and 249 high schools do not offer
either AP math or science (thus qualifying for
priority 2 funding under the bill).
Generally speaking, the high schools with no AP
courses or few AP courses fall into 2 groups: small,
rural high schools and urban high schools, often with
disadvantaged populations. It is likely that very
different factors cause the limited availability of AP
courses in these two groups. In the case of small
rural schools, simple economies of scale prevent the
offering of the advanced courses. Whereas, in the
urban schools the overall student population may be
large, but too few students are sufficiently prepared
to take on the college-level work.
7) ACLU Lawsuit
In July 1999 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a
class action lawsuit, Daniel v. State of California,
on behalf of several students at Inglewood High School
against the state and the Inglewood School District
charging that the students were denied adequate and
equal opportunities to benefit from AP courses. The
lawsuit indicates that Inglewood High School offers
only 3 AP courses, whereas Beverly Hills High School,
for example, offers 14 AP courses. The lawsuit
further argues that students without sufficient access
to AP courses are disproportionately denied college
admission because of the weight placed on AP courses
in the college admission process. The lawsuit alleges
that the boosted grade point averages resulting from
AP course taking are "practically unattainable" for
students that attend school offering few or no AP
SB 1504
Page 9
courses. According to the ACLU, "The judge in the
case?has temporarily stayed all proceedings to permit
a legislative solution to the disparities in lieu of a
trial and ultimate judicial determination."
The ACLU has worked with Professor Jeannie Oakes from UCLA
and others to devise a suggested remedy. The
Committee heard a presentation from Dr. Oakes at its
information hearing on February 23, 2000. The
proposal presented to the Committee states: "...a
remedy to the inequalities highlighted in the Daniel
case must insure that all California high school
students have meaningful opportunities to enroll in AP
programs. However, simply requiring a minimum number
of AP courses at each school is not sufficient if
other conditions for success in these courses are not
met." The proposed remedy goes on to recommend a more
comprehensive and systemic reform of high schools with
disadvantaged student populations that the authors
estimate will cost $70 million per year over a 5-year
period.
8) Review Admission Practices of Public Universities?
It appears likely that the growth in AP enrollment has been
at least partially spurred by the college admission
advantage given to those that have taken AP courses.
Various civil rights groups have suggested eliminating
the grade point advantage given to such courses by the
University of California, particularly in the post
Proposition 209 era. In 1999, the Board of Regents
received, but tabled, a proposal from the UC Faculty
Senate to cut the grade point advantage given to AP
courses in half. Is it time to have a more in depth
review of the impact of the advantages given to AP
course takers in the UC and CSU admissions process?
Professor Oakes, in her presentation to the Committee,
recommended the establishment of a Commission on
California Public University Admissions to review and
recommend changes to the college admission practices
relative to AP courses.
9) Promote the Availability of Just AP, or all
Honors-Level courses?
UC and CSU grant extra grade point credit for four types of
SB 1504
Page 10
courses:
a) Advanced Placement; b) International Baccalaureate; c)
Honors courses approved by UC; and d) College courses
that are transferable to UC. This bill would offer
grants to increase the offerings of only one of these
types of "honors-level" courses. Staff recommends
that the author address whether the bill should be
broadened to offer grants to school
districts to increase the availability of any of the types
of honors-level courses that are accepted by UC and
CSU for extra grade point credit.
10) Interrelationship with the Governor's Education
Technology Bill?
The Administration has also proposed the establishment of a
new $175 million Education Technology Grant Program
(contained in AB 1942 - Reyes). The proposed
Education Technology Program would give first priority
to schools that currently offer no AP courses. (Since
all high schools in the state will have received
funding under the Digital High School Program by
2000-01, it is not clear what infrastructure needs
schools will have in order to access on-line AP
courses.) Schools would use the first priority
funding for equipment and wiring needed to access
on-line AP courses. The Administration estimates that
there are 73 regular high schools in the state that
offer no AP courses. Almost all of these schools are
small and rural. (Urban schools with disadvantaged
populations tend to offer a few, but a limited number
of AP courses.)
This bill gives first priority in qualifying for the AP
Grant Program to high schools that offer 3 or fewer AP
courses. The Department of Education estimates that
there are 243 regular high schools in the state that
offer 3 or fewer AP courses.
Recent amendments (page 6, lines 9 through 16) specify that
a school district that qualifies for first priority
under the AP Grant Program may also qualify for first
priority under the Governor's proposed Education
Technology Grant Program in order to provide access to
on-line AP courses. The use of the word "may" appears
to mean that first priority for the education
SB 1504
Page 11
technology funds may also NOT be granted to schools
that have first priority under the AP Grant Program.
Staff recommends that the word "may" on page 6, line
11, be changed to "shall" in order to ensure that all
schools that qualify for first priority status in the
AP Grant Program have equal access to the education
technology funding. Staff also notes that necessary
corresponding amendments have not yet been made to AB
1942.
11) Sunset Date?
The bill does not contain a sunset date, even though the
program appears to be only a four-year program. Staff
recommends that the bill be amended to include a
sunset date.
SUPPORT
None received on this version of the bill.
OPPOSITION
None received on this version of the bill.