BILL ANALYSIS
AB 400
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 400 (Nunez)
As Amended June 1, 2007
Majority vote
EDUCATION 7-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Mullin, Brownley, Coto, |Ayes:|Leno, Caballero, Davis, |
| |Eng, Hancock, Karnette, | |DeSaulnier, Huffman, |
| |Solorio | |Karnette, Krekorian, |
| | | |Lieu, Ma, Nava, Solorio, |
| | | |Feuer |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Garrick, Huff, Nakanishi |Nays:|Walters, Emmerson, La |
| | | |Malfa, Nakanishi, Runner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) to incorporate previously specified and additional
measures of performance into the Academic Performance Index
(API), using the best available data and commencing with fiscal
year (FY) 2009-10. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes the current requirement that the SPI add high school
graduation rates to the API for schools with any of 8th
through 12th grades, time certain, such that these measures
must be added by the FY 2009-10.
2)Deletes the requirement that attendance rates be incorporated
into the API.
3)Requires the SPI to incorporate the rates at which pupils are
offered and complete a course of study that fulfills
University of California and California State University
admission requirements and at which pupils are offered and
complete a course of study that provides the skills and
knowledge necessary to attain entry-level employment upon
graduation from high school into the API by FY 2009-10 for
schools with any of 8th through 12th grades.
4)Specifies the weighting of components of the API to be 50% on
achievement tests and 50% on the elements listed in #1) and 3)
AB 400
Page 2
above; the two elements in #3) above shall receive equal
weight and the rate at which pupils meet both shall be given
additional weight.
EXISTING LAW requires:
1)The SPI to develop the API to measure the performance of
schools, and to include a variety of indicators in that
measure, including, but not limited to, achievement test
results, attendance rates, and graduation rates; this statute
was enacted in 1999.
2)School districts to offer to all otherwise qualified pupils in
grades 7-12 a course of study fulfilling the requirements and
prerequisites for admission to California's public
institutions of postsecondary education, and to offer to those
same pupils a course of study that provides an opportunity to
attain entry-level employment skills in business or industry
upon graduation from high school.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)General Fund (GF) administrative costs to the SPI, likely in
excess of $300,000, to collect indicators regarding
entry-level employment. These costs include collecting the
information, coordination with other state departments, and
constructing a data system that allows for the transfer of
information.
2)Potential, unknown GF Proposition 98 costs, of at least
$50,000, to local education agencies, to the extent that local
education agencies do not already collect this data.
COMMENTS : Only achievement test results are currently
incorporated into the API.
Arguments in support would suggest that having an API that
focuses solely on achievement test results is too narrow and
does not reflect information about student outcomes (e.g.,
dropout and graduation rates, college readiness, preparation for
the workplace) that is important in measuring the performance of
districts, schools and subgroups. Perversely, increases in
dropouts could easily lead to an increase in test scores and the
AB 400
Page 3
API for a given school or district, yet this may not be
reflective of an increase in performance within that school or
district.
Opponents argue that including data on dropouts, graduation
rates, and the availability of course offerings that fulfill
admission requirements to California's public universities will
skew the emphasis of the API toward high schools, resulting in
the focusing of more resources at that level to the detriment of
elementary and middle schools. Since the Legislature can target
the use of resources by grade span as well as by API ranking,
this effect, to the extent that it does exist, could be easily
moderated.
Though inclusion of graduation rates in the API is current law,
opponents argue that data on graduation rates are not well
grounded and that it is unclear how the state would collect data
on courses of study fulfilling university admission requirements
or preparing students for the workplace. In fact, this bill
only makes the currently required inclusion of graduation rates
time certain; also information on student course-taking that
fulfills university admission requirements is already measured
and reported annually on every School Accountability Report
Card. In addition, the bill provides detailed direction on the
measurement of the extent to which schools offer a course of
study that provides the skills and knowledge necessary to attain
entry-level employment.
With the exception of attendance rates the data elements
currently included in the API, as well as those proposed by this
bill, focus on student, school and district outcomes. Deletion
of attendance rates, as proposed, would eliminate this
exception.
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0001292