BILL ANALYSIS
AB 296
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 296 (Solorio) - As Amended: April 20, 2009
SUBJECT : Supplemental educational services.
SUMMARY : Establishes requirements for local educational
agencies regarding offering supplemental educational services
(SES). Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires local educational agencies to provide at least two
methods by which parents or guardians of eligible pupils may
submit completed enrollment forms; and, specifies these
methods may include, but are not necessarily limited to, a
drop-off location, facsimile, postal mail, and through an
Internet Web site.
2)Requires local educational agencies to provide parents or
guardians of eligible pupils with information about the
availability of supplemental educational services through at
least two channels; and, specifies these may include, but are
not necessarily limited to, providing the pupil with
information, back-to-school presentations, school fairs,
postal mail, and telephone.
3)Specifies, if a local educational agency provides outside
entities access to school facilities before school, after
school, or both, the local educational agency shall permit
supplemental educational services providers the same access;
and, specifies those providers shall comply with the same
legal requirements and fee obligations with which all other
outside entities comply.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW :
1)Requires under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), local
educational agencies (LEAs) to provide students from
AB 296
Page 2
low-income families, who attend Title I schools that have been
identified for a second year of school improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring, the opportunity to receive
supplemental educational services from a state-approved
provider.
2)Defines "supplemental educational services" as tutoring and
other supplemental academic enrichment services that are
provided, in addition to instruction provided during the
schoolday and are high quality, research-based, and
specifically designed to increase academic achievement, as
specified.
3)Requires local educational agencies, state educational
agencies, and providers of supplemental educational services
to comply with certain requirements relating to the
administration of these supplemental educational services.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill requires school districts to provide
information to parents regarding supplemental educational
services (SES) through at least two channels and requires school
districts to accept SES enrollment forms by at least two
methods. The bill also requires local educational agencies
(LEAs) to permit SES providers access to school facilities if
they currently allow other entities access to their facilities.
These provisions are intended to provide greater information
flow to families of eligible students and enable services to
begin as quickly as possible for these eligible students.
According to the author, there are instances where parents who
have children in program improvement schools are not notified in
a timely fashion regarding their children's eligibility for
supplemental educational services (SES). In addition, the
inability of SES providers to gain access to school facilities
for delivery of their services often creates obstacles of access
and transportation for eligible students, particularly in rural
areas.
Background on Supplemental Educational Services (SES) . SES are
educational activities provided outside of normal school hours
that are designed to augment or enhance the educational services
provided during regular periods of instruction, such as tutoring
in specific subject areas and preparation for academic
AB 296
Page 3
achievement tests. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, LEAs are
required to provide students from low-income families, who
attend Title I schools that have been identified for a second
year of school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring,
the opportunity to receive SES from a state-approved provider.
Public and private nonprofit or for-profit providers may become
eligible to deliver SES upon being approved by state educational
agencies. In California, SES providers receive certification
from the State Board of Education.
LEAs are required to provide annual notice to parents of
eligible children about the availability of services and
information on approved providers. States must maintain a list
of approved providers across the state organized by the school
district or districts they serve. States must also promote
maximum participation by SES providers to ensure that parents
have as many choices as possible. LEAs will help parents
determine which provider best fits the needs of their child.
Providers are required to demonstrate that the services they
provide contribute to the increased academic proficiency of the
eligible children they serve, as measured according to state
standards, in order to retain their status as approved
providers.
Who is Eligible for SES? Eligible students are all students
from low-income families who attend Title I schools that are in
their second year of school improvement, in corrective action,
or in restructuring. Eligibility is not dependent on whether a
student is a member of a subgroup that did not make Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) or whether a student is in a grade that
takes the statewide assessments.
If the funds available are insufficient to provide SES to each
eligible student whose parent requests those services, an LEA
must give priority to the lowest-achieving eligible students.
In this situation, the LEA should use objective criteria to
determine which students are the lowest-achieving. For example,
the LEA may focus services on the lowest-achieving eligible
students in the subject area that resulted in the school being
identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
The services should be tailored to meet the instructional needs
of eligible students in order to increase their academic
achievement.
California Regulations on SES . At the March 2009 State Board of
AB 296
Page 4
Education (SBE) meeting, the board voted to send regulations on
supplemental educational services to a 45 day comment period.
This bill makes statutory changes to the regulations being
considered by the SBE. Is it appropriate for the Legislature to
add statutory language to the code and interject into an ongoing
regulatory process?
California Department of Education (CDE) Perspective . According
to CDE, the provision in the bill requiring LEAs to provide
information to parents about SES through multiple channels is
the state's current expectation of LEAs and it parallels common
practice in California. The US Department of Education has
provided guidance that directs LEAs to give notice to parents of
eligible students in the most effective way possible and LEAs
must provide evidence that they have met their responsibility to
notify parents of student eligibility. This evidence could
include signed responses from parents indicating they received
the notice.
According to CDE, the provision in the bill requiring LEAs to
give SES providers access to school facilities is also addressed
in existing federal guidance. Existing federal reports specify
that districts are encouraged to set uniform, district wide
policies regarding site access. Districts are also authorized
to limit provider access to campus if there is not enough space.
According to the author, some school districts do not allow SES
providers access to school facilities.
Federal Mandate vs. State Mandate . While supplemental
educational services are mandated as part of the federal No
Child Left Behind Act, would the provisions in this measure
create a state mandate eligible for state mandate reimbursement?
The requirements in the bill appear to exceed existing federal
regulations. The committee should consider whether the
provisions in the bill will be eligible for state mandate
reimbursement.
Rocket Learning supports the bill and argues, "As a
state-approved SES provider currently tutoring California
students, it has been our experience that parents of students
eligible for these extra tutoring services are often unaware of
the existence of, and the ability to enroll their child in, SES
- a mandatory program available to them under federal law. We
believe it is imperative that districts required to provide SES
should employ multiple strategies to ensure that parents receive
AB 296
Page 5
timely information regarding SES opportunities for their child.
This is consistent with the US Department of Education's goals
outlined in Giving Students Options, September 2007. It has
been our experience that some districts prohibit SES providers
from using school facilities. It is important for SES to be
convenient for parents. When districts establish rules
prohibiting SES providers from using district facilities, it
forces students to relocate immediately before or after school
and unnecessarily complicates the process for parents, by making
it logistically and cost-prohibitive."
Los Angeles Unified School District opposes the bill and argues,
"The availability of enrollment forms to anyone who asks has
already had a negative impact on staff time as we have spent
hours trying to find children in our database who aren't in the
District or who are not eligible for SES services. In addition,
it could allow providers to preprint their names on the forms
and have parents sign without explaining that there are 30, 40,
or 50 other choices for services, thereby eliminating parental
choice. Offering SES providers similar access to facilities if
outside entities are given access is only in line with federal
guidelines if a district does not encumber 100% of their money.
This will tie the hands of districts like Los Angeles with no
space for 60 providers on one campus and there is no fair method
to choose some providers and not all. This interferes with a
district's right to use its campus as it sees fit."
Committee Amendments : Staff recommends the bill be amended to
prohibit SES providers from pre-printing their company name on
student enrollment forms and from knowingly enrolling students
that are not eligible for SES. Staff recommends the bill
further be amended to clarify that districts may limit access to
facilities by SES providers if they do not have enough space at
individual school sites, upon school governing board action.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Rocket Learning
Opposition
Los Angeles Unified School District
AB 296
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087