BILL ANALYSIS
AB 451
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 451 (De Leon) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
SUBJECT : Education finance: The Opportunity to Learn Block
Grant
SUMMARY : Makes changes in the support of and resources
provided to local educational agencies (LEAs) in corrective
action, in order to assist those LEAs in their improvement
efforts and in improving the academic achievement of PI schools
under their jurisdiction. Specifically, this bill :
1)Deletes the Early Warning Program established to identify
those LEAs that are in danger within two years of entering
Program Improvement (PI) status under the federal No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
2)Clarifies that the one-year, nonrenewable improvement grants
provided to LEAs identified for corrective action are to
assist the LEA in its improvement process, including improving
the academic achievement of schools under its jurisdiction
identified for PI under federal law.
3)Increases the per school grant award for the one-year,
nonrenewable improvement grants provided to LEAs identified
for corrective action by fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in
each of the three severity categories used to group LEAs so as
to tie the strength or approach of the corrective actions to
the need faced.
4)Requires that the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI)
and State Board of Education (SBE) consider whether an LEA
with schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5 received a one-year,
nonrenewable improvement grant when determining whether the
LEA be required to contract with a District Assistance
Intervention Team (DAIT) or other provider.
5)Requires, for the 2009-10 fiscal year only, that a LEA that
received a sanction prior to 2009 and received a one-year,
nonrenewable improvement grant be provided with an additional
one-year, nonrenewable improvement grant in the amount equal
to the difference between the amount previously approved and
AB 451
Page 2
the new amounts specified in 3) above.
6)Authorizes LEAs with schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5 to apply
for a one-year, nonrenewable improvement grant and to contract
with an outside entity, including a schoolsite assistance and
intervention team (SAIT); requires, as a condition of
receiving these funds, the LEA to:
a) Provide schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5 with funding to
implement technical assistance to improve achievement (with
a focus on subgroups), assess the current schoolsite plan
within 60 days of receiving funding, identify any
deficiencies that exist within operations of the
schoolsite, and include the district liaison team.
b) Establish a district school liaison team to coordinate
with schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5 on these improvement
activities, work with schoolsite staff, reexamine the
schoolsite plan for academic achievement, and ensure the
consistency of the assessment of the schoolsite plan.
c) Ensures that all pupils enrolled in schools in PI Year 4
or Year 5 continue to have the option to transfer to
another public school served by the LEA.
d) Ensures that all pupils enrolled in schools in PI Year 4
or Year 5 continue to have supplemental educational
services available to them.
7)Establishes that, subject to the availability of funds in the
Budget Act, the funding rate for the one-year, nonrenewable
improvement grants available to LEAs with schools in PI Year 4
or Year 5 be one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000)
per school identified as PI Year 4 or Year 5 in the LEA, and
requires that the CDE give first priority for funding to
schools in PI Year 5.
8)Authorizes an LEA, with schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5, to
provide one-year, nonrenewable improvement funds to PI schools
in Year 4 or Year 5 in order to allow the schools to provide:
a) Assistance to schoolsite staff in analyzing pupil
assessment data to improve academic achievement, with focus
on significant subgroups.
AB 451
Page 3
b) Professional development that is based on scientifically
based research, the state-adopted academic content
standards, and addresses the instructional needs of pupils,
with focus on English language learners and pupils with
special needs.
9)Defines, for the purposes of these provisions regarding LEAs
with schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5, LEA to include school
district, county office of education and direct-funded charter
school, to the extent that these entities serve pupils in
kindergarten or any of grades 1-12; also requires that these
provisions become operative only if an appropriation is made
for this purpose.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW , under NCLB:
1)Requires all states to implement statewide accountability
systems based on state standards in reading and mathematics,
annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual
statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of
students reach proficiency within 12 years.
2)Requires the state to annually review the performance of each
LEA receiving funding under Title I, and identify any LEA that
has not met its Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) criteria for
two consecutive years for PI.
3)Requires an LEA not meeting AYP criteria beyond those two
consecutive years, to provide certain types of required
services and/or corrective actions during each subsequent year
it is identified as PI.
4)Allows an LEA to exit PI, if it meets AYP for two consecutive
years.
EXISTING STATE LAW :
1)Authorizes the CDE and SBE to develop objective criteria by
which a LEA identified for corrective action and subject to a
sanction is to be evaluated to determine the pervasiveness and
severity of its problems, and thus type of sanction to be
imposed and the level of federal improvement funding to be
provided.
2)Subjects a LEA that is identified for corrective action under
AB 451
Page 4
NCLB to one or more sanctions, as recommended by the SPI and
approved by the SBE.
3)Allows the SPI and SBE to require, in addition to any approved
corrective action, an LEA to contract with a DAIT to provide
support for the LEA's instructional reform efforts.
4)Authorizes a LEA identified for corrective action to apply for
a one-year, nonrenewable grant of federal improvement funding
to assist in its improvement process.
5)Requires that the amount of the one-year, nonrenewable
improvement grant be based on whether the agency has extensive
and severe, moderate or minor performance problems, and the
number of schools in the LEA identified for PI.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown increased allocations of available
federal funds to LEAs that are identified for corrective action
and have schools in PI.
COMMENTS : NCLB establishes specific annual targets for both
participation in state testing and for academic achievement.
Any school or LEA not meeting those targets (either as a whole
or for any numerically significant subgroup) is deemed to not
have met AYP and enters PI status. A school or LEA not meeting
AYP criteria beyond two consecutive years (i.e., in PI Year 3)
is required to provide certain types of services to pupils
and/or to implement corrective actions specified by the SPI and
SBE during each subsequent year it is identified as PI. A
school or LEA is allowed to exit PI if it subsequently meets AYP
for two consecutive years. Currently LEAs that advance to PI
Year 3 are is subject to one or more of the following sanctions
as recommended by the SPI and approved by the SBE:
1)Replacing district personnel who are relevant to the
district's failure to make AYP.
2)Removing schools from the district's jurisdiction and
establishing alternative arrangements for governing and
supervising those schools.
3)Appointing, by SBE, a receiver or trustee to administer the
district's affairs in place of the county superintendent of
schools and the governing board.
AB 451
Page 5
4)Restructuring or abolishing the district.
5)In conjunction with another sanction, authorizing pupils to
transfer from a school operated by the district to a higher
performing school operated by another district and providing
them with transportation to those schools.
6)Instituting and fully implementing a new curriculum that is
based on state academic content standards.
7)Deferring programmatic funds or reducing administrative funds.
In addition to these sanctions the SPI may recommend, and the
SBE may approve, the requirement that an LEA contract with a
DAIT.
Ninety-seven California LEAs, ninety-six school districts and
one county office of education, reached the point in early 2008,
where corrective actions were applied. At its March 2008
meeting the SBE approved the SPI's recommendations with respect
to those LEAs, which provided an approach that used specific
criteria, based on the severity of the problems or reason for
failing to meet AYP, to categorize these LEAs into severe,
moderate or minor groupings. This approach was intended to tie
the strength or approach of the corrective actions to the need
faced by the LEA; sanctions applied to those 97 LEAs ranged from
assignment of a DAIT and appointment of a trustee (severe) to
the requirement that the LEA plan be amended to target those
issues that led to the AYP failure (minor). The CDE estimates
that an additional 50 LEAs in 2008-09 and 35 LEAs in 2010-11
will require corrective actions, and that more than half of all
LEAs will do so by 2012-13. CDE estimates that for the current
year there are 250 LEAs in PI status.
The SPI's recommendations were grounded in a March 2007 CDE
report to the SBE entitled, "Proposal for the Reauthorization of
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001". The CDE reported that
California had identified numerous districts under PI and
subject to corrective action, and that many more were in the
immediate pipeline. The proposal went on to make a number of
recommendations related to dealing with these districts and
related to the future reauthorization of NCLB. Those
recommendations included the following:
1)Given the large number of schools and districts in California
AB 451
Page 6
identified as in need of improvement, California needs
explicit flexibility within NCLB to develop a tiered system of
help (fiscal resources and technical assistance) based on
level of need. Schools and districts showing insufficient
growth over time should be the first focus of intervention and
corrective action.
2)California has begun to provide innovative district level
support to build district capacity for improving schools. The
state needs greater and more explicit flexibility to devise
its own corrective actions to supplement the NCLB district
level corrective actions to implement these support structures
while still holding districts accountable for results.
Consistent with the actions taken with respect to the 97 LEAs
earlier in 2008, the Legislature enacted AB 519 (Assembly
Committee on Budget), Chapter 757, Statutes of 2008, a trailer
bill to the Budget Act of 2008, which provided the authority to
allocate $112.7 million in federal funds through the
establishment of a funding formula for state intervention for
LEAs, who are in the third year of PI and facing corrective
actions under NCLB. This bill authorized the CDE and SBE to
develop objective criteria by which a LEA identified for
corrective action and subject to a sanction is to be evaluated
to determine the pervasiveness and severity of its problems and
thus the type of sanction or sanctions to be imposed; it also
authorized that LEA to apply for a one-year, nonrenewable grant
of federal improvement funding to assist in its improvement
process and to expend that grant funding over the time period
allowable under federal law. The grants are funded by federal
monies available for this purpose, including Title I set-aside
and school improvement grants. AB 519 established three levels
of grant, corresponding to the severe, moderate and minor
categories, and specified that a per school identified for PI
grant amount would be paid to LEAs identified for corrective
actions. Thus the LEA would receive a total grant equal to the
appropriate per school grant amount multiplied by the number of
PI schools in the LEA.
This bill eliminates the existing early warning system designed
to assist LEAs who are moving toward being identified for
corrective actions, and instead focuses resources on the LEAs
and schools in greatest need. The bill provides this focus by
increasing the per school amount provided in the one-year,
nonrenewable improvement grant available to LEAs in corrective
AB 451
Page 7
action, by establishing a process to provide resources to LEAs
with schools in PI Year 4 or Year 5 in order to assist those
LEAs in their improvement efforts, and by clarifying that
improvement funding provided to LEAs identified for corrective
action are meant to assist the LEA in its improvement process,
particularly in improving the academic achievement of PI schools
under its jurisdiction.
Assembly fiscal staff report that in 2008-09, California
received approximately $1.8 billion in federal Title I funds; of
this amount, four percent or approximately $70 million is Title
I set-aside funding dedicated by the federal government for
improving schools and LEAs in PI status. In addition, the state
received $16.6 million in federal funding in 2007 for PI schools
under the new School Improvement Grant (SIG). The recently
passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
included approximately $1.5 billion for Title I to support
supplemental services for needy pupils; this will include an
expected $45 million in Title I "set-aside" and approximately
$380 million in SIG funding in addition to the annual
allocations already mentioned.
According to the author, "California has a unique opportunity
with base federal Title I "set-aside" funding and ARRA (i.e.,
both Title I and SIG) to provide PI schools in year four and
five with additional resources to gain technical assistance to
improve academic achievement. This bill implements a structure
that provides federal funding to LEAs with PI schools in year
four and five to reassess their schoolsite plans and make
recommendations to improve academic achievement. Likewise, the
measure establishes a structure for LEAs to work collaboratively
with these schools in this process."
Committee recommendations: As more information about future
federal funding, including funding provided under ARRA, becomes
available and more discussion about this bill takes place,
additional policy questions in this area will arise and this
bill will continue to evolve. Committee staff recommends that
the Committee, should it choose to pass this bill, seek a
commitment from the author to continue to involve the Committee
and its staff in discussions about this bill as the bill moves
forward.
Related legislation: AB 518 (Mendoza), pending in Assembly
Appropriations, requires a school assistance and intervention
AB 451
Page 8
team (SAIT) and a district assistance and intervention team
(DAIT) to possess a high degree of knowledge, skills, and
expertise in meeting the curriculum and instructional needs of
prescribed pupil groups. AB 683 (Chesbro), pending in Assembly
Education, creates an urgency statute that provides a one-year,
non-renewable federal improvement grant to local education
agencies (LEAs) that are identified for corrective action and
sanctions under the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, but
that have no schools in Program Improvement (PI) status.
Previous legislation: AB 519 (Assembly Committee on Budget),
Chapter 757, Statutes of 2008, a trailer bill to the Budget Act
of 2008, provides statutory authority to allocate $112.7 million
in federal funds through the establishment of a funding formula
for LEAs PI Year 3 status and facing corrective actions under
NCLB; also authorizes the CDE and SBE to develop objective
criteria by which a LEA identified for corrective action and
subject to a sanction is to be evaluated to determine the
pervasiveness and severity of its problems, the type of sanction
to be imposed, and the level of grant to be funded. AB 2531
(Mendoza), held in the Senate Appropriations Committee in 2008,
was substantially similar to AB 518 (Mendoza), currently pending
in the Assembly. SB 606 (Perata), failed Senate concurrence
with Assembly amendments in 2008, would have made changes to the
process whereby California local education agencies (LEAs) are
identified for Program Improvement (PI) corrective actions under
the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and appropriated
$47 million in federal funds for purposes of the bill. SB 1074
(Senate Committee on Budget), died on the Assembly Floor in
2008, was substantially similar to AB 519 with respect to the PI
provision.
AB 953 (Coto), Chapter 513, Statutes of 2005, amends the State
program to support LEAs and schools in PI. AB 2066 (Steinberg),
Chapter 579, Statutes of 2004, establishes a federally required
assessment and intervention process to assist school districts,
county offices of education and certain charter schools that are
in need of program improvement under NCLB.
AB 2066 (Steinberg), Chapter 579, Statutes of 2004, provides
additional funding to school districts for schools identified
for PI and revises the provisions required for a school to exit
the High Priority Schools Grant Program for Low Performing
Schools. AB 312 (Strom-Martin), Chapter 1020, Statutes of
2002, establishes the School System of School Support (S4) and
allocates federal and state funding for the purposes of school
AB 451
Page 9
sanctions related to the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming
Schools Program (II/USP) and federal law.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of California School Administrators
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087