BILL ANALYSIS
AB 451
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 451 (De Leon)
As Amended June 1, 2009
Majority vote
EDUCATION 11-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Nestande, |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, |
| |Ammiano, Arambula, | |Ammiano, |
| |Buchanan, Carter, Eng, | |Charles Calderon, Davis, |
| |Garrick, Miller, Solorio, | |Duvall, Fuentes, Hall, |
| |Torlakson | |Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |John A. Perez, Price, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, Audra |
| | | |Strickland, Torlakson, |
| | | |Krekorian |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes changes in the support of and resources provided to
local educational agencies (LEAs) in corrective action, in order to
assist in their improvement efforts and in improving the academic
achievement of schools under their jurisdiction. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Deletes the Early Warning Program established to identify LEAs in
danger of entering Program Improvement (PI) status under the
federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
2)Clarifies that a one-year, nonrenewable improvement grant
(Improvement Grant) provided to an LEA identified for corrective
action are to assist the LEA in its improvement process, including
improving the academic achievement of its schools identified for
PI.
3)Increases the per school grant award for an Improvement Grant
provided to an LEA identified for corrective action by $50,000 in
each of the three severity categories used to group LEAs to tie
the strength of the corrective actions to need.
4)Requires that the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI)
consider whether an LEA with schools in PI Year 4 or 5 received an
Improvement Grant, when recommending sanctions or whether the LEA
AB 451
Page 2
be required to contract with a District Assistance Intervention
Team (DAIT) or other provider to the State Board of Education
(SBE).
5)Requires, for fiscal year (FY) 2009-10 only, that a LEA that
received a sanction prior to 2010 and received an Improvement
Grant be provided with additional funds equal to the difference
between the amount previously approved and the new amounts
specified in 3) above.
6)Authorizes LEAs, not in corrective action, with schools in PI Year
4 or 5 and beyond to apply for an Improvement Grant and to
contract with an outside entity, including an approved 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 5 and beyond 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 5 and beyond on these improvement
activities, work with schoolsite staff, reexamine current
schoolsite conditions and efforts to improve school
performance, and ensure the consistency of the assessment of
the schoolsite plan.
c) Ensures that all pupils enrolled in schools in PI Year 4 or
5 and beyond continue to have the option to transfer to another
public school served by the LEA, and 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 Improvement Grant available
to LEAs with schools in PI Year 4 or 5 and beyond be $150,000 per
school identified as PI Year 4 or 5 and beyond in the LEA, and
requires that the CDE give first priority for funding to schools
in PI Year 5, with a minimum of 85% of the grant utilized to
improve academic achievement in those schools in PI Year 4 or 5
and beyond.
AB 451
Page 3
8)Authorizes an LEA, with schools in PI Year 4 or 5 and beyond, to
provide Improvement Grant funds to PI schools in Year 4 or 5 and
beyond 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.
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 "LEA with schools in PI Year 4 or 5 and beyond" to include
a 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.
10)Requires, as a condition of apportionment, LEAs receiving an
Improvement Grant to provide annual reports of specified
evaluation data as requested by the SPI.
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; also requires each 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.
2)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 PI year, and
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
AB 451
Page 4
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 NCLB
to one or more sanctions, as recommended by the SPI and approved
by the SBE; also 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.
3)Authorizes a LEA identified for corrective action to apply for an
Improvement Grant to assist in its improvement process, and
requires that the amount of the 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 : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
one-time federal fund costs of approximately $169 million in FY
2009-10 and $99 million in FY 2010-11 to the CDE to implement this
measure.
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 or sanctions specified by the SPI and SBE during
each subsequent year it is identified as PI. In addition to these
sanctions the SPI may recommend, and the SBE approve, the
requirement that an LEA contract with a DAIT. A school or LEA is
allowed to exit PI if it subsequently meets AYP for two consecutive
years.
Ninety-seven California LEAs, 96 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.
AB 451
Page 5
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). CDE
estimates that an additional 50 LEAs in 2008-09 and 35 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.
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 LEAs to apply for an Improvement Grant 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 Improvement Grant available to LEAs in
corrective action, by establishing a process to provide resources to
LEAs with schools in PI Year 4 or 5 and beyond 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
AB 451
Page 6
under its jurisdiction.
Assembly fiscal staff report that in 2008-09, California received
approximately $1.8 billion in federal Title I funds; 4%,
approximately $70 million, of which is Title I set-aside 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."
Related and previous legislation: AB 683 (Chesbro), pending in
Assembly Education, creates an urgency statute that provides a
one-year, non-renewable federal improvement grant to LEAs that are
identified for corrective action and sanctions under NCLB, but that
have no schools in PI status. 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 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
AB 451
Page 7
that are in need of program improvement under NCLB.
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0001234