BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 451
AUTHOR: De Leon
AMENDED: June 1, 2009
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: July 15, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:James Wilson
SUBJECT : Public Schools Accountability Program
SUMMARY
The bill increases grant amounts available to school
districts, county offices of education and charter schools
that have been identified under federal law for corrective
action, and expands eligibility for grants to districts that
have schools that have been identified for corrective action
for several years, even though the districts themselves have
not been identified for corrective action.
BACKGROUND
Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, also
known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) schools and
districts must make Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the
goal of all students reaching state-defined proficiency
levels by 2013 - 2014. Schools and school districts that
accept federal compensatory education funding under Title I
of the ESEA that fail to meet AYP targets for two consecutive
years enter Program Improvement (PI). Upon entering PI, both
schools and districts must conduct a self assessment and
develop a reform plan with the help of a technical assistance
provider. Program Improvement districts receive technical
assistance through a regional support system, the Statewide
System of School Support (S4). In turn, districts provide
technical assistance and support to PI schools.
When districts fail to meet performance targets after being
in PI for two years, the State Board of Education is required
to impose one of the following corrective actions:
1. Defer programmatic funds or reduce administrative
funds.
AB 451
Page 2
2. Institute a new curriculum.
3. Replace school district personnel.
4. Remove schools from jurisdiction of school district
and establish other public governance supervision.
5. Appoint a trustee in place of the superintendent of
school board.
6. Abolish or restructure the school district.
7. Authorize students to transfer to other school
districts.
When schools fail to meet performance targets after being in
program
improvement (PI) for two years, school districts are required
to impose one of the following corrective actions:
1. Replace responsible staff.
2. Implement new curriculum.
3. Significantly decrease management authority at school
level.
4. Appoint an external expert to advise the school.
5. Restructure internal organization of the school.
If PI schools fail to meet performance requirements after
entering corrective action, districts must prepare a
restructuring plan that must be implemented within one year.
Options include:
1. Reopen school as a charter.
2. Replace most of the school staff.
3. Hire private management company to operate school.
4. Turn the operation over to the State Department of
Education.
5. Other major restructuring.
BothTitle I, set-aside funding and School Improvement Grants
(SIGs) are available to support school improvement efforts.
However, the two funding sources have different requirements.
States are required to set-aside 4 percent of their Title I
grant to support school improvement efforts, including the
S4.
However, if the state determines that available funding
exceeds identified school improvement needs, federal law
allows the state to allocate excess funds using the Title I
AB 451
Page 3
basic formulas. The SIG funds are somewhat more restrictive,
in that funds cannot be used for statewide technical
assistance. Grants also are subject to minimum ($50,000 per
PI school) and maximum ($500,000 per PI school) amounts.
In 2008-09, a budget trailer bill, AB 519 (Chapter 757 of
2008) authorized the allocation of $112.7 million of federal
SI and Title I set-aside funds to school districts and county
offices that are in corrective action.
Tier 1: Districts with the most severe problems are
assigned a District Assistance and Intervention Team
(DAIT) and receive $150,000 per PI school.
Tier 2: Districts with moderate problems must
contract with a state-approved DAIT and receive $100,000
per PI school.
Tier 3: Districts with minor problems must contract
with an external technical assistance provider and
receive $50,000 per PI school.
At this time 142 districts and 5 county offices of education
have been identified for corrective action, and an additional
35 districts are expected to enter corrective action in
2009-10.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Increases the per school grant award for an Improvement
Grant provided to a school district, county office or
charter school (Local Educational Agency or "LEA")
identified for corrective action by $50,000 in each of
the three tiers, so that:
a) LEAs with severe problems receive $200,000 per
PI school.
b) LEAs with moderate problems receive $150,000
per PI school.
c) LEAs with minor problems receive $100,000 per
PI school.
AB 451
Page 4
2) Allows LEA's that already received Improvement Grants at
the lower per school rates set by SB 519 to receive the
additional $50,000 increments in 2009-10.
3) Authorizes LEAs, not in corrective action, with schools
in Year 4 or 5 (or later) of program improvement (PI) to
apply for a one-time Improvement Grant of $150,000 per
school provided that, as a condition of receiving funds,
the LEA must:
a) Ensure that a minimum of 85 percent of the
one-time grant is used for technical assistance
activities to improve the academic achievement of
pupils at the schools in year 4 or 5 of PI. The
remaining 15 percent may be used for assistance to
any PI schools in the district.
b) Provide schools in year 4 or 5 of PI with
funding to implement technical assistance to
improve academic achievement, with focus on
significant subgroups, pursuant to federal law.
c) Establish a district school liaison team to
coordinate with schools in year 4 or 5 of PI to
improve academic achievement.
d) Assess, in concert with the district liaison
team and within 60 days, the schoolsite plans of
schools in year 4 or 5 of PI to identify program or
operational deficiencies and make recommendations
to address deficiencies in academic achievement,
with focus on significant subgroups. For PI schools
in year 5, the assessment must include specific
recommendations to implement federal restructuring
requirements.
e) Ensure that all eligible pupils enrolled in a
PI school in year 4 or 5 continue to have the
option to transfer to another public school in the
LEA and continue to have supplemental educational
services available to them pursuant to federal law.
4) Requires that the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) and State Board consider whether the Local
AB 451
Page 5
Educational Agency (LEA) received funding for the II/USP
or HP programs when determining whether the LEA must
contract with a district assistance and intervention
team.
5) Declares that the provisions authorizing LEAs that are
not in corrective action to apply for an Improvement
Grant will become operative only if an appropriation is
made for that purpose.
6) Requires all LEAs receiving an Improvement Grant, as a
condition of receiving the funds, to report evaluation
data requested by the SPI including such data as will
show how school improvement strategies were effective in
increasing student achievement.
7) Repeals a state Early Warning Program that was intended
to provide federal funds to school districts at risk of
entering Program Improvement.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Previous legislation. The State has repeatedly attempted
to improve the instructional outcome in low performing
schools over the years with such programs as the
Immediate Intervention/ Underperforming Schools Program
(II/USP) which was replaced by the High Priority Schools
(HP) program.
2) Disappointing Results. An independent evaluation of
the state's High Priorities School Grant Program (HPSGP)
found that "On average, the state's lowest-performing
schools progressed during the period of HPSGP
implementation. Although the schools participating in
this program did not show gains that statistically
differ from non-participating
schools. ? The challenge facing the state's
lowest-performing schools are daunting. (and). It may
simply be that the HPSGP was not enough. Ongoing systems
of supplemental fiscal resources, selective staff
placement, and other support are needed to substantially
impact student outcomes in the state's most challenged
schools. Given the primary purpose of the program, some
may say that the finding of no substantial difference in
student performance between HPSGP and comparison schools
is the only result that matters. As this is the third
AB 451
Page 6
study issued on behalf of the state showing virtually no
return in terms of enhanced student performance from the
HPSGP and its predecessor II/USP, the question of
whether to continue to invest in HPSGP-type
interventions should be carefully considered by policy
makers. We recommend that the state's commitment to
low-performing schools not be diminished, but enhanced
and re-directed. Because the current investments have
not fully yielded the desired results, the need for a
bolstered state commitment to equal educational
opportunities for all children in California is perhaps
greater than ever. "
3) Opportunity Costs. Given the current fiscal climate,
the federal funds available for school improvement may
be one of the few opportunities available to the state
this year to make a strategic investment in school
reform. The Legislative Analyst has identified a total
of $596 million of federal funds that are available for
school improvement (SI) in 2009-10. This total is
comprised of $127 million of "regular SI funding,
one-time stimulus funding of $391 million for SI and $45
million for Title I set-aside and $78 million of
(one-time) funds still available from prior year grants.
The Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) sees several options for
use of the available federal funding. Increasing per
school grant amounts and expanding eligibility for
grants to Non-PI districts that have program improvement
(PI) schools, as proposed in this measure, are among the
LAO's options, but even if the $153 million cost of this
bill for 2009-2010 is taken from the one-time funding
available, there will still be $283 million of one-time
funding left uncommitted. ($391+$45 -$153= $283).
4) Can the state find a more effective way to improve pupil
performance with these federal funds? This measure
proposes to continue the past practice of providing
additional funding in order to implement reforms based
upon needs assessment, expert assistance and
intervention. As the evaluation of the High Priority
Schools program shows that this approach has had little
effect, the state must be able to find more effective
ways to help pupils in struggling schools to succeed.
Staff recommends that serious consideration be given to
using available federal school improvement funds in the
AB 451
Page 7
most effective manner possible. Previous efforts to
assist low performing schools, such as the High Priority
Schools Program, have been developed by conference
committees. Perhaps this measure, and similar efforts
to address the urgent needs of our lowest performing
schools could be directed to a conference committee that
would consider all proposals for the most effective use
of available resources.
5) Related legislation . SB 742 (Romero) requires the
Superintendent of Public Instruction and State Board of
Education to identify 10 historically
low-performing public schools in the state, to ensure
that those schools' districts are complying with federal
notification requirements, and to direct the local
educational agency responsible for each of those schools
to approve at least one of three school restructuring
alternatives specified in the federal No Child Left
Behind Act.
SUPPORT
Antioch Unified School District
Association of California School Administrators
California State PTA
OPPOSITION
None received.