BILL ANALYSIS
AB 476
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 476 (Torlakson)
As Amended August 19, 2009
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |52-26|(June 3, 2009) |SENATE: |26-13|(September 4, |
| | | | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |50-28|(September 10, | | | |
| | |2009) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY : Requires a one-time independent evaluation of the
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), on or
before April 1, 2010, to contract for an independent
evaluation of the STAR Program that is required to:
a) Be based upon information gathered in field testing and
annual administrations of the assessments, all existing
reports and other studies of STAR, state and federal
requirements, a review of research-based alternative
assessment models, and a review of existing and emerging
practices in large-scale assessment from across the nation;
b) Include, but not be limited to, the STAR Program's
alignment to statewide content standards and the tests'
content validity, the standards' grade level
continuity/vertical articulation and the longitudinal
validity of the tests across grade levels, the use of
content standards from other core curriculum areas for test
items, pupil performance, compliance with testing
standards, usefulness as diagnostic or evaluative tools,
AB 476
Page 2
and the feasibility of alternative diagnostic testing in
new grade levels or content areas;
c) Make recommendations for improvements and revisions in
examinations and processes in the program, including
recommendations for improving grade level continuity and
vertical alignment in the tests, improving the ability to
produce scores that are longitudinally comparable,
increasing the integration of content from other core
curriculum areas into test items, using or developing
diagnostic information on assessments, and developing
recommendations regarding alternatives to the current
testing format to allow the greatest aggregate base for
assessing district-wide performance on content standards;
and,
d) Be provided by the SPI to the Legislature, Governor and
State Board of Education (SBE) on or before November 1,
2010.
2)Requires the advisory committee advising the SPI on matters
involving the Academic Performance Index to advise the SPI, as
specified, on the evaluation of the STAR Program, and requires
the SPI to appoint four additional members, educators or
large-scale assessment experts, to the advisory committee for
the purposes advising the SPI on the evaluation.
3)Specifies that federal funds made available under Title VI
pursuant to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), not
to exceed $150,000, be used for this evaluation.
The Senate amendments provide additional detail and specificity
regarding the evaluation and the information on which the
evaluation is required to be based, the analyses that the
evaluation is required to include, and the recommendations
required to be contained in the evaluation report.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires each charter school, school district, and county
office of education to administer designated achievement tests
to each pupil in grades 2 through 11, inclusive, as part of
AB 476
Page 3
the STAR Program until July 1, 2011.
2)Requires the SPI and the SBE to undertake activities in
support of STAR testing in grades 2 through 11, inclusive, as
part of the STAR Program until July 1, 2011.
3)Repeals the statute authorizing the STAR Program, the state's
content and performance standards, and other related elements
as of January 1, 2012.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version passed by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, federal fund costs capped at $150,000 for the STAR
Program evaluation. The Committee notes that the author has
worked with the California Department of Education to find ways
to narrow the bill's cost while maintaining key components of
the evaluation, and that the latest version of the bill is more
likely to maintain the $150,000 cap on expenditures than the
version originally analyzed in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
COMMENTS : California's state assessment program is comprised of
three major testing components, the STAR Program, the English
language development test (the California English Language
Development Test, CELDT, is the adopted test), and a high school
exit examination (the California High School Exit Examination,
CAHSEE, is currently the designated test). The program also
includes a number of smaller, more specialized assessments.
The STAR Program, initially authorized in 1997, requires testing
of students at specified grade levels in English language arts
(grades 2-11), mathematics (grades 2-8 and end of course exams
in grades 9-11), science (grades 5, 8, and end of course exams
in grades 9-11), and history/social science (grades 8-11) . In
2003, the California Standards Tests (CST) replaced a nationally
published "off the shelf" test as the primary battery of STAR
tests; the CST include only questions written specifically for
California's content standards. Today, the STAR Program
includes the CSTs, the California Alternate Performance
AB 476
Page 4
Assessment (CAPA) administered to students with significant
cognitive disabilities, the California Modified Assessment (CMA)
administered to students whose disabilities preclude them from
achieving grade-level proficiency on an assessment of the
California content standards with or without testing
accommodations, and a national norm-referenced test in Spanish
that is administered to Spanish speaking English learners who
have been in school in the U.S. less than 12 months or who are
receiving instruction in Spanish. Neither the high school exit
exam nor the English language development test are components of
the STAR Program; each of those tests is separately authorized
in statute. Results for STAR tests are reported for the
individual pupil, but no accountability attaches to these
individual results; the state and federal accountability systems
are primarily based on the aggregated STAR test scores from all
pupils in a school or school district.
Many elements of the STAR Program are used by California to meet
the assessment and accountability requirements of NCLB. NCLB
requires each state to administer a standards-aligned
achievement test in reading and mathematics to all students in
grades 3-8 and grade 10; it also requires science testing in
grades 5, 8, and 10.
This bill requires an independent evaluation of the STAR
Program. According to the author, this bill "would authorize an
independent evaluation of the current STAR program's
effectiveness in measuring student progress on California
academic standards and meeting the requirements of NCLB. This
evaluation would also examine the feasibility and cost of a
state-wide diagnostic testing model, to achieve both a
classroom-focused diagnostic tool and a state-wide data tracking
function. This independent evaluation would inform the STAR
reauthorization discussion."
Given the sunset and potential reauthorization of the STAR
Program in 2011, the Legislature's need for an evaluation of the
program is clear. The STAR Program has tested millions of
students in multiple content areas annually for twelve years;
however, no independent evaluation has been required or
completed. A technical report on the test is completed annually
by the testing contractor responsible for administration,
AB 476
Page 5
scoring, and reporting the test and results, but the
independence of contractors has been called into question by the
California Department of Education and the SBE over the lifetime
of the program. A report by the SPI and SBE regarding the
status of implementation of the STAR Program was required and
provided in 2001; an annual report of test scores from the SPI
to the Legislature and SBE is also required. Neither the annual
technical reports nor any of the SPI/SBE reports were completed
by an independent entity, and none of those reports examine all
of the issues that the Legislature should examine prior to the
reauthorization of the STAR Program.
By contrast California's high school exit examination,
authorized in 1999 and first administered in 2001, has had an
ongoing independent evaluator that has issued both annual and
biennial evaluative reports since 2001. These evaluations are
contracted for separately from the contract issued to the vendor
or vendors responsible for the administration, development or
any other facet of the test, and have been conducted by a firm
and staff with backgrounds in measurement, and specializing in
research and program evaluation.
During this period of economic and budgetary crisis, the
imposition of a requirement for a new one-time evaluation and
the cost that it creates is a difficult proposal to consider.
However, since the cost of implementing a one-time evaluation of
the STAR Program is minimal and constrained to be not more than
$150,000, this cost will likely be offset by future savings
generated by the evaluation's findings that may allow the
Legislature to more efficiently use the state's resources to
support the reauthorized testing program.
Previous legislation: SB 1448 (Alpert), Chapter 233, Statutes
of 2004, reauthorized the STAR Program. SB 376 (Alpert),
Chapter 828, Statutes of 1997, established the STAR Program and
authorized testing in grades 2 through 11.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
AB 476
Page 6
"The objectives of this bill are duplicative of work already
being done by a variety of sources. Not only have there been
reviews of California's standards and assessment system by the
United States Department of Education's peer review process, the
California Department of Education has a process which has
included an independent alignment study and review of test items
by various content and test development experts. Finally, this
bill circumvents the State Board of Education in the selection
of the independent evaluator and approving the evaluation and
its recommendations."
Analysis Prepared by: Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0003430