BILL ANALYSIS
AB 518
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 518 (Mendoza) - As Amended: April 22, 2009
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:8-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires that members of school assistance and
intervention teams (SAITs) and school district assistance and
intervention teams (DAITs) to possess a high degree of
knowledge, skills, and expertise in order to meet the needs of
the students they serve. Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines "high degree of knowledge, skills, and expertise" to
include a certification or advanced degree relating to the
numerically significant pupil subgroups and either of the
following: (a) at least five years of expertise working
directly with pupil subgroups and (b) expertise as a provider
of professional development, demonstrated through having
written or published articles on instruction and programs for
pupil subgroups.
2)Requires SAITs and DAITs to use procedures and tools developed
specifically for the improvement of language and content
instruction for the pupil subgroups that have failed to meet
state and federal academic performance targets, as specified.
3)Requires SAITs and DAITS, when making recommendations to
schoolsites or districts, to ensure that the recommendations
are specific to pupils having access to core curriculum,
including reading and mathematics as specified.
4)Requires SAITs and DAITs to ensure parental involvement
pursuant to the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB). This measure further requires the SAIT and DAIT to
provide recommendations to improve an alternative program
AB 518
Page 2
(i.e., instruction in a pupil's native language), if the
alternative program is the reason for federal sanctions.
5)Specifies that the new requirements only apply to SAITS and
DAITS established on or after January 1, 2010.
FISCAL EFFECT
GF/98 and federal fund cost pressure, of approximately $200,000,
to require additional qualifications and duties for SAITs and
DAITs. Traditionally, SAITs and DAITs have been funded with
federal funds; however, in recent years, SAITs have received
GF/98 funds.
COMMENTS
1)Background . AB 961 (Steinberg), Statutes of 2001 established
SAITs for the purposes of sanctioning schoolsites that
received funding under the state Immediate/Intervention
Underperforming Schools and High Priority Schools Grant
programs. These schoolsites were deemed "state monitored" by
their failure to meet academic gains as measured by the state
Academic Performance Index (API). The SBE, based on a
recommendation of the SPI, assigned state monitored schools a
SAIT to implement an improvement plan, with the goal of
increasing academic achievement.
Existing statute requires SAITs to have a high degree of
knowledge and skills in the areas of school leadership,
curriculum, and instruction aligned to the state academic
content and performance standards, classroom management and
discipline, academic assessment, parent-school relations, and
evaluation research-based reform strategies. According to the
State Department of Education (SDE), there are 53 approved
SAIT providers.
In 2001, the federal government passed NCLB, which requires
the state to adhere to a federal accountability system because
California will receive approximately $2.7 billion in K-12
federal NCLB funds in the budget year. Of this amount, $1.64
billion are Title I funds, which serve the state's poorest
students.
The federal accountability system is governed by a status
AB 518
Page 3
model, as measured by Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), academic
targets as measured by state assessments. Under this model,
local education agencies (LEAs) and schoolsites are identified
as program improvement (PI) based on failing to meet AYP
targets. PI LEAs and schoolsites that do not meet AYP for two
consecutive years are subject to one or more corrective
actions as recommended by the SPI and approved SBE.
In addition to a correction action, the SBE may require an LEA
to contract with a DAIT to provide technical assistance in
implementing the corrective action (see comment #2 below).
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI), with approval from the SBE, to develop standards and
criteria to be applied to a DAIT. According to SDE, there are
38 approved DAIT providers.
2)AB 519 (Budget Committee), Statutes of 2008 , established a
process for implementing the federal NCLB PI corrective action
for LEAs. Federal law requires states to choose a sanction
for an LEA in corrective action (i.e., has failed to meet AYP
after three consecutive years). These sanctions may include
reconstituting the district, replacing district personnel,
placing a trustee in the district, and requiring the district
to implement a new curriculum. In addition to the sanction,
federal law requires states to provide LEAs with technical
assistance in implementing the sanction.
State law requires the SPI to recommend a sanction to the SBE
for approval. To date, the SBE has sanctioned 147 LEAs. Each
LEA received the same sanction: to implement a new curriculum.
In addition, AB 519 authorizes the SPI to recommend, with SBE
approval, that the LEA contract with a DAIT or other technical
assistance provider to aid in implementing the sanction.
LEAs may receive between $150,000 and $50,000 per PI school
within their district to contract with a DAIT or other
technical assistance provider. This funding is condition upon
the availability of federal funds.
3)Previous and related legislation.
a) AB 2531 (Mendoza), which is substantially similar to
AB 518
Page 4
this measure, was held on the Senate Appropriations
Committee suspense file in August 2008.
b) AB 683 (Chesbro), pending in this committee, authorizes
an LEA in corrective action that received a sanction, but
does not have any PI schools, to receive federal funding to
implement the sanction, as specified.
c) AB 451 (De Le?n), pending in this committee, establishes
an intervention structure to provide PI schools in year
four and five with technical assistance support to improve
academic achievement, with focus on significant subgroups,
as specified.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081