BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1435
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1435 (V. Manuel Perez) - As Introduced: February 27, 2009
SUBJECT : Public school accountability
SUMMARY : Requires the examination of assessment data related to
the acquisition of English language by English learners (EL) and
of EL language proficiency with respect to making potential
improvements in the Academic Performance Index (API).
Specifically, this bill :
1)Directs the advisory committee advising the Superintendent of
Public Instruction (SPI) on matters related to the API, to
make recommendations to the SPI by July 1, 2010, regarding the
inclusion of the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) and the feasibility of including English learner (EL)
proficiency as part of the API.
2)Requires the SPI, with the approval of the State Board of
Education (SBE), to include CELDT results and EL proficiency
levels and growth in the API.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the SPI, with the approval of the SBE, to develop and
implement the API to measure the performance of schools, and
to include a variety of indicators, including achievement test
results, attendance rates, and graduation rates in that
measure.
2)Requires the SPI to establish an advisory committee to provide
advice on all appropriate matters relative to the creation of
the API.
3)Directs the advisory committee by July 1, 2005, to make
recommendations to the SPI on the appropriateness and
feasibility of a methodology for generating a measurement of
academic performance by using unique pupil identifiers and
annual academic achievement growth to provide a more accurate
measure of a school's growth over time.
4)Establishes the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
Program to test academic skills in grades 2-11, and to report
AB 1435
Page 2
individual and aggregate results.
5)Requires, under both state and federal law, that school
districts administer a test of English language proficiency,
adopted for the state, to each newly enrolled student in the
state's public schools, if the primary language of those
students is other than English; also requires an annual
re-administration of that test to all EL students.
6)Establishes the English Language Development Test to assess
English language proficiency by testing listening and speaking
for EL students in grades K-1, and listening, speaking,
reading and writing for EL students in grades 2-12; the CELDT
is the test in California adopted to meet the state and
federal requirements under 5) above.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : The SPI established, pursuant to SB 1 X1 (Alpert),
Chapter 3, Statutes of 1999-2000 First Extraordinary Session, an
advisory committee to advise the SPI and the SBE on all
appropriate matters relative to the creation of the API. SB 1
X1 also requires the SPI, with the approval of the SBE, to
develop the API to measure the performance of schools, and to
include a variety of indicators in that measure, including, but
not limited to, achievement test results, attendance rates, and
graduation rates. Currently only achievement test results are
incorporated into the API, and the API is configured to produce
scores measuring a school's static performance at each grade
level, in each content area, in each year, at one point in time.
In addition the SPI also produces a "Growth API" that compares
this static performance from one year to the next.
According to the author, "AB 1435 would create a process and
mechanism by which to include the CELDT result in the API;
providing English learners and their parents, teachers, schools
and school districts a real opportunity to demonstrate
achievements in English language acquisition and proficiency."
The California Department of Education (CDE) reports that nearly
25% or 1.6 million of the state's public school pupils in grades
K-12 are EL students.
Current law requires schools to assess the English proficiency
of all pupils whose primary language is not English. The CELDT
is the required state test for English language proficiency; the
CELDT must be administered to pupils whose primary language is
AB 1435
Page 3
not English. The CELDT is used for three purposes: (1) to
identify new students who are English learners in kindergarten
through grade twelve; (2) to determine the level of
English-language proficiency; and (3) to annually assess EL
students' progress in learning English until they are
reclassified. English learners in grades 2-12 are administered
the CELDT in the four domains of speaking, listening, reading
and writing. English learners in kindergarten and grade one are
currently assessed in English listening and speaking; there are
plans to also assess these students in the near future in early
literacy skills.
When proposals to incorporate the CELDT into the API have been
made in the past, a number of arguments against that proposal
have been made.
1)The CELDT is not a measure of academic achievement: Opponents
would argue that the CELDT does not measure academic
achievement, and thus the CELDT scores have no place in the
API, a measure of academic performance. However, a review of
the authorizing statute for the Public School Performance
Accountability Program indicates that the Legislature did not
intend the API to be solely a measure based on achievement in
core disciplines, but instead to be a broader measure of
school performance. SB 1 X1 (Alpert), Chapter 3, Statutes of
1999-2000 First Extraordinary Session, also known as the
Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999, provides clear
Legislative intent. The bill mandates that "By July 1, 1999,
the Superintendent of Public Instruction, with approval of the
State Board of Education, shall develop an Academic
Performance Index, to be used to measure performance of
schools, especially the academic performance of pupils, and
demonstrate?" [EC 52052 (a)]. With the exception of the
deadline imposed on the Superintendent to finish the
development of the API by July 1, 1999, this statutory
language remains intact in current law. It is important to
note that the first stated objective of the API is to "measure
performance of schools"; it should also be noted that the
Legislature stated that this performance meant "especially the
academic performance of pupils", but clearly did not state
that the school performance to be measured was 'exclusively'
academic. If there is to be a measure of performance of
schools, then there needs to be a definition of the purpose of
schools; for it is against this purpose that a school's
performance should be measured. Again the authorizing
legislation anticipated the need for a definition when it made
AB 1435
Page 4
Legislative findings and declarations that state that "The
purpose of the California public school system is to provide
for the academic development of each pupil and prepare each
pupil, to the extent of his or her ability, to become a
lifelong learner, equipped to live and succeed within the
economic and societal complexities of the 21st century." [EC
52050.5 (a)] Thus schools have a dual purpose, to provide for
academic development and to prepare pupils to live and succeed
in this society.
California has a history, through statute and public
referendum, of stating the need for individuals to acquire
English language skills in order for those individuals to be
equipped to live and succeed in this society. The acquisition
of English language skills is exactly what the CELDT measures;
according to the California Department of Education, "The
CELDT results for individuals or groups of students show the
level of performance students have attained as they progress
toward English language proficiency." Thus the CELDT provides
a measure of the extent to which a group of students (e.g.,
all of the English learner students in a specific school) are
being prepared with respect to acquiring English language
proficiency, and to live and succeed in California. Since
this is one part of the dual purpose of a school as stated in
statute, and since the same authorizing legislation specifies
that the API be used to measure the performance of schools, it
is unclear that the fact that the CELDT measures something
other than core academic knowledge should preclude it from
being a component of the API. In fact, since it measures
something that schools should strive to provide and that is
necessary for a quality life in this state, this argument
favors inclusion of CELDT results in the API.
In addition, the API may include, if the SPI determines that
the information is available and accurate, school attendance
rates. While attendance most likely has a correlative, if not
causal, relationship with student performance, attendance is
certainly not a measure of core academic achievement. In
allowing the inclusion of attendance rates in the API, the
Legislature has already opined that the API is more than a
narrow measure of academic achievement.
2)The CELDT does not have the same type of scores as are
provided on the STAR tests and the high school exit
examination: According to the CDE, on the CELDT "Each domain
tested is assigned a performance level based on the scale
AB 1435
Page 5
score achieved." This is in fact a description that could be
applied to the level settings that occur with respect to test
results from any content area and grade level in the STAR
program or from the high school exit examination. If the
point here is not that the scores are derived differently, but
instead that the scores are of different quality (i.e., the
CELDT scores are not as psychometrically robust as the STAR or
exit examination scores), then that is not a reason for
excluding CELDT results from the API; instead that is a reason
to improve the quality of that assessment, since the same
statutory requirements for validity and reliability that are
imposed on STAR tests and the exit examination are imposed on
the assessment of language development.
3)The CELDT test is given at different times than the other
tests already incorporated into the API: STAR tests are
administered in the spring, while the CELDT is administered
throughout the year as new EL students enter the system;
ongoing annual tests are administered in the late summer and
fall. The high school exit examination is administered at
multiple times throughout the year in all four seasons. Thus
the CELDT is more like STAR in terms of frequency of
administration, but more like the exit examination in terms of
allowed or required summer and fall testing dates.
4)The CELDT is designed to be a diagnostic evaluation, but the
other tests are summative: According to the CDE, on the CELDT
"The 2008-09 results may be compared to the 2006-07 and
2007-08 results using the new common scale but should not be
compared with earlier CELDT results." In other words, like the
other tests some comparison may be made over time in order to
see if progress has been made in that student's or school's
score. Regardless of the initial design of the test, if
successive scores can be interpreted in this manner, then they
can be used to determine whether a school's or district's
performance has changed over time; again, that is the purpose
of the API
According to the author, "Becoming fluent in English can open a
world of new opportunities for every student. Today, our public
schools are working hard to ensure that our 1.5 million English
learners statewide receive the appropriate assessments, tools,
resources and services to achieve English language proficiency;
thereby allowing them to participate fully in the American Dream
of economic and social advancement." To the extent that public
schools are working to provide English language skills to EL
AB 1435
Page 6
students, and that this work fits into the purpose of a public
school in California, then the performance of those schools, as
reflected in the API, should in part be measured by how well
those English skills are acquired. English language acquisition
in California is measured by the CELDT.
Committee amendments: Committee staff recommends that the
following amendments be made to this bill.
1)Avert a technical conflict with related legislation by moving
the proposal made in this bill into a new code section.
2)Replace references to the "California English Language
Development Test (CELDT)" with the " English language
development test or series of tests developed or acquired
pursuant to section 60810"; the CELDT is the test so developed
or acquired, but as a specific test is not authorized in
statute. Thus if the name of this test were changed or a new
test developed or acquired, the proposed section of statute
would lose meaning.
Related legislation: This bill is one of four bills that propose
changes to the state's accountability system, specifically to
the API measure, and that will be heard by the Assembly
Education Committee this month. Those four bills are AB 173
(Price), AB 429 (Brownley), AB 1130 (Solorio), and AB 1435 (V.
Manuel Perez). The back page of this analysis provides a
side-by-side comparison of key features of these bills. AB 173
(Price), pending in the Assembly Education Committee, states the
intent of the Legislature to adopt a new measure to replace the
API, and requires the CDE to convene a new advisory board to
provide general guidance and make recommendations toward that
end. AB 429 (Brownley), pending in the Assembly Education
Committee, requires examination of methods for making and
reporting valid comparisons of individual academic performance
over time and for making potential improvements in the Academic
Performance Index (API), so as to be able to measure and report
both a student's and a school's academic growth over time. AB
1130 (Solorio), pending in the Assembly Education Committee,
requires examination of methods for making and reporting
comparisons of school and district academic achievement over
time based on a cohort growth measure.
Previous legislation: AB 2776 (Mullin), held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee in 2008, would have required
examination of the collection of individual student data, the
AB 1435
Page 7
state's emerging data systems, the possibility of making real
comparisons of student performance over time, and the long-term
availability of assessment data related to the acquisition of
English language by English learners with respect to making
potential improvements in the API. AB 2478 (Huffman), held in
the Assembly Appropriations Committee in 2008, makes changes in
the issues on which the advisory committee advising the SPI on
the API is required to make recommendations. AB 519 (Mendoza)
would have required the incorporation of data regarding the
availability in high schools of a course of study that fulfills
University of California and California State University
admission requirements into the API, and the submission of a
plan for incorporating dropout data into the API. This bill was
later amended into different subject matter and author
(Committee on the Budget), and enacted as Chapter 757, Statutes
of 2008. SB 219 (Steinberg), Chapter 731, Statutes of 2007,
makes changes in the calculation of and in the process for
revising the API. AB 400 (Nunez), vetoed in 2007, would have
required the incorporation of additional measures of performance
into the API, including the rate at which pupils are offered a
course of study that fulfills University of California and
California State University admission requirements. AB 2167
(Arambula), Chapter 743, Statutes of 2006, establishes a
specific methodology for including graduation rates, as
previously required, in the API; also requires the SPI to report
annually to the Legislature on graduation and dropout rates in
the state. SB 1284 (Scott), held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee in 2006, would have updated and made technical
amendments to statutes that establish the API. SB 1448
(Alpert), Chapter 233, Statutes of 2004, reauthorized the STAR
Program. SB 257 (Alpert), Chapter 782, Statutes of 2003,
requires the advisory committee established to advise the SPI on
the API to make recommendations to the SPI on a methodology for
generating a "gain" score measurement to provide more accurate
measure of a school's growth over time. AB 1295 (Thomson),
Chapter 887, Statutes of 2001, makes changes to the API to allow
small school districts to receive an API score, receive growth
targets, and performance awards. SB 1 X1 (Alpert), Chapter 3,
Statutes of 1999-2000 First Extraordinary Session, known as the
Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA), authorizes the state's
current accountability program, including establishment of the
PSAA Advisory Committee and development of the API. AB 748
(Escutia), Chapter 936, Statutes of 1997, requires the
Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop an English
language development test by January 1, 1999.
AB 1435
Page 8
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of California School Administrators (sponsor)
Californians Together
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087
AB 1435
Page 9
Comparisons of Current Law, AB 429, AB 1130, AB 1435, and AB 173 on
Key Elements in the Proposals to Improve California Assessment and
Accountability Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Current | AB 173 | AB 429 | AB 1130 | AB 1435 |
| | Law | | | | |
|---------------+-----------+--------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------|
|Primary |Developed |Replace API |Facilitate |Facilitate |Add CELDT |
|proposal |API and |with new |growth |growth |and EL |
| |advises |measure |comparisons |comparisons |proficiency |
| |SPI on | | | |to API |
| |relevant | | | | |
| |matters | | | | |
|---------------+-----------+--------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------|
|Improves |Created |Both with a |Both |Aggregate |Aggregate |
|individual or |aggregate |single |individual |accountability |accountabilit|
|aggregate |accountabil|measure |test scores |measure |y measure |
|measures? |ity | |and aggregate | | |
| |measure | |accountability | | |
| | | |measure | | |
|---------------+-----------+--------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------|
|Who makes |API |New advisory |API advisory |API advisory |API advisory |
|recommendations|advisory |board with |committee |committee |committee |
|? |committee |independent | | | |
| | |oversight | | | |
| | |consultant | | | |
|---------------+-----------+--------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------|
|Deadline for |July 1, |None-advisory |July 1, 2011 |None |July 1, 2010 |
|recommendations|2005 |board not | | | |
|? | |implemented | | | |
| | |until the | | | |
| | |Legislature | | | |
| | |appropriates | | | |
| | |federal funds | | | |
| | |for this | | | |
| | |purpose | | | |
|---------------+-----------+--------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------|
|Recommendations|SPI |Not specified |SPI who |SPI and SBE |SPI |
AB 1435
Page 10
| provided to | | |forwards to | | |
|whom? | | |SBE, | | |
| | | |Legislature, | | |
| | | |Dept of | | |
| | | |Finance | | |
|---------------+-----------+--------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------|
|How are |SPI may |Not specified |Upon |SPI may |SPI may |
|recommendations|implement | |Legislative |implement with |implement |
| implemented |with SBE | |action that |SBE approval, or |with SBE |
|and when? |approval | |appropriates |SBE may |approval |
| | | |funds for this |implement as | |
| | | |purpose |part of plan | |
| | | | |submitted to the | |
| | | | |federal | |
| | | | |government | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------