BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2013
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 2013 (Arambula) - As Amended: April 14, 2010
SUBJECT : Education: alternative school performance
SUMMARY : Includes independent study programs in the alternative
accountability system established by the Superintendent of
Public Instruction (SPI) and requires the alternative
accountability system to meet various specified components.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Includes independent study programs in the alternative
accountability system required to be established by the SPI
for alternative schools.
2)Requires all alternative schools serving high-risk pupils to
participate in the alternative accountability system,
regardless of the percentage of high-risk pupils enrolled.
3)Specifies that the alternative accountability system shall
include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
a) A mandatory accountability system;
b) A rigorous system that measures the educational
performance and learning outcomes of pupils;
c) Assurance that pupil outcomes are comparable statewide;
and,
d) Development of consequences and improvement plans for
schools with low pupil outcomes.
4)Requires the SPI to report to the Legislature by March 1,
2011, and January 1, 2012, on the data collected based on the
revised alternative accountability system.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the SPI to develop an Academic Performance Index
(API) to measure school and pupil performance, and to develop
an alternative accountability system for specified schools,
AB 2013
Page 2
including alternative schools serving high-risk pupils.
2)Provides that schools in the alternative accountability system
may receive an API score, but shall not be included in the API
rankings.
3)Requires beginning July 1, 2011, test scores and other
accountability data of a pupil in an alternative education
program including community, community day, continuation high
schools and independent study be assigned to the pupil's
school and school district of residence for inclusion in the
API.
4)Authorizes a school district or county office of education
(COE) to offer independent study to meet the educational needs
of specified pupils, and requires, as a condition of receiving
apportionments for independent study, school districts to
adopt written policies that include specified components.
5)Requires each independent study written agreement to be
signed, prior to the commencement of independent study, by the
pupil, the pupil's parent, legal guardian, or caregiver, if
the pupil is less than 18 years of age, the certificated
employee who has been designated as having responsibility for
the general supervision of independent study, and all persons
who have direct responsibility for providing assistance to the
pupil.
6)Requires independent study be coordinated, evaluated, and
under the general supervision of an employee of the school
district or county office of education who possesses a valid
certification document, as specified.
7)Requires, as a condition of receiving apportionments for IS,
school districts to adopt and implement written policies
pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), that include, but
are not limited to all of the following:
a) The maximum length of time, by grade level and type of
program, that may elapse between the time an IS assignment
is made and the date of completion by a pupil;
b) The number of missed assignments to be allowed before an
evaluation is conducted to determine whether it is in the
AB 2013
Page 3
best interests of the pupil to remain in independent study,
or whether he or she should return to the regular school
program; and
c) A requirement that a current written agreement for each
independent study pupil is maintained on file that
includes, but is not limited to, a statement in each
agreement that independent study is an optional educational
alternative in which no pupil may be required to
participate, and other specified components.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Current law requires the SPI to develop an
alternative accountability system for alternative education
programs that serve high-risk pupils such as continuation high
schools, opportunity schools, courts schools and community day
schools. The existing Alternative School Accountability Model
(ASAM), developed in 2000 as the accountability system for
alternative schools allows schools to select three performance
measures from a list of 17 possible indicators, 14 of which are
non-test-based indicators and to report these measures for
students who are enrolled in the school for at least 90 days.
Participation in ASAM is voluntary for schools that have at
least 70% of the school's total enrollment composed of high-risk
pupils. According to the CDE, over 1,000 schools participated
in ASAM in the 2008-09 school year. These schools continue to
receive an API score, but are not included in the API rankings.
This bill creates new requirements for the ASAM, makes ASAM a
mandatory program for alternative schools, and requires
"independent study programs" to be included in the ASAM.
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) released a report in 2007
titled Improving Alternative Education in California which
reviewed alternative programs, found several problems with ASAM,
and recommended that the legislature revise the state's
alternative school accountability program so that it focuses on
learning gains and high school graduation. The current ASAM
makes it difficult to compare performance across school sites,
as each school can choose which indicators to report.
Revising the existing ASAM : The CDE has begun a process for
revising the current ASAM so as to make it more rigorous,
academically-based and comparable across sites. The State Board
AB 2013
Page 4
of Education (SBE) approved a conceptual framework for redesigning
the ASAM that recommends the use of the following three types of
indicators:
1. Learning readiness indicators to provide a measure of
student engagement and preparedness to benefit from
school-based instruction.
2. Academic achievement indicators to provide a measure of
student achievement and academic progress using statewide
assessments.
3. Transition indicators to provide a measure of whether a
student graduated or remained in school.
According to CDE the revised ASAM will start operating in the
2010-11 school year. In consideration that the CDE is
undergoing a restructuring of ASAM which will include the use of
statewide assessments for purposes of measuring academic
achievement, as well as learning readiness indicators and
transition indicators, it is unclear as to why legislation is
necessary at this time to change the ASAM when the revised ASAM
has not yet been implemented. The problems with the existing
ASAM have been acknowledged and are being addressed by the CDE
working in conjunction with the ASAM subcommittee of the Public
Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) advisory committee. To the
extent that this bill adds additional requirements to the
existing effort or adds requirements that may be inconsistent
with the revisions of ASAM, this bill may have the impact of
delaying the impending implementation of a revised ASAM.
Furthermore, some of the elements that this bill requires for
the alternative accountability system are ambiguous. For
example, the bill requires the ASAM to include "assurance that
pupil outcomes are comparable statewide." Does this mean that
pupil outcomes will be measured through a single statewide
measure? The bill also makes the alternative system a mandatory
system and requires that the alternative system include
development of consequences and improvement plans for schools
with low pupil outcomes. This bill appears to alter the nature
of ASAM as an alternative system that recognizes the
distinctiveness of the student populations in alternative
schools.
This bill also requires the alternative accountability system to
be a mandatory accountability system and requires all
alternative schools serving high-risk pupils to participate in
the alternative accountability system regardless of the
AB 2013
Page 5
percentage of high-risk pupils enrolled in the school. The SBE
adopted a rule that only allows alternative schools that enroll
least 70% high-risk students to participate in ASAM.
Originally, the SBE allowed alternative schools that served a
population that consisted of 50% or more students who were
high-risk to participate in ASAM, but in 2003, the State Board
of Education (SBE) raised the minimum threshold for schools
participating in the ASAM from those serving at least 50%
high-risk students to those serving at least 70% high-risk
students.
By requiring all alternative schools to participate in ASAM
regardless of the percentage of high-risk pupils enrolled at
those schools, this bill could have the effect of requiring
alternative schools that only enroll a small percentage of
high-risk pupils to participate in ASAM rather than participate
in the API. This Committee may wish to consider whether it
should allow alternative schools that serve smaller percentages
of high-risk pupils to forego participating in the API, as they
currently would, and rather require these schools to participate
in the ASAM. Staff recommends removing the provision requiring
all alternative schools to participate in the ASAM regardless of
the percentage of high risk pupils served.
The proposed revisions to ASAM include transition indicators to
provide measures of whether students graduated or remained in
school along with academic indicators and learning readiness
indicators. The changes to ASAM have been discussed and
developed by experts in the areas of alternative education and
accountability. The current effort has focused on developing a
system that more accurately holds participating schools
accountable and in strengthening the existing alternative
accountability system. This Committee may wish to consider
whether it may be appropriate for legislation to change the
course of the existing work that the CDE is conducting on ASAM
which has been guided by experts from the field and which
appears to include significant improvements.
Should this Committee wish to approve this bill, staff
recommends removing the provisions requiring that ASAM include
assurances that pupil outcomes are comparable statewide as well
as deleting the provisions requiring the development of
consequences for schools with low pupil outcomes.
Independent study is an alternative instructional strategy, not
AB 2013
Page 6
an alternative curriculum that offers flexibility to meet
individual student needs, interests, and styles of learning.
Independent study can be used on a short-term or long-term basis
and on a full-time basis or in conjunction with courses taken in
a classroom setting. Districts operate independent study as a
strategy within a school or as stand-alone independent study
high school or program. A pupil chooses to enroll in
independent study for various reasons such as scheduling
challenges due to work or caretaking responsibilities, making up
credits, accelerating credit, pursuing particular talents or
interest, learning styles that can be accommodated through
independent study, or offering alternatives for pupils that have
to be out of the classroom for reasons that vary widely.
According to CDE, more than 130,765 full-time kindergarten
through grade twelve students used independent study in 2007-08
and in 2007-08, over 19,000 independent study students graduated
from high school or passed a high school equivalency exam.
Independent study is available as a voluntary option, and
current law requires that prior to the commencement of
independent study a written agreement be signed by the pupil,
his or her parent, guardian, or caregiver, the supervising
teacher and any other individual having direct responsibility
for providing assistance to the pupil. The agreement outlines
the instructional plan for the pupil and the supervision that is
to be provided for that pupil to complete the work outlined in
the agreement. Current law also provides that independent study
agreements cannot be longer than one semester in duration and it
requires the agreement to include the beginning and ending dates
of the independent study. This means that at the conclusion of
the duration specified in the agreement, either a new agreement
will have to be signed by all parties for continued enrollment
or the placement terminates. Furthermore, a local educational
agency may claim apportionment credit for independent study only
to the extent of the time value of a pupil or student work
product as judged by the supervising teacher.
This bill is based on the premise that all pupils enrolled in
independent study are high-risk pupils. However, independent
study serves a wide range of students from high performing
pupils as well as pupils that are at-risk. There is currently
no statewide data available to demonstrate what percentage of
pupils in independent study are high-risk pupils but it is
certain that that not all pupils participating in independent
study are high-risk pupils. Pupils in independent study are
AB 2013
Page 7
held to the same standards as other pupils in the district and
they participate in the testing system in the same manner as any
other pupil in the district would.
Independent study is available in different settings such as
full-time independent study high schools, charter schools or as
part of a strategy within a school. There is no state
recognition of independent study as a "program" nor are there
any definitions established by the state or statewide
associations as to what constitutes an "independent study
program." There are clear legal requirements for providing
independent study for students which are the same for a school
with one student in independent study or 100% of its students in
independent study. This bill alters the nature of traditional
high schools that offer independent study as a strategy by
essentially classifying these schools as alternative schools
regardless of the number of pupils participating in independent
study at that school. There are currently 1,418 schools with
independent study enrollment, of these, 1,015 schools have less
than 10% of their pupils participating in independent study.
This bill could have the impact of requiring all these schools
to participate in ASAM, rather than participate in the API, even
though they have small percentages of pupils participating in
independent study, all of whom may not be high-risk pupils.
This is a large number of schools that would be required under
this bill to participate in the ASAM instead of the API and this
is a very serious policy issue that the Committee should
consider. Staff recommends the bill be amended to delete the
provision requiring "independent study programs" to be included
in the ASAM.
SB 219 (Steinberg) Chapter 731, Statues of 2007, tried to
address issues related to monitoring the progress of at-risk
students referred to alternative education programs and holding
schools and districts of residence accountable for that
progress. SB 219 (Steinberg), current law requires test scores
and other accountability data of students in an alternative
education programs including community, community day,
continuation high schools and independent study be assigned to
the students' school and school district of residence for
inclusion in the API. The CDE is currently working on the
implementation of SB 219 (Steinberg) and this bill seems to be
contrary to the spirit of SB 219.
Should this Committee wish to approve this bill, staff
AB 2013
Page 8
recommends deleting the provision requiring "independent study
programs" be included in ASAM. Instead, the Committee may wish
to consider allowing for the inclusion of full-time independent
study schools that meet the eligibility criteria for
participation ASAM. Full-time independent study schools that
serve high risk pupils and meet the high-risk pupil enrollment
threshold and other eligibility criteria specified by the SPI
would be eligible to participate in ASAM.
The author states, "Students in alternative programs are placed
in what is presumed to be a 'better' fit but the weak
accountability measures makes it possible for students to fall
between the cracks unnoticed. This bill reforms ASAM to focus on
educating and graduating students. Districts must be held
accountable for students who are referred to alternative
programs yet ASAM makes accountability impossible. Current law
does not provide guidelines on what ASAM must measure. The
Education Code simply says that CDE must develop an
accountability system for alternative programs."
Proposed elimination of ASAM : The Department of Finance in an
April Budget Letter to the Legislature has proposed the
elimination of all federal funding supporting ASAM thus
essentially eliminating the ASAM suggesting that alternative
schools could be folded into existing federal academic
accountability reporting and that the funds be shifted to costs
related to the high school exit exam. The letter states, "While
the state permits alternative schools to participate in an ASAM
to comply with state academic accountability requirements, it is
not required by sate or federal law." The letter further
suggests "Because the state's K-12 testing, including the ASAM
and CAHSEE [California high school exit exam], is funded by
federal funds and Proposition 98 General Fund, Proposition 98
General Fund savings will be gained when federal funds no longer
needed for the ASAM are shifted to the CAHSEE." The elimination
of ASAM would result in inappropriate accountability measures
being applied to alternative schools in California and is
contrary to the author's intent to expand and make ASAM
mandatory.
Arguments in support : The Association of California School
Administrators (ACSA) has a 'support if amended' position on
this bill and writes, "You propose to amend the alternative
accountability system to include independent study programs. We
believe you need to amend this section to clarify the difference
AB 2013
Page 9
between an independent study "program" versus independent study
as a "strategy" which may not be a full time program." ACSA
proposes an amendment to "ensure that 1) the program is a
full-time independent study program to distinguish from when
independent study is used as a part-time or infrequent
'strategy', and 2) to ensure that full-time independent study
programs (such as Options for Youth) are included in the
traditional accountability system unless they fall below 100
valid scores or significant demographic changes in the pupil
population render year-to-year comparisons invalid."
Arguments in opposition : The California Consortium for
Independent (CCIS) Study writes, "Requiring al of these schools
serving independent study students to participate in ASAM as an
alternative school misrepresents the character of the school and
the type classification of an overwhelming majority of these
schools." CCIS further writes, "This legislation mistakenly
classifies independent study as a program for high risk
students. Independent study is an alternative instructional
strategy used to serve a diverse array of students."
Related legislation : AB 2307 (Carter) requires the SPI and the
SBE to allow a dropout recovery high school to propose and use
an individual pupil growth model, meeting specified criteria, as
part of the alternative accountability model. AB 2307 is
pending in this Committee and is scheduled to be heard today.
AB 976 (Arambula) of 2009 requires a school district, when it
refers a pupil to an alternative education program, to provide
the pupil and his or her parent/guardian with a listing of all
alternative education options and a description of the
requirements the pupil must fulfill in order to return to his or
her school of origin. AB 976 was held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
Previous legislation : SB 219 (Steinberg), Chapter 731, Statutes
of 2007 requires beginning July 1, 2011, the API include
additional information regarding school and school district
dropout rates for pupils enrolled in grades eight and nine.
Requires test results and other accountability data of students
in an alternative education program be assigned to the students'
school and school district of residence for inclusion in the
API.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 2013
Page 10
Support
Association of California Schools Administrators (if amended)
Fresno Unified School District
Opposition
California Consortium for Independent Study
California Continuation Education Association
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi?a / ED. / (916) 319-2087