BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2013
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 12, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2013 (Arambula) - As Amended: April 27, 2010
Policy Committee: EducationVote:6-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires schools that enroll 100% of their pupils in
independent study (IS) programs to be included in the state's
alternative accountability system and makes changes to require
mandatory participation by all alternative schools, as
specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires schools to meet eligibility requirements established
by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to be
included in the alternative accountability system.
2)Requires the alternative accountability system to include, but
not 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.
3)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. This measure also sunsets
this reporting requirement on March 1, 2015.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Annual GF/98 state reimbursable mandated costs, of at least $3
million, to local education agencies (LEAs) with alternative
schools under their jurisdiction to collect data required
under the alternative accountability system. This assumes all
alternative schools are required to participate in the system.
Also, because the current system is voluntary, the state
AB 2013
Page 2
would be required to reimburse LEAs that already have schools
participating in the system.
2)GF/98 costs, likely in excess of $1 million, to the State
Department of Education (SDE) to develop an alternative
accountability system as required under this bill. Over the
last few years, SDE has been working on revisions to the
current alternative school accountability model (ASAM) (see
comment #3 below). The requirements in this measure may
necessitate them to halt this process and begin again.
3)GF administrative costs, likely between $600,000 and $750,000,
to SDE to support a mandatory alternative accountability
system, as specified. This assumes all alternative schools
are required to participate in the alternative accountability
system.
COMMENTS
1)Background . K-12 pupils have several alternative education
options available to them other than traditional public
schools, including IS, continuation education, home and
hospital instruction, community day schools, juvenile court
schools, and diploma-plus high schools. Many of these
alternative education options have specified requirements that
cause the pupil to attend one of these programs. For example,
pupils in the criminal justice system are educated in a
juvenile court school.
Independent Study is an alternative instructional strategy,
not an alternative curriculum. It is a voluntary option chosen
by pupils, parents/guardians, or the school district. Pupils
can enroll in IS on a short-term, long-term, or full-time
basis. For example, a pupil may take courses in a classroom,
in conjunction with some courses via independent study.
Students work independently, according to a written agreement
and under the general supervision of a credentialed teacher.
According to the SDE's website, "independent study students
follow the district-adopted curriculum and meet the district
graduation requirements. [This program] offers flexibility to
meet individual student needs, interests, and styles of
learning." School districts can operate IS as a program
within a school, or as stand-alone charter school. According
to SDE, the IS option was utilized by 130,765 full-time K-12
pupils in 2007-08. SDE also reports that 19,000 pupils
AB 2013
Page 3
enrolled in IS graduated from high school or passed a high
school equivalency exam in 2007-08.
Current law requires the SPI to establish an alternative
accountability system for schools under the jurisdiction of a
county board of education or county superintendent of schools,
community day schools, nonpublic schools, and alternative
schools serving high risk pupils (continuation high schools,
etc). Statute also authorizes schools in the alternative
accountability system to receive an Academic Performance Index
(API) score, but not be included in the API rankings.
Participation in the alternative accountability system is
voluntary, unless a school enrolls 70% (at a minimum) of
high-risk pupils.
According to the author, "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. 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.
[Statute] simply says that SDE must develop an alternative
accountability system for alternative programs." This bill
requires schools that enroll 100% of their pupils in IS
programs to be included in the state's alternative
accountability system and makes participation in this system
mandatory, as specified.
2)The ASAM is a voluntary accountability program where
qualifying schools select 3 of 14 reporting indicators
measuring student learning readiness, transition, and academic
performance. Participating schools annually report on these
three indicators. Schools select their reporting indicators
from a list adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE) in
2001.
The SBE also adopted a policy to require schools participate in
the ASAM (if they enroll a minimum of 70% of high risk
pupils). This measure, however, requires the alternative
accountability system to be mandatory. This language creates
confusion whether schools would be required to participate or
not (given the SBE policy). The committee suggests the author
clarify this provision.
AB 2013
Page 4
ASAM serves more than 1,000 community day schools,
continuation schools, county community schools, county court
schools, Division of Juvenile Justice schools, opportunity
schools, and alternative schools of choice and charter schools
that meet the eligibility requirements approved by the SBE. It
is estimated that the total number of students annually served
by ASAM is approximately 450,000 (280,000 unduplicated)
primarily in grades 8-12. According to SDE, over 1,000
schools participated in ASAM in 2008-09.
It may be difficult for IS programs to be included in the ASAM
because not all of these programs exclusively serve high risk
pupils (i.e., those enrolled in continuation schools, court
schools, etc.). As referenced above, IS programs are offered
to pupils for a variety of reasons, including lack of course
offerings at a schoolsite.
3)ASAM workgroup to revise the system . For the last several
years, the ASAM subcommittee (established under the state's
accountability act), SDE, and WestEd have been working to
evaluate the feasibility of a revised ASAM system to more
accurately hold schools accountable and create a stronger
overall accountability system, including the use of the data
in high stakes accountability decisions.
In November 2008, the SBE approved a conceptual framework for
redesigning the existing ASAM system. The framework consists
of three types of indicators in the following areas: (a)
learning readiness, (b) academic achievement, and (c) program
transition. At the beginning of the 2009-10 school year,
baseline data for these indicators was collected. ASAM schools
will be asked to collect attendance data if they do not do so
already. All other data for the revised ASAM will be gathered
from existing statewide databases. According to SDE, it is
planning to present recommendations to the SBE in May 2011 for
a revised ASAM system based upon the results of 2009-10
baseline data results.
4)Governor's April 2010 proposal eliminates ASAM . The
Department of Finance (DOF) proposes to eliminate the ASAM and
fold alternative schools into existing federal accountability
reporting. Specifically, DOF states "While the state permits
alternative schools to participate in an alternative
AB 2013
Page 5
accountability model to comply with state accountability
requirements, it is not required by state or federal law.
Under federal requirements established by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, all alternative schools are required to
meet the same adequate yearly progress reporting criteria as
other mainstream schools." As a result of this proposal, the
state would save approximately $775,000 in GF/98.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081