BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2273
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 12, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2273 (Torlakson) - As Amended: April 28, 2010
Policy Committee: EducationVote:6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) to develop a California Education Opportunity Index (CEO
Index) to measure the performance and offerings of both
elementary and secondary schools in preparing students for
graduation and to become responsible and contributing members
after graduation. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the CEO Index to be a component of the Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSAA).
2)Requires the CEO Index to consist of a variety of indicators,
including, but not limited to: (a) data on student academic
performance, including the results of the Academic Performance
Index (API); (b) pupil attendance and graduation rates; (c)
data that demonstrate opportunities provided to prepare pupils
for a career after graduation (college preparatory and career
technical education (CTE) coursework); (d) data that
demonstrate opportunities to prepare pupils for civic
responsibilities; (e) data on coursework that enhances a
pupil's learning beyond the core academic curriculum and
provide relevancy to the pupil's education (coursework in
leadership, art, physical education (PE), and CTE); and (f)
data that demonstrates pupil fitness and health.
3)Requires the SPI to establish an advisory committee to advise
him or her and the State Board of Education (SBE) on the
creation and reporting of the CEO Index. This measure further
requires the majority of the committee members to be public
classroom teachers and to serve without compensation.
4)Requires the advisory committee, by July 1, 2012, to make
AB 2273
Page 2
recommendations to the SPI and SBE on the most appropriate
format for an annual updating and reporting of this data,
including: (a) use of data collected by the State Department
of Education (SDE); (b) development of new data collection
strategies to attain data for required areas of the CEO Index;
and (c) a methodology for generating the scoring of education
opportunities on a schoolsite, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time GF/98 costs, likely between $500,000 and $1 million,
to develop, field test, and finalize the proposed indicators
for the CEO Index. To the extent that SDE is able to use
existing data for the proposed indicators, this cost may be
reduced.
2)One-time GF administrative costs, of at least $125,000, to the
SDE to provide support to the advisory committee established
pursuant to this measure.
3)GF/98 cost pressure, likely between $9 million and $15
million, to local education agencies (LEAs) to collect and
maintain data for the CEO Index. To the extent LEAs already
collect data proposed to be used in the index, this cost may
be offset. There were three million pupils enrolled in grades
7-12 in California schools in 2008-09.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . This measure provides for the development of the
CEO index as a major component of the PSAA. At the heart of
the current program is the API. The API is an indicator of
performance currently measured in test scores. The CEO Index
would be an index of components necessary to provide the
opportunity to measure performance for K-12 pupils with
indicators other than test scores.
According to the author, "Although academic progress is
extremely important, California has neglected the larger
discussion: What does a California High School diploma mean in
a 21st century economy and society? The CEO Index is a step
toward defining what a high school diploma means. Parents,
students and community members want to know what opportunities
exist in schools to learn drama, art, physical education and a
variety of other subjects. Currently, there is no easy way to
AB 2273
Page 3
highlight these opportunities that exist in our schools. This
index gives the public a tool to review the many opportunities
in public schools."
2)SB 1X (Alpert), Chapter 3, Statutes of 1999 , established the
PSAA, which required the development of the API. The API is
used to measure performance of schools and districts over
time. An API score is calculated based on students'
performance on the following standardized tests: the
California Standards Tests in English language arts,
mathematics, and history-social science, and science (where
applicable) and the California High School Exit Exam.
3)Previous related legislation .
a) AB 400 (Nunez) required the SPI to incorporate
previously specified and additional measures of performance
into the API, using the best available data and commencing
in fiscal year (FY) 2009-10. This bill was vetoed by the
governor in October 2007 with the following message:
"While I agree with the author that what the state measures
in its accountability system sends a powerful message to
schools and to the public about the outcomes we value, this
bill still needs refinement. I respect the intention to
provide schools the incentive to expand access to A-G
college admission required courses, and expand course
offering in CTE program. I am open to opportunities to
accomplish that goal. However, I must maintain that the API
should continue to be based on objective, reliable, valid
and consistent statistical measurements."
b) SB 495 (Vasconcellos) required the California Quality
Education Commission, by July 1, 2004, to make
recommendations to the SPI regarding which indicators
should comprise the Opportunities for Teaching and Learning
(OTL) index. This bill was vetoed by Governor Davis in
October 2003 with the following message:
"This bill would require the Quality Education Commission
to make recommendations by July 1, 2004, to the SPI
regarding the indicators that should be included in the
Opportunity to Learn Index (OTL) to measure the
opportunities for teaching and pupil learning. This bill
also would require the Commission to determine a method for
AB 2273
Page 4
computing the OTL index using available data and recommend
appropriate minimal standards for the indicators that make
up the OTL index. I am concerned that the index proposed in
this legislation may conflict with the API, which serves as
the basis for the state's accountability system.
Additionally, the proposed index would be largely redundant
as schools already provide information on four of the five
indicators required by this bill on their School
Accountability Report Cards. Given these existing
mechanisms for measuring student performance and school
conditions, I am reluctant to add additional mechanisms
that would complicate state education policy and may
distract parents, students, and teachers from the state's
existing accountability system. For these reasons, I am
unable to support this legislation."
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081