BILL NUMBER: AB 2307 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 28, 2010
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 5, 2010
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Carter
FEBRUARY 19, 2010
An act to add Section 52052.7 to the Education Code, relating to
academic performance.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2307, as amended, Carter. Education: academic performance.
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction,
with approval of the state board, to develop an Academic Performance
Index (API). The API primarily measures student academic achievement
and is used in determining a school's adequate yearly progress under
the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Existing law requires the Superintendent, with approval of the
state board, to develop an alternative accountability system for
specified schools. These Existing law allows
these schools may to receive an
API score , but shall not be
prohibits them from being included in the API rankings of
schools.
This bill would provide that, as part of the alternative
accountability system for schools , the Superintendent and
the state board shall allow a dropout recovery high school, as
defined, to use an individual pupil growth model that meets
is proposed by the school and certified by the
Superintendent pursuant to specified criteria.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) Dropout recovery high schools provide significant social,
economic, and academic benefit to their students
benefits to their pupils and to California's population as
a whole.
(b) Research by the Alliance for Excellent Education demonstrates
that if only one-half of the dropouts were recovered in California's
six largest metropolitan areas, the economic benefits to California
would be staggering: those recovered dropouts would invest an
additional $247 million a year; increase home sales by $2.92 billion
during their careers; support an additional 6,800 jobs to the
midpoint of their careers; and increase state and local tax revenues
by $129 million every year.
(c) Research further demonstrates that reengaged learners
demonstrate higher civic engagement, contribute to the cultural
strengths of their communities , and are significantly
less likely to be unemployed, on public assistance, or arrested for a
violent crime.
(d) Research further demonstrates that dropout recovery high
schools face a number of challenges in reengaging students into
academic endeavors, including:
(1) Dropouts who reenter high school are significantly below grade
level.
(2) Students who drop out display a gradual process of
disengagement from school that encompasses years of academic and
behavioral difficulties, absenteeism, and stressful life
circumstances.
(3) Reengagement into a high school setting can be difficult and
take a significant amount of time.
(4) Students who have dropped out once are significantly more
likely to drop out again. Research by WestEd found that one-half of
the dropouts who return to school stay for one year or less and that
one-third of returning dropouts fail to complete even one course
after they reenroll. The school district WestEd studied had a
graduate rate of 18 percent for recovered dropouts.
(e) Successful dropout recovery high schools utilize multiple
strategies including state-of-the-art technology and career technical
education to reach the variety of learning modalities of the
population that they serve.
(f) Successful dropout recovery schools typically enroll students
for less than four years, provide competency-based rather than seat
time-based instruction, and operate with open entry or open exit
enrollment.
(g) Standardized testing depends on all students being present on
a fixed schedule with learning competencies within a narrower band of
averages than represented by dropouts. Research by the National
Governor's Association recognizes that seat time education in the
dropout recovery context is a substantial and unnecessary barrier.
The use of competency-based and open entry strategies result in
dropout recovery students not being in school at the time that
standardized tests are administered.
(h) Support for successful dropout recovery high schools should
include an alternative assessment mechanism that measures the
individual growth in students which can be administered at the school
level when students are available.
SEC. 2. Section 52052.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
52052.7. (a) As part of the alternative accountability system for
schools developed pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 52052, the
Superintendent and the state board shall allow a dropout recovery
high school, as defined in subdivision (b), to use an individual
pupil growth model that meets the criteria described in
is proposed by the school and certified by the
Superintendent pursuant to subdivision (c).
(b) For purposes of this section, "dropout recovery high school"
means a high school in which 50 percent or more of its pupils are
designated as dropouts pursuant to the exit and withdrawal codes
developed by the department and the school provides instruction in
partnership with any of the following:
(1) The federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. Sec.
2801 et seq.).
(2) Federally affiliated Youthbuild programs (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12899
et seq.).
(3) Federal job corps training or instruction provided pursuant to
a memorandum of understanding with the federal provider.
(4) The California Conservation Corps or local conservation corps
certified by the California Conservation Corps pursuant to Section
14507.5 or 14406 14406 or 14507.5 of
the Public Resources Code.
(c) The Superintendent shall certify that
review the individual pupil growth model proposed by the
dropout recovery high school and certify that model if it meets
all of the following criteria:
(1) The model measures learning based on valid and reliable
nationally normed or criterion-referenced reading and
mathematics performance tests.
(2) The model measures instruction of skills
and knowledge aligned with state standards.
(3) The model measures the extent to which a pupil scored above an
expected amount of growth based on the individual pupil's initial
achievement score.
(4) The model demonstrates the extent to which a school is able to
accelerate learning on an annual basis.