BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2307
AUTHOR: Carter
AMENDED: April 28, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 30, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
SUBJECT : Alternative accountability: individual pupil
growth model.
KEY POLICY ISSUE
Should dropout recovery schools, as defined, be allowed to
use an individual pupil growth model for accountability
purposes?
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) and State Board of Education (SBE) to allow a dropout
recovery high school to use an individual pupil growth model
that is proposed by the school and certified by the
Superintendent.
BACKGROUND
Current law requires the SPI, with the approval of the SBE to
develop an alternative accountability system for schools
under the jurisdiction of a county board of education or a
county superintendent of schools, community day schools,
non-public schools, and alternative schools serving high-risk
pupils, including continuation high schools and opportunity
schools. Schools in the alternative accountability system
may receive an Academic Performance Index (API) score, but
are not included in the API rankings. (Education Code
52052)
The Alternative School Accountability Model (ASAM) was
developed in 2000. According to the CDE, approximately 1,000
schools participate in ASAM.
ANALYSIS
AB 2307
Page 2
This bill requires the SPI and SBE to allow a dropout
recovery high school to use an individual pupil growth model
that is proposed by the school and certified by the
Superintendent. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires the SPI and the SBE to allow a dropout recovery
high school to use, as part of the alternative
accountability system, an individual pupil growth model
proposed by the school.
2) Requires the SPI to 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:
a) Measures learning based on valid and
reliable nationally normed or criterion-referenced
reading and mathematics tests.
b) Measures skills and knowledge aligned with
state standards.
c) Measures the extent to which a pupil scored
above an expected amount of growth based on the
individual pupil's initial achievement score.
d) Demonstrates the extent to which a school
is able to accelerate learning on an annual basis.
3) Defines a "dropout recovery high school" as a high
school in which 50% or more of its pupils are designated
as dropouts pursuant to the exit and withdrawal codes
developed by the California Department of Education
(CDE) and the school provides instruction in partnership
with any of the following:
a) The federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA).
b) Federally affiliated Youthbuild programs.
c) Federal job corps training or instruction
provided pursuant to a memorandum of understanding
with the federal provider.
d) The California Conservation Corp (CCC) or
AB 2307
Page 3
local conservation corps certified by the CCC.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, "Dropout
recovery high schools exclusively serve students who are
far below grade level standards, re-enter school for
much less than a four year period, and enter and exit
high school on an irregular schedule. For these
reasons, an open entry-open exit education does not
align with once-a-year testing. As a result, an
individual student growth measure is a significantly
more meaningful accountability mechanism for dropout
recovery high schools."
2) Growth model . The California Standards Tests (CSTs),
which comprise the majority of Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) Program, measure pupil performance on
the state academic standards for each grade level. Each
grade has a unique set of standards and the CSTs for
that grade are designed to measure pupil performance
against those standards. The STAR assessments were not
designed to align performance levels across each grade
level; therefore, the state cannot accurately measure
student gains or losses across years and schools cannot
be held accountable for pupil performance over time.
Since the state does not have an individual growth model for
each school and developing such models at the state
level would be costly, is it a reasonable solution is to
authorize this small group of schools with developing
their own individual pupil-based accountability model?
3) Alternative School Accountability Model (ASAM): redesign
or eliminate ? The ASAM Subcommittee, the California
Department of Education (CDE) and WestEd have been
working to evaluate the feasibility of a revised ASAM
system to more accurately hold ASAM schools accountable
and create a stronger overall accountability system. On
November 5, 2008, the State Board of Education (SBE)
approved a conceptual framework for redesigning the
existing ASAM system. Beginning with the 2009-10 school
year, baseline data for the three types of indicators
(learning readiness, academic achievement, and
transition) are being collected. In May 2011, the CDE
will present to the SBE an action item with
recommendations for a revised ASAM system based on the
AB 2307
Page 4
results of the 2009-10 baseline results.
The Department of Finance (DOF) is proposing to eliminate the
ASAM and fold alternative schools into existing federal
accountability reporting. Specifically, DOF states in
their Spring Adjustments Letter, "While the state
permits alternative schools to participate in an
alternative 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." No action was taken by budget committees in
either house, and because the Governor's proposed budget
does not eliminate ASAM, this proposal appears to be off
the table.
4) Related budget action . The budget conference committee
is considering language to require the CDE to ensure
that, as a condition of extending the STAR contract, the
contractor absorbs the cost of developing a longitudinal
student growth measure without making any offsetting
contract savings.
5) Fiscal impact . According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis, this bill would impose General Fund
administrative costs, likely less than $100,000, to CDE.
6) Technical amendment needed . The Department of Finance
has proposed the elimination of the ASAM, and as such,
the reference to ASAM in this bill should be deleted and
language inserted to clarify that until the SBE adopts a
growth model for all schools, the SPI and SBE will allow
a dropout recovery high school to report the results of
an individual pupil growth model that is certified by
the SPI.
7) Prior and related legislation .
AB 2013 (Arambula, 2010) would have
required schools that enroll 100% of their pupils
in independent study programs to be included in the
state's alternative accountability system and made
changes to require mandatory participation by all
alternative schools. AB 2013 was held on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee's suspense file.
AB 2307
Page 5
AB 1130 (Solorio, Ch. 273, 2009) states
legislative intent regarding the examination of
methods for making and reporting comparisons of
school and district academic achievement over time
based on a cohort growth measure.
AB 429 (Brownley, 2009) would have required
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, so
as to be able to measure and report both a
student's and a school's academic growth over time.
AB 429 was vetoed by the Governor, whose message
read:
I appreciate the author's intent to address
the issue of measuring annual academic
achievement growth in schools. However, this
bill circumvents the authority of the State
Board of Education (SBE), by not providing the
SBE with the authority to approve or modify
the recommendations of the Public Schools
Accountability Act advisory committee.
SUPPORT
California Charter Schools Association
National Dropout Prevention Center
School for Integrated Academics and Technologies
OPPOSITION
None received.