BILL ANALYSIS 1
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
X5 4 (Steinberg)
Hearing Date: 12/17/2009 Amended: As introduced
Consultant: Dan Troy Policy Vote: NA
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 4 of the 5th Extraordinary Session would
require the Governor, the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI), and the State Board of Education (SBE) to collaboratively
develop a single high-quality plan or multiple plans, in
collaboration with participating local education agencies, for
submission as part of the application for the federal Race to
the Top (RTTT) competitive program.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
Evaluations $500 to $1,000 Federal
Interventions Likely tens of millions, depending on
Federal
the number of schools identified
Revised Assessments Potentially tens of millions
General**
Instructional Materials/ $1,000,000 or more
General*
Professional Development
State operations Low millions
General**
*Counts toward meeting the Proposition 98 minimum funding
guarantee
**Potentially offset by federal funds
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Staff notes that amendments may be proposed to:
Authorize the SPI and SBE to enter into agreements with
local education agencies that wish to participate in RTTT
Identify schools as persistently low-performing if they
are in the bottom 5 percent (as measured by the Academic
Performance Index) of schools in federal program
improvement or are a high school that has a graduation rate
below 60 percent in each of the past 3 years. The SPI and
SBE would have discretion to exclude alternative schools
and schools that have demonstrated 50 points of growth on
the API over the past five years
Require persistently low-performing schools to implement
one of four specified federal intervention strategies
unless a similar strategy has been undertaken within the
prior two years
Authorize local education agencies to use data from the
California Education Information System for purposes of
evaluating teachers and administrators and making
employment decisions
Authorize existing regional consortia to provide
assistance to persistently low-performing schools
Authorize the Department of Education, the University of
California, the California State University, the California
Community Colleges, the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, the Employment Development Department, and
the California School Information Services to enter into
interagency agreements to facilitate the implementation of
a longitudinal education data system, the transfer of data
between the entities
Require the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to
develop an alternative route to credentialing preparation
in the fields of science, mathematics, and career technical
education
Allow "parent empowerment" petitions to utilize federal turn
around strategies in up to 75 schools in advanced stages of
federal program improvement. School boards would be required to
act upon petitions signed by at least one-half or more of
parents at schools and/or feeder schools
Allow "open enrollment" for all students in schools ranking
in decile 1 of the Academic Performance Index
Require an Academic Content Standards Commission to
develop state content standards in language arts and
mathematics that are internationally benchmarked and build
toward college and career readiness. At least 85 percent
of the standards shall be the common standards developed by
the national consortium. The State Board of Education
could either adopt or reject the recommended standards with
written justification for the rejection
Repeal the sunset date for the existing testing system
Require the SPI to make recommendations to reform the
testing system so that it is aligned with the new standards
and with RTTT criteria and other federal requirements
Require the SPI and the State Board of Education to make
recommendations to establish a measure of academic growth
and to increase the weight given to math test scores,
science test scores, college and career readiness in the
API
Require the SPI to submit to the Legislature and the
Governor a schedule and plan for implementation plan of the
revised standards
Require the SPI to contract for an evaluation of the
implementation of the state's RTTT plan and of the parent
empowerment provision
The federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
authorizes K-12 education funding for states on both a formula
basis and on a competitive basis. California is expected to
receive over $6 billion in formula-based grants. Additionally,
ARRA has authorized over $4.3 billion in funding for state-level
incentive grants through the Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative.
The RTTT is designed to "encourage and reward states that are
creating the conditions for education and innovation and reform;
achieving significant improvement in student outcomes, including
making substantial gains in student achievement, closing
achievement gaps, improving high school education rates, and
ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers;
and implementing ambitious plans in four core education areas."
The four core areas include: 1) high-quality standards and
assessments, 2) data systems that measure student growth and
inform instruction, 3) recruiting and developing effective
teachers and principals, and 4) turning around low-performing
schools.
In order to qualify for RTTT grants, states must be approved to
receive State Fiscal Stabilization Fund money and have no legal
barriers to linking student achievement data to the evaluation
of principals and teachers. Further, the state must develop a
comprehensive plan for addressing the four core areas identified
above. There are two application phases, the first on January
19, 2010 and the second on June 1, 2010. State applications
will be rated based on their competitiveness in 19 specified
areas. Given the state's population, a grant for California
could be worth between $350 million and $700 million dollars in
one-time money. Ultimately, the amount of funding awarded to a
state, if any, will be based on the quality of the application,
the extent of participation in the plan on the part of local
education agencies, the number of states that submit competitive
applications, and the number of awards that are ultimately
distributed.
There are numerous costs associated with this bill, as proposed
to be amended. The Department of Education has indicated that
intervention strategies may cost $500,000 per school and that
costs may be incurred over multiple years. As this bill may
target 100 to 200 schools, intervention costs would likely reach
the tens of millions annually, though these costs would be
offset by RTTT funds. Revising the state's academic content
standards will entail significant downstream costs for
implementation in the classroom. These costs will include
professional development for educators and pressure to fund new
instructional materials that are aligned with the revised
standards. These costs would likely be well over $1 billion.
Additionally, revision of the state's assessment systems would
also entail significant one-time costs, likely in the tens of
millions. While the This bill also entails costs, likely in the
low millions of dollars, for state operations work on the part
of the Department of Education for developing plans and
recommendations, as specified, though it may be that some or all
of these costs could be offset with RTTT or other federal funds.
The bill does not specify how much if any funding the
Department will receive from RTTT to fund required state
operations activities.
The bill may also result in unknown state reimbursable mandate
costs. To the extent local activities are more costly than the
allocations provided or that they extend beyond the life of RTTT
grants, they may be found reimbursable by the Commission on
State Mandates. This would result in new Proposition 98 General
Fund costs.
It is also possible that the open enrollment provision in the
bill may lead to new Proposition 98 costs to fund revenue limit
declining enrollment adjustments. This cost is indeterminable
though potentially significant, as it would depend upon the
number of pupils that opt to leave a district that is declining
in enrollment.
To the extent that the state receives RTTT funding, costs of the
bill may be offset or at least mitigated. Staff notes, though,
that it is not a certainty that the state will receive RTTT
funds, or that an award would offset all of the bill's costs.
Some of the activities may go beyond federal requirements and
potentially expose the state to reimbursable mandate costs.
Also, RTTT is a one-time grant while many of the new activities
in the bill are ongoing.
Chapter 159 of the Statutes of 2009 (SB 19, Simitian) removed
the key statutory obstacle faced by the state for RTTT
eligibility by eliminating the state's prohibition on using data
from CALTIDES and CALPADS for use in personnel decisions related
to teachers.
SB5x 1 (Romero) also made various changes to state education
policy in an effort to make the state more competitive for RTTT.
This bill failed passage in the Assembly Education Committee.
AB5x 8 (Brownley) also made various changes to state education
policy in an effort to make the state more competitive for RTTT.
This bill awaits a hearing in the Senate.