BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 742
AUTHOR: Romero
AMENDED: April 27, 2009
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 29, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: James Wilson
SUBJECT : Lowest Performing Schools
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) and the State Board of Education (SBE) to annually
identify the 10 lowest performing schools in the state and
require the schools' districts to notify parents and
employees of the school of specific facts and options,
while initiating specific renewal efforts.
BACKGROUND
The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 created the
Academic Performance Index (API) and established the
Immediate Intervention/ Underperforming Schools Program
(II/USP) to offer voluntary assistance to low-performing
schools. In 2001, the High Priority Schools Program (HP)
was established to provide additional assistance to the
lowest-performing schools, taking the place of the II/USP.
In 2005, the Department of Education (CDE) contracted with
the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to examine the
implementation, impact, costs, and benefits of the HP
Program. It was found that, on average, HP schools showed
gains in student performance during the period of program
implementation; however, the effect of the HP program
itself was found to be negligible.
Schools that participated in the II/USP or High Priority
Schools Program and failed to show significant API growth
may be designated for state monitoring.
Once a school is placed under state monitoring, a number of
interventions are possible, including, but not limited to,
closing or reorganizing the school or allowing parents to
apply to the SBE to become a charter school. The most
SB 742
Page 2
common intervention, however, has been to require the
district to enter into a contract with a School Assistance
Intervention Team (SAIT) on behalf of the school. The SAIT
provider is responsible for assessing the school and
assisting the school with implementing a corrective action
plan.
A 2008 evaluation found that "the SAIT program is effective
in helping low-performing schools improve classroom
instruction and student achievement. Longitudinal analysis
of API and STAR data over a seven-year period showed that
student achievement in SAIT schools improved."
ANALYSIS
This bill:
1) Creates an Advisory Committee, comprised of twelve
members appointed as specified, who are to advise the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) on choosing
the ten historically lowest performing schools in the
state.
2) Requires the Advisory Committee to make
recommendations to the SPI, by July 1, 2010, on the
criteria the SPI and the State Board of Education
(SBE) should use to identify the ten historically
lowest performing schools in the state, as well as the
conditions that must exist for a school to be removed
from the list. Further requires the SPI to make
recommendations on these criteria and conditions to
the SBE by August 15, 2010, and requires the SPI and
SBE to jointly approve the criteria and conditions by
October 1, 2010.
3) Requires that by November 1, 2010, and annually
thereafter, the SBE and SPI jointly identify the 10
historically lowest performing public schools in the
state ("listed school").
4) Requires the SPI to require the governing board of
each local educational agency (LEA) responsible for
oversight a listed, or de-listed, school to provide
the employees and parents of pupils at the school, the
following:
SB 742
Page 3
a) The reasons why the school was identified,
or removed from the list
b) The latest copy of the school's
accountability report card, results of the
California Standards Tests, the school's API
(Academic Performance Index) and AYP (Adequate
Yearly Progress), dropout and graduation rates.
c) Information regarding all state and federal
public school transfer options and publicly
funded academic supplemental services available
to pupils enrolled in the school.
5) Requires the SPI and SBE to require the LEA
responsible for each listed school to evaluate the
reasons for the listing and initiate at least one of
the following renewal efforts:
a) Restructure the school, possibly including
school leadership, certificated and classified
staff, and curriculum, in accord with a plan
approved by the SPI and the SBE.
b) Operate the school under the oversight of a
nonprofit management organization under contract
with the SPI and SBE.
c) Reopen the school as a charter school
jointly approved by the local educational agency,
the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI),
and the State Board of Education (SBE).
6) Provides that if a listed school is a charter school,
the SPI and SBE will direct the responsible LEA to do
at least one of the following:
a) Restructure the school, possibly including
school leadership, certificated and classified
staff, and curriculum, in accord with a plan
approved by the SPI and the SBE.
b) Operate the school under the oversight of a
nonprofit management organization under contract
with the SPI and SBE.
SB 742
Page 4
c) Reopen the school under the management of a
statewide benefit charter management organization
based on a plan approved jointly by the SPI and
the SBE.
d) Facilitate a review of the school by the SPI
and facilitate the implementation of the
appropriate action, if any, directed by the state
board pursuant to any findings made pursuant to
Section 47604.5.
7) Provides that if the Director of Finance determines
that sufficient federal funds are not available to
implement the renewal efforts pursuant to this bill,
the Director must notify the SPI and SBE within 45
days, and provides further for the SPI and SBE to
request state funds and notify the schools that the
renewal plans are recommended but not mandatory until
the Legislature makes funding available.
STAFF COMMENTS
State mandate . The Legislative Counsel notes that
"because this bill would require schools identified as the
historically lowest performing schools in the state to take
specified actions, it would impose a state-mandated local
program." Although the bill notes that renewal options
are not mandatory until funded, there may still be mandated
costs associated with required notices and renewal
activities to the extent that they are not fully funded.
SUPPORT
EdVoice
OPPOSITION
Association of California School Administrators
California Federation of Teachers
California Teachers Association
Californians Together