BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
742 (Romero)
Hearing Date: 05/28/2009 Amended: 05/06/2009
Consultant: Dan Troy Policy Vote: ED 8-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 742 would require the Superintendent of
Public Instruction (SPI) and the State Board of Education (SBE)
to annually, commencing in November of 2010, identify the 10
lowest performing schools in the state and require the district
of those schools to notify parents and employees of the specific
facts and options. The bill would create an advisory committee
to the SPI for the purpose of making recommendations to the SBE
on how to identify the lowest performing schools. The local
education agency of an identified school would be required to
initiate at least one of the following "renewal" efforts:
Restructure the internal operations of the school,
including but not limited to, school leadership,
certificated and classified staff, and curriculum.
Operate the school under the oversight of a nonprofit
management organization with which the SPI and SBE have
jointly entered into a contract.
Reopen the school as charter school jointly approved by
the local education agency, the SPI, and the SBE.
If a charter school is one of the listed schools, the bill
specifies alternate options, including reopening the school
under the management of a statewide benefit charter organization
under direction of the SBE.
The bill would require an independent evaluation be completed by
March 1, 2015.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
Interventions $1,000 $1,000
Federal*
Administration $200 $400 $200
General
Evaluation Likely several hundred
thousand dollars General
*May result in General Fund pressure to the extent federal funds
are unavailable
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Current state and federal law establishes several accountability
and intervention programs. Under the federal No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB), schools and local
Page 2
SB 742 (Romero)
education agencies may subject to certain interventions for
failing to make adequate yearly progress, as specified. The
state has also enacted a number of measures aimed at supporting
districts struggling academically and/or subjecting them to
sanctions for failing to make specified progress, such as the
II/USP program authorized by Chapter 3/1999 (SB 1x, Alpert), the
High Priority Schools Grant Program authorized by Chapter
749/2001 (AB 961, Steinberg), and the Quality Education
Investment Act (QEIA) authorized by Chapter 751/2006 (SB 1133,
Torlakson).
This bill would add another layer of intervention to the system.
The bill would create an advisory committee for the purpose of
making recommendations to the SBE on how to identify the 10
historically lowest performing public schools in the state. The
committee would be required to consider results from the
California Standards Test, the Academic Performance Index,
adequate yearly progress pursuant to NCLB, rates of dropout and
graduation, and other objective measures. The committee would
also recommend criteria for removal from the list. Once a
district school is identified on the list, the district would be
required to notify parents and employees of the school of the
reasons why the school was identified. The notification would
include specified schoolwide assessment results and information
on intradistrict and interdistrict transfer options.
The bill specifies that the Director of Finance will notify the
SPI and SBE if sufficient federal funds are not available for
these renewal efforts. The SPI and SBE would then be required to
submit a budget request to fund the renewal efforts, and notify
the schools that the renewal efforts are optional but not
mandatory unless funding is the budget request is approved.
This bill would drive new costs at the Department of Education
for staffing the advisory committee and providing guidance and
technical assistance to the identified schools. As the
identified schools grow over time, so would the costs. SDE
indicates initial costs in the range of $400,000, with ongoing
costs depending on the number of schools in need of monitoring
and assistance. Further, costs for the evaluation would likely
be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
There would also be local costs. These costs would include the
analysis of the reasons for the school's poor performance,
specified notification of parents and employees, and the costs
of the interventions. Considering the costs of other
intervention programs, it would be reasonable to assume that the
cost per school would be at least $100,000, for a total annual
cost of $1 million. To the extent federal funding is
insufficient to fund the interventions, there would be general
fund pressure to cover the costs, as made explicit in the bill
by requiring the SBE and SPI to request funding from in the
budget in that instance.
Author's amendments would limit total number of schools to 10
and identify schools already subject to intervention through
federal law, and make other technical changes.