BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 742|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 742
Author: Romero (D)
Amended: 6/1/09
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 8-0, 4/29/09
AYES: Romero, Huff, Alquist, Liu, Maldonado, Padilla,
Simitian, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hancock
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 12-0, 5/28/09
AYES: Kehoe, Cox, Corbett, Denham, DeSaulnier, Hancock,
Leno, Oropeza, Runner, Walters, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wolk
SUBJECT : School accountability: low-performing public
schools
SOURCE : EdVoice
DIGEST : This bill requires, commencing November 1, 2010,
the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State
Board of Education to identify 10 historically
low-performing public schools in the state and ensure the
schools' districts are complying with federal requirements
for notification to parents and employees of the school.
This bill sunsets on July 1, 2016.
ANALYSIS : The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999
created the Academic Performance Index (API) and
CONTINUED
SB 742
Page
2
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
(DOE) 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
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."
Sponsors indicate California's accountability system is
voluntary when it comes to interventions for persistent
academic failure. Over 2,240 schools in California have
participated in a voluntary school improvement program
since 1999 at a cost to the state and federal government of
over $2.5 billion. Research findings suggest student
achievement in schools that received the funds has been
either stagnant or gains cannot be attributed to the
programming of this investment. Key findings from the
research reveal that the voluntary nature of the program,
SB 742
Page
3
absence of oversight, failure to require full
implementation of improvement plans, and skewed incentives,
receiving funds regardless of academic performance are all
likely connected to the dismal findings.
This bill:
1.Creates an Advisory Committee (Committee), comprised of
twelve members appointed as specified, who are to advise
the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) on how to
identify ten historically low-performing public schools
in the state. Requires the SPI ensure that the
Committee includes persons who have published findings
or who are actively engaged in research on successful
school renewal efforts.
2.Requires the 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 jointly
identify ten historically low-performing schools in the
state, as well as the conditions that must exist for a
school to be removed from the list. Requires the
Committee to only consider schools currently or likely
to be subject to restructuring pursuant to existing
federal law in the subsequent school year, and allows
the Committee to consider other objective data such as
the California Standards Test, the Academic Performance
Index, and dropout and graduation rates. 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, the SBE and SPI
jointly identify 10 historically low-performing public
schools in the state ("listed school"). Requires at
least three of the schools be comprehensive high schools
with dropout rates of 25 percent or higher in 2007-2008,
and that the renewal efforts focus primarily on annual
increases toward a four-year graduation rate goal of 90
percent, as calculated pursuant to current law.
4.Requires the SPI ensure the governing board of each
local educational agency (LEA) responsible for oversight
SB 742
Page
4
of an identified low-performing school to provide each
employee and parent or guardian of a child enrolled or
requesting to be enrolled in the school specified
notices required by federal law.
5.Requires the SPI and SBE to direct the LEA responsible
for each listed school to evaluate the reasons for the
listing and approve at a public hearing at least one of
the locally developed renewal efforts specified in
existing federal law.
6.Provides that if a listed school is a charter school,
the SPI shall recommend revocation of the charter to the
SBE. Requires the SBE, within 90 days upon receiving
the recommendation, hold a public hearing to consider
the revocation.
7.Provides that if the Director of Finance (Director)
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 all of the following shall occur:
A. The SPI and SBE shall determine if other federal
funds are available, and if so, determine how that
funding could be best allocated to facilitate the
ongoing renewal efforts.
B. After making the above determination, the SPI
and SBE shall notify the relevant LEA regarding
which schools are subject to the requirements of
the bill for the subsequent school year and
remaining schools for which the renewal plans are
recommended but not mandatory.
8.Requires the DOE contract for an independent evaluation
of the program, as specified to be paid for from federal
funds appropriated to the department. Requires the
evaluation, for high schools, to include an assessment
of the efficacy of strategies employed to improve pupil
achievements and identify components of successful
school renewal.
9.Requires, by March 1, 2015, the evaluation to be
SB 742
Page
5
submitted to specified legislative bodies, the Governor,
and the Director.
10.Sunsets the bill on July 1, 2016.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
Resent amendments substantially alter the fiscal impact,
cost unknown.
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/1/09)
EdVoice (source)
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/1/09)
Association of California School Administrators
California Federation of Teachers
California Teachers Association
Californians Together
DLW:do 6/2/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****