BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 47|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 47
Author: Huffman (D) and Brownley (D), et al.
Amended: 8/30/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-2, 6/29/11
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Simitian
NOES: Blakeslee, Huff
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Vargas, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-3, 8/25/11
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Emmerson, Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-26, 6/2/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Open enrollment
SOURCE : Alhambra Unified School District
Association of California School Administrators
Clovis Unified School District
Riverside County School Superintendents
Association
San Rafael City Schools
DIGEST : This bill modifies open enrollment provisions to
exempt schools with Academic Performance Index scores of at
least 700, schools with at least 50 points growth, certain
special education schools, and makes charter schools
CONTINUED
AB 47
Page
2
subject to being on the list of low-achieving schools.
ANALYSIS : California enacted legislation in response to
the federal Race to the Top initiative, including the Open
Enrollment Act specific to low-achieving schools.
The Open Enrollment program:
1. Allows any pupil enrolled in one of 1,000 schools
identified annually by the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) as low achieving to apply for
enrollment in a higher performing school anywhere in the
state. The list of 1,000 schools is established by
ranking schools based on the Academic Performance Index
(API), with the same ratio of elementary, middle, and
high schools as existed in decile one in the 2008-09
school year. A district cannot have more than 10
percent of the schools within that district placed on
the list. Specifically excluded from the list are the
following types of schools:
A. Court schools.
B. Community schools.
C. Community day schools.
D. Charter schools.
2. Requires pupils applying for a transfer to be assigned
priority for approval by the receiving school as
follows:
A. First priority for the siblings of children who
already attend the desired school.
B. Second priority for pupils transferring from a
program improvement school ranked in decile one.
C. If the number of pupils who request a particular
school exceeds the number of spaces available at that
school, a lottery must be conducted in the group
priority order listed above to select pupils at
random until all of the available spaces are filled.
CONTINUED
AB 47
Page
3
3. Encourages each school district to keep an accounting of
all requests made for alternative attendance and records
of all disposition of those request that may include,
but are not limited to, all of the following:
A. The number of requests granted, denied, or
withdrawn. In the case of denied requests, the
records may indicate the reasons for the denials.
B. The number of pupils who transfer out of the
district.
C. The number of pupils who transfer into the
district.
D. The race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported
socioeconomic status, and the district of residence
of each of the pupils who transfer in or out of the
district.
E. The number of pupils who transfer in or out of the
district who are classified as English learners or
identified as individuals with exceptional needs.
4. Authorizes the information described above to be
reported to the governing board of the district at a
regularly scheduled board meeting.
5. Requires the SPI to contract for an independent
evaluation, which must at a minimum consider all of the
following:
A. The levels of, and changes in, academic
achievement of pupils in school districts of
residence and school districts of enrollment for
pupils who do and do not elect to enroll in a
district of enrollment.
B. Fiscal and programmatic effects on districts of
residence and districts of enrollment.
C. Numbers and demographic and socioeconomic
CONTINUED
AB 47
Page
4
characteristics of pupils who do and do not elect to
enroll in a district of enrollment.
The SPI is to provide the final evaluation to the
Legislature, Governor and State Board of Education by
(SBE) October 1, 2014.
6. The SBE adopted regulations that provide:
A. Schools with less than 100 valid scores reported
on the 2009 Base API data file are excluded.
B. Because of the ratio specified in #1 above, 68.7
percent (687 of the 1,000 on list) are elementary
schools, 16.5 percent (165 of the 1,000 on list) are
middle schools, and 14.8 percent (148 of the 1,000 on
list) are high schools.
C. Creating the list starts with the identification
of the 687 elementary schools, 165 middle schools,
and 148 high schools that have the lowest API scores
within the criteria described above. This list is
ranked from lowest API score to highest API score.
When a school district on the list has reached its 10
percent cap, the district's schools with the highest
API scores are dropped from the list until the
district has no more than 10 percent of its schools
on the list. Schools with the next lowest API scores
remaining in the pool are then added to create the
next list of 1,000 schools that maintains the
required ratio of schools. This process continues
until a final list of 1,000 schools is achieved that
both maintains the ratio of 68.7 percent elementary
schools, 16.5 percent middle schools, and 14.8
percent high schools and does not exceed any
district's 10 percent number of schools. Schools
that are closed are exempt.
This bill modifies open enrollment provisions to exempt
schools with API scores of at least 700, schools with at
least 50 points growth, certain special education schools,
and makes charter schools subject to being on the list of
low-achieving schools. Specifically, this bill:
CONTINUED
AB 47
Page
5
1. Creates a cap of up to 1,000 schools that are to be on
the list of schools subject to open enrollment.
2. Adds to those schools exempt from being on the list:
A. Schools with an API score of at least 700.
B. Schools with prior year growth of at least 50
points.
C. Court, community, community day schools, and
county office of education schools operating a
special education program..
D. State special schools.
3. Removes the existing exemption for charter schools.
4. Prohibits a school identified as low-achieving from
being on the list of schools subject to open enrollment
until the second consecutive year that school is
identified as low-achieving.
5. Prohibits a receiving school district (district of
enrollment) from rejecting the transfer of a pupil with
exceptional needs or an English learner if he/she is
randomly selected through a lottery.
6. Requires, instead of encourages, districts to keep an
accounting of requests made for alternative attendance
Comments
Effect of open enrollment . The 2010-11 school year was the
first year that the Open Enrollment Act was implemented.
The effect of open enrollment on schools, districts and
pupils is unknown because this option is so new and because
current law authorizes specific data to be collected but
does not require this data to be collected or reported to
the state. This bill requires this data be collected,
reported to district boards, county offices of education,
and the state.
Number of schools subject to open enrollment . Current law
CONTINUED
AB 47
Page
6
requires 1,000 schools to be identified as low-achieving
and subject to open enrollment. This bill provides that
the list may include up to 1,000 to address the issue of
schools with high API scores being included on the list.
Since
September 2010, 96 schools identified on the open
enrollment list have requested a waiver from the SBE, which
would allow them to be removed from this list. According
to the California Department of Education, all 96 schools
have been approved for this waiver and are no longer
subject to open enrollment provisions.
Charter schools . Current law excludes charter schools from
the list of schools subject to open enrollment. Of the 945
schools ranked in decile one based on the API in 2008-09,
there were 103 charter schools. This means that 103 of
California's lowest achieving charter schools are being
excluded from the open enrollment program and an equal
number of higher achieving traditional public schools are
subject to open enrollment.
One-year pass . Current law requires schools that are
identified as low-achieving to be included on a list of
schools subject to open enrollment. This bill prohibits a
school from being subject to open enrollment unless the
school has been identified as low-achieving for two
consecutive years. This allows schools to show
improvements in their API scores and reduces the instances
where a school is placed on the list one year and taken off
the next.
Conforming changes . Under the District of Choice program,
a school district board may declare the district to be a
District of Choice willing to accept a certain number of
inter-district transfers. This bill makes several changes
that conform portions of the open enrollment program and
the District of Choice program. These conforming changes
include:
1. Explicitly prohibiting a district of enrollment from
rejecting the transfer of special needs pupils or
English learners (if that pupil was randomly selected in
a lottery).
CONTINUED
AB 47
Page
7
2. Requiring, rather than authorizing, each district of
enrollment to keep specified records.
3. Requiring these records to be reported to the district
board, to each school district that is geographically
adjacent, the county office of education, and the SPI.
4. Requiring the SPI to report to the Legislature and the
Governor.
5. Adding a sunset clause.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
"Low-achieving school" ---No additional state
costs likely--- General
criteria
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/26/11)
Alhambra Unified School District (co-source)
Association of California School Administrators (co-source)
Clovis Unified School District (co-source)
Riverside County School Superintendents' Association
(co-source)
San Rafael City Schools (co-source)
Alameda County Board of Education
California Association of Suburban School Districts
California Federation of Teachers
California Interscholastic Federation
California School Boards Association
California State PTA
Central Unified School District
Corona-Norco Unified School District
Eastside Union School District
Fremont Unified School District
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
CONTINUED
AB 47
Page
8
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Moorpark Unified School District
Newhall School District
Ocean View School District
Park Middle School
Pasadena Unified School District
Plumas Unified School District
Public Advocates
San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools
San Diego Unified School District
San Francisco Unified School District
San Jose Unified School District
San Ysidro School District
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Silver Valley Unified School District
Small School Districts' Association
Special Education Local Plan Area Administrators
Upland Unified School District
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
the existing process to identify 1,000 low-performing
schools "has created an unintended result where we find
schools that are clearly not low performing schools -
schools with API scores in the 800s - being identified as
low performing."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-26, 6/2/11
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes,
Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hayashi, Roger
Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Lara,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan,
Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Skinner, Solorio,
Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A.
P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Fletcher, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman,
Harkey, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell,
Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao,
Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gorell, Hall
CONTINUED
AB 47
Page
9
CPM:kc 8/29/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED