BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 180
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 180 (Carter) - As Amended: March 25, 2011
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:10-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) and the State Board of Education (SBE) to allow a dropout
recovery high school (DRHS) to report, in lieu of other
indicators, the results of an individual pupil growth model that
is proposed by the school and certified by the SPI.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines a "dropout recovery high school" as a high school in
which 50% or more of its pupils are designated as dropouts
pursuant to the exit and withdrawal codes developed by the
State Department of Education (SDE), and which provides
instruction in partnership with any of the following:
a) The federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA).
b) Federally affiliated Youthbuild programs.
c) Federal job corps training or instruction provide
pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with the federal
provider.
d) The California Conservation Corp (CCC) or local
conservation corps certified by the CCC, as specified.
2)Requires the SPI to review the individual pupil growth model
proposed by the DRHS and certify the model, if it meets all of
the following requirements: (a) measures learning based on
valid and reliable nationally normed or criterion-referenced
reading and mathematics tests; (b) measures skills and
knowledge aligned with state standards; (c) measures the
AB 180
Page 2
extent to which a pupil scored above an expected amount of
growth based on the individual pupil's initial achievement
score; and (d) demonstrates the extent to which a school is
able to accelerate learning on an annual basis.
FISCAL EFFECT
GF administrative costs, likely less than $100,000, to SDE to
review and recommend approval to the SBE of an individual growth
model for DRHS, as specified.
COMMENTS
1)Background . K-12 pupils have several alternative education
options available to them other than traditional public
schools, including independent study, continuation education,
community day schools, juvenile court schools, and dropout
recovery schools. Many of these alternative education options
have specified requirements that cause the pupil to attend one
of these programs. For example, pupils in the criminal
justice system are educated in a juvenile court school.
Current law requires the SPI to establish an alternative
accountability system (i.e., the Alternative School
Accountability Model (ASAM) for schools under the jurisdiction
of a county board of education or county superintendent of
schools, community day schools, nonpublic schools, and
alternative schools serving high risk pupils (continuation
high schools, dropouts, etc). Statute also authorizes schools
in the alternative accountability system to receive an
Academic Performance Index (API) score, but not be included in
the API rankings. Participation in the alternative
accountability system is voluntary, unless a school enrolls
70% (at a minimum) of high-risk pupils.
The ASAM is a voluntary accountability program where
qualifying schools select three of 14 reporting indicators
measuring student learning readiness, transition, and academic
performance. Participating schools annually report on these
three indicators. Schools select their reporting indicators
from a list adopted by the SBE in 2001.
AB 180
Page 3
ASAM serves more than 1,000 community day schools,
continuation schools, county community schools, county court
schools, Division of Juvenile Justice schools, opportunity
schools, and alternative schools of choice and charter schools
that meet the eligibility requirements approved by the SBE.
According to SDE, 1,055 schools participated in ASAM in
2009-10. As of October 2010, 139,592 students were enrolled in
grades 8-12 in schools served by ASAM.
This bill would allow DRH to utilize an approved growth model
to measure the school's success in addition to the ASAM, as
specified.
2)Purpose . According to the California Dropout Research Project
report: The Economic Losses of High School Dropouts in
California (Belfield and Levin, August 2007), California
experiences $46.4 billion in total economic losses from each
cohort of 120,000 20- year-olds who never complete high
school; this is the equivalent of 2.9% of the annual state
gross product. The authors further state that the average high
school graduate earns $290,000 more over a lifetime than a
high school dropout and pays $100,000 more in federal, state,
and local taxes. Likewise, more the two-thirds of high school
dropouts will use food stamps during their working lifetime
and a high school graduate is 68% less likely to be on any
welfare program.
The California Standards Tests (CSTs), which comprise the
majority of Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program,
measure pupil performance on the state academic standards for
each grade level. Each grade has a unique set of standards
and the CSTs for that grade are designed to measure pupil
performance against those standards. If the STAR assessments
were designed in a manner that enabled performance levels to
mean the same thing at each grade level, the state could
accurately measure student gains or losses across years. This
change in the assessment system would eventually affect the
state's API because the majority of the index is calculated
utilizing assessment scores. As a result, a school would be
held accountable for pupil performance over time (i.e., a
growth model).
According to the author, "Dropout recovery high schools
typically operate on an open entry, open exit model rather
than a traditional school year model. As a result, students
AB 180
Page 4
enter and exit as they complete their individual course work
requirements and many are not enrolled at the single point in
time necessary for typical standardized tests. An individual
growth model tracks each student's growth in terms of actual
learning gains. �This bill] provides that, as part of the
ASAM for schools, the SPI and the SBE will allow a dropout
recovery high school, to use an individual student growth
model that meets certain criteria."
3)Governor's 2010 veto of ASAM funding . The Department of
Finance (DOF) proposes to eliminate the ASAM and fold
alternative schools into existing federal accountability
reporting. Specifically, DOF states "While the state permits
alternative schools to participate in an alternative
accountability model to comply with state accountability
requirements, it is not required by state or federal law.
Under federal requirements established by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, all alternative schools are required to
meet the same adequate yearly progress reporting criteria as
other mainstream schools." As a result of this proposal, the
state would save approximately $775,000 in GF/98.
The Legislature rejected the governor's proposal and fully
funded ASAM. In October 2010, however, the governor vetoed
$775,000 GF/98 appropriated to operate the ASAM. The governor
stated: "SDE and SBE have begun phasing out the external
contractor in favor of CDE's staff compiling data from
existing sources making these funds unnecessary. In addition,
because the state funds testing and accountability programs
interchangeably with federal funds and Proposition 98 General
Fund, this reduction will generate Proposition 98 General Fund
savings."
Prior to the governor's veto, SDE had been working to revise
the ASAM model to take into account more rigorous academic
information. These plans are currently on hold due to a lack
of funding.
4)Previous legislation . AB 2307 (Carter), similar to this
measure, was held on suspense by the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 180
Page 5