BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 180
AUTHOR: Carter
AMENDED: March 25, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 8, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
SUBJECT : Alternative accountability: individual pupil growth
model.
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) and State Board of Education to allow a dropout
recovery high school to use an individual pupil growth model
that is proposed by the school and certified by the SPI.
BACKGROUND
Current law requires the SPI, with the approval of the State
Board of Education (SBE) to develop an alternative
accountability system for schools under the jurisdiction of a
county board of education or a county superintendent of
schools, community day schools, non-public schools, and
alternative schools serving high-risk pupils, including
continuation high schools and opportunity schools. Schools
in the alternative accountability system may receive an
Academic Performance Index (API) score, but are not included
in the API rankings. (Education Code � 52052)
The Alternative School Accountability Model (ASAM) was
developed in 2000. 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.
According to the CDE, approximately 1,000 schools participate
in ASAM.
ANALYSIS
AB 180
Page 2
This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) and the State Board of Education (SBE) to allow a
dropout recovery high school to use an individual pupil
growth model that is proposed by the school and certified by
the SPI. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires the SPI and the SBE to allow a dropout recovery
high school to use, as part of the alternative
accountability system, an individual pupil growth model
proposed by the school.
2) Requires the SPI to review the individual pupil growth
model proposed by the dropout recovery high school and
certify that model if it meets all of the following
criteria:
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 extent to which a pupil scored
above an expected amount of growth based on the
individual pupil's initial achievement score.
d) Demonstrates the extent to which a school
is able to accelerate learning on an annual basis.
3) Defines a "dropout recovery high school" as a school
offering instruction in any of grades 9-12 in which 50%
or more of its pupils are designated as dropouts
pursuant to the exit and withdrawal codes developed by
the California Department of Education (CDE); and the
school provides instruction in partnership with any of
the following:
a) The federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA).
b) Federally affiliated Youthbuild programs.
AB 180
Page 3
c) Federal job corps training or instruction
provided pursuant to a memorandum of understanding
with the federal provider.
d) The California Conservation Corp (CCC) or
local conservation corps certified by the CCC.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Purpose of the bill . According to the author, "Dropouts
often are far below grade level standards and re-enter
seeking to complete their diploma in a shorter period of
time than necessary in the traditional high school.
Most standardized tests do not measure individual
student performance over time and therefore, an open
entry and exit education does not align with once-a-year
testing. In contrast, an individual growth model can
demonstrate the learning gains of a student to assess
the value of the school's instructional program."
2) Author's amendment . The author wishes to amend this
bill to refer to the Alternative School Accountability
Model (ASAM) instead of the Academic Performance Index
(API) to reflect the fact that ASAM has not yet been
eliminated or replaced. This ensures that ASAM schools
receive an API score but not state or similar school
rankings. (See Comment #4)
3) Growth model . 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. The STAR assessments were not
designed to align performance levels across each grade
level; therefore, the state cannot accurately measure
student gains or losses across years and schools cannot
be held accountable for pupil performance over time.
4) Status of ASAM . On November 5, 2008, the State Board of
Education (SBE) approved a conceptual framework for
redesigning the existing ASAM system. The framework was
being used by the California Department of Education
AB 180
Page 4
(CDE) as the basis for the development and eventual
implementation of a revised ASAM system, but funding was
vetoed and therefore all work on the revised ASAM has
ceased. Also reportedly due to budget reductions, the
state no longer collects the accountability indicators
used by ASAM schools. As a result, CDE is not
implementing the ASAM program.
5) Fiscal impact . According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis, this bill would impose General Fund
administrative costs, likely less than $100,000, to the
Department of Education to review and recommend approval
to the SBE of an individual growth model.
6) Prior legislation . AB 2307 (Carter, 2010) was nearly
identical to this bill and was held on the Senate
Appropriations Committee's suspense file.
AB 2013 (Arambula, 2010) would have required schools that
enroll 100% of their pupils in independent study
programs to be included in the state's alternative
accountability system and made changes to require
mandatory participation by all alternative schools. AB
2013 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee's
suspense file.
AB 1130 (Solorio, Ch. 273, 2009) states legislative intent
regarding the examination of methods for making and
reporting comparisons of school and district academic
achievement over time based on a cohort growth measure.
AB 429 (Brownley, 2009) would have required examination of
methods for making and reporting valid comparisons of
individual academic performance over time and for making
potential improvements in the Academic Performance
Index, so as to be able to measure and report both a
student's and a school's academic growth over time.
AB 429 was vetoed by the Governor, whose message read:
I appreciate the author's intent to address the
issue of measuring annual academic achievement
growth in schools. However, this bill circumvents
the authority of the State Board of Education
AB 180
Page 5
(SBE), by not providing the SBE with the authority
to approve or modify the recommendations of the
Public Schools Accountability Act advisory
committee.
SUPPORT
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Charter Schools Association
California Federation of Teachers
California School Boards Association
Inyo County Office of Education
School for Integrated Academics and Technologies
YouthBuild Charter School of California
OPPOSITION
None on file.