BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 203
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 203 (Brownley) - As Amended: April 27, 2011
SUBJECT : Parent empowerment: school intervention
SUMMARY : Makes various changes to the Parent Empowerment
Program (PEP). Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that a school not identified as persistently lowest
achieving, or is identified as a persistently lowest-achieving
school but does not receive funding under the federal School
Improvement Grant (SIG) program, instead of the federal Race
to the Top (RTTT) program, shall be a school subject to the
PEP.
2)Specifies that the following shall apply to the PEP:
a) No more than one parent or legal guardian per pupil may
sign a petition.
b) Any written information provided to parents or legal
guardians, including a petition, shall meet the requirement
under existing law that if 15% or more of the pupils
enrolled in a public school speak a single primary language
other than English, all notices, reports, statements, or
records sent to the parent or guardian of any such pupil by
the school or school district shall, in addition to being
written in English, be written in the primary language.
3)Requires that in a regularly scheduled public hearing where
the governing board of a local educational agency (LEA)
determines whether to implement the option requested by the
petition, or implement another option, the governing board
shall allow parents and legal guardians who have objections to
the option requested in the petition the opportunity to
provide public testimony regarding the reasons for their
objections. Specifies that the governing board shall include
consideration of those objections in the final disposition
submitted to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI)
and the State Board of Education (SBE).
4)Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to
AB 203
Page 2
provide, on its Internet Web site, information regarding the
petition process, the five intervention options that parents
and legal guardians may request, and a sample petition that
can be used by interested petitioners. Specifies that the
petition shall be available in other languages pursuant to
existing law that requires translation of materials in
alternative languages if 15% or more of the pupils in a public
school speak a single primary language other than English.
Specifies that petitioners shall not be required to use the
sample petitions, but alternate petitions shall contain all
components required by law.
5)Establishes the following definitions for the purpose of the
PEP:
a) "Parents or legal guardians" mean the natural or
adoptive parents, legal guardians, or other persons holding
the right to make educational decisions for the pupil,
including but not limited to, foster parents who hold
rights to make educational decisions on the date the
petition is submitted.
b) "A combination of at least one-half of the parents or
legal guardians of pupils attending the school and the
elementary or middle schools that normally matriculate into
a middle or high school, as applicable" means one-half of
the total number of parents and legal guardians of pupils
who attend the school or an elementary or middle school
that normally matriculates into a middle or high school, as
applicable.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the PEP as follows:
a) Requires a LEA to implement one of the four
interventions for turning around persistently
lowest-achieving schools as defined in RTTT statute or the
Alternative Governance reform described in Section
1116(b)(8)(B)(v) of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB) that is selected by parents for any school not
identified as persistently lowest-achieving, has an
Academic Performance Index (API) score of less than 800,
but that is subject to corrective action, if at least
one-half of the parents or legal guardians of pupils
AB 203
Page 3
attending the school, or a combination of at least one-half
of the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending the
school and the elementary or middle schools that normally
matriculate into the middle or high school, sign a petition
making the request.
b) Specifies that the LEA may choose another RTTT or NCLB
intervention only if the LEA makes a written finding at a
regularly scheduled public hearing as to why it cannot
implement the option requested by parents, and notifies the
SPI and the SBE that the option selected by the LEA has
substantial promise of enabling the school to make adequate
yearly progress (AYP). Also restricts this program to the
first 75 schools that inform the SPI and SBE of the final
disposition of the petition.
c) Specifies that a LEA shall not be required to implement
the option requested by the parent petition if the request
is for reasons other than improving academic achievement or
pupil safety.
2)Defines "persistently lowest-achieving schools", under the
RTTT program, as the following:
a) The lowest 5 % of the low-achieving schools (schools in
Program Improvement) as measured by the academic
achievement of all students in a school in terms of
proficiency on the state's assessment in reading/language
arts and mathematics combined;
b) The lowest 5 % of secondary schools, as measured by the
academic achievement of all students in a school in terms
of proficiency on the state's assessment in
reading/language arts and mathematics combined, that are
eligible for but do not receive Title 1 funds;
c) Any high school with a graduation rate less than 60% in
each of the last three years; and,
d) Excludes, to the extent allowable under federal law,
specified special needs or alternative schools and those
schools that have experienced academic growth of at least
50 points on the API, unless the SPI and SBE jointly
overrule that exclusion. Also authorizes the SPI and SBE
to jointly exclude a community day school from this
AB 203
Page 4
definition.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Background . In February 2009, the President signed
into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
which, among others, established $4 billion for one-time State
Incentive Grants known as the RTTT. One of the eligibility
requirements for RTTT is identifying, including establishing a
definition for, persistently lowest-achieving schools in the
state and requiring these schools to implement one of four
intervention models, as follows:
1)Turnaround model : Replace the principal and 50% of the
existing staff; implement strategies to recruit, place and
retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of
students; use data to improve instructional program; provide
high-quality professional development that is aligned with the
school's instructional program; among others.
2)Restart model : Convert a school to a charter school, or close
and reopen a school under a charter school operator, a charter
management organization, or an education management
organization.
3)School closure : Close a school and enroll the students in
other higher achieving schools in the LEA.
4)Transformation model : Similar to the Turnaround model,
replace the principal and develop strategies focusing on
principal and teacher effectiveness, instructional reform,
increasing learning time and creating community-oriented
schools, and providing operational flexibility and support.
SBX5 4 (Romero), Chapter 3, Statutes of 2009-10 Fifth
Extraordinary Session, establishes the PEP whereby parents and
legal guardians at a school not identified as a persistently
lowest-achieving school under the RTTT, has an API score of
under 800 and is in program improvement, can require a governing
board to implement any of the RTTT interventions or an
alternative intervention authorized by the NCLB if at least
one-half of the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending
the school, or a combination of at least one-half of the parents
or legal guardians of the pupils attending the school and its
elementary or middle feeder schools, sign a petition making the
request.
The bill authorizes a governing board to choose another RTTT or
AB 203
Page 5
NCLB intervention only if it makes written findings in a
regularly scheduled public hearing of the reason it cannot
implement the intervention requested by parents and guardians,
and inform the SPI and the SBE how the alternative intervention
it has selected has substantial promise of enabling the school
to meet AYP. SBX5 4 limits the number of affected schools to
the first 75 statewide; excludes schools with an API of 800 or
higher; and specifies that a LEA is not required to comply with
the petition request if the reason for the request is not
related to academic achievement or pupil safety.
This Committee expressed concerns when SBX5 4 was heard that
some of the bill's provisions are unclear and that more specific
parameters are needed. In September, 2010 and again in March 9,
2011, the SBE adopted temporary, emergency regulations that
provided minimal guidelines. The SBE has been deliberating
proposed permanent regulations for several months and at the
April 21, 2011 meeting, the SBE voted to send revised draft
regulations for public comments. During several deliberations
on this issue, questions were raised as to whether statutory
changes are needed to implement some of the proposed
regulations.
Thus far, only one petition has been submitted to a local
governing board. On December 7, 2010, a petition was submitted
to the Compton Unified School District, which was rejected by
the Compton governing board on February 22, 2011 after much
confusion and conflict over what petitioners and LEAs may or may
not, or are required or not required, to do. For example,
confusion over verification of signatures resulted in a lawsuit
as the law is silent on this issue. The lawsuit is still
pending.
The author states, "I have been monitoring the SBE and its
process of developing regulations. This bill is a vehicle to
make necessary clarifications that should be in statute and
address any unresolvable issues or any issues deemed to require
statutory authority or clarifications in order to implement one
or more of the proposals in draft regulations." This bill
proposes the following:
Delink eligible schools from persistently lowest achieving
schools under the RTTT and link, instead, to LEAs that do not
receive SIG funds : SBX5 4 ties eligibility for the PEP to
schools not identified as persistently lowest achieving under
AB 203
Page 6
the RTTT. RTTT schools considered persistently lowest achieving
are required to implement one of the four intervention options.
The PEP is intended to provide the same opportunity to specified
schools not on the RTTT list. California, however, did not
receive a RTTT grant. A persistently lowest achieving schools
list was developed for the SIG, another federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) grant program targeting low
achieving schools. The SIG provides approximately $68 million
to LEAs with persistently lowest-achieving schools as specified
by the U.S. Department of Education. Because there are more
schools on the list than funding available, this bill specifies
that any school not receiving funds under the SIG and meet all
other specified requirements are eligible for the PEP.
Information by the CDE : The bill requires the CDE to provide
information regarding the PEP on its Internet Web site,
including the petition process, the intervention options
available to parents, and a model petition that is available in
languages most frequently spoken by pupils. This is to make it
easier for parents interested in the PEP to circulate a
petition. The bill does not require parents to use the model
petition as long as a petition meets requirements specified in
law and regulations.
Definition : The bill establishes a definition for "parents or
legal guardians" as natural or adoptive parents, and a person
who has rights to make educational decisions for a student.
This is to give individuals making educational decisions for
foster kids an opportunity to sign a petition.
Signatures : This bill specifies that there shall be one
signature per student. This bill specifies that for petitions
that include feeder schools, the calculation of the number of
required signatures for what constitutes 50% is based on 50%
from the school for which a petition is being submitted and 50%
from all feeder schools. While the language in the bill is
technically accurate, it could be clearer. Staff recommends
making clarifying amendments. The bill does not specify where
signatures are required to be collected. The author may wish to
consider clarifying that issue. Should a school be subject to
an intervention that may result in the closure of a school,
dislocating all students and their families, based solely or
mostly on signatures from the school's feeder schools?
Translation of materials : This bill reinforces existing law
AB 203
Page 7
requiring materials to be translated if at least 15% of the
pupils at a school speak a primary language other than English.
It is important for parents who speak another language to be
able to understand what is being proposed in a petition and
other options that are available.
Appeals : The bill requires a governing board to allow parents
who did not support the petition the opportunity to express
their opinions at the board meeting where the board decides to
support or not support the petition. While a local governing
board will most likely take official action at a public hearing,
SBX5 4 currently only requires a public hearing if the governing
board intends to implement an alternative option. The language
in the bill also requires the governing board to only allow
parents who did not support the petition to make public
comments. The author states that this is not the intent of the
bill. Staff recommends an amendment to clarify that the meeting
where any parent may make public comments is the meeting
specified in the PEP law where the governing board makes written
findings of the reason why it cannot implement the option
requested in the petition.
Proposed regulations : The SBE is currently struggling with the
development of regulations because the parameters in SBX5 4 are
so broad. The proposed regulations attempt to fill in the gaps
in the areas of establishing definitions, requirements for the
petitions, requirements for signatures, process for verification
of the signatures, requirement of LEAs, and parameters for the
restart model, which replaces a school with a charter school or
an education management organization. The Legislature may wish
to consider the extent to which it will defer to the SBE the
establishment of policies that should be in statute.
Arguments in Support . Public Advocates states, "Public
Advocates appreciates the progress you have made in working with
stakeholders - including community based organizations
representing low-income parents and school system advocates. We
continue to advocate for a law that is empowering in its
implementation, not merely in name. The litigation and media
controversy that have surrounded the first attempt to use the
parent petition make it painfully clear that, to quote a
national parents' alliance, 'It represents neither real parent
choice nor empowerment' because 'it gives them no opportunity to
choose among more positive reforms, and fails to promote the
best practices for parent involvement from the ground up. In
AB 203
Page 8
addition, the process creates huge potential for abuse,
disruption and divisiveness to school communities.'"
Arguments in Opposition . Parent Revolution states, "At this
stage, it is too early to determine what, if any, changes are
necessary for this new pilot program and it is premature to
propose legislative fixes to the Parent Empowerment law while it
is still being reviewed at both the executive and judicial
levels." Parent Revolution also expresses concerns regarding
the amendment specifying the number of signatures required if
the petition includes signatures of parents and legal guardians
from feeder schools and the amendment requiring a governing
board to allow parents who do not support the option proposed by
a petition to provide public comment.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California School Boards Association
Californians Together Coalition
Public Advocates
Opposition
Parent Revolution
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087