BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 203
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 203 (Brownley)
As Amended May 11, 2011
Majority vote
EDUCATION 7-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Buchanan, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Butler, Carter, Eng, | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| |Williams | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby, Halderman, Wagner |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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; and,
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 a local governing board to, at the public meeting
AB 203
Page 2
where a local education agency (LEA) designates in writing why
it cannot implement the option requested in the petition,
allow parents and legal guardians the opportunity to provide
testimony regarding the petition or the written findings.
4)Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to
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; and,
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 any of the following:
i) The school for which the petition is submitted; or,
ii) An elementary or middle school that normally
matriculates into a middle or high school for which a
petition is submitted, as applicable.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, one time General Fund (GF) administrative costs to
the CDE, likely less than $125,000, to provide specified
AB 203
Page 3
information on its Internet Web site. Potential, unknown,
GF/Proposition 98 state reimbursable mandated cost pressure,
likely less than $150,000 annually, to school districts to
conduct a verification process. While this bill does not
establish a verification process, it does specify who can sign
the petition and how many times he or she may sign it. The
original legislation, SB 4 X5 (Romero), Chapter 3,
Statutes of 2009-10 Fifth Extraordinary Session, established
state reimbursable mandated costs, which will not be known until
a LEA files a state mandate claim.
COMMENTS : 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 that include replacing a principal and 50% of the staff;
converting a school to a charter school, or closing and
reopening a school under a charter school operator, a charter
management organization, or an education management
organization; closing a school and enrolling the students in
other higher achieving schools in the LEA; and replacing the
principal and developing strategies for school improvement.
The PEP authorizes parents and legal guardians at a school not
identified as a persistently lowest-achieving school under the
RTTT, has an Academic Performance Index (API) score of under 800
and is in program improvement, to require a governing board to
implement any of the RTTT interventions or an alternative
intervention authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (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
NCLB intervention only if it makes written findings in a
regularly scheduled public hearing of the reason it cannot
implement the option requested by parents and guardians, and
inform the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State
Board of Education (SBE) how the alternative intervention it has
AB 203
Page 4
selected has substantial promise of enabling the school to meet
adequate yearly progress. SB 4 X5 (Romero) 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.
At the legislative hearings on SB 4 X5 last year, concerns were
expressed that some of the bill's provisions were unclear and
that more specific parameters were needed. In September 2010
and again in March 9, 2011, the SBE adopted temporary, emergency
regulations that provide 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. That lawsuit is still
pending, while the Los Angeles Superior Court recently found the
petition noncompliant with one component of the emergency
regulations.
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: SB 4 X5 ties eligibility for the PEP to
schools not identified as persistently lowest achieving under
AB 203
Page 5
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 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 of SB 4 X5 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. According to the
author, 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. The bill does not specify where
signatures are required to be collected.
Translation of materials: This bill reinforces existing law
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.
AB 203
Page 6
Public Comments: This bill requires a local governing board to,
at the public meeting where it provides written findings on why
it cannot implement the option requested in the petition, allow
parents and legal guardians to provide testimony regarding the
petition process and the written findings.
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0000992