BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 853
AUTHOR: Blumenfield
AMENDED: June 20, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: July 6, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : Online education.
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes, commencing with the 2013-14 fiscal
year, a school district, county office of education (COE),
or charter school to claim attendance toward average daily
attendance (ADA) for the purpose of calculating revenue
limit funding for online synchronous and asynchronous
courses, as specified.
BACKGROUND
Existing law
1) Requires the majority of the state's revenue limit
funding (general purpose) allocated to local
educational agencies (LEAs) be based on average daily
attendance (ADA). ADA is the average amount of time a
pupil attends class under the immediate supervision of
a certificated employee. (Education Code � 46300 et.
seq.)
Within the current ADA requirements, LEAs are able to
provide online courses to pupils in the following
ways:
(a) Pupils are receiving online instruction in a
classroom setting under the immediate supervision
of a certificated employee.
(EC � 46300 (a))
(b) Pupils are enrolled in a part-time or
full-time independent study (IS) program (i.e.,
the pupil may be taking regular classroom courses
AB 853
Page 2
and one or two IS program courses online). If a
pupil is enrolled full-time in an IS program, he
or she is required to produce a work product,
which is assessed by a certificated employee of
the district. (EC � 51745 et. seq.)
(c) Pupils who have met the minimum
instructional requirement and are taking an
online course. Under this scenario, the pupil is
generating full ADA for meeting the minimum
instructional requirement and the pupil is taking
the online course in addition to meeting minimum
requirements.
(d) Pupils are enrolled in a charter school,
which has less traditional accounting and
attendance requirements for its pupils; and
typically must meet statutory requirements, where
applicable, or regulatory guidelines adopted by
the State Board of Education.
1) Establishes the minimum school day for a high school
student to be 240 instructional minutes in a
classroom, in IS, or in a combination of the two
settings, and requires students taking a combination
to meet attendance standards for both the classroom
and IS courses in order for a district to claim a
pupil's attendance for funding purposes. (EC � 46141)
2) Requires that pupils in grades 9 through 12 attend
school for at least 64,800 minutes per year in no less
than 180 days (or 175 days under budget flexibility
language through 2014-15). (EC � 46201)
3) Existing law requires each school district maintaining
any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, to offer courses of
study that (1) fulfill the requirements and
prerequisites for admission to California public
institutions of postsecondary education and (2)
provide an opportunity for pupils to attain
entry-level employment skills in business or industry.
School districts may fulfill their responsibility
pursuant to number (2) by adopting a required
curriculum that meets or exceeds the model standards
the Career Technical Education adopted by the State
Board of Education.
AB 853
Page 3
(EC � 51228)
ANALYSIS
This bill authorizes, commencing with the 2013-14 fiscal
year, a school district, county office of education (COE),
or charter school to claim attendance toward average daily
attendance (ADA) for the purpose of calculating revenue
limit funding for online classes, as specified. More
specifically, this bill:
1) Requires the following conditions apply in order for a
school district, COE, or charter school to claim ADA
for online classes: (a) the pupil is enrolled in
grades 9 through 12; (b) the pupil is enrolled in
classes that include courses in a classroom-based
setting, courses that are offered through an online
program, or both; (c) the pupil meets minimum
instructional time requirements, as specified; and (d)
each online course in which the pupil is enrolled is a
high-quality online course.
2) Defines a high-quality online course as meeting all
the following requirements:
a) The online course is approved by the
governing board of the school district, COE, or
governing body of the charter school, such that
the online course is certified, through board
resolution, to meet these requirements, to be as
rigorous as a classroom-based course and meeting
or exceeding all relevant state content
standards.
b) The teacher is either of the following:
i) For a synchronous course, the
teacher is online at the same time as each
pupil, is accessible to each pupil attending
an online course to respond to pupil queries,
assign tasks, dispense information, and is
able to make a visual connection with each
pupil for the purposes of verifying
attendance or providing immediate supervision
of the pupil.
ii) For an asynchronous course, the
AB 853
Page 4
teacher may be online at different times than
each pupil, is accessible to each pupil
attending an asynchronous online course to
respond to pupil queries, assign tasks,
dispense information, and for the purposes of
verifying attendance is able to employ at
least two of the following:
a) Periodic proctored
examinations.
b) Direct teacher-pupil
meetings no less than twice per
calendar month.
c) A line-of-sight
visual connection, including, but not
limited to, Internet webcam.
a) The ratio of full-time equivalent
certificated teachers teaching the online course
to pupils enrolled in that course is less than or
equal to the ratio of teachers to pupils in
traditional classroom study of the same subject
matter in the school, school district, or the
unified school district with the largest ADA of
pupils in that county, or if the course is new or
unique, the pupil to teacher ratio cannot exceed
30 to 1.
b) The subject matter content for the online
course is the same as for the traditional
classroom-based course of the same course title
in the school district, COE or charter school.
c) The teacher of the online course holds the
appropriate subject matter credential and meets
the requirements for a "highly qualified" teacher
as defined under the federal No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001.
d) All statewide testing results for pupils
enrolled in the online course are reported to the
school, school district, and county in which the
pupil is enrolled for regular classroom courses.
e) The online course is offered by a high
school, continuation school, COE, or charter
AB 853
Page 5
school.
f) No pupil is assigned to the online course
pursuant to this section unless the pupil
voluntarily elects to participate in the online
course and the parent or guardian of the pupil
provides written consent before the pupil
participates in an online course.
g) No pupil electing to participate in the
online course is denied access because the pupil
lacks the computer hardware or software necessary
to participate in the online course.
h) No pupil is charged for their participation
in the online course.
i) Pupils enrolled in the online course take
examinations by proctor or that other reliable
methods are used to ensure test integrity, and
there is a clear record of pupil work, using the
same method of documentation and assessment as
used in a classroom-based course.
j) The school, school district or COE maintains
contemporaneous records to verify the time that a
pupil spends online and in related activities in
which a pupil is involved, and maintains records
verifying the time that the teacher is online.
1) Clarifies that nothing in these provisions be
interpreted to mean that a charter school provides
classroom-based or nonclassroom-based instruction for
the purposes of a State Board of Education
determination.
2) Requires that pupil attendance accounted for under
this authorization be subject to audit as part of the
local educational agency's annual financial audit.
3) Prohibits a pupil from being credited with more than
five days of online course attendance per calendar
week or more than the total number of calendar days
that regular classes are maintained by the school
district, COE, or charter school.
AB 853
Page 6
4) Prohibits the waiver of any provision of this measure,
unless specifically authorized.
5) Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI), in consultation with the State Controller and
the Director of Finance (DOF), before December 31,
2012, to make:
a) Revisions to any attendance accounting manual
or guidance that are necessary to conform to the
provisions of this measure;
b) Revisions necessary to clarify attendance
accounting procedures for asynchronous online
courses;
c) Recommendations regarding statutory changes
that would be necessary to allow attendance in
asynchronous online courses to be included in the
calculation of ADA.
1) Prohibits pupil attendance in asynchronous online
courses from being included in the calculation of ADA
until the SPI has adopted the rules and regulations
specified in # 12 below.
2) Deems a pupil engaged in an online course meeting
these requirements to be under the immediate
supervision and control of a certificated employee of
the district, county office or charter school for the
purposes of calculating ADA.
3) Specifies that attendance on an online course meeting
these requirements is not required to meet the
requirements for the Independent Study Program for the
purposes of calculating ADA.
4) Defines (a) "asynchronous" online course as a course
where the teacher and pupil may be online at different
times and are unable to interact simultaneously; and
(b) "synchronous" online course as a course where the
teacher and pupil are online at the same time and able
to interact at that time.
5) Requires the SPI, in consultation with the DOF, to
adopt rules and regulations for the purpose of (a)
clarifying or expanding the procedures required for
AB 853
Page 7
verifying the identification of pupils participating
in asynchronous online courses, and (b) for including
pupil attendance in asynchronous online courses in the
calculation of ADA.
6) Specifies the measure becomes inoperative on July 1,
2017.
STAFF COMMENTS
7 Need for the bill . According to the author, "the
state's classrooms remain stuck in the 20th century
and have failed to embrace a changed world full of
innovation and technology - despite California being
the cradle of the technological revolution. If
California aspires to compete with other states and
nations as an economic engine, it must make dramatic
changes in its classrooms to usher in a meaningful
21st century education and it must make them soon. One
clear example is the virtual classroom. Technology and
the internet provide educators with new tools and
students with better options to break down barriers
created by geography, poverty, language and other
conditions."
7 Funding pupil attendance, promoting educational
interaction, and the state's interest . The
Legislature, generally, has required instruction for
funding purposes, to be when a pupil attends class
under the immediate supervision of a certificated
employee, with some exceptions (particularly in
independent study and in non-classroom based charter
schools). The fundamental principal for allocation of
funding under California's school finance system is
the value of instructional time. The state measures
this principal through the average daily attendance
(ADA) system, including the ability of the pupil to be
under the direct supervision (via a line of sight) of
a certificated employee.
Further, a critical aspect of education is the
spontaneous interaction between teacher and pupil(s),
as well as pupil-to-pupil, where instruction is
enhanced by ensuing dialogue in a timely question and
AB 853
Page 8
answer approach, the ability to work with others, and
where a spontaneous social interactive learning
experience can enrich a pupil's education by
supplementing the acquisition of knowledge and
learning, but also assist in the growth of
interpersonal skills pupils will need in adult life,
promoting the development of well-rounded individuals.
From the perspective of protecting the state's
interest and ensuring that the state's investment in
education is spent directly on providing educational
services to students who are on task in terms of
learning, online delivery of instruction may not be
able to provide total guarantees; certainly in the
context of the historical dependence on the immediate
supervision of a teacher to guarantee the state's
interest, many online delivery approaches create
problems; particularly those that involve asynchronous
online courses.
3) In a synchronous online course , where teacher and
pupil(s) are online at the same time and able to
interact at the same time, an argument can be made
that there could be or are mechanisms to guarantee
attendance of the student and to place a time value on
that attendance.
For example, in a classroom setting, immediate
supervision (and the line-of-sight connection) between
the teacher and pupil during that class period
provides the mechanism to guarantee that the pupil is
attending and to validate the identity of that pupil.
In addition, the implicit assumption in a classroom
setting that is supervised by the teacher is that the
pupil is on-task during the class period, which
provides a mechanism for valuing the time that can be
credited toward ADA. This bill defines as part of a
high quality online synchronous course, the teacher is
able to make a visual connection with the pupil for
the purposes of verifying attendance or providing
immediate supervision of the pupil - the application
of the required definition has the added value of
insuring that a pupil will be on-task during the class
period. Effectively a synchronous online course that
meets the same content standards as a traditional
AB 853
Page 9
classroom based course, with line-of-sight capability
that allows the teacher to see pupils and in real-time
interacts with pupils, also insures appropriate
accountability of the state's investment in education.
Though not identical, an online synchronous course
with appropriate accountability mechanisms can be
argued is not dissimilar to one provided with a
teacher in a traditional classroom setting.
4) In an asynchronous online course , a course where the
teacher and pupil may be online at different times and
are unable to interact simultaneously, mechanisms that
could guarantee that a pupil is attending or
participating, that the pupil has spent time on task,
or that there is some time value to the pupil's work
product are not so easily defined.
In addition, elimination of simultaneous teacher-pupil
interaction, as would be the case in an asynchronous
course (teacher checking the students work online at
different times) lack of supervision by a teacher
presents numerous risks to student learning,
particularly for students with special needs and
students in need of remediation. In addition,
elimination of immediate teacher supervision means
that the state has no mechanism to ensure that a
student is actually engaged in the coursework. From
the perspective of the state's interest, these are
situations where the state would be unable to ensure
that its investment in education is spent directly on
instruction.
For example, in a substantially similar bill in 2010,
the author proposed the use of biometric technologies
to ensure that a pupil was "attending" an asynchronous
online course; however, that mechanism was deleted
from the bill in response to issues raised by this
Committee over potential privacy concerns that had not
been fully examined particularly with a school age
minor involved or utilizing a technology that may be
cost-prohibitive at a school level. This bill
proposes mechanisms to provide these guarantees that
include: (a) periodic proctored examinations, (b)
direct teacher-pupil meetings of no less than twice
per calendar month, and (c) a visual connection
including, but not limited to, Internet Webcam.
AB 853
Page 10
In addition, this bill requires pupils who enroll in
an asynchronous online class to meet minimum
instructional day and minute requirements in order to
generate ADA, which is the basis for calculating
revenue limit funding. There are fiscal questions
related to claiming ADA for an asynchronous online
course. For example, how does the state, for
accounting and audit purposes, ensure that the pupil
meets the minimum instructional time and day
requirements? This includes basic issues as how
attendance is taken in these courses. Are there
unintended consequences (e.g., inequities in access to
online instruction, loss of the speaking skills
required in the language arts standards, or losses in
personal and social skills) that might result from
increasing this means of delivering education
services?
The bill acknowledges some of these challenges by
prohibiting school districts, charter schools, and
county offices of education from claiming ADA for
asynchronous online classes until the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), in
consultation with the Department of Finance, has
adopted rules and regulations for the purpose of
verifying pupil identification and calculating ADA in
asynchronous courses.
5) Focus of bill is to remove barriers for high school
students to access high quality courses . Consistent
with the intended approach and to insure that online
courses are offered to students making progress toward
a high school diploma and to limit any potential
abuses that may occur related to the earning of
average daily attendance; staff recommends the
following amendment "the average daily attendance may
not, in any event, be generated by a pupil who is not
a California resident. To remain eligible for
generating apportionments, a pupil over 19 years of
age shall be continuously enrolled in public school
and make satisfactory progress towards award of a high
school diploma. The SPI shall, pursuant to subdivision
(k) of this section adopt regulations defining
"satisfactory progress."
6) Staff note . The contents of this measure were
AB 853
Page 11
formally in AB 802 which was held under submission by
the Assembly Appropriations Committee as of May 2011.
7 Past legislative attempts. In 2002, the Legislature
passed AB 885 (Daucher, Chapter 801) that authorized
participation by high school students in the Online
Classroom Pilot (OCP) program, which allowed the use
of an asynchronous, interactive (a teacher and student
interact online, but not necessarily at the same time)
curriculum. The pilot program addressed the need to
provide expanded educational opportunities for pupils
attending schools with limited educational offerings;
the need to provide access to advanced placement
courses where none are available; and the need to
provide quality educational access in courses for
hard-to-staff subject areas.
The pilot program sunset in 2007 and only cursory
evaluative information was provided; not a thorough
analysis which would assist in decision making for
renewing or expanding the pilot.
8) Prior and related legislation.
AB 2027 (Blumenfield), substantially similar to
this measure, passed this Committee on an 8-0 vote,
but was ultimately held in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
AB 837 (Torlakson, 2009) established that a
school district or COE, beginning with 2010-11, may
claim ADA on the basis of a pupil's attendance at a
class or classes in the classroom-based setting on
that day, for the purpose of learning online. This
measure was held on the Assembly Appropriations
suspense file.
AB 2457 (Walters, 2008) extended the OCP
program until 2012; the bill was held on the
Assembly Appropriations suspense file.
AB 885 (Daucher, Chapter 801, Statutes of
2002), established the Online Classroom Pilot.
SUPPORT
AB 853
Page 12
California Association for the Gifted
California Consortium for Independent Study
California Continuation Education Association
California County Superintendents Educational Services
Association
California School Boards Association
EdVoice
Fresno Unified School District
San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools
San Bernardino County Office of Education
San Diego County Office of Education
San Diego Unified School District
Santa Clara County Office of Education
Torrance Unified School District
OPPOSITION
None on file.