BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1049
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1049 (Brownley) - As Introduced: February 18, 2011
SUBJECT : Schools: low-achieving schools
SUMMARY : Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to
convene a working group to identify a definition of
"persistently lowest performing schools." Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires the LAO to convene a working group to identify a
single formula that defines, to the greatest extent possible,
persistently lowest performing schools for the purposes of
both the state and federal accountability programs.
2)Requires the working group to include representatives from the
LAO, the Department of Finance, the California Department of
Education (CDE), the Academic Performance Index advisory
committee, the State Board of Education (SBE), the staffs of
the fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature, and
stakeholder groups, including county, district, and school
administrators, teachers, and parent and equity organizations.
3)Requires the working group to develop and report its
recommendations to the SBE and the education policy committees
of the Legislature by July 1, 2012.
EXISTING STATE LAW :
1)Requires the SPI to develop the API to measure the performance
of schools, and to include a variety of indicators in that
measure, including, but not limited to, Standardized Testing
and Reporting (STAR) assessment results, attendance rates, and
graduation rates.
2)Establishes the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools
Program (II/USP) to systematically address the problems of low
performing schools and improve student performance in those
schools, and establishes the High Priority Schools grant
Program (HPSGP) to expand on the II/USP model by requiring
greater community and parent involvement in action plan
AB 1049
Page 2
development and implementation, as well as increasing per
pupil funding.
3)For purposes of implementing the federal Race to the Top
(RTTT) program, defines a low-achieving school as a school in
Program Improvement under Title 1 of the federal No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), and defines persistently
lowest-achieving schools as the lowest five percent of the
low-achieving schools as measured by the API, and any high
school with a graduation rate less than 60% in each of the
last three years, with the exclusion of specified special
needs or alternative schools and those schools that have
experienced academic growth of at least 50 points on the API.
4)Establishes the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) for
the purposes of implementing the terms of California Teachers
Association, et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al. legal settlement
and discharges the outstanding balance of the maintenance
factor resulting from the suspension of the state's obligation
to meet the constitutionally-required minimum funding level
for schools, for the 2004-05 and 2005-06 fiscal years; also
defines low performing schools for the purposes of eligibility
in QEIA.
5)Establishes the Open Enrollment program, which allows any
pupil enrolled in one of 1000 schools identified by the SPI as
low achieving to enroll in a higher performing school anywhere
in the state; the list of 1000 schools is established by
ranking schools based on API with specified exclusions.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW :
1)Authorizes the U.S. Department of Education to issue school
improvement grant (SIG) funds to states under the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act; the purpose of SIG funding is to
enable the implementation of specified school intervention
models in schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving.
2)Establishes, pursuant to NCLB requirements, a statewide system
of school support to provide a statewide system of intensive
and sustained support and technical assistance for school
districts, county offices of education, and identified low
performing schools.
AB 1049
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Over the last 12 years, California has implemented a
number of educational reform programs that have targeted low
performing schools. Each of these programs has specified its
own eligibility criteria; either explicitly or implicitly, those
eligibility criteria have created a definition of the terms low
achieving, low performing, or persistently lowest performing as
they relate to school-level performance. The table below
provides a summary of many of those educational reform programs
and the definitions that were created by those programs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Program | Year of | Criteria for Eligibility |
| |Implementati| (i.e., definition of "low |
| | on | performing") |
|---------------+------------+------------------------------------|
|II/USP |1999 |In API Decile 1-5, and meet API |
| | |"significant" growth requirements |
|---------------+------------+------------------------------------|
|Governor's |1999 |Meet test participation and API |
|Performance | |targets (API>800) , meet API growth |
|Award (GPA) | |target, make positive API growth, |
|Program | |and meet 80% of API growth target |
| | |for subgroups |
|---------------+------------+------------------------------------|
|Certificated |1999 |Meet the above GPA criteria in |
|Staff | |prior year, in API Deciles 1-5, |
|Performance | |meet twice API growth target for |
|Incentive | |all students and subgroups |
|---------------+------------+------------------------------------|
|School Site |1999 |Meet test participation and API |
|Employee | |targets (API>800) , meet API growth |
|Performance | |target, make positive API growth, |
|Bonuses | |and make comparable API growth for |
| | |subgroups |
|---------------+------------+------------------------------------|
|HPSGP |2001 |In API Decile 1, and meet API |
| | |growth target within 24 months |
|---------------+------------+------------------------------------|
|NCLB |2001 |Fail to make Adequate Yearly |
| | |Progress (AYP) for 2 consecutive |
| | |years |
|---------------+------------+------------------------------------|
|QEIA |2006 |In API Deciles 1-2 in 2005, or |
AB 1049
Page 4
| | |funded under HPSGP |
|---------------+------------+------------------------------------|
|RTTT |2010 |Lowest 5% of Title 1 schools based |
| | |on API, excluding schools with 50 |
| | |points of API growth over 5 years |
| | |and specified alternative schools, |
| | |plus high schools with grad |
| | |rate<60% |
|---------------+------------+------------------------------------|
|SIG |2010 |Lowest 5% of Title 1 schools based |
| | |on a 3-year proficiency established |
| | |with STAR scores, excluding schools |
| | |with 50 points of API growth over 5 |
| | |years, specified alternative |
| | |schools and small schools |
|---------------+------------+------------------------------------|
|Open |2010 |Lowest 1000 schools based on API, |
|Enrollment Act | |excluding specified alternative |
| | |schools and charter schools, with |
| | |no district having more than 10% of |
| | |its school eligible |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The differences between the definitions of low performance
created by these various programs have often created clear
conflicts, and have always provided a confusing message to the
education community over what standards policy makers were using
to judge whether a school had poor or adequate performance, or
were improving by moving toward some standard and accepted
definition of what would be a high level of performance. In
other words, it is impossible to tell from this widely varied
set of definitions what standard the state actually expects
schools to meet in terms of academic performance. According to
the author, "Several different definitions of "low-achieving
schools" appear in state education code and regulations,
resulting in confusion for the education community. Conflicting
definitions not only result in bureaucratic inefficiencies, but
also indicate that some of California's most disadvantaged
schools are not receiving the guidance and resources essential
to improving educational quality. Due to the complexities and
exemptions built into each formula, schools may be deemed
low-achieving under one formula, but adequate or even
high-achieving under another formula." Two recent examples show
the impact of these varied definitions.
AB 1049
Page 5
Conflict over RTTT and SIG definitions: SB 1 X5 (Steinberg),
Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009-2010 Fifth Extraordinary Session,
mandates, for the purposes of RTTT, a very clear and specific
methodology for identifying persistently lowest-achieving.
After passage of SB 1 X5, CDE staff notified legislative staff
that they would be unable to implement parts of the RTTT
methodology as a result of conversations with the U.S.
Department of Education regarding federal regulations issued for
RTTT and SIG. Those conversations also confirmed that federal
regulations required the two methodologies to be the same. As a
result of those conversations, the CDE implemented a similar,
but not equivalent, methodology to identify schools eligible for
SIG awards; the CDE SIG methodology, however, is clearly not the
same as the RTTT methodology specified in state statute. Since
federal regulations required the methodology for identifying
persistently lowest achieving schools used for the purposes of
RTTT and SIG to be the same, the differences between the
statutorily defined RTTT methodology and the methodology
implemented by the CDE for purposes of SIG, created a situation
where the CDE was forced to decide between conforming to state
statute or conforming to oral guidance provided by the U.S.
Department of Education; the CDE chose to adhere to federal
guidance. An attempt to reconcile some of these differences in
AB 2083 (Brownley) was vetoed by former Governor Schwarzenegger
in 2010. The question of whether the CDE would have implemented
the SIG methodology for the purposes of RTTT, in direct
violation of state statute, became moot after it was determined
that California was not to receive a federal RTTT grant award.
Conflicts over the Open Enrollment Act definition: Since the
implementation of the Open Enrollment program, many schools and
districts have expressed frustration with some schools'
identification as "low performing" under the Open Enrollment
definition, despite these schools' success in achieving API
scores in the 700-800+ range. The state has often used an API
of 800 to indicate a school that has reached a high level of
achievement, but yet the Open Enrollment definition placed some
of those schools in a category of low achievement in terms of
authorizing that school's students to leave their school of
residence in order to go to some other higher achieving school.
In addition, the Open Enrollment methodology did not make use of
any growth consideration, so that even high performing schools
that were on a trajectory to become even higher performing could
be defined as low achieving for these purposes. This conflict
has played out in meetings of the SBE, which has been in the
AB 1049
Page 6
process of approving regulations governing the program; however,
many of the conflicts between the Open Enrollment methodology
and historical definitions of high performance were beyond the
authority of the SBE to resolve via the regulatory process;
legislative resolution is necessary in this case. The
Legislature is currently considering bills that would make
changes in the methodology used in the program and thus would
mediate or eliminate these issues.
These conflicts undermine the state's efforts to consistently
identify low performing schools and thus the state's efforts at
implementing comprehensive school reform. This bill would
require the (LAO) to convene a working group to identify a
single definition for persistently lowest performing schools
that could be used in reform and accountability efforts going
forward. The author's intent is to create consensus over the
definition of low performance and the methodology that would be
used to determine those schools that fall under that definition;
in this way the state might avoid future conflicts and provide a
consistent standard and message to the education community.
Related and previous legislation: SB 47 (Huffman), pending in
the Assembly Appropriations Committee, makes changes to the Open
Enrollment Act in order to remove unintended consequences
created by the programs eligibility criteria or definitions. SB
172 (Huff), pending in the Senate Education Committee, makes
non-substantive changes to the Open Enrollment Act. SB 1 X5
(Steinberg), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009-2010 Fifth
Extraordinary Session, makes comprehensive changes to the
Education Code consistent with the federal RTTT program, and
addresses the four RTTT policy reform areas of standards and
assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers
and leaders and turning around the lowest-achieving schools
(including establishing the statutory methodology for
identifying persistently lowest achieving schools). SB 4 X5
(Romero), Chapter 3, Statutes of 2009-2010 Fifth Extraordinary
Session, created the Open Enrollment program, which allows any
pupil enrolled in one of 1000 schools identified by the SPI as
low achieving to enroll in a higher performing school anywhere
in the state, as specified. SB 1133 (Torlakson), Chapter 751,
Statutes of 2006, establishes QEIA for the purposes of
implementing the terms of the California Teachers Association,
et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al. lawsuit. AB 961 (Steinberg),
Chapter 749, Statutes of 2001, established the HPSGP, expanding
on the II/USP model. SB 1 X1 (Alpert), Chapter 3, Statutes of
AB 1049
Page 7
1999-2000 First Extraordinary Session, known as the Public
Schools Accountability Act (PSAA), authorizes the state's
current accountability program, including establishment of the
PSAA Advisory Committee, development of the API, implementation
of II/USP, and establishment of the Governor's Performance Award
(GPA) Program. AB 1144 (Steinberg), Chapter 52, Statutes of
1999, implements the Certificated Staff Performance Incentive
Act that establishes a program to provide salary bonuses to
certificated staff in low performing schools where pupil
performance exceeds growth targets.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of California School Administrators (Sponsor)
California Association for Bilingual Education
California State PTA
Californians Together
Children Now
Los Angeles Unified School District
Public Advocates
Riverside County School Superintendents' Association
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087