BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1166
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1166 (Solorio)
As Amended January 23, 2012
Majority Vote
EDUCATION 8-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Norby, Ammiano, | | |
| |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, | | |
| |Eng, | | |
| |Beth Gaines | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Halderman | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits school districts from including any
information about a pupil's scores on standardized tests or
course grades on that pupil's school identification (ID) card or
any other object that the pupil is required by school officials
to carry on his or her person while present at school. Defines
"information" to include, but not necessarily be limited to, a
pupil's actual test scores or grades, the percentile or range
into which those test scores or grades fall, or any symbol,
color, logo, or other device or emblem used to represent or
convey any information about those test scores or grades.
Expresses the intent of the Legislature that this bill not be
construed to prohibit schools from honoring or recognizing pupil
achievement.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Specifies that any pupil results or a record of accomplishment
shall be private and may not be released to any person, other
than the pupil's parent or guardian and a teacher, counselor
or administrator directly involved with the pupil, without the
express written consent of either the parent or guardian of
the pupil if the pupil is a minor, or the pupil if the pupil
has reached the age of majority or is emancipated. (Education
Code (EC) Section 60607)
2)Specifies that individual pupil test results from the
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program may only be
released with the permission of either the pupil's parent or
AB 1166
Page 2
guardian if the pupil is a minor, or the pupil if the pupil
has reached the age of majority or is emancipated. (EC
Section 60641)
3)Specifies that a district may provide, at its discretion,
statistical data from which no pupil may be identified, to any
public agency or entity or private nonprofit college,
university or educational research and development
organization when such actions would be in the best
educational interest of pupils. (EC Section 49074)
4)Protects, under the federal Family Education Rights and
Privacy Act, the privacy of pupil records by requiring written
permission from the parent or eligible student, with specified
exceptions, in order for a local education agency to release
any information from a student's education record. (20 U.S.C.
Section 1232g)
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative
Counsel.
COMMENTS :
Background: According to the author, this bill stems from the
issues raised by two incentive programs attempting to increase
achievement on STAR tests at Kennedy High School and Cypress
High School in the Anaheim Union High School District. Across
the state, many schools have incentive programs intended to push
pupils towards strong academic achievement. Few have received
as much publicity as the programs at Kennedy High School and
Cypress High School.
At the start of the 2010-2011 school year, the schools
implemented the new incentive program that required pupils to
carry different colored ID cards based on achievement on the
previous year's STAR tests. If a student scored "advanced" or
"proficient" in all subjects on the previous year's California
Standards Test (CST), they received a gold ID card. All other
students received white ID cards.
In 2011-2012, the schools modified their systems so that if a
student scored advanced on all of the previous year's CSTs, they
AB 1166
Page 3
were given a black/platinum ID card; if a student scored
proficient or advanced in all of the previous year's CSTs or
improved their scores by at least one level on two or more CSTs,
they were given a gold ID card; and, if a student scored
anywhere below proficient or advanced in any subject or did not
improve by one level on two or more CSTs, they were given a
white ID card. Additionally, the modified program began giving
pupils planners whose colors matched the colors of their ID
cards.
In both years, based on the color of a pupil's ID card, pupils
received various benefits and rewards. Pupils with
black/platinum or gold ID cards could enter a shorter lunch line
specifically reserved for black/platinum or gold cardholders,
receive free admission to certain afterschool activities and pay
a lower fee for football game entrance fees. Pupils with white
ID cards could obtain these benefits only if they improved their
score results in that year's CSTs, which would then move them up
to the gold or black/platinum levels for the following school
year.
In response to media and community pressure, the school district
discontinued the ID cards and planners at both schools and
provided all students with uniform ID cards and uniform
planners. Currently, a district task force has been developed to
craft a district wide incentive program to be implemented in the
2012-2013 school year.
This bill prohibits the inclusion of any pupil's standardized
test score or course grade information on a school ID card or
any other object that pupil is required to carry with them at
school. It defines the term "information" as a pupil's actual
test scores or grades, the percentile or range into which those
test scores or grades fall, or any symbol, color, logo or other
device or emblem, used to represent or convey any information
about those test scores or grades. It expands existing law to
ensure that incentive programs using test scores, such as the
programs that were in place at Kennedy High School and Cypress
High School, are not permitted. It clarifies that a pupil's
actual test scores, percentile or range into which those test
scores fall, or course grades cannot be displayed on ID cards or
any other item that a student is required to carry while at
school.
Student Privacy Rights: Existing law specifies that a school
AB 1166
Page 4
district is not authorized to permit access to pupil records to
any person without the permission of either the pupil's parent
or guardian if the pupil is a minor or the pupil if the pupil
reached the age of majority or is emancipated. This leads to
two fundamental questions in response to these incentive
programs:
1)Is the scoring range (e.g., "advanced," "proficient," etc.)
into which a pupil falls on the STAR test considered a part of
pupil records? Supporters of the incentive programs argue
that identifying scoring ranges rather than exact pupil scores
does not violate existing law. Pupil records are defined by
EC Section 49061 as "any item of information directly related
to an identifiable pupil." A score range achieved on the CST
by an individual pupil is an item of information that is
directly related to a given pupil. Such score ranges are the
result of a pupil's performance on a standardized test and are
based solely on the responses provided by that individual.
While score ranges are not explicitly included in the
definition of pupil records in the EC, it seems clear that
they do fall within the general definition provided. It can
be argued that existing law already prohibits the programs.
This bill is intended to eliminate any confusion by clarifying
specific actions that are prohibited in the EC.
2)Is putting information reflective of test scores on a pupil's
ID card and planner a violation of student privacy? According
to existing law, school districts are not allowed to share
pupil records with anyone but certain specified individuals
and groups working in the best educational interest of the
pupil without the express written consent of a parent or
guardian. By putting test score information on a pupil's own
ID card or planner, is that information being shared with
other individuals? Given the nature of both items - their
frequency of use in public situations like the lunch line -
and the fact that both are color coded to match with student
test results, it would seem that this information is being
released publicly. This does not allow pupils or their
families the right to choose to share a pupil's personal
information. According to media reports, the exposure of test
score ranges at these schools led to bullying in at least
several documented instances.
Existing programs at other schools: In addition to the programs
at Kennedy High School and Cypress High School, the language of
AB 1166
Page 5
the proposed legislation may impact academic incentive programs
used at other schools throughout the state. For example, the
Panther Pride Program at Ida Price Middle School of the Cambrian
School District uses grade point average (GPA) information on
pupil ID cards. At Ida Price Middle School, pupil ID cards are
color coded gold if a pupil receives a 3.67 to a 4.0 GPA, silver
if a pupil receives a 3.33 to a 3.66 GPA and bronze if a pupil
receives a 2.5 to a 3.32 GPA. The program is intended "to
celebrate academic achievement." Other schools may also include
information about course grades on pupil ID cards for honors
programs like the Panther Pride Program.
The impact of this legislation on programs like the Panther
Pride Program raises an important question: is it acceptable to
recognize high achievers, such as those recognized through
honors programs, by placing information about an exemplary GPA
on pupil ID cards? Under this bill, the practice of including
pupil GPA information on ID cards would be prohibited, but other
components of programs recognizing exemplary students would not
be affected.
Arguments in support: The author states "AB 1166 would clarify
that a school cannot include any information on a student
identification card or any object that a student is required to
carry at school that reflects their performance on standardized
tests or course grades."
Arguments in opposition: Opponents of this legislation would
argue that incentive programs are effective in raising Academic
Performance Index (API) scores and should not be discontinued.
The API scores for Kennedy High School and Cypress High School
increased from 821 to 847 and from 880 to 895, respectively,
between the 2009-2010 school year and the 2010-2011 school year.
Analysis Prepared by : Mark Murphy and Sophia Kwong Kim / ED.
/ (916) 319-2087
FN: 0003064
AB 1166
Page 6