BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1767
Page A
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1767 (Norby) - As Amended: March 29, 2012
SUBJECT : Pupils: English learners: reclassification
SUMMARY : Requires English learners (ELs) to be reclassified as
English proficient if they meet the specified criteria and
allows school districts to continue to receive state funding
designated for ELs for up to two years after they have been
reclassified as English proficient. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that a pupil in any of grades 3-11, inclusive, shall
be eligible to be reclassified as fluent English proficient if
the pupil attains all of the following:
a) The proficient level of performance on the English
language arts (ELA) California Standards Test (CST);
b) Scores of intermediate or above on all portions of the
California English Language Development Test (CELDT); and,
c) A 3.0 grade point average (GPA) at the end of the school
year.
2)Requires, upon attaining the requirements in #1 above, a pupil
to be reclassified as fluent English proficient upon verified
approval submitted by the pupil's parent or legal guardian.
3)Authorizes a school district to continue to receive state
funding designated for its ELs for up to two years after the
pupil has been reclassified as English proficient, and
expresses the intent of the Legislature that a school district
use the funding for the purpose of monitoring pupils who have
been reclassified as fluent English proficient for up to two
years.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Defines "English learner" or "pupil of limited English
proficiency" to mean a pupil who was not born in the United
States or whose native language is a language other than
English or who comes from an environment where a language
AB 1767
Page B
other than English is dominant; and whose difficulties in
speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English
language may be sufficient to deny the individual the ability
to meet the state's proficient level of achievement on state
assessments, the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms
where the language of instruction is English, or the
opportunity to participate fully in society.
2)Specifies that a local educational agency (LEA) shall provide
instructional services to limited-English-proficient pupils
and immigrant pupils in conformity with specified federal
statutes.
3)Requires each school district that has one or more pupils who
are ELs to assess the English language development of each of
those pupils within 30 days of initial enrollment in order to
determine the level of proficiency of those pupils, and
annually thereafter to assess each EL pupil until the pupil is
redesignated as fluent English proficient.
4)Requires the California Department of Education (CDE), with
the approval of the State Board of Education (SBE), to
establish procedures for conducting the language proficiency
assessment and for the reclassification of a pupil from
English learner to English proficient.
5)Specifies that the reclassification procedures developed by
the CDE shall utilize multiple criteria in determining whether
to reclassify a pupil as proficient in English, including, but
not limited to, all of the following:
a) Assessment of language proficiency using an objective
assessment instrument, including, but not limited to, the
English language development test;
b) Teacher evaluation, including, but not limited to, a
review of the pupil's curriculum mastery;
c) Parental opinion and consultation; and,
d) Comparison of the performance of the pupil in basic
skills against an empirically established range of
performance in basic skills based upon the performance of
English proficient pupils of the same age that demonstrates
whether the pupil is sufficiently proficient in English to
AB 1767
Page C
participate effectively in a curriculum designed for pupils
of the same age whose native language is English.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Nearly 1.4 million of the state's 6.2 million
students were identified as ELs during the 2010-11 school year,
representing 23% of the state's total kindergarten through grade
12 (K-12) public school enrollment. State and federal laws
require that all students whose primary language is other than
English be assessed for English language proficiency. The legal
basis for requiring English proficiency testing is that all
pupils have the right to an equal and appropriate education, and
any English language limitations, left unidentified and/or
unaddressed, could preclude a student from accessing that right.
Current law requires reclassification procedures to utilize
multiple criteria, including but not limited to assessment of
English proficiency, teacher evaluation, parental opinion and
consultation, and a comparison of performance in basic skills,
as specified. The SBE adopted the following suggested
guidelines:
1)Student scores at the early advanced or higher level overall
on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT)
and scores at intermediate or higher in listening and
speaking, reading, and writing.
2)Student scores in the range between the beginning of basic and
midpoint of basic on the ELA CST, but it is up to each
district to set an exact cut point.
3)Students meet the academic performance indicators set by the
school district as determined by the teacher evaluation.
4)Parent is notified of his or her right and encouraged to
participate in the reclassification process, including through
a face-to-face meeting.
This bill requires a pupil in any of grades 3-11, inclusive to
be eligible to be reclassified as English proficient if the
pupil attains the proficient level of performance on the ELA
CST, scores of intermediate or above on all portions of the
CELDT, and a 3.0 GPA at the end of the school year.
Additionally, this bill requires verified approval to be
submitted by the pupil's parent or guardian, however it is not
clear as to what exactly "verified approval" means, what would
be verified, and who would verify it.
AB 1767
Page D
Reclassification of ELs is conducted through a local process
used by school districts to determine if a student has acquired
sufficient English language fluency to perform successfully in
academic subjects without English language development (ELD)
support. The reclassification of ELs to fluent English
proficient is a process that varies widely across districts in
the state. The SBE has adopted minimum guidelines for districts
to use in the reclassification of English learners, consistent
with the current requirement in law that the criteria be based
on specified multiple criteria, but ultimately each district
sets out its own cut scores and reclassification requirements,
including local criteria. This bill is inconsistent with
existing reclassification procedures currently left up to school
districts to determine and could result in confusion and
inconsistent application in the field as school officials may
not know what section of the law to follow. Questions can be
raised as to whether districts would no longer be able to
develop their own criteria and cut scores as provided in current
law and procedures.
The reclassification dilemma : In determining when the
appropriate time is to reclassify ELs, two issues emerge. One
is the potentially premature reclassification of ELs which could
result in the loss of instructional services and supports before
they are ready, and this could eventually lead to greater risk
of educational failure. The second issue is the possibility of
holding ELs back from reclassification longer than necessary,
which may result in ELs experiencing reduced access to courses
needed for postsecondary education.
The report, Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on
the Education of English Learners, K-12 studied the
reclassification policies and practices of nine school districts
in California to identify how local and state policies and
practices contribute to different EL outcomes. The report notes
that current state guidelines on criteria and cut-scores
generate confusion and ambiguity about the meaning of
reclassification. The report notes that there are various
perceptions in the field regarding the significance of
reclassification. Some districts view it as ELs reaching
"minimum competency" to participate in mainstream classrooms
with no further specialized services. For other districts,
reclassification means that there is comparability between ELs
and native English speakers' academic performance in the
AB 1767
Page E
district. In other instances it is viewed as ELs having
recouped the "academic deficits" that ELs incur while developing
English language skills. Lastly, some believe that
reclassification demonstrates English learners' ability to meet
grade-level standards and to be academically successful. In
consideration of these issues, the report points out, "Virtually
all of our sample districts expressed support for establishing
consistent cut scores statewide on California's two common
criteria. At the same time, these educators also expressed
concern that the state may set these criteria too low, or decide
to eliminate the use of local assessments, which districts
highly value as a source of 'multiple measures' to increase
confidence in their decisions to redesignate."
The concept of reclassification generates many questions and not
a lot of answers or agreement on whether statewide uniform
criteria should be established, and even less agreement on what
the criteria should be. In consideration of the diversity of
California's 1.4 million English learners, it is not clear that
there is one set of reclassification criteria that is optimal
for all ELs, particularly when there are various interpretations
of what reclassification means. Assuming there is a desire to
standardize the criteria for reclassification, it is
questionable as to whether the Legislature is the appropriate
body to determine and dictate what the criteria should be,
without any input from experts. The author has not provided any
research that supports the cut scores and criteria proposed by
this bill. In making these decisions, there would have to be
supporting evidence that correlates the proposed
reclassification criteria to positive student outcomes. In the
absence of such data and research, and without knowing what
specific criteria for reclassification actually make a
difference in the academic outcomes of ELs, any proposal to
establish uniform criteria would essentially be arbitrary.
Implementing the provisions of this bill may be challenging.
For example, not all school districts issue GPAs to students in
the primary grade levels, hence it is unclear as to whether ELs
in primary grades would be eligible for reclassification under
this bill. More importantly however, the issue for this
Committee to consider is whether the EL reclassification
criteria established by this bill is the appropriate criteria
for determining English proficiency without having a research
base or input from second language acquisition experts.
AB 1767
Page F
This bill may not result in the outcome intended by the author:
The proposed expected performance on the ELA CST for
reclassification is higher than that suggested by the SBE in the
guidelines provided to school districts. CST performance data
shows that the percentages of ELs scoring at the proficient
level on the ELA CST are very low. According to CDE statewide
data, on the 2011 administration of the ELA CST the percent of
ELs in the relevant grade levels scoring proficient are as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Grade | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
|% | 19% | 26% | 19% | 12% | 12% | 9% | 9% | 5% |5% |
|proficient| | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This indicates that based on this criterion alone, there may not
be very many ELs eligible for reclassification. In the 2010-11
school year, CDE reports that 167,854 ELs were reclassified as
English proficient.
It appears that this bill would have the opposite effect of what
the author intends as it may lead to ELs remaining classified as
ELs longer. A recent study looking at long-term English
learners shows that a growing number of ELs, despite their many
years in U.S. schools, are still not English proficient and are
not making progress towards meeting criteria for
reclassification, thus becoming long-term English learners. In
research literature, long-term English learners are often
described as orally bilingual students that function relatively
well in everyday social interactions in both the home language
and English, but the vocabulary they draw upon in both social
and academic contexts tends to be at once general and imprecise.
They have had the opportunity to develop everyday English,
however they have weak academic language and significant gaps in
reading and writing.<1> A previous measure approved by this
Committee, seeks to identify long-term English learners for
purposes of targeting instruction and services to help them make
progress towards language and academic proficiency.
The author states, "In California there is an alarming rate of
---------------------------
<1> Olsen, Laurie, Ph.D. Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the Unkept
Promise of Educational Opportunity for California's Long Term
English Learners. 2010.
AB 1767
Page G
students being classified as ELL �English language learners]
without really needing to be. There are students who are
initially classified as ELL simply because the parents notated
that the student spoke something other than English at home,
regardless of whether English is the student's first language."
EL identification process : The process for identifying and
classifying pupils as ELs is different to the process for
reclassification. From the author's statement, it appears that
the author may be concerned with the way pupils are classified
as ELs, and thus it is unclear that the bill as currently
drafted would address the issues the author intends to address.
Current law requires LEAs to make a primary language
determination for all pupils in K-12 upon first enrollment in a
California public school. A pupil's primary language is
identified through the administration of a home language survey,
which is completed by the parents or guardians at the time the
pupil is registered in school. Once determined, the primary
language need not be re-determined unless the results are
disputed by a parent or guardian. The home language survey asks
the following questions:
1. Which language did your child learn when he/she first
began to talk?
2. Which language does your child most frequently speak at
home?
3. Which language do you (the parents or guardians) most
frequently use when speaking with your child?
4. Which language is most often spoken by adults in the
home? (parents, guardians, grandparents, or any other
adults)
If a language other than English is indicated on:
1. Any of the first three questions, a pupil is then tested
with the CELDT.
2. The fourth question, student may be tested at the
discretion of the local educational agency.
If a pupil meets the CELDT criterion for English proficiency,
the pupil is designated as initially fluent English proficient
(IFEP) and is not classified as an EL, but if he or she does
not, then that pupils is designated as an EL, and is assessed
every year until the pupil is reclassified.
EL funds : This bill also authorizes districts to continue to
AB 1767
Page H
receive state funding dedicated to ELs for up to two years after
the pupil has been reclassified. However, this bill does not
specify what these funds would be used for, but rather expresses
intent that the school district use these funds for the purpose
of monitoring pupils who have been reclassified as fluent
English proficient (RFEP) for up to two years. As currently
drafted, it appears that a school district will be allowed to
retain funds designated for ELs, which presumably refers to
Economic Impact Aid (EIA) funds; however the bill does not
propose or express intent for an augmentation of EIA for this
purpose. Without an augmentation, this bill could have the
effect of reducing the available funds for ELs and economically
disadvantaged pupils in order to continue to provide funds for
RFEPs. The idea of providing funding for purposes of continuing
to support RFEPs is meritorious, however in order for this
proposal to be meaningful, there would be a need to provide
additional state funds to continue to fund services for RFEPs.
Otherwise, the state would be in a situation in which it would
be robbing from Peter to give to Paul, as this would result in a
reduced amount of these funds available for ELs.
Should this committee wish to approve this bill, staff
recommends the bill be amended to delete the existing contents
of the bill, and instead require the CDE to develop and make
available to public schools in the state, a sample notification
letter to be provided with the home language survey that
explains to parents the purpose of the home language survey and
the procedures for identification and reclassification of
English learners, and to require school districts to provide
this notification when administering the home language survey.
The purpose is to provide parents information about how the
information in the home language survey is used, and the
procedures to identify and reclassify ELs.
Reconsideration : This bill failed passage in this Committee on
April 11, 2012 with a vote of 5-3. Reconsideration was granted
and the author has agreed to the Committee recommended
amendments. This bill is before this Committee as a vote-only
item.
Arguments in support : The author states, "Parents are finding
it very difficult to take their kids out of ELL and putting them
into regular English classes due to state laws and school
push-back. AB 1767 will help address this problem by
automatically reclassifying ELL students as 'English-proficient'
AB 1767
Page I
if the student scores a Proficient or above on the
English-Language Arts portion of the Standardized Testing and
Reporting test (STAR test) and maintains a 3.0 GPA at the end of
the school year, and the student must score at least
Intermediate on all four portions of the CELDT. AB 1767 will
also allow schools to keep the state portion of the ELL funding
for a maximum of two years after the student has been
reclassified as English proficient in order to track the
progress of that student for two years"
Arguments in opposition : The Californians Together Coalition
writes, "AB 1767 proposes to use the proficient score on an
ELA-CST and a 3.0 GPA to override all the other existing
criteria. Where is the research indicating these criteria are a
more reliable measure than the current four criteria? Is there
data suggesting that students scoring proficient on the ELA-CST
and possessing a 3.0 GPA are being held back? We believe there
is no research that states the proposed criteria is a more
reliable measure for reclassification of English learners.
Changing the CELDT score of Early advanced with no subtest lower
than intermediate as a criterion would be contrary to the
Department's recommendation that it be the primary criterion in
determining reclassification of an English learner. We cannot
be assured that English learners would possess the English
language proficiency skills necessary to compete effectively in
a mainstream classroom."
Related legislation : AB 2193 (Lara) provides definitions for
long-term English learners (LTELs) and English learners (ELs) at
risk of becoming long-term English learners and requires
specified information be provided to parents of pupils
identified as LTELs and those at risk of becoming LTELs. AB
2193 was approved by this Committee on March 28, and is now
pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 1108 (Padilla) conditions the receipt of funds appropriated
for purposes of assessing the English language development of
pupils whose primary language is a language other than English
on a LEA reporting, by July 1, 2013, to the CDE the criteria the
LEA uses to determine whether or not to reclassify a pupil as
English proficient. Requires the CDE to analyze the reported
criteria, determine which criteria represent the best practices
in reclassifying pupils as English proficient, and, by January
1, 2014, report to the Legislature the best practices for
objectively assessing language proficiency, evaluating the
AB 1767
Page J
academic performance of an English learner, and comparing the
performance of an English learner in basic skills against a
range of performance in basic skills based upon the performance
of English proficient pupils of the same age to demonstrate
whether the English learner is sufficiently proficient in
English to participate effectively in a curriculum designed for
pupils of the same age whose native language is English. SB 1108
is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 1109 (Padilla) requires the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) to develop the English Learner Master Plan to
expand the support services provided by the CDE in assisting
local educational agencies to establish, implement, and sustain
language instruction educational programs and programs of
English language development for English learner pupils.
Requires the SPI to take into account certain considerations in
developing the plan and would require the plan to include
specified matters. SB 1109 is pending in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
Previous legislation : AB 70 (Duvall) of 2009 requires the CDE,
as part of its duties in administering the English language
development test, to gather from each school district that has
at least one English learner (EL) the criteria that the district
uses for the reclassification of a pupil from EL to proficient
in English. AB 70 was substantially amended in the Senate
Education Committee.
AB 2822 (Duvall) of 2008, requires the CDE, as part of its
duties in administering the English language development test,
to gather from each school district that has at least one
English learner (EL) the criteria that the district uses for the
reclassification of a pupil from EL to proficient in English.
AB 2822 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of California School Administrators- If amended
Congress of Racial Equality of California
Council of Mexican Federations
Individuals
Opposition
AB 1767
Page K
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Federation of Teachers
Californians Together Coalition
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi�a / ED. / (916) 319-2087