BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2193
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2193 (Lara)
As Amended May 25, 2012
Majority vote
EDUCATION 10-0 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Norby, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Eng, Grove, Halderman, | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| |Williams | |Gatto, Ammiano, Hill, |
| | | |Lara, Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Defines "long-term English learners (LTELs)" and
"English learners at risk of becoming long-term English
learners;" requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to report
the number of pupils identified as such, and requires specified
information be provided to parents of pupils who are, or are at
risk of becoming LTELs. Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "Long-term English learner" as an EL who is enrolled
in any of grades 6 to 12, inclusive, has been continuously or
cumulatively enrolled in schools in the United States (U.S.)
for more than six years, has remained at the same English
language proficiency level for two or more consecutive years
as determined by an English proficiency examination, and
scores far below basic or below basic on the English language
arts (ELA) standards test.
2)Defines "English learner at risk of becoming a long-term
English learner" (at-risk EL) as an EL who is enrolled in any
of grades 5-11, has been continuously or cumulatively enrolled
in schools in the U.S. for four years, scores at the
intermediate level or below on the English language
development test (ELDT), and scores, in the fourth year of
continuous or cumulative enrollment, at the below basic or far
below basic levels on the English and mathematics
standards-based achievement tests.
AB 2193
Page 2
3)Requires an existing notice to parents, required pursuant to
federal law, to additionally include information on whether a
pupil is a LTEL or an at-risk EL.
4)Requires the statewide system of school support consisting of
regional consortia, district assistance and intervention
teams, and other school and district technical assistance
providers to target pupils that are not meeting the federal
academic targets, including ELs, LTELs, and at-risk ELs.
5)Requires the standards and criteria used by district
assistance and intervention teams (DAIT) or other technical
assistance providers to address specified areas including
alignment of curriculum, instruction and assessments that
target pupils not meeting the federal academic targets,
including ELs, LTELs, and at-risk ELs.
6)Requires a school district, charter school, or county office
of education to annually ascertain the number of pupils in the
LEA who are, or are at risk of becoming LTELs, as those terms
are defined, and to annually report to the California
Department of Education (CDE) the number of these pupils.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, General Fund/Proposition 98 (GF/98) state mandated
reimbursable costs likely between $250,000 and
$500,000 to LEAs to ascertain the number of pupils that are
LTELs and at-risk ELs and report this information to CDE, as
specified.
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. A recent study shows that a
large 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 staying
classified as ELs for an extended period of time. These pupils
are referred to as "long-term English learners," however, the
state and school districts lack a uniform definition of and
mechanism to identify LTELs. This bill seeks to create a
uniform state definition of LTEL and at-risk EL, and requires
districts to identify and report to the CDE the numbers of
AB 2193
Page 3
pupils identified. Additionally, this bill requires
notification to parents as to whether their child/children are
LTELs or at-risk ELs, and requires technical assistance to
school districts to target specified pupils that are not meeting
the federal academic targets.
The problem: The report, Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the Unkept
Promise of Educational Opportunity for California's Long Term
English Learners, includes information from a survey of 40
California school districts and finds that the majority, 59%, of
secondary school ELs in those districts are long-term English
learners, meaning they have been in U.S. schools for more than
six years and have not reached sufficient English proficiency to
be reclassified. Furthermore, the report points out that in one
out of three districts, more than 75% of their ELs are long
term. The majority of LTELs have remained at the intermediate
level of English proficiency or below, while others have reached
higher levels of English proficiency but not enough academic
language to be reclassified. Significant gaps in reading and
writing and the lack of rich oral and literacy skills needed to
fully participate and succeed in academic work are common trends
amongst LTELs.
Identification: This bill defines LTEL as an EL who is enrolled
in any of grades 6 to 12, inclusive, has been continuously
enrolled in schools in the U.S. for more than six years, is
unable to advance for two or more years beyond a particular
level on an English proficiency exam, and scores far below basic
or below basic on the ELA standards test. According to
information provided by one of the co-sponsors, the Californians
Together Coalition, the rationale for the six years is based on
linguistic research showing that it normatively takes up to
seven years to reach proficiency in a second language, and on an
analysis of progression rates through the levels on the English
language development test (ELDT). There are five proficiency
levels on the ELDT and the expectation is for ELs to advance one
proficiency level per year, consistent with federal
requirements. The definition in this bill acknowledges the five
levels on the ELDT while trying to avoid identifying pupils too
early if they are making normative progress and hence sets six
years in a U.S. school as one of the indicators. The definition
of LTEL in this bill is not solely based on the number of years
an EL has been enrolled in U.S. schools. It further considers
whether these pupils may have reached a plateau on English
AB 2193
Page 4
proficiency and on academic achievement tests.
Parent notification: Federal and state law require annual
notification to parents of ELs providing parents information
about their children's level of English proficiency and the
manner in which educational programs will meet educational needs
and proficiency development of ELs. This bill builds upon this
existing notification and requires that parents also be informed
as to whether their children have been identified as LTELs or
are at-risk ELs. Having this additional information may give
parents of ELs the opportunity to take steps necessary to
address the language and academic needs of their children.
In an effort to address the instructional needs of this
population of students, this bill also requires the regional
consortia that provide technical assistance to LEAs in program
improvement, to target LTELs and at-risk ELs in the design and
operation of the instructional program and in developing
recommendations for improving pupil performance. Additionally,
the DAITs are required to use criteria that targets pupils that
are, and are at risk of becoming, LTELs, in the alignment of
curriculum, instruction and assessments.
This bill does not require districts to create a specific
program to address the academic deficits of LTELs or to help
remediate at-risk ELs. It can be argued that, as a first step,
this bill raises awareness on this issue by codifying
definitions of, and requiring districts to identify, pupils who
are, or are at risk of becoming, LTELs. After these pupils are
identified, districts have the flexibility to craft programs as
they best see fit to meet the needs of their student population.
This bill does not create new programmatic requirements for
school districts but instead can potentially encourage districts
to focus on developing plans and/or strategies to address the
needs of LTELs and at-risk ELs within existing programs.
Author's statement: "AB 2193 defines in the Education Code the
term Long Term English Learner and defines an English Learner at
risk of becoming a Long Term English Learner. By creating
standard definitions in the Education Code, California schools
and districts will be able to properly identify LTEL'S and know
their corresponding grade level. This will ensure that Long Term
English Learners and those at risk of becoming Long Term English
Learners do not become 'invisible' and do not fall through the
AB 2193
Page 5
cracks regarding instruction."
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi�a / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0003915