BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 754
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 754 (Padilla) - As Amended: April 6, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 40-0
SUBJECT : Pupil assessment: California English Language
Development Test
SUMMARY : Prohibits a pupil in any of grades 3 to 12,
inclusive, to the extent permitted by federal law, from being
required to retake portions of the English language development
test (ELDT) for which he or she has previously achieved the
early advanced or advanced proficiency level within each
appropriate grade span determined by the California Department
of Education (CDE) in accordance with current law requirements
that the test be age and developmentally appropriate for pupils.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits implementation of this bill until such time as the
current test publisher's contract expires.
2)Makes several findings and declarations relative to English
learners (ELs), the ELDT, and the economic losses resulting
from pupils that drop out of school.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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.
2)Requires the assessment to include but not be limited to an
assessment of achievement of these pupils in grades 2-12,
inclusive, in English listening, speaking, reading, and
writing skills, and pupils in kindergarten and grade 1 (K-1)
in English listening, speaking, and until July 1, 2012, early
literacy skills.
3)Specifies that the ELDT shall be used for the following
SB 754
Page 2
purposes:
a) To identify pupils who are limited English proficient;
b) To determine the level of English language proficiency
of these pupils; and,
c) To assess the progress of these students in acquiring
the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing in
English.
4)Requires the ELDT, among other specifications, to be aligned
with the English language development standards and be age and
developmentally appropriate for pupils.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal; however, due to
possible fiscal impacts, the Assembly Rules Committee has
determined that this bill, if passed by this committee, will be
re-referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
COMMENTS : Background : Nearly 1.5 million of the state's 6.2
million students were identified as ELs during the 2009-10
school year, representing approximately 24% of the state's total
public school enrollment. Current federal and state law require
schools to assess the English proficiency of all pupils whose
primary language is not English, and the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT) is the required state test for
English language proficiency. The CELDT, aligned to the English
language development (ELD) standards adopted by the State Board
of Education (SBE), is required to be administered within 30
calendar days after an EL pupil is enrolled in a California
public school for the first time and once each year until the
pupil is reclassified as fluent English proficient. The CELDT
is used for three purposes: (1) to identify new students who
are English learners in kindergarten through grade twelve; (2)
to determine the level of English-language proficiency; and (3)
to annually assess ELs progress in learning English until they
are reclassified. English learners in grades 2-12 are
administered the CELDT in the four domains of speaking,
listening, reading and writing, and English learners in K-1 one
are currently assessed in English listening, speaking, and early
literacy skills.
This bill prohibits a pupil in any of grades 3 to 12, inclusive,
to the extent permitted by federal law, from being required to
retake portions of the CELDT for which he or she has previously
tested as early advanced or advanced within each appropriate
grade span as determined by the CDE. Under the provisions of
SB 754
Page 3
this bill, an EL who has previously performed at the early
advanced or advanced level on any of the domains of the CELDT
would be prohibited from being retested in those domains until
he or she reaches the next grade span. The grade spans of the
CELDT are K-1, grade 2, grades 3-5, grades 6-8, and grades 9-12.
This bill only applies to pupils in grades 3-12.
The CELDT results are reported by five performance levels:
beginning, early intermediate, intermediate, early advanced, and
advanced. The scale score for determining the overall
performance level score is calculated by weighting the domain
scale scores at 25% for each of the four domains for grades
2-12. School districts are required to use CELDT results as one
of four criteria when considering reclassifying English
learners. The other three criteria include teacher evaluation,
parental opinion and consultation, and the comparison of the
pupil's performance in basic skills against an empirically
established range or performance of English proficient students
of the same age that demonstrates whether the pupil is
sufficiently proficient in English to participate effectively in
a curriculum designed for pupils of the same age whose native
language is English.
In conflict with federal law requirements : Federal law requires
states to annually assess all Title III-served limited English
proficient pupils in each of the four language domains of
speaking, listening, reading and writing. Additionally, Title I
also requires an annual English language proficiency assessment
in four language domains for all limited English proficient
pupils. The provisions of this bill are in conflict with
federal law. Some states have asked the U.S. Department of
Education (USDOE) whether they could exempt some of their
students from annual English language proficiency test in any
domain in which the student scored proficient and "bank" scores
until the student is proficient in all domains. The USDOE notes
that both Title I and Title III require the annual assessment in
all four domains and that "banking" of scores is not an
appropriate practice. A notice of final interpretations in the
Federal Registry states that the banking of the proficient
scores of LEP �limited English proficient] students in
particular domains, in any given year, including banking of
scores within grade spans, is not permitted. This bill
specifies that its provisions are operative to the extent
permitted by federal law, however federal law does not allow
this practice, and thus the provisions of this bill are
SB 754
Page 4
currently not implementable.
Assuming this bill could be implemented, this Committee may wish
to consider the following two potential implications of the
proposed policy:
Impact on reclassification : Language proficiency at one grade
level in any domain may not necessarily indicate proficiency in
the next or any subsequent grade level within a CELDT grade
span. While the test is the same throughout each grade span,
the scale score ranges and cut points for each of the
proficiency levels vary by grade level, as the language demands
increase grade level after grade level and the expectations are
for ELs to make continuous growth in language skills year to
year. If a pupil achieves early advanced in one grade level one
year, that score will not necessarily be within the early
advanced or advanced proficiency level in the next grade level.
For example, if a pupil scores 522 in the speaking domain in
grade 6 which is considered early advanced in grade 6, in grade
7 that pupil is considered to be at the intermediate level.
Since, under the proposal in this bill, the pupil will not have
to retake the test in grade 7 nor grade 8, the 522 score will
follow him or her through grade 8 and will keep that pupil at
the intermediate level in that grade span. The problem arises
in calculating a pupil's overall score, for purposes of
reclassification using prior year test results. Because all
four domains are used to calculate the overall score, if one or
more domain scores from prior years are now "lower" than had
been considered the prior year, the overall score on CELDT can
be negatively impacted. Presumably, under the provisions of
this bill, the score an EL receives at the time he or she
"tests-out" of a specific domain will follow that pupil year
after year during a particular grade span, as long as he or she
is classified as EL. Using CELDT data that is a year or more
old, may potentially result in an EL's overall CELDT score not
reaching the early advanced or advanced level in that grade
span, and thus creates the possibility that an EL would miss out
on opportunities to be reclassified as fluent English
proficient.
Impact on instruction ? In consideration that the early advanced
proficiency level in one domain in one grade level does not
necessarily represent the same proficiency level in the next
grade level, a question can be raised as to what the
implications might be on instructional services. To the extent
SB 754
Page 5
that the CELDT has any impact on instruction, an argument could
be made that not assessing an EL in a particular domain once
that pupil achieves the early advanced or advanced proficiency
level in one grade within a grade span, could have the effect of
limiting access to certain data that could be used for purposes
of instruction. The author's staff suggests that one of the
benefits of this bill is that teachers would be able to target
instruction in the areas in which an EL needs the most support
in, as demonstrated by the pupil's scores on each domain of the
CELDT. The idea being that once a pupil achieves the early
advanced or advanced level in certain domains, instructional
services should be focused on the domains in which that pupil
has yet to achieve at those levels. While there is merit to
this goal, considering the points made in the previous
paragraph, the result could also be the loss of instructional
services in areas that the pupil may still need to focus on but
that test data would not show because the test would no longer
be administered. Because there would still be opportunities for
student growth, the lack of data may have a detrimental impact
on instructional services for some ELs.
In an effort to address the potential negative impact this bill
could have on both reclassification and provision of
instructional services for ELs, the author has suggested an
amendment to only prohibit retesting of the CELDT domains in
which an EL has achieved the advanced proficiency level.
Committee staff agrees that this amendment would reduce the
aforementioned concerns.
Proponents of this bill would argue that ELs are overly assessed
and that this is an attempt to reduce the amount of time spent
on testing and instead use that time for instructional purposes.
Further the author states, "Currently an EL who fails any
section of the CELDT is required to retake the entire exam,
including sections the student has previously passed. This is
contrary to the standards of many other state exams that test
proficiency of a given skill. Examples where students or
applicants are not required to retake previously passed sections
include the California High School Exit Exam; and the California
Basic Education Skills Test (CBEST) which examines the basic
skills of prospective teachers."
Additional amendments : The findings and declarations in this
bill note that being required to retake the entire CELDT every
year is preventing ELs from being reclassified. However,
SB 754
Page 6
reports have shown that it is not necessarily the CELDT that
keeps ELs from reclassification. As the Legislative Analyst's
Office points out, "Our look at the progress of EL students also
showed that a notable number of students score at the two
advanced levels for several consecutive years. These data
suggest that while many EL students may make gains in attaining
English proficiency, they still lack the academic skills
required by their local districts to be reclassified FEP �fluent
English proficient]. In making conclusions about EL
reclassification, several other issues need to be taken into
account, including the fact that reclassification criteria
varies from district to district, hence it is difficult to make
such a general conclusion about the CELDT preventing
reclassification. Staff recommends an amendment to delete this
language from the findings and declarations on page 3 lines 6-9.
On page 2 of the findings and declarations subdivision (b)
states that when a pupil fails to attain a sufficient score in
one area of the CELDT, the pupil fails the test. The CELDT is
used to determine levels of proficiency and it is not a "pass or
fail" test. The findings also state that ELs are classified or
reclassified in four ways and lists the four criteria used for
reclassification. However the process for identifying ELs is
different than the reclassification process and the criteria for
reclassification are not meant to be four different stand-alone
ways to reclassify ELs. Staff recommends the language in the
findings and declarations be amended for purposes of
clarification. While the findings and declarations are
uncodified, they are official declarations of the Legislature
and are part of the statutes. Hence it is important that they
are accurate.
Federal initiative : The United States Department of Education
(USDOE) issued a notice for proposed grant priorities published
in the Federal Register on January 7, 2011 announcing a grant
opportunity for the development of English-proficiency tests
based on the common core state standards. Consortia of states
may apply for a grant to develop an English proficiency
assessment system that is aligned to a set of ELD standards and
to the common core standards. California has submitted an
application, as a lead state, for this grant, and if the grant
is awarded, a new ELD test would be developed in the future.
Arguments in support : Public Advocates writes, "Requiring
SB 754
Page 7
students to retake sections of the CELDT which they previously
passed is detrimental to students' motivation, which drops when
they are required to keep taking a test they have already passed
combined with retaking the same courses over and over. The
change in SB 754 will contribute to EL students' motivation to
perform at Early Advanced/Advanced level on CELDT and may also
contribute to increased motivation to meet other
reclassification criteria. California has an interest in
eliminating unnecessary barriers in the reclassification
process.
Related legislation : SB 753 (Padilla) makes changes related to
the timing of the administration of the required English
language development (ELD) assessments. SB 753 is pending in
this Committee and it is also scheduled to be heard today.
Previous legislation : AB 2077 (Fuentes) of 2008 required the
CDE to seek approval from the United States Department of
Education (USDOE) to allow California to exempt ELs from the
annual administration of the CELDT once an EL pupil achieved a
specified overall score and a minimum score on each of the four
domains of the CELDT. AB 2077 was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alliance for a Better Community
Association of California School Administrators
California School Boards Association
California State PTA
California Teachers Association
Californians Together
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Contra Costa County Superintendents' Coalition
Fresno Unified School District
Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom
Los Angeles Unified School District
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Public Advocates
San Francisco Unified School District
The Latin Business Association
Visalia Unified School District
Youth Policy Institute
SB 754
Page 8
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi�a / ED. / (916) 319-2087