BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1892
AUTHOR: Bocanegra
AMENDED: May 23, 2014
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 18, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Redesignated Fluent English Proficient students
(RFEPs).
SUMMARY
This bill, until July 1, 2018, or whenever the state adopts
statewide English learner reclassification criteria,
whichever comes first, requires that local educational
agencies continue to receive a percentage of supplemental and
concentration grant funding under the Local Control Funding
Formula (LCFFF) for two additional years after an English
Learner (EL) student has been reclassified as Fluent English
Proficient (RFEP), and requires that the local educational
agency provide specified information regarding these pupils
in their Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP).
BACKGROUND
The 2013-14 budget replaced the previous K-12 finance system
with a new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). For school
districts and charter schools, the LCFF created base,
supplemental, and concentration grants in place of most
previously existing K-12 funding streams, including revenue
limits and most state categorical programs. County Offices
of Education (COEs) also receive base, supplemental, and
concentration grants and the LCFF creates separate funding
streams for oversight activities and instructional programs.
The base grant provides the same amount per ADA for all
districts and varies according to four grade spans. A
supplemental grant (equal to 20% of the base grant for school
districts and charter schools, 35% of the base grant for
COEs) is provided for each pupil who is identified as either
low income, as determined by eligibility for free or
reduced-price meals, an English learner (EL), or in foster
care. A concentration factor provides an additional 50% of
AB 1892
Page 2
the base grant for each pupil who is eligible for the
supplemental grant and who is in excess of 55% of the
district's or charter school's enrollment (35 percent of the
base grant for COEs). The formula uses an "unduplicated
count," which means that pupils who fall into more than one
category are counted only once. (Education Code � 2574 and
� 42238.02).
As part of the LCFF, school districts, COEs, and charter
schools are required to develop, adopt, and annually update a
three-year Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP),
beginning on July 1, 2014, using a template adopted by the
California State Board of Education (SBE) on or before March
31, 2014. Current law requires that the LCAP include a
description of the annual goals to be achieved for all
students and subgroups of students in each of eight areas of
statutorily identified state priority. Goals must also
address any additional local priorities established by the
local governing board. (Education Code � 52060)
Both federal and State law require that each school district
with English language learners annually assess these
students' English language development until they are
redesignated as English proficient. The assessment, the
California English Language Development Test (CELDT), must be
administered to all students whose primary language is not
English within 30 calendar days after they are enrolled in a
California public school for the first time, and annually
thereafter during a period of time determined by the
Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of
Education (SBE) until they are reclassified as fluent English
proficient.
Current law requires the CDE, with the approval of the SBE,
to establish procedures for conducting the CELDT and for the
reclassification of a pupil from English learner to English
proficient. Current law requires the reclassification
procedures developed by the CDE to use multiple criteria,
including, but not limited to, all of the following:
1) An assessment of language proficiency.
2) Teacher evaluation, including, but not limited to, a
review of the pupil's curriculum mastery.
AB 1892
Page 3
3) Parental opinion and consultation.
4) Comparison of the student's performance 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 participate effectively in a curriculum designed for
pupils of the same age whose native language is English.
(Education Code � 313)
ANALYSIS
This bill , until July 1, 2018, or until statewide pupil
redesignation standards are adopted, whichever comes first:
1) Expands the definition of "unduplicated pupil" to
include a pupil who is redesignated as Fluent English
Proficient (RFEP) and provides that the pupil shall
count only once for funding purposes.
2) Requires that a county office of education, a school
district, or a charter school receive 50 percent and 25
percent of the supplemental grant and the concentration
grant add on calculated for a pupil who is redesignated
as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) for the first and
second fiscal years, respectively, after the
redesignation.
3) Expands LCAP state priority reporting requirements
regarding English learners to include identification of
any specialized programs or services provided to RFEPs
in order for them to maintain proficiency in English and
access the common core standards in the specified areas
of study in grades 1-12.
4) Makes other technical and clarifying corrections.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, prior to
the passage of the LCFF, the Economic Aid Impact program
allocated approximately $350 per EL student for purposes
AB 1892
Page 4
of providing supplemental services to improve academic
outcomes. According to the sponsor, the Association of
California School Administrators, under LCFF, local
educational agencies will receive between $1,400-$1,700
in supplemental grant funding per EL student. Once an EL
student is reclassified, an LEA will not receive
supplemental or concentration grant funding unless the
pupil is also low-income. The author is concerned that
this creates an unintended incentive for districts to
maintain students as ELs, rather than reclassify them as
fluent English proficient (RFEP).
2) Reclassification practices . As required under current
law, the State Board of Education has issued guidelines
for districts' use in determining reclassification.
These guidelines are not mandatory, and districts are
authorized to adopt local reclassification standards
that differ from the State Board's guidelines. Districts
may set higher or lower minimum scores on assessments
and include other forms of evidence, such as grades or
scores on other tests, as part of the reclassification
decision. In the 2012-13 school year, California
schools enrolled 1.35 million English learner pupils,
which equates to 22 percent of the state's total
enrollment. Of these students 12.2 percent (about
169,000) were reclassified as fluent English proficient
students.
Several reports have recently been issued regarding the
reclassification practices of districts. These reports
have focused upon narrow cohorts of students, primarily
focusing upon larger urban districts and limiting
research to students identified as ELs in second grade.
It is unclear whether the policy recommendations in
these reports can be broadly applied to a population of
ELs outside of the more urban districts, and who enter
the public school system after 2nd grade, as this type
of comprehensive information remains unavailable. It
also remains unclear, for the majority of EL students,
what reclassification criteria have any relationship to
the successful transition of English learners into
classrooms and curricula that require English
proficiency.
AB 1892
Page 5
3) Related legislation . Current law, enacted by SB 1108
(Padilla, Chapter 4343, Statues of 2012), requires the
CDE, if state federal or private funds are provided for
this purpose, to review and analyze the criteria,
policies and practices that school districts use to
reclassify English learners and to recommend any policy
changes necessary to identify when English Learners are
prepared for reclassification. The CDE was required to
issue a report of its findings, research, analysis,
recommendations, and best practices by January 1, 2014,
and by January 1, 2017, to issue an updated report that
reflects changes in analysis and recommendations as the
result of the adoption of the common core standards and
the adoption of a common core standards aligned English
language development test. (EC �313.5)
In response to the requirements of SB 1108, the CDE
contracted with the PPIC and provided data from the
CALPADS to conduct an analysis of reclassification
practices in California school districts However, there
is concurrence that the report provided by the PPIC did
not provide sufficient analysis and information to
implement statewide policy regarding reclassification of
English learners. According to the CDE, conducting the
comprehensive study envisioned by the bill requires
additional resources and can be accomplished by 2016.
Staff notes that although the CDE requested funding
through the budget process to conduct the more extensive
research and analysis envisioned by SB 1108 (2012), no
such funding was proposed in the 2014-15 Budget.
In addition, SB 1108 (Padilla, 2014) proposed extension
of the deadline for the CDE to issue its report and
added RFEPs as a numerically significant pupil subgroup
for the purposes of the Academic Performance Index
(API). SB 1108 was heard and passed by this committee
in March 2014 by a vote of 9-0, but was subsequently
held under submission in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
4) Recent related reports . In January 2014, the Public
Policy Institute of California (PPIC) issued a report,
Reclassification of English Learners in California
Schools, which provided a longitudinal analysis of the
AB 1892
Page 6
transition from English learner to Reclassified Fluent
English Proficient (RFEP) in California school
districts. According to the report:
a) RFEP students not only outperform EL students,
but also often do as well as native English
speakers when it comes to measures of academic
outcomes, such as standardized tests and on-time
grade progression.
b) A survey of school districts, indicates that
more than 90 percent of responding districts report
using more demanding reclassification criteria than
are suggested by the State Board of Education (SBE)
guidelines.
c) Districts using more stringent
reclassification criteria have lower
reclassification rates. However, using stricter
criteria is also associated with slightly better
outcomes (in terms of ongoing language proficiency,
for example) for RFEP students. Stricter criteria
are also associated with a greater likelihood of
on-time grade progress among students reclassified
in the 8th grade.
In May 2014, PPIC issued Pathways to Fluency: Examining
the Link between Language Reclassification Policies and
Student Success, which examined reclassification
policies and the academic performance of ELs and former
ELs in the two largest California school districts, San
Diego Unified and Los Angeles Unified. This research was
focused on students identified as ELs in second grade,
who remained ELs through the end of 5th grade, and
students who were reclassified by the end of 5th grade.
This research found that students reclassified in
elementary school have very strong academic outcomes
throughout middle and high school. Researchers found no
evidence that removal of language supports for these
reclassified ELs hurt their academic progress relative
to that of native English speakers.
In both reports, researchers acknowledge that many
elements of EL instruction, funding and testing will be
AB 1892
Page 7
changing, that the criteria for EL reclassification will
necessarily change in the coming years, and that new
reclassification criteria will need to be crafted
carefully and based upon research and analysis.
5) Sufficient accountability ? Under the LCAP, one of the
statutorily identified state priorities includes
implementation of the academic content and performance
standards, including how programs and services will
enable ELs to access the common core academic content
standards and English Language Development standards to
gain academic content knowledge and English language
proficiency. In addition, state priorities include
pupil achievement as measured by, among other things,
the English learner reclassification rate and the
percentage of EL students who make progress towards
English proficiency as measured by assessments of
English proficiency.
This bill would additionally require that the LCAP
identify any specialized programs or services provided
to RFEPs in order for them to maintain proficiency in
English and to access a broad curriculum based upon the
common core standards. Presumably, the additional funds
eliminate the disincentive to maintain a student as an
EL, but also provide funds to allow for ongoing support
services and implementation of local policy to support
redesignated students' access to core curriculum. But
shouldn't the accountability for this increased funding
include information on the actual performance of RFEPs
receiving these supplemental services?
Staff recommends the bill be amended to require that
outcomes and trends in performance of RFEPs be reported,
and continue beyond the two years of funding to monitor
the ongoing performance of redesignated students.
6) Net effect ? This bill adds RFEPS to the definition of
unduplicated pupils and provides that the student may
only be counted once for funding purposes. According to
the Assembly Appropriations analysis, many RFEP students
are also low income and would continue to qualify for
supplemental and concentration grant funding regardless
of redesignation. Based upon an estimate that
AB 1892
Page 8
three-fourths of ELs are low income, and a
reclassification rate of 12.2 percent, of the 337,500 EL
students who are not low income about 40,000 could
potentially qualify for additional funding.
7) Prior legislation .
SB 344 (Padilla, 2013) proposed new requirements related
to the Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) that
local education agencies (LEAs) are required to adopt
beginning July 1, 2014. Among other things, SB 344
added reclassified ELs to the subgroups of pupils whose
academic achievement must be measured by the Academic
Performance Index (API) for accountability purposes. SB
344 was vetoed by the Governor, whose veto message read,
in pertinent part:
"This bill interferes with the work of the State
Board of Education as it implements, through an
open and transparent process, the Local Control
Funding Formula. Moreover, it contains provisions
contrary to the July budget agreement."
SUPPORT
Association of California School Administrators
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Federation of Teachers
California Immigrant Policy Center
California School Boards Association
Californians Together
Californians together
Public Advocates
Public Counsel
Riverside County School District Superintendents
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
San Diego Unified School District
OPPOSITION
California Teachers Association
AB 1892
Page 9