BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2555
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Joan Buchanan, Chair
AB 2555 (Bocanegra) - As Amended: April 23, 2014
SUBJECT : Cradle-to-career initiatives: report
SUMMARY : Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, in
collaboration with various other state agencies and private
organizations, to develop a five year plan for expanding
cradle-to-career initiatives (CCIs) in California.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes several findings and declarations regarding the value,
benefits, and status of CCIs.
2)Requires the SPI to develop a five year plan for expanding
CCIs in collaboration with the following:
a) The State Department of Social Services;
b) The Employment Development Department;
c) The California Health and Human Services Agency;
d) The Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency;
e) The Department of Transportation;
f) The California Children and Families Commission;
g) The Chancellor of the California Community Colleges;
h) The Chancellor of the California State University;
i) The President of the University of California;
j) The California Workforce Investment Board;
aa) The Department of Parks and Recreation;
bb) Teacher organizations;
cc) Chambers of commerce;
dd) Industry representatives;
ee) Research centers;
ff) Parent organizations;
gg) School administrators;
hh) Community-based organizations;
ii) Labor organizations; and
jj) Other interested parties deemed appropriate by the SPI.
3)Requires the plan to include all of the following:
a) A description of the components of effective CCIs;
b) Successful models of CCIs in California;
AB 2555
Page 2
c) Strategies for effective implementation of CCIs,
including how such initiatives can be coordinated with
local control accountability plans;
d) Methods for developing and sustaining CCIs, including
but not limited to:
i) Leveraging existing funding and services;
ii) Providing incentives for collaboration;
iii) Providing technical support;
iv) Developing greater connectivity between statewide
departments; and
v) Evaluating success.
e) Recommendations for supporting regional coalitions in
planning and developing CCIs;
f) Recommendations for ensuring that California's most
distressed neighborhoods and communities are prioritized in
the expansion of CCI's; and
g) A five-year timeline for implementing recommendations.
4) Specifies that CCIs include, but are not limited to,
collaborative school and community programs and services that
align local, state, federal, and private resources, and that
focus on the following objectives:
a) Ensuring children are healthy;
b) Increasing learning opportunities and academic
achievement of all students;
c) Strengthening family structures;
d) Establishing safe neighborhoods; and
e) Expanding college and career opportunities.
5)Provides that CCIs in California include, but are not limited
to, full service schools, promise neighborhoods, wraparound
programs, wellness centers, and healthy communities efforts.
6)Requires the SPI to submit the report with recommendations to
the Legislature by December 1, 2016.
7)Provides that the SPI shall use state or federal funds for
this purpose upon appropriation of the Legislature.
8)Authorizes the SPI to apply for and accept grants, donations,
and other financial support from public or private sources for
this purpose.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
AB 2555
Page 3
COMMENTS : Perhaps the best-known example of a CCI is the
Harlem Children's Zone (HCZ), which was started by Geoffrey
Canada in the 1990's. The HCZ covers about 97 square blocks of
Harlem and includes two charter schools, the first of which was
established in 2004. The schools generally have small class
sizes of around 15 pupils, two certificated teachers per
classroom, guidance counselors, and social workers. In 2010,
the New York Times reported the schools spent about $16,000 per
pupil per year. That cost does not include a 4 PM to 6 PM after
school program, rewards for pupil performance, a chef who
prepares the meals, central administration, and most facilities
costs.
A central feature of the HCZ is the availability of wrap-around
services to provide preschool education, programs for expectant
parents, supplemental instruction, health services, family
support, gang intervention, employment services, and fitness and
nutrition programs. The cost of these services is also in
addition to the $16,000 per pupil spent in the school. In 2009,
the HCZ had assets of nearly $200 million and an operating
budget of $84 million, of which two-thirds was from private
donations.
According to the HCZ website:
"Results have been encouraging. At Promise Academy II,
100 percent of the third-graders were at or above
grade level on the 2008 statewide math test. At
Promise Academy I, 97 percent of the third-graders
were at or above grade level in math.
At Promise Academy I middle school, where the students
entered at sixth grade and were two and three years
behind grade level, there has been some great
progress. The eighth-graders scored 87 percent on or
above grade level on the latest statewide math test,
whereas they had entered the school with only 40
percent at grade level."
A 2009 Harvard University study ("Are High Quality Schools
Enough to Close the Achievement Gap? Evidence from a Social
Experiment in Harlem") found large positive effects,
AB 2555
Page 4
particularly for math at the end of middle schools, and
concluded that "the effects in middle school are enough to
reverse the black-white achievement gap in mathematics."
However, the study concluded that "high-quality schools or
high-quality schools coupled with community investments generate
the achievement gains. Community investments alone cannot
explain the results."
Similarly, Brookings Institution report ("The Harlem Children's
Zone, Promise Neighborhoods, and the Broader, Bolder Approach to
Education," 2010) concluded that there is
"no evidence that the HCZ influences student
achievement through neighborhood investments. There
is considerable evidence that schools can have
dramatic effects on the academic skills of
disadvantaged children without their providing broader
social services. Improving neighborhoods and
communities is a desirable goal in its own right, but
let's not confuse it with education reform."
In 2010, the Obama Administration launched the Promise
Neighborhood Initiative, which is modeled after the HCZ. In the
first year, the Promise Neighborhoods program awarded one-year
grants to support the development of a plan to implement a
Promise Neighborhood in 21 communities across the country. At
the conclusion of the planning grant period, grantees were
expected to have a feasible plan to implement a continuum of
solutions that will significantly improve results for children
in the community being served. In 2011, the U. S. Department of
Education awarded a second round of planning grants and a first
round of implementation grants. The five implementation grants
and 15 planning grants will reach an additional 16 communities
throughout the United States in order to help revitalize
disadvantaged neighborhoods. Promise Neighborhoods is now in 18
states and the District of Columbia. In 2012, a third round of
planning grants and a second round of implementation grants were
awarded. The 7 implementation grants and 10 planning grants will
reach an additional 11 news communities throughout the country.
Promise Neighborhoods is now in 20 states and the District of
Columbia.
In 2011, implementation grants were awarded to programs in three
AB 2555
Page 5
California cities: Fresno, San Diego, and Hayward. In 2012,
implementation grants were awarded in three more California
cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chula Vista. The
maximum award for an implementation grant is $6 million per year
for five years.
Given the extremely high cost of the HCZ, some have questioned
whether it provides a realistic model that can be replicated in
cities that do not have the presence of wealthy benefactors and
whether available resources should be focused directly on school
improvements instead of out-of-school services. The federal
initiative provides a much lower level of funding, which means
that it could provide a basis for testing this question. The
plan required by this bill could take advantage of the lessons
learned from the federal programs in California and shed more
light on the effect, if any, that wraparound services have on
student achievement.
Arguments in support. The author's office argues that it is
"critically important?to understand the landscape of Cradle to
Career Initiatives that are currently active in the state, to
determine the components of effective Cradle to Career
Initiatives, to understand what is working to build healthy
communities and elevate children and families out of poverty,
and to be strategic about how we expand these initiatives moving
forward."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California School-Based Health Alliance
California School Boards Association
Children's Defense Fund-California
City of Los Angeles
Communities in Schools
Harlem Children's Zone
Mission Economic Development Agency
Policy Link
Reading and Beyond
Youth Policy Institute
Numerous individuals
Opposition
AB 2555
Page 6
None received
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087