BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 452
AUTHOR: Huff
AMENDED: April 10, 2013
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 17, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Lynn Lorber
SUBJECT : Parent Empowerment.
SUMMARY
This bill expands the scope of parent empowerment to
include schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving
and all schools ranking in deciles 1-3 on the Academic
Performance Index.
BACKGROUND
Parent Empowerment
As part of California's application for the federal Race to
the Top, the Parent Empowerment Act was established to
authorize parents of certain low achieving schools to
petition for the implementation of one of five specific
interventions.
To be eligible for parent empowerment petition, a school:
1) Cannot be identified as a persistently
low-achieving school.
2) Is in year 3 of federal Program Improvement (after
one full school year is
subject to corrective action pursuant to the federal
No Child Left Behind Act and continues to fail to make
Adequate Yearly Progress).
3) Has an Academic Performance Index score of less
than 800.
SB 452
Page 2
4) At least one-half of the parents or guardians of
pupils attending the school and the feeder schools
sign a petition requesting the school district
implement one of five interventions. (Education Code
� 53300)
The five interventions are:
1) Transformation model - Replace the principal,
provide professional development and financial
incentives, develop strategies for school improvement.
2) Turnaround model - Replace a principal and 50% of
the staff, flexible governance, provide professional
development, use of pupil data.
3) Restart model - Convert a school to a charter
school, or closing and reopening a school as a charter
school.
4) School closure - Close a school and enroll the
pupils in higher achieving schools in the district.
5) Alternative governance pursuant to the federal No
Child Left Behind Act - Major restructuring of the
school's governance that makes fundamental reforms,
such as staffing, to improve pupil achievement and has
substantial promise of enabling the school to make
Adequate Yearly Progress. (EC � 53202 and 20 United
States Code Section 6301, Section 1116(b)(8)(B)(v))
Current law:
1) Requires school districts to implement the option
requested by the parents unless, in a regularly
scheduled public hearing, the district makes a finding
that it cannot implement the intervention and
SB 452
Page 3
designate which of the other four interventions the
district will implement in the subsequent school year.
(EC � 53300)
2) Caps the number of schools that may be subject to
parent empowerment provisions to 75. (EC � 53302)
The State Board of Education (SBE) adopted permanent
regulations for the implementation of parent empowerment
provisions in 2011. Regulations regarding parent
empowerment provisions include, among other things, the
requirement that the petition include specific information.
(Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, Section
4800 et seq.)
Persistently lowest-achieving schools
Current law prescribes a method for identifying schools in
the lowest five percent based on:
1) Student achievement on state assessments in English
language arts and math.
2) Whether a Title I school is in program improvement,
corrective action or restructuring.
3) High school graduation rate of less than 60 percent
in each of the previous three years.
School districts with schools identified as persistently
lowest-achieving are required to implement one of four
interventions:
1) The turnaround model.
2) The restart model.
3) School closure.
SB 452
Page 4
4) The transformation model.
The district is not required to implement an intervention
if the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the SBE
determines that the school has implemented a reform within
the last two years that conforms to the requirements of the
interventions required by the Race to the Top program and
is showing significant progress. (EC � 53201)
Deciles 1-3
The Academic Performance Index (API) is a numeric index (or
scale) that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1,000. A
school's score or placement on the API is an indicator of
the school's performance level based on the results of
statewide tests in grades two through twelve. In addition
to API scores, schools receive a statewide ranking. A
school's API score is ranked as one of ten categories
(deciles). A ranking in the first decile is the lowest
rank, and a ranking in the tenth decile is the highest.
ANALYSIS
This bill expands the scope of parent empowerment to
include schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving
and all schools ranking in deciles 1-3 on the Academic
Performance Index. Specifically, this bill:
1) Lifts the exemption on persistently
lowest-achieving schools from being eligible for
parent empowerment provisions.
2) Adds any school ranked in deciles 1-3 on the
Academic Performance Index to the criteria for
eligibility for parent empowerment.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, "The
Parent Empowerment Act gives parents a seat at the
table in their children's schools in order to have an
SB 452
Page 5
impactful voice. In certain low-performing schools,
parents can make real governance changes to their
schools when 50 percent of the parents petition to
turn their school around such as conversion to a
public charter school. SB 452 will expand the Parent
Empowerment program to include California's lowest
performing schools, including any school in the bottom
thirty percent of the state's performance index,
ensuring those who are most in need can benefit from
the program."
2) Number of schools in various categories . According to
information provided by the California Department of
Education, there are currently:
a) 412 schools that meet the criteria for
eligibility for parent empowerment.
b) 1,871 schools that meet the criteria to be
identified as persistently lowest-achieving.
c) 2,671 schools ranked in decile 1-3.
It is estimated that 1,352 schools are ranked in
decile 1-3 and are identified as persistently
lowest-achieving. Therefore, 1,319 schools could be
considered unduplicated decile 1-3 but not identified
as persistently lowest-achieving. The result of this
bill is to add 1,871 persistently lowest-achieving
schools and 1,319 decile 1-3 schools, for a total of
3,190 additional schools being eligible for parent
empowerment provisions.
3) Why aren't all schools eligible for parent
empowerment ? Parent empowerment provisions were
established to focus on schools that meet specific
achievement criteria to meet the requirements of the
application for Race to the Top funding. Separate
provisions were established related to persistently
lowest-achieving schools, which are in the bottom five
percent based on a method using specific criteria,
also in relation to California's application for Race
SB 452
Page 6
to the Top funding. The measures establishing both
programs of intervention met different requirements of
the Race to the Top initiative.
4) Who should decide on interventions for persistently
lowest-achieving schools ? Current law requires school
districts to implement one of four interventions,
chosen by the district, for schools identified as
persistently lowest-achieving. Parent empowerment
provisions allow parents to submit a petition to the
school district and identify one of five interventions
(nearly identical to interventions for persistently
lowest-achieving schools). Districts are required to
implement the intervention selected by the parents
unless the district makes a public finding that one of
the other interventions should instead be implemented.
This bill would allow parents to determine which
intervention must be implemented rather than
determined by the school district.
Should parents, rather than districts, control the decision
on which intervention is to be implemented for
persistently lowest-achieving schools? Are parents
unhappy with the interventions currently being
implemented at persistently lowest-achieving schools?
Should the intervention being implemented at a
persistently lowest-achieving school be in place for a
minimum number of years before a decision can be made
to implement a different intervention?
The Committee may wish to consider allowing parent
empowerment provisions to apply to a larger pool of
schools but with a condition that currently exists for
persistently lowest-achieving schools: Districts are
required to implement an intervention unless the SPI
and SBE determine, to the extent allowable under
federal law, that the school has implemented a reform
within the last two years that conforms to the
requirements of the interventions required by Race to
the Top and is showing significant progress.
5) Current parent empowerment activities . In Fall 2012,
a judge ruled that the petition put forth by the
parents at Desert Trails Elementary school in the
SB 452
Page 7
Adelanto Elementary School District must be
implemented. The district subsequently approved a
proposal from LaVerne Preparatory Academy (charter),
which is expected to open in Fall 2013.
The parents at 24th Street Elementary School in the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) voted on April
9, 2013, to shift management of the school to a
partnership between Crown Preparatory Academy
(charter) and LAUSD. In the 2013-14 school year,
LAUSD will open a new pre-kindergarten program and
manage K-5, and the charter school will manage grades
5-8.
Parents at Weigand Avenue Elementary (LAUSD) submitted a
petition to the district in April 2013, seeking
replacement of the school principal.
Parents at McKinley Elementary school in the Compton
Unified School District unsuccessfully submitted a
petition seeking conversion to a charter school. The
district rejected the petition and the matter was
taken no further.
6) Why expand when not near the cap ? Current law caps
the number of schools that may be subject to parent
empowerment provisions to 75. The number of parent
empowerment petitions is not threatening to exceed the
cap. There is no need to expand the number of schools
eligible for parent empowerment relative to the cap of
75 schools. The author points out that the expansion
proposed by this bill is relative to parents having
control of the decision on which interventions should
be implemented at persistently lowest-achieving
schools and others in decile 1-3.
7) Related legislation . AB 815 (Conway) is nearly
identical to this bill, and is scheduled to be heard
by the Assembly Education Committee on April 17, 2013.
8) Prior legislation . AB 203 (Brownley, 2011) would have
provided guidance in several areas of Parent
Empowerment provisions, including the contents of
petitions, the signatures on the petitions, signature
SB 452
Page 8
gatherers, and schoolsite councils. AB 203 was vetoed
by the Governor, whose veto message read:
This bill makes significant changes to the
petition process contained in the Parent
Empowerment Act of 2010.
The State Board of Education has spent the past
year engaged in a lengthy, contentious process to
reach consensus among a diverse group of
stakeholders. The result is a set of regulations
that received unanimous support and address many
of the changes proposed by this bill.
I believe that these regulations should have a
chance to be implemented and tested by local
districts before considering any further
modifications.
SUPPORT
American Center for School Choice
California Charter Schools Association Advocates
Democrats for Education Reform
Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options
Parents Advocate League
StudentsFirst
OPPOSITION
Association of California School Administrators
California Federation of Teachers
California School Boards Association
California Teachers Association
San Francisco Unified School District