(1)Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary education in this state, and requires and authorizes local educational agencies to provide specified instruction at elementary and secondary schools. Existing law prescribes various requirements with respect to a course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, at these schools.

This bill, commencing with the 201617 school year, would prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, from assigning a pupil enrolled in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in a school, as defined to exclude alternative schools, community day schools, continuation schools, and opportunity schools, in the school district to any course period without educational content, as defined, for more than one week in any semester, except under prescribed conditions. The bill would specifically prohibit school districts from assigning a pupil enrolled in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in a school in the school district to a course period without educational content because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the pupil to take during the relevant period of the designated schoolday.

The bill would, commencing with the 201617 school year, also prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, from assigning a pupil enrolled in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in a school, as defined to exclude alternative schools, community day schools, continuation schools, and opportunity schools, in the school district, to a course that the pupil has previously completed and received a grade determined by the school district to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and the minimum requirements for receiving a diploma of graduation from high school, except under specified conditions.

The bill would specify that it is not to be interpreted to limit or otherwise affect the authority of a school district to authorize dual enrollment in community college or to provide evening high school programs, independent study programs, or work-based learning or work experience education.

The bill would specify procedures to be followed if a complaint of noncompliance with the requirements of the bill is filed with a local educational agency or if an appeal of the local educational agencys decision on the complaint is made to the State Department of Education. The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to prepare an annual report detailing actions taken pursuant to these procedures.

The bill would require the Superintendent to develop regulations for adoption by the State Board of Education governing these provisions.

To the extent that this bill would create new duties for local educational agencies, it would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary education in this state, and requires and authorizes local educational agencies to provide specified instruction at elementary and secondary schools. Existing law prescribes various requirements with respect to a course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, at these schools.

This bill, commencing with the 201617 school year, would prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, from assigning a pupil enrolled in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in a school, as defined to exclude alternative schools, community day schools, continuation schools, and opportunity schools, in the school district to any course period without educational content, as defined, for more than one week in any semester, except under prescribed conditions. The bill would specifically prohibit school districts from assigning a pupil enrolled in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in a school in the school district to a course period without educational content because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the pupil to take during the relevant period of the designated schoolday.

The bill would, commencing with the 201617 school year, also prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, from assigning a pupil enrolled in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in a school, as defined to exclude alternative schools, community day schools, continuation schools, and opportunity schools, in the school district, to a course that the pupil has previously completed and received a grade determined by the school district to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and the minimum requirements for receiving a diploma of graduation from high school, except under specified conditions.

The bill would specify that it is not to be interpreted to limit or otherwise affect the authority of a school district to authorize dual enrollment in community college or to provide evening high school programs, independent study programs, or work-based learning or work experience education.

The bill would specify procedures to be followed if a complaint of noncompliance with the requirements of the bill is filed with a local educational agency or if an appeal of the local educational agencys decision on the complaint is made to the State Department of Education. The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to prepare an annual report detailing actions taken pursuant to these procedures.

The bill would require the Superintendent to develop regulations for adoption by the State Board of Education governing these provisions.

To the extent that this bill would create new duties for local educational agencies, it would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary education in this state, and requires and authorizes local educational agencies to provide specified instruction at elementary and secondary schools. Existing law prescribes various requirements with respect to a course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, at these schools.

This bill, commencing with the 201617 school year, would prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, from assigning any a pupil enrolled in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in a school, as defined to exclude alternative schools, community day schools, continuation schools, and opportunity schools, in the school district to any course period without educational content, as defined, for more than one week in any semester, except under prescribed conditions. The bill would specifically prohibit school districts from assigning any a pupil enrolled in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in a school in the school district to a course period without educational content because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the pupil to take during the relevant period of the designated schoolday.

The bill would, commencing with the 201617 school year, also prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, from assigning a pupil enrolled in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in a school, as defined to exclude alternative schools, community day schools, continuation schools, and opportunity schools, in the school district, to a course that the pupil has previously completed and received a grade determined by the school district to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and the minimum requirements for receiving a diploma of graduation from high school, except under specified conditions.

The bill would specify that it is not to be interpreted to limit or otherwise affect the authority of a school district to authorize dual enrollment in community college or to provide evening high school programs, independent study programs, or work-based learning or work experience education.

The bill would specify procedures to be followed if a complaint of noncompliance with the requirements of the bill is filed with a local educational agency or if an appeal of the local educational agencys decision on the complaint is made to the State Department of Education. The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to prepare an annual report detailing actions taken pursuant to these procedures.

The bill would require the Superintendent to develop regulations for adoption by the State Board of Education governing these provisions.

To the extent that this bill would create new duties for local educational agencies, it would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary education in this state, and requires and authorizes local educational agencies to provide specified instruction at elementary and secondary schools. Existing law prescribes various requirements with respect to a course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, at these schools.

This bill, commencing with the 201617 school year, would prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 7 9 to 12, inclusive, from assigning any pupil enrolled in a school, as defined to exclude alternative schools, community day schools, continuation schools, and opportunity schools, in the school district to any course period without educational content, as defined, for more than one week in any semester, except under prescribed conditions. The bill would specifically prohibit school districts from assigning any pupil enrolled in a school in the school district to a course period without educational content because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the pupil to take during the relevant period of the designated schoolday.

The bill would would, commencing with the 201617 school year, also prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 7 9 to 12, inclusive, from assigning a pupil to a course that the pupil has previously completed and received a grade determined by the school district to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and the minimum requirements for receiving a diploma of graduation from high school, except under specified conditions.

The bill would specify that it is not to be interpreted to limit or otherwise affect the authority of a school district to provide evening high school programs, independent study programs, or work-based learning or work experience education.

The bill would specify procedures to be followed if a complaint of noncompliance with the requirements of the bill is filed with a local educational agency or if an appeal of the local educational agencys decision on the complaint is made to the State Department of Education. The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to prepare an annual report detailing actions taken pursuant to these procedures.

The bill would require the Superintendent to adopt develop regulations for adoption by the State Board of Education governing these provisions.

To the extent that this bill would create new duties for local educational agencies, it would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary education in this state, and requires and authorizes local educational agencies to provide specified instruction at elementary and secondary schools. Existing law prescribes various requirements with respect to a course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, at these schools.

This bill, commencing with the 201617 school year, would prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, from assigning any pupil enrolled in a school, as defined to exclude alternative schools, community day schools, continuation schools, and opportunity schools, in the school district to any course period without educational content, as defined, for more than one week in any semester, except under prescribed conditions. The bill would specifically prohibit school districts from assigning any pupil enrolled in a school in the school district to a course period without educational content because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the pupil to take during the relevant period of the designated schoolday.

The bill would also prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, from assigning a pupil to a course that the pupil has previously completed and received a grade determined by the school district to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and the minimum requirements for receiving a diploma of graduation from high school, except under specified conditions.

The bill would specify that it is not to be interpreted to limit or otherwise affect the authority of a school district to provide evening high school programs, independent study programs, or work-based learning or work experience education.

The bill would specify procedures to be followed if a complaint of noncompliance with the requirements of the bill is filed with a local educational agency. agency or if an appeal of the local educational agencys decision on the complaint is made to the State Department of Education. The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to prepare an annual report detailing actions taken pursuant to these procedures.

The bill would require the Superintendent to adopt regulations governing these provisions.

To the extent that this bill would create new duties for local educational agencies, it would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary education in this state, and requires and authorizes local educational agencies to provide specified instruction at elementary and secondary schools. Existing law prescribes various requirements with respect to a course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, at these schools.

This bill bill, commencing with the 201617 school year, would prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, from assigning any pupil enrolled in a school, as defined to exclude alternative schools, community day schools, continuation schools, and opportunity schools, in the school district to any course period without educational content, as defined, for more than one week in any semester, except under prescribed conditions. The bill would specifically prohibit school districts from assigning any pupil enrolled in a school in the school district to a course period without educational content because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the pupil to take during the relevant period of the designated schoolday.

The bill would also prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, from assigning a pupil to a course that the pupil has previously completed and received a grade determined by the school district to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and the minimum requirements for receiving a diploma of graduation from high school, except under specified conditions.

The bill would specify that it is not to be interpreted to limit or otherwise affect the authority of a school district to provide evening high school programs, independent study programs, or work-based learning or work experience education.

The bill would specify procedures to be followed if a school district determines that, at any point during the current or preceding academic year, one or more of its schools have not satisfied the requirements of the bill. The bill would also authorize members of the public to file complaints alleging violations of the provisions of the bill, and would provide for procedures for the disposition of these complaints. complaint of noncompliance with the requirements of the bill is filed with a local educational agency. The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to prepare an annual report detailing actions taken pursuant to these procedures.

The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to adopt regulations governing these provisions.

To the extent that this bill would create new duties for local educational agencies, it would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary education in this state, and requires and authorizes local educational agencies to provide specified instruction at elementary and secondary schools. Existing law prescribes various requirements with respect to a course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, at these schools.

This bill would prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, from assigning any pupil enrolled in a school, as defined to exclude alternative schools, community day schools, continuation schools, and opportunity schools, in the school district to any course period without educational content, as defined, for more than one week in any semester, except under prescribed conditions. The bill would specifically prohibit school districts from assigning any pupil enrolled in a school in the school district to a course period without educational content because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the pupil to take during the relevant period of the designated schoolday.

The bill would also prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, from assigning a pupil to a course that the pupil has previously completed and received a grade determined by the school district to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and the minimum requirements for receiving a diploma of graduation for from high school, except under specified conditions.

The bill would specify that it is not to be interpreted to limit or otherwise affect the authority of a school district to provide evening high school programs, independent study programs, or work-based learning or work experience education.

The bill would specify procedures to be followed if a school district determines that, at any point during the current or preceding academic year, one or more of its schools have not satisfied the requirements of the bill. The bill would also authorize members of the public to file complaints alleging violations of the provisions of the bill, and would provide for procedures for the disposition of these complaints.

To the extent that this bill would create new duties for local educational agencies, it would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary education in this state, and requires and authorizes local educational agencies to provide specified instruction at elementary and secondary schools. Existing law prescribes various requirements with respect to a course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, at these schools.

This bill would prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, from assigning any pupil enrolled in a school, as defined to exclude alternative schools, community day schools, continuation schools, and opportunity schools, in the school district to any course period without educational content, as defined, for more than one week in any semester, except under prescribed conditions. The bill would specifically prohibit school districts from assigning any pupil enrolled in a school in the school district to a course period without educational content because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the pupil to take during the relevant period of the designated schoolday.

The bill would also prohibit school districts that maintain any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, from assigning a pupil to a course that the pupil has previously completed and received a grade determined by the school district to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and the minimum requirements for receiving a diploma of graduation for high school, except under specified conditions.

The bill would specify that it is not to be interpreted to limit or otherwise affect the authority of a school district to provide evening high school programs, independent study programs, or work-based learning or work experience education.

The bill would specify procedures to be followed if a school district determines that, at any point during the current or preceding academic year, one or more of its schools have not satisfied the requirements of the bill. The bill would also authorize members of the public to file complaints alleging violations of the provisions of the bill, and would provide for procedures for the disposition of these complaints.

To the extent that this bill would create new duties for local educational agencies, it would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1012

Author:(Jones-Sawyer)

As Amended Ver:September 3, 2015

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: ED.

SUMMARY: Defines "courses without educational content," prohibits a school district serving any grades 9-12 from assigning students to a course without educational content for more than one week in any semester, and prohibits the assignment of any student to a course that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade, unless specified conditions are met. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines a "course period without educational content" as a course period during which any of the following occurs:

1. The student is sent home or released from campus before the conclusion of the designated school day.

2. The student is assigned to a service, instructional work experience, or to an otherwise named course in which the student is assigned to assist a certificated employee, but not expected to complete curricular assignments, in a course the certificated employee is teaching during that period and where the ratio of certificated employees to students assigned to the course for curricular purposes is less than one to one.

3. The student is not assigned to any course for the relevant course period.

2. Prohibits, commencing with the 2016-17 school year, a school district maintaining grades 9 to 12 from assigning any student to any course period without educational content for more than one week in any semester, unless all of the following requirement are met:

1. A student is assigned to that course only if the student or, for a student who has not reached the age of majority, the student's parent, guardian, or educational rights holder has consented in writing to the assignment.

2. A school official has determined that the student will benefit from being assigned to the course period.

3. The principal or assistant principal of the school has stated in a written document maintained at the school that, for the relevant school year, no students are assigned to those classes unless the school has met the conditions specified in a) and b) above.

3. Prohibits, commencing with the 2016-17 school year, a school district maintaining grades 9 to 12 from assigning any student to a course that the student has previously completed and received a grade sufficient to satisfy the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and the minimum requirements for receiving a diploma of graduation from high school, unless:

1. The course has been designed to be taken more than once because students are exposed to a new curriculum from year-to-year and are therefore expected to derive educational value from taking the course again.

2. For any course that has not been designed to be taken more than once, all of the following conditions are satisfied:

1. A student is assigned to the course only if the student or, for a student who has not reached the age of majority, the student’s parent, guardian, or educational rights holder has consented in writing to the assignment for the purpose of improving a lower grade.

2. A school official has determined that the student will benefit from being assigned to the course period.

3. The principal or assistant principal of the school has stated in a written document to be maintained at the school that, for the relevant school year, no students are assigned to those classes unless the school has met the conditions specified in a) and b) above.

4. Clarifies a school district is not prohibited from establishing and offering evening high school classes, independent study, courses of work-based learning or work experience, or distance learning if the program otherwise meets all of the requirements of law governing that program.

5. Excludes students enrolled in an alternative school, a community day school, a continuation high school or an opportunity school from provisions of this bill.

6. Makes these requirements subject to the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP), requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to respond to appeals within 60 days, and requires that if merit is found in an appeal the local educational agency to provide a remedy to the affected student.

7. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to annually prepare an annual report detailing actions taken regarding related complaints, and requires the SPI, by January 1 of each year, to submit the report to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature.

8. Requires the SPI to develop regulations for adoption by the State Board of Education (SBE) to establish procedures governing these requirements.

The Senate amendments:

1. Change the applicability of the bill from school districts offering grades 7-12 to those offering grades 9-12.

2. Streamline the process by which exceptions may be made to the prohibition on placement in courses without educational content and placement in courses which have been satisfactorily completed.

3. Clarify the definition of "service," "instructional work experience," or otherwise named course.

4. Clarify that the provisions of the bill apply to course placement of students enrolled in grades 9-12.

5. Clarify that the provisions of the bill do not limit or otherwise affect the authority of a school district to authorize dual enrollment in community college.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Specifies requirements for graduation from high school, including: three courses in English; two courses in mathematics; two courses in science; three courses in social studies; one course in visual or performing arts, foreign language, or career technical education; and two courses in physical education. Authorizes school districts to adopt additional requirements for graduation.

2. Establishes course requirements for admission to the University of California and the California State University, known as the A-G requirements.

3. Requires that only the attendance of students under the immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee is counted toward the computation of average daily attendance.

4. Establishes the minimum day in middle school and high school as 240 minutes.

5. Through regulation, requires LEAs to adopt uniform complaint procedures through which the public can register complaints regarding educational programs and rights. (California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 4600).

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the California Department of Education (CDE) indicates the need of eight full-time positions, one part-time position, and about $794,000 ongoing funding as no office currently exists to monitor schools for course content. Costs also include addressing complaints of noncompliance and appeals and providing technical assistance to the field.

COMMENTS:

Need for this bill. The author's office states, "Thousands of high school students across California are tracked into so-called "classes," where they are given meaningless "credits" for sitting at home, in the office, or taking a course they've already passed.

School districts have given these courses different names ("home," "service," "work-experience," "college," "adult"), but they all have a common trait: they rob students of learning time and the opportunity for a real education. And many of the affected students need real, academic classes to fulfill graduation or college access requirements.

The schools where this occurs serve almost exclusively low-income students of color. Although this is not the norm across California, it is all-too common in communities where students can least afford to lose learning time. It is time to ensure that all of our schools have the support they need to provide real classes to every student until they graduate.”

Bill related to lawsuit filed by the sponsor. This bill is related to Cruz v. State of California, a class action lawsuit filed May 29th, 2014 in Alameda County Superior Court against the state on behalf of students in seven schools.

The suit names as plaintiffs a class of current or future students attending Castlemont High School in the Oakland Unified School District, John C. Fremont High School in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Nystrom Elementary School in the West Contra Costa Unified School District, Franklin S. Whaley Middle School in the Compton Unified School District, Fremont High School in the Oakland Unified School District, Florence Griffith Joyner Elementary School in the LAUSD, and Compton High School in the Compton Unified School District. The suit names as defendants the State of California, the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education (SBE), and the Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson.

The plaintiffs allege that the state has violated the rights of the plaintiffs provided by the Equal Protection clauses of the state constitution "by failing to provide them with basic educational opportunities equal to those that other students elsewhere in the state receive" with regard to meaningful learning time.

They allege that this lack of instructional time is due to several factors, including:

1. "Assignment of students to administrative tasks or free periods instead of assignment to classroom periods of instruction because of insufficient curricular offerings and a lack of available qualified teachers;

2. Violence or security disruptions, which result in cessation of instruction and traumatic after-effects, and insufficient access to mental health professionals to assist students and faculty in coping with these disruptions;

3. Late changes to the master course schedule requiring course and teacher changes well into the semester;

4. Unstable, transient teaching faculties and administrative teams (including principals, assistant principals, and counselors), resulting from under-resourced and stressful campuses not conducive to professional development and growth; and

5. Unaddressed student absenteeism, resulting in whole or part from campus conditions"

The complaint requests that the court address the state's monitoring system and its intervention to prevent and remedy the causes of lost learning time.

On February 5th of this year the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On April 24th Alameda County Superior Court Judge George C. Hernández, Jr. denied this motion, stating that "If, at this stage, Plaintiffs cannot supply reliable evidence regarding the actual practices of most California high schools with regard to the use of contentless classes and the timely implementation of appropriate master schedules, the court lacks a fair standard against which to measure the performance of Plaintiff’s own high schools and cannot determine, even preliminarily, whether Plaintiffs have some possibility of prevailing on their claims."

Districts respond to lawsuit by curtailing some practices. According to a reply brief submitted in support of the motion for preliminary injunction, Compton High School has ceased scheduling students in "home" periods and has placed "sharp limitations" on service periods since this suit was filed, and LAUSD has indicated that it will take some measures to limit "home" and "service" periods and produce timely, complete master schedules.

2014-15 scheduling problems in LAUSD caused by data system failure. In August, 2014 students at Jefferson High School in the Los Angeles Unified School district (LAUSD) walked out of class during their third week of school in protest over a new scheduling system which failed to assign students to classes and assigned some to classes they'd already taken. Students reported sitting in auditoriums all day for days while course schedules were worked out, and being assigned to classes they had already completed. Teachers found elementary school students listed on high school attendance sheets.

The problems which occurred in LAUSD were related to a new data system, called MiSis, which was developed by the district and introduced in the 2014-15 school year. School district officials acknowledged significant problems with the system, and reported that nearly all scheduling problems were addressed by the end of 2014. According to media reports, the system worked smoothly for the start of the 2015-16 school year.

Student declarations point to management problems. Student and staff declarations provided by counsel for the plaintiffs paint a picture of five high schools in the Oakland, Compton, and Los Angeles school districts with numerous management problems. These include:

1. Scheduling problems (evidenced by students being placed into courses late, being placed in courses already completed, overcrowding of courses, and cancelled courses)

2. Staffing problems, including high teacher and administrator turnover (evidenced by students being instructed by multiple substitute teachers, report of high administrator turnover)

3. Counseling services problems (evidenced by overwhelmed counselors and poor counseling)

4. Insufficient course offerings for A-G completion (evidenced by students not able to enroll in A-G courses)

Some statements also indicated that the limited elective course offerings was associated with a decision on the part of the school districts to focus their resources on remedial instruction, which the plaintiffs acknowledge is necessary for many students in these schools. They state, "Fremont has invested its limited resources in providing intervention classes, which are necessary for many students to graduate, but this has come at the expense of offering sufficient classes and electives to fill the course schedules of students who are on track to graduate."

Analysis Prepared by: Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0002202

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1012

Author: Jones-Sawyer (D), et al.

Amended: 9/3/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 8-0, 7/8/15

AYES: Liu, Runner, Hancock, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan, Vidak

NO VOTE RECORDED: Block

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/27/15

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 6/3/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Pupil instruction: course periods without educational content

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill prohibits a school district serving any of grades 9-12 from assigning a student in any of grades 9-12 to any course without educational content for more than one week in any semester, and prohibits the assignment of a student in any of grades 9-12 to a course that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade, unless specified conditions are met.

Senate Floor Amendments of 9/3/15 clarify that a school district serving any of grades 9-12 is prohibited from assigning a student in any of grades 9-12 to any course without educational content for more than one week in any semester, and prohibit the assignment of a student in any of grades 9-12 to a course that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade, unless specified conditions are met; and clarify that this bill does not limit or otherwise affect the authority of a school district to authorize dual enrollment in community college.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires each school district serving any of grades 7-12 to offer to all otherwise qualified students a course of study fulfilling the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and provide a timely opportunity to each student to enroll within a four-year period in each course necessary to fulfill those requirements and prerequisites prior to graduation from high school. Existing law also requires each school district to offer a course of study that provides an opportunity for students to attain entry-level employment skills in business or industry upon graduation from high school, and encourages districts to provide all students with a rigorous academic curriculum that integrates academic and career skills, incorporates applied learning in all disciplines, and prepares all students for high school graduation and career entry. (Education Code § 51228)
   
   

2. Requires a student to pass both the English language arts and mathematics portions of the California High School Exit Exam and complete the following courses as a condition of graduating from high school:
   
   

   1. Three years of English.

   2. Two years of mathematics.

   3. Two years of science, including biological and physical sciences.

   4. Three years of social studies, including United States history and geography; world history, culture, and geography; one semester of American government and civics, and one semester of economics.

   5. One year of visual or performing arts, foreign language, or until July 1, 2017, career technical education.

   6. Two years of physical education. (Education Code § 60851 and § 51225.3)
      
      

3. Requires one of the two years of mathematics to meet or exceed the rigor of the content standards for Algebra I. (EC § 51224.5)
   
   

4. Authorizes school districts to impose additional coursework requirements as a condition of graduation from high school. (EC § 51225.3)
   
   

5. Requires that only the attendance of students under the immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee is counted toward the computation of average daily attendance. (EC § 46300)
   
   

6. Establishes the minimum day for high schools as 240 minutes. (EC § 46141)
   
   

7. Requires, through regulation, local educational agencies (LEAs) to adopt uniform complaint procedures (UCP) through which the public can register complaints regarding educational programs and rights. (California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 4600 et seq.)
   
   

The University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) established minimum coursework requirements for freshman admission, known as the A-G requirements. [http://www.ucop.edu/agguide/a-g-requirements/]

This bill:

Courses without Educational Content

1. Prohibits, beginning in the 2016-17 school year, a school district maintaining any of grades 9-12 from assigning a student in any of grades 9-12 to any course period without educational content for more than one week in any semester, unless all of the following conditions are met:

1. A student is assigned to that course only if the student or, for a student who is under age 18, the student’s parent, guardian, or educational rights holder has consented in writing to the assignment.

2. A school official has determined that the student will benefit from being assigned to the course period.

3. The principal or assistant principal of the school has stated in a written document maintained at the school that, for the relevant school year, no students are assigned to those classes unless the school has met the conditions detailed above.

2. Defines "course period without educational content" as one course period during which any of the following occurs:

1. The student is sent home or released from campus before the conclusion of the designated schoolday.

2. The student is assigned to service, instructional work experience, or to an otherwise named course in which the student is assigned to assist a certificated employee, but not expected to complete curricular assignments, in a course the certificated employee is teaching during that period and where the ratio of certificated employees to students assigned to the course for curricular purposes is less than one to one.

3. The student is not assigned to any course for the relevant course period.

Assignment to Previously Completed Courses

3. Prohibits, beginning in the 2016-17 school year, a school district maintaining any of grades 9-12 from assigning a student in any of grades 9-12 to a course that the student has previously completed and received a grade determined by the district to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the UC and CSU and the coursework requirements for high school graduation, unless either of the following applies:
   
   

1. The course has been designed to be taken more than once because students are exposed to a new curriculum year to year and are therefore expected to derive educational value from taking the course again.

2. For any course that has not been designed to be taken more than once, all of the following conditions are satisfied:

   1. A student is assigned to the course only if the student or, for a student who is under age 18, the student’s parent, guardian, or educational rights holder has consented in writing to the assignment for the purpose of improving a lower grade.

   2. A school official has determined that the student will benefit from being assigned to the course period.

   3. The principal or assistant principal of the school has stated in a written document to be maintained at the school that, for the relevant school year, no students are assigned to those classes unless the school has met the conditions detailed above.

Complaints

4. Authorizes a complaint of non-compliance with the prohibition on assigning students to course periods without educational content or to courses that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade to be filed with the LEA under the UCP.
   
   

5. Authorizes a complainant who is not satisfied with the decisions of a LEA to appeal the decision to the California Department of Education (CDE) through the existing UCP appeal process, and requires that the complainant receive a decision regarding the appeal within 60 days of the CDEs receipt of the appeal.
   
   

6. Requires the LEA to provide a remedy to the affected student if the LEA or the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) finds merit in a complaint.
   
   

7. Requires the SPI to prepare an annual report detailing actions taken regarding related complaints, and requires the SPI, by January 1 of each fiscal year, to submit the report to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature.

8. Specifies that the SPI has all power and authority necessary to effectuate the requirements regarding complaints, and requires the SPI to develop regulations for adoption by the State Board of Education regarding complaints.

Miscellaneous

9. Prohibits, under any circumstances, a school district from assigning any student to a course period without educational content, or to a course that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade, because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the student to take during that period of the schoolday.
   
   

10. Provides that this bill does not limit or otherwise affect the authority of a school district to authorize dual enrollment in community college or to establish evening high school classes, independent study, courses of work-based learning or work experience, distance learning, military science, community service classes, driver’s training and similar courses or instruction if the program otherwise meets all of the requirements of law governing that program.
    
    

11. Exempts from this bill students who are enrolled in an alternative school, a community day school, a continuation high school or an opportunity school.
    
    

12. Requires the SPI to adopt regulations to establish procedures required by this bill, including the form for the certifications regarding the assignment to course periods without educational content and assignment to previously completed courses.

Comments

Related lawsuit. This bill is related to Cruz v. State of California, a class action lawsuit filed May 29th, 2014, in Alameda County Superior Court against the state on behalf of students in seven schools.

The plaintiffs allege that the state has violated the rights of the plaintiffs provided by the Equal Protection clauses of the state constitution "by failing to provide them with basic educational opportunities equal to those that other students elsewhere in the State receive" with regard to meaningful learning time. The complaint requests that the court address the state's monitoring system and its intervention to prevent and remedy the causes of lost learning time. The plaintiffs allege that this lack of instructional time is due to several factors, including:

1. Assignment of students to administrative tasks or free periods instead of assignment to classroom periods of instruction because of insufficient curricular offerings and a lack of available qualified teachers.
   
   

2. Violence or security disruptions, which result in cessation of instruction and traumatic after-effects, and insufficient access to mental health professionals to assist students and faculty in coping with these disruptions.
   
   

3. Late changes to the master course schedule requiring course and teacher changes well into the semester.
   
   

4. Unstable, transient teaching faculties and administrative teams (including principals, assistant principals, and counselors), resulting from under-resourced and stressful campuses not conducive to professional development and growth.
   
   

5. Unaddressed student absenteeism, resulting in whole or part from campus conditions. [http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/assets/files/0511.pdf]

On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On April 24, 2015, the court denied this motion, stating that, "If, at this stage, Plaintiffs cannot supply reliable evidence regarding the actual practices of most California high schools with regard to the use of contentless classes and the timely implementation of appropriate master schedules, the court lacks a fair standard against which to measure the performance of Plaintiff’s own high schools and cannot determine, even preliminarily, whether Plaintiffs have some possibility of prevailing on their claims."

Course periods without educational content. This bill defines “course period without educational content” to include “a service, instructional work experience, or otherwise named course where the pupil is assigned to assist a certificated employee but not expected to complete curricular assignments in a course the certificated employee is teaching that period, and where the ratio of certificated employees to students so assigned is less than one to one.” This definition appears to allow for the assignment to courses such as AVID, ROTC, study hall, student government, student journalism, and similar courses.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the CDE indicates the need of eight full-time positions, one part-time position, and about $794,000 ongoing funding as no office currently exists to monitor schools for course content. Costs also include addressing complaints of noncompliance and appeals and providing technical assistance to the field.

This bill broadens the areas in which the CDE is required to monitors schools. Though some of the identified costs include workload to address complaints of noncompliance and appeals, the actual level of staff needed is unknown as it depends on the number of complaints received and the number of appeals filed using the UCP.

The Commission on State Mandates has determined that specified activities related to the implementation of the UCP are reimbursable. However, it is unclear whether the Commission would determine activities related to complaints of noncompliance regarding courses without educational content would be reimbursable since the activities would be triggered by the LEAs’ initial decision to place students in these courses.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/3/15)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/3/15)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 6/3/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NO VOTE RECORDED: Thurmond

Prepared by: Lynn Lorber / ED. / (916) 651-4105

9/4/15 18:14:06

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1012

Author: Jones-Sawyer (D), et al.

Amended: 7/15/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 8-0, 7/8/15

AYES: Liu, Runner, Hancock, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan, Vidak

NO VOTE RECORDED: Block

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/27/15

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 6/3/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Pupil instruction: course periods without educational content

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill prohibits a school district serving any of grades 9-12 from assigning students to any course without educational content for more than one week in any semester, and prohibits the assignment of any student to a course that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade, unless specified conditions are met.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires each school district serving any of grades 7-12 to offer to all otherwise qualified students a course of study fulfilling the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and provide a timely opportunity to each student to enroll within a four-year period in each course necessary to fulfill those requirements and prerequisites prior to graduation from high school. Existing law also requires each school district to offer a course of study that provides an opportunity for students to attain entry-level employment skills in business or industry upon graduation from high school, and encourages districts to provide all students with a rigorous academic curriculum that integrates academic and career skills, incorporates applied learning in all disciplines, and prepares all students for high school graduation and career entry. (Education Code § 51228)
   
   

2. Requires a student to pass both the English language arts and mathematics portions of the California High School Exit Exam and complete the following courses as a condition of graduating from high school:
   
   

   1. Three years of English.

   2. Two years of mathematics.

   3. Two years of science, including biological and physical sciences.

   4. Three years of social studies, including United States history and geography; world history, culture, and geography; one semester of American government and civics, and one semester of economics.

   5. One year of visual or performing arts, foreign language, or until July 1, 2017, career technical education.

   6. Two years of physical education. (Education Code § 60851 and § 51225.3)
      
      

3. Requires one of the two years of mathematics to meet or exceed the rigor of the content standards for Algebra I. (EC § 51224.5)
   
   

4. Authorizes school districts to impose additional coursework requirements as a condition of graduation from high school. (EC § 51225.3)
   
   

5. Requires that only the attendance of students under the immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee is counted toward the computation of average daily attendance. (EC § 46300)
   
   

6. Establishes the minimum day for high schools as 240 minutes. (EC § 46141)
   
   

7. Requires, through regulation, local educational agencies (LEAs) to adopt uniform complaint procedures (UCP) through which the public can register complaints regarding educational programs and rights. (California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 4600 et seq.)
   
   

The University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) established minimum coursework requirements for freshman admission, known as the A-G requirements. [http://www.ucop.edu/agguide/a-g-requirements/]

This bill:

Courses without Educational Content

1. Prohibits, beginning in the 2016-17 school year, a school district maintaining any of grades 9-12 from assigning any student to any course period without educational content for more than one week in any semester, unless all of the following conditions are met:

1. A student is assigned to that course only if the student or, for a student who is under age 18, the student’s parent, guardian, or educational rights holder has consented in writing to the assignment.

2. A school official has determined that the student will benefit from being assigned to the course period.

3. The principal or assistant principal of the school has stated in a written document maintained at the school that, for the relevant school year, no students are assigned to those classes unless the school has met the conditions detailed above.

2. Defines "course period without educational content" as one course period during which any of the following occurs:

1. The student is sent home or released from campus before the conclusion of the designated schoolday.

2. The student is assigned to service, instructional work experience, or to an otherwise named course in which the student is assigned to assist a certificated employee, but not expected to complete curricular assignments, in a course the certificated employee is teaching during that period and where the ratio of certificated employees to students assigned to the course for curricular purposes is less than one to one.

3. The student is not assigned to any course for the relevant course period.

Assignment to Previously Completed Courses

3. Prohibits, beginning in the 2016-17 school year, a school district maintaining any of grades 9-12 from assigning any student to a course that the student has previously completed and received a grade determined by the district to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the UC and CSU and the coursework requirements for high school graduation, unless either of the following applies:
   
   

   1. The course has been designed to be taken more than once because students are exposed to a new curriculum year to year and are therefore expected to derive educational value from taking the course again.
      
      

   2. For any course that has not been designed to be taken more than once, all of the following conditions are satisfied:
      
      

      1. A student is assigned to the course only if the student or, for a student who is under age 18, the student’s parent, guardian, or educational rights holder has consented in writing to the assignment for the purpose of improving a lower grade.
         
         

      2. A school official has determined that the student will benefit from being assigned to the course period.
         
         

      3. The principal or assistant principal of the school has stated in a written document to be maintained at the school that, for the relevant school year, no students are assigned to those classes unless the school has met the conditions detailed above.
         
         

Complaints

4. Authorizes a complaint of non-compliance with the prohibition on assigning students to course periods without educational content or to courses that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade to be filed with the LEA under the UCP.
   
   

5. Authorizes a complainant who is not satisfied with the decisions of a LEA to appeal the decision to the California Department of Education (CDE) through the existing UCP appeal process, and requires that the complainant receive a decision regarding the appeal within 60 days of the CDEs receipt of the appeal.
   
   

6. Requires the LEA to provide a remedy to the affected student if the LEA or the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) finds merit in a complaint.
   
   

7. Requires the SPI to prepare an annual report detailing actions taken regarding related complaints, and requires the SPI, by January 1 of each fiscal year, to submit the report to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature.

8. Specifies that the SPI has all power and authority necessary to effectuate the requirements regarding complaints, and requires the SPI to develop regulations for adoption by the State Board of Education regarding complaints.

Miscellaneous

9. Prohibits, under any circumstances, a school district from assigning any student to a course period without educational content, or to a course that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade, because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the student to take during that period of the schoolday.
   
   

10. Provides that this bill does not limit or otherwise affect the authority of a school district to establish evening high school classes, independent study, courses of work-based learning or work experience, distance learning, military science, community service classes, driver’s training and similar courses or instruction if the program otherwise meets all of the requirements of law governing that program.
    
    

11. Exempts from this bill students who are enrolled in an alternative school, a community day school, a continuation high school or an opportunity school.
    
    

12. Requires the SPI to adopt regulations to establish procedures required by this bill, including the form for the certifications regarding the assignment to course periods without educational content and assignment to previously completed courses.

Comments

Related lawsuit. This bill is related to Cruz v. State of California, a class action lawsuit filed May 29th, 2014, in Alameda County Superior Court against the state on behalf of students in seven schools.

The plaintiffs allege that the state has violated the rights of the plaintiffs provided by the Equal Protection clauses of the state constitution "by failing to provide them with basic educational opportunities equal to those that other students elsewhere in the State receive" with regard to meaningful learning time. The complaint requests that the court address the state's monitoring system and its intervention to prevent and remedy the causes of lost learning time. The plaintiffs allege that this lack of instructional time is due to several factors, including:

1. Assignment of students to administrative tasks or free periods instead of assignment to classroom periods of instruction because of insufficient curricular offerings and a lack of available qualified teachers.
   
   

2. Violence or security disruptions, which result in cessation of instruction and traumatic after-effects, and insufficient access to mental health professionals to assist students and faculty in coping with these disruptions.
   
   

3. Late changes to the master course schedule requiring course and teacher changes well into the semester.
   
   

4. Unstable, transient teaching faculties and administrative teams (including principals, assistant principals, and counselors), resulting from under-resourced and stressful campuses not conducive to professional development and growth.
   
   

5. Unaddressed student absenteeism, resulting in whole or part from campus conditions. [http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/assets/files/0511.pdf]

On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On April 24, 2015, the court denied this motion, stating that, "If, at this stage, Plaintiffs cannot supply reliable evidence regarding the actual practices of most California high schools with regard to the use of contentless classes and the timely implementation of appropriate master schedules, the court lacks a fair standard against which to measure the performance of Plaintiff’s own high schools and cannot determine, even preliminarily, whether Plaintiffs have some possibility of prevailing on their claims."

Course periods without educational content. This bill defines “course period without educational content” to include “a service, instructional work experience, or otherwise named course where the pupil is assigned to assist a certificated employee but not expected to complete curricular assignments in a course the certificated employee is teaching that period, and where the ratio of certificated employees to students so assigned is less than one to one.” This definition appears to allow for the assignment to courses such as AVID, ROTC, study hall, student government, student journalism, and similar courses.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the CDE indicates the need of eight full-time positions, one part-time position, and about $794,000 ongoing funding as no office currently exists to monitor schools for course content. Costs also include addressing complaints of noncompliance and appeals and providing technical assistance to the field.

This bill broadens the areas in which the CDE is required to monitors schools. Though some of the identified costs include workload to address complaints of noncompliance and appeals, the actual level of staff needed is unknown as it depends on the number of complaints received and the number of appeals filed using the UCP.

The Commission on State Mandates has determined that specified activities related to the implementation of the UCP are reimbursable. However, it is unclear whether the Commission would determine activities related to complaints of noncompliance regarding courses without educational content would be reimbursable since the activities would be triggered by the LEAs’ initial decision to place students in these courses.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/28/15)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/28/15)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 6/3/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NO VOTE RECORDED: Thurmond

Prepared by: Lynn Lorber / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/30/15 19:42:28

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 1012 (Jones-Sawyer) - Pupil instruction: course periods without educational content.

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

This bill prohibits a school district serving any of grades 9 through 12 from assigning students to any course without educational content for more than one week in any semester, and prohibits the assignment of any student to a course that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade, unless specific conditions are met.

Fiscal Impact:

• The California Department of Education (CDE) indicates the need of eight full-time positions, one part-time position, and about $794,000 ongoing funding as no office currently exists to monitor schools for course content. Costs also include addressing complaints of noncompliance and appeals and providing technical assistance to the field. See staff comments. (General Fund)

Background:

1. Existing law requires each school district serving any of grades 7-12 to offer to all otherwise qualified students a course of study fulfilling the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and provide a timely opportunity to each student to enroll within a four-year period in each course necessary to fulfill those requirements and prerequisites prior to graduation from high school. Existing law also requires each school district to offer a course of study that provides an opportunity for students to attain entry-level employment skills in business or industry upon graduation from high school, and encourages districts to provide all students with a rigorous academic curriculum that integrates academic and career skills, incorporates applied learning in all disciplines, and prepares all students for high school graduation and career entry. (Education Code § 51228)

State regulations require local education agencies to adopt uniform complaint procedures through which the public can register complaints regarding educational programs and rights. (California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 4600 et seq.)

This bill is related to Cruz v. State of California, a class action lawsuit filed May 29th, 2014, in Alameda County Superior Court against the State on behalf of students in seven schools. The plaintiffs allege that the state has violated the rights of the plaintiffs provided by the Equal Protection clauses of the state constitution "by failing to provide them with basic educational opportunities equal to those that other students elsewhere in the State receive" with regard to meaningful learning time.

The plaintiffs allege that this lack of instructional time is due to several factors, including: insufficient curricular offerings and a lack of available qualified teachers; violence or security disruptions; late changes to the master course schedule requiring course and teacher changes; unstable, transient teaching faculties and administration; and unaddressed student absenteeism. On April 24, 2015 the court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction due to lack of evidence regarding the practices of most California high schools with regard to classes without content in order to have a standard by which the performance of the Plaintiff’s schools can be measured.

Proposed Law:

This bill prohibits, beginning with the 2016-17 school year, a school district maintaining any grades 9 through 12 from assigning a student to any course period without educational content for more than one week in a semester unless certain conditions.

This bill prohibits, under any circumstances, a school district from assigning a student enrolled to a course period without educational content because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the student to take during the relevant period in the school day. A “course period without educational content” is defined as a course period in which: the student is released from campus before the conclusion of the designated school day; the student is assigned to a service, instructional work experience, or to another course in which the student is assigned to assist a certificated employee in a course, but the student is not expected to complete curricular assignments; or the student is not assigned to any course for the relevant course period.

This bill also prohibits these school districts from assigning students to a course the that student has previously completed and received a grade determined to have satisfied the requirements and prerequisites for admission to California postsecondary education institutions and minimum requirements for receiving a diploma of graduation from high school unless either:

• The course is designed to be taken more than once;

• A student or a student’s parent, guardian, or educational rights holder has consented so that the student’s grade can be improved, a school official has determined that the student will benefit from being assigned to the course; and the principal or assistance principal of the school has stated in writing that these conditions be met.

This bill requires the CDE to develop regulations to govern these requirements, including the written statement required of principals or assistant principals regarding students assigned to courses without educational content and assigning them to courses that students have already successfully completed. The CDE is also required to prepare an annual report to the Legislature regarding actions taken.

This bill allows complaints of noncompliance of these requirements to be filed with the local educational agency (LEA) under the Uniform Compliant Procedures (UCP). A complainant may appeal a decision of the LEA to the CDE if not satisfied. If a LEA or the CDE find merit in an appeal, the LEA must provide a remedy to the affected students.

Related Legislation:

There are numerous bills that expand the UCP to include additional areas in which complaints may be filed with LEAs.

AB 379 (Gordon, 2015) expands the UCP to include complaints of non-compliance with certain rights and responsibilities regarding the education of students who are in foster care or who are homeless. AB 379 is pending in this Committee.

SB 81 (Chapter 22, Statutes of 2015) among other things, expands the UCP to include complaints regarding an alleged violation by a local agency of federal or state law or regulations governing adult education programs or regional occupational centers and programs.

AB 1391 (Gomez, 2015), expands the UCP to include complaints of non-compliance with the required minimum instructional minutes for physical education. AB 1391 is pending in this Committee.

AB 302 (Cristina Garcia, 2015) requires LEAs to provide reasonable accommodations on a school campus for breast-feeding and expands the UCP to include complaints of non-compliance with this requirement. AB 302 is pending in this Committee.

Staff Comments:

This bill broadens the areas in which the CDE is required to monitors schools. Though some of the identified costs include workload to address complaints of noncompliance and appeals, the actual level of staff needed is unknown as it depends on the number of complaints received and the number of appeals filed using the UCP.

The Commission on State Mandates has determined that specified activities related to the implementation of the UCP are reimbursable. However, it is unclear whether the commission would determine activities related to complaints of noncompliance regarding courses without educational content would be reimbursable since the activities would be triggered by the LEAs’ initial decision to place students in these courses.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Carol Liu, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 1012

Subject: Pupil instruction: course periods without educational content

SUMMARY

This bill prohibits a school district serving any of grades 7-12 from assigning students to any course without educational content for more than one week in any semester, and prohibits the assignment of any student to a course that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade, unless specified conditions are met.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Requires each school district serving any of grades 7-12 to offer to all otherwise qualified students a course of study fulfilling the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and provide a timely opportunity to each student to enroll within a four-year period in each course necessary to fulfill those requirements and prerequisites prior to graduation from high school. Existing law also requires each school district to offer a course of study that provides an opportunity for students to attain entry-level employment skills in business or industry upon graduation from high school, and encourages districts to provide all students with a rigorous academic curriculum that integrates academic and career skills, incorporates applied learning in all disciplines, and prepares all students for high school graduation and career entry.

(Education Code § 51228)

2. Requires a student to pass both the English language arts and mathematics portions of the California High School Exit Exam and complete the following courses as a condition of graduating from high school:
   
   

   1. Three years of English.

   2. Two years of mathematics.

   3. Two years of science, including biological and physical sciences.

   4. Three years of social studies, including United States history and geography; world history, culture, and geography; one semester of American government and civics, and one semester of economics.

5. One year of visual or performing arts, foreign language, or until July 1, 2017, career technical education.

6. Two years of physical education. (Education Code § 60851 and § 51225.3)
   
   

1. Requires one of the two years of mathematics to meet or exceed the rigor of the content standards for Algebra I. (EC § 51224.5)
   
   

2. Authorizes school districts to impose additional coursework requirements as a condition of graduation from high school. (EC § 51225.3)
   
   

3. Requires that only the attendance of students under the immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee is counted toward the computation of average daily attendance. (EC § 46300)
   
   

4. Establishes the minimum day for high schools as 240 minutes. (EC § 46141)
   
   

5. Through regulation, requires local education agencies to adopt uniform complaint procedures through which the public can register complaints regarding educational programs and rights. (California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 4600 et seq.)
   
   

The University of California and the California State University established minimum coursework requirements for freshman admission, known as the A-G requirements. http://www.ucop.edu/agguide/a-g-requirements/

ANALYSIS

This bill prohibits a school district serving any of grades 7-12 from assigning students to any course without educational content for more than one week in any semester, and prohibits the assignment of any student to a course that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade, unless specified conditions are met. Specifically, this bill:

Courses without educational content

1. Prohibits, beginning in the 2016-17 school year, a school district maintaining any of grades 7-12 from assigning any student to any course period without educational content for more than one week in any semester, unless all of the following conditions are met:

   1. For a student who has not fulfilled the prerequisites for admission to the University of California and California State University or the coursework requirements for high school graduation:

9. The principal or an assistant principal certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative record that:

1. The student will benefit from the course, and provides an individualized explanation in the written certification for that conclusion. The certification may include an individualized determination that the student will benefit from mentorship that will be provided by the certificated or certified employee supervising the student during the course period.

2. Providing a course period with educational content is not likely to benefit the student to the same extent as providing the course period without educational content, and provides an explanation in the certification for that conclusion.

3. The student is not being assigned to the course because there are no other courses with curricular content for the student to take during the relevant period in the designated schoolday.

4. The students and the parent, legal guardian, or educational rights holder have consented to the student’s enrollment in the course period without educational content and that the school has obtained a consent form, signed by the student and the parent, legal guardian or educational rights holder.

ii) The student is assigned to no more than one course period without educational content during a single semester.

2. For a student who has fulfilled both the prerequisites for admission to the University of California and California State University and the coursework requirements for high school graduation:

9. The principal or an assistant principal certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative record that:

1. The student will benefit from the course, and provides an individualized explanation in the written certification for that conclusion. The certification may include an individualized determination that the student will benefit from mentorship that will be provided by the certificated or certified employee supervising the student during the course period, or identification of the educational or employment opportunity that assigning the course period will allow the student to pursue and reason for concluding the student will, in fact, pursue that opportunity.

2. The student is not being assigned to the course because there are no other courses with curricular content for the student to take during the relevant period in the designated schoolday.

3. The students and the parent, legal guardian, or educational rights holder have consented to the student’s enrollment in the course period without educational content and that the school has obtained a consent form, signed by the student and the parent, legal guardian or educational rights holder.

2. Defines "course period without educational content" as one course period during which any of the following occurs:

   1. The student is sent home or released from campus before the conclusion of the designated schoolday.

   2. The student is assigned to service, instructional work experience, or to a course that has a different name, but involves the student providing assistance to a certificated employee in a situation in which the ratio of student to employee exceed one-to-one.

   3. The student is not assigned to any course for the relevant course period.

Assignment to previously completed courses

Prohibits a school district maintaining any of grades 7-12 from assigning any student to a course that the student has previously completed and received a grade determined by the district to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the University of California and California State University and the coursework requirements for high school graduation, unless the student is assigned to improve a lesser grade or because the course has been designed to be taken more than once, or unless the principal or an assistant principal certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative record that:

1. The course is designed to be repeated because students are exposed to a new curriculum year-to-year and are therefore expected to derive educational value from taking the course again.
   
   

2. The student is not being assigned to the course because there are no other courses with curricular content for the student to take during the relevant period in the designated schoolday.
   
   

3. The student has consented to the student’s enrollment in the course.
   
   

Complaints

1. Authorizes a complaint of non-compliance with the prohibition on assigning students to course periods without educational content or to courses that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade to be filed with the local educational agency (LEA) under the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP).
   
   

2. Authorizes a complainant who is not satisfied with the decisions of a LEA to appeal the decision to the California Department of Education (CDE) through the existing UCP appeal process, and requires that the complainant receive a decision regarding the appeal within 60 days of the CDEs receipt of the appeal.
   
   

3. Requires the LEA to provide a remedy to the affected student if the LEA or the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) finds merit in a complaint.
   
   

4. Requires the SPI to prepare an annual report detailing actions taken regarding related complaints, and requires the SPI, by January 1 of each fiscal year, to submit the report to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature.
   
   

5. Specifies that the SPI has all power and authority necessary to effectuate the requirements regarding complaints.

Miscellaneous

1. Prohibits, under any circumstances, a school district from assigning any student to a course period without educational content, or to a course that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade, because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the student to take during that period of the schoolday.
   
   

2. Provides that this bill does not limit or otherwise affect the authority of a school district to establish evening high school classes, independent study, courses of work-based learning or work experience, distance learning, military science, community service classes, driver’s training and similar courses or instruction if the program otherwise meets all of the requirements of law governing that program.
   
   

3. Exempts from this bill students who are enrolled in an alternative school, a community day school, a continuation high school or an opportunity school.
   
   

4. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to adopt regulations to establish procedures required by this bill, including the form for the certifications regarding the assignment to course periods without educational content and assignment to previously completed courses.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “Thousands of high school students across California are tracked into so-called ‘classes,’ where they are given meaningless ‘credits’ for sitting at home, doing nothing while sitting in the office, or taking a course they’ve already passed. School districts have given these courses different names (‘home,’ ‘service,’ or ‘work experience’), but they all have a common trait: they rob students of learning time and the opportunity for a real education. And many of the affected students need real, academic classes to fulfill graduation or college access requirements. The schools where this occurs serve almost exclusively low-income students of color. Although this is not the norm across California, it is all-too common in communities where students can least afford to lose learning time.”
   
   

2. Author’s amendments. The author wishes to amend this bill to significantly streamline the process that schools must follow:
   
   

   1. Delete references to meeting the A-G or high school graduation requirements, making individualized determinations, and including written certification in each

student’s cumulative file, and instead prohibits the assignment of a student to a course period without educational content unless all of the following conditions are met:

9. The student, or if the student is a minor, the parent, legal guardian or educational rights holder has consented to assignment to a course period without educational content.
   
   

ii) A school official has determined that the student will benefit from being assigned to a course period without educational content.

iii) The principal or an assistant principal has stated in a written document to be maintained at the school that, for the relevant academic year, no students are assigned to course periods without educational content unless the school has met the conditions described above.

2. Delete the distinction between students who have or have not met A-G or high school graduation requirements relative to the processes that schoolsite administrators must follow, thereby establishing only one process for the assignment of students to courses without educational content.
   
   

3. Limit the scope of the bill to grades 9-12.
   
   

4. Modify the definition of “course period without educational content” to include that the student is not expected to complete curricular assignments.
   
   

5. Clarify the process for meeting criteria for the assignment of a student to a course that the student previously completed with a satisfactory grade.
   
   

1. Related lawsuit. This bill is related to Cruz v. State of California, a class action lawsuit filed May 29th, 2014, in Alameda County Superior Court against the State on behalf of students in seven schools.
   
   The plaintiffs allege that the state has violated the rights of the plaintiffs provided by the Equal Protection clauses of the state constitution "by failing to provide them with basic educational opportunities equal to those that other students elsewhere in the State receive" with regard to meaningful learning time. The complaint requests that the court address the state's monitoring system and its intervention to prevent and remedy the causes of lost learning time. The plaintiffs allege that this lack of instructional time is due to several factors, including:
   
   

1. Assignment of students to administrative tasks or free periods instead of assignment to classroom periods of instruction because of insufficient curricular offerings and a lack of available qualified teachers.
   
   
   

2. Violence or security disruptions, which result in cessation of instruction and traumatic after-effects, and insufficient access to mental health professionals to assist students and faculty in coping with these disruptions.
   
   
   

3. Late changes to the master course schedule requiring course and teacher changes well into the semester.
   
   
   

4. Unstable, transient teaching faculties and administrative teams (including principals, assistant principals, and counselors), resulting from under-resourced and stressful campuses not conducive to professional development and growth.
   
   
   

5. Unaddressed student absenteeism, resulting in whole or part from campus conditions. http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/assets/files/0511.pdf

On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On April 24, 2015, the court denied this motion, stating that, "If, at this stage, Plaintiffs cannot supply reliable evidence regarding the actual practices of most California high schools with regard to the use of contentless classes and the timely implementation of appropriate master schedules, the court lacks a fair standard against which to measure the performance of Plaintiff’s own high schools and cannot determine, even preliminarily, whether Plaintiffs have some possibility of prevailing on their claims."

4. Course periods without educational content. This bill, as proposed to be amended, defines “course period without educational content” to include “a service, instructional work experience, or otherwise named course where the pupil is assigned to assist a certificated employee but not expected to complete curricular assignments in a course the certificated employee is teaching that period, and where the ratio of certificated employees to students so assigned is less than one to one.” This definition appears to many, but not all, to allow for the assignment to courses such as AVID, ROTC, study hall, student government, student journalism, and similar courses. Is this definition sufficient to clearly allow for the assignment to such courses?
   
   

5. Technical amendments. Staff recommends amendments as follows:
   
   

   1. This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to prepare an annual report detailing actions taken regarding related complaints, and requires the SPI, by January 1 of each fiscal year, to submit the report to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature. Staff recommends deleting reference to fiscal year (strike “fiscal”).
      
      
      

   2. This bill requires the SPI to adopt regulations to establish procedures required by this bill, including the form for the certifications regarding the assignment to course periods without educational content and assignment to previously completed courses. Staff recommends to instead require the SPI to develop, and the State Board of Education to adopt, the regulations.
      
      
      

   3. The author’s proposed amendments prohibit the assignment of a student to a course period without educational content unless, among other things, the student or parent (if the student is a minor) has consented to the assignment. Staff recommends that amendments specify consent is to be in writing.

6. Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, unknown, likely minor, Proposition 98/General Fund state mandated costs related to the expansion of the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP), and unknown administrative costs to the California Department of Education to process UCP appeals, likely not to exceed $300,000.
   
   

7. Related legislation. AB 379 (Gordon, 2015) expands the UCP to include complaints of non-compliance with certain rights and responsibilities regarding the education of students who are in foster care or who are homeless, including school placement decisions, responsibilities of foster youth liaisons, provisions regarding school transfers, exemption from locally-imposed graduation requirements, and the awarding of partial credit for completed coursework. AB 379 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   
   AB 1391 (Gomez, 2015) an urgency measure, expands the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) to include complaints of non-compliance with the required minimum instructional minutes for physical education. AB 1391 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   
   AB 412 (Chavez, 2015) authorizes complaints of non-compliance with the required minimum instructional minutes for physical education to be filed with a local complaint process or through the UCP. AB 412 was never heard.
   
   AB 302 (Cristina Garcia, 2015) requires local educational agencies to provide reasonable accommodations to a lactating pupil on a school campus to express breast milk, breast-feed an infant child, or address other needs related to breast-feeding, and expands the UCP to include complaints of non-compliance with this requirement. AB 302 is scheduled to be heard by this Committee on July 8.
   
   SB 81 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 22, 2015) among other things, expands the UCP to include complaints regarding an alleged violation by a local agency of federal or state law or regulations governing adult education programs or regional occupational centers and programs.
   
   SB 425 (Hernandez, 2015) among other things, expands the UCP to include complaints regarding an alleged violation by a local agency of federal or state law or regulations governing adult education programs or regional occupational centers and programs, including allegations of unlawful discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying. SB 425 is pending in the Assembly Higher Education Committee.
   
   AB 907 (Burke, 2015) is nearly identical to SB 425. AB 907 is pending in this Committee.
   
   

SUPPORT

American Civil Liberties Union

Californians for Justice

California State Conference of the National Association of the Advancement of Colored

People

Education Trust-West

EdVoice

Families in Schools

Public Advocates

Public Counsel

OPPOSITION

California School Boards Association

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1012

Author:(Jones-Sawyer)

As Amended Ver:June 1, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: This bill prohibits, starting with the 2016-17 school year, a school district maintaining any of grades seven to 12 from assigning any students to any "course period without educational content" for more than one week in any semester, or to a course that the student has previously completed with a grade sufficient to meet the A-G requirements and graduation requirements, unless specifically authorized per requirements of the bill. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines "course period without educational content" as one course period during which any of the following occurs: the pupil is sent home or released from campus before the conclusion of the designated school day; the pupil is assigned to service, instructional work experience, or to a course that has a different name, but involves the pupil providing assistance to a certificated employee in a situation in which the ratio of pupil to employee is greater than one to one; or the pupil is not assigned to any course for the relevant course period.

2. Sets forth reasons why a pupil may be assigned to a course without educational content and requires the principal or assistant principal to certify and place the rationale in the student’s cumulative file.

3. Clarifies a school district is not prohibited from establishing and offering evening high school classes, independent study, courses of work-based learning or work experience, or distance learning if the program otherwise meets all of the requirements of law governing that program.

4. Excludes pupils enrolled in an alternative school, a community day school, a continuation high school or an opportunity school from provisions of this bill.

5. Makes these requirements subject to the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP), requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to respond to appeals within 60 days, and requires that if merit is found in an appeal the local educational agency to provide a remedy to the affected student.

6. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to annually prepare an annual report detailing actions taken regarding related complaints, and requires the SPI, by January 1 of each fiscal year, to submit the report to the report to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature. Requires the SPI to adopt regulations that set forth the procedures governing complaint procedures.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Specifies requirements for graduation from high school, including: three courses in English; two courses in mathematics; two courses in science; three courses in social studies; one course in visual or performing arts, foreign language, or career technical education; and two courses in physical education. Authorizes school districts to adopt additional requirements for graduation.

2. Establishes course requirements for admission to the University of California and the California State University, known as the A-G requirements.

3. Requires that only the attendance of students under the immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee is counted toward the computation of average daily attendance.

4. Establishes the minimum day in middle school and high school as 240 minutes.

5. Through regulation, requires local education agencies to adopt uniform complaint procedures through which the public can register complaints regarding educational programs and rights. (California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 4600).

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, unknown, likely minor, Proposition 98 (1988) General Fund state mandated costs related to the expansion of the UCP, and unknown administrative costs to the CDE to process UCP appeals, likely not to exceed $300,000.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. The author's office states, "Thousands of high school students across California are tracked into so-called 'classes,' where they are given meaningless 'credits' for sitting at home, in the office, or taking a course they’ve already passed.

School districts have given these courses different names ('home,' 'service,' 'work-experience,' 'college,' 'adult'), but they all have a common trait: they rob students of learning time and the opportunity for a real education. And many of the affected students need real, academic classes to fulfill graduation or college access requirements.

The schools where this occurs serve almost exclusively low-income students of color. Although this is not the norm across California, it is all-too common in communities where students can least afford to lose learning time. It is time to ensure that all of our schools have the support they need to provide real classes to every student until they graduate."

Bill related to lawsuit filed by the sponsor. This bill is related to Cruz v. State of California, a class action lawsuit filed May 29th, 2014, in Alameda County Superior Court against the state on behalf of students in seven schools.

The suit names as plaintiffs a class of current or future students attending Castlemont High School in the Oakland Unified School District, John C. Fremont High School in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Nystrom Elementary School in the West Contra Costa Unified School District, Franklin S. Whaley Middle School in the Compton Unified School District, Fremont High School in the Oakland Unified School District, Florence Griffith Joyner Elementary School in the LAUSD, and Compton High School in the Compton Unified School District. The suit names as defendants the State of California, the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education (SBE), and the Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson.

The plaintiffs allege that the state has violated the rights of the plaintiffs provided by the Equal Protection clauses of the state constitution "by failing to provide them with basic educational opportunities equal to those that other students elsewhere in the State receive" with regard to meaningful learning time.

They allege that this lack of instructional time is due to several factors, including:

1. Assignment of students to administrative tasks or free periods instead of assignment to classroom periods of instruction because of insufficient curricular offerings and a lack of available qualified teachers;

2. Violence or security disruptions, which result in cessation of instruction and traumatic after-effects, and insufficient access to mental health professionals to assist students and faculty in coping with these disruptions;

3. Late changes to the master course schedule requiring course and teacher changes well into the semester;

4. Unstable, transient teaching faculties and administrative teams (including principals, assistant principals, and counselors), resulting from under-resourced and stressful campuses not conducive to professional development and growth; and

5. Unaddressed student absenteeism, resulting in whole or part from campus conditions.

The complaint requests that the court address the state's monitoring system and its intervention to prevent and remedy the causes of lost learning time.

On February 5th of this year the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Last week (April 24th), Alameda County Superior Court Judge George C. Hernández, Jr. denied this motion, stating that, "If, at this stage, Plaintiffs cannot supply reliable evidence regarding the actual practices of most California high schools with regard to the use of contentless classes and the timely implementation of appropriate master schedules, the court lacks a fair standard against which to measure the performance of Plaintiff’s own high schools and cannot determine, even preliminarily, whether Plaintiffs have some possibility of prevailing on their claims."

Districts respond to lawsuit by curtailing some practices. According to a reply brief submitted in support of the motion for preliminary injunction, Compton High School has ceased scheduling students in "home" periods and has placed "sharp limitations" on service periods since this suit was filed, and LAUSD has indicated that it will take some measures to limit "home" and "service" periods and produce timely, complete master schedules.

2014-15 scheduling problems in LAUSD caused by data system failure. In August, 2014 students at Jefferson High School in the Los Angeles Unified School district (LAUSD) walked out of class during their third week of school in protest over a new scheduling system which failed to assign students to classes and assigned some to classes they’d already taken. Students reported sitting in auditoriums all day for days while course schedules were worked out, and being assigned to classes they had already completed. Teachers found elementary school students listed on high school attendance sheets.

The problems which occurred in LAUSD were related to a new data system, called MiSis, which was developed by the district and introduced this year. School district officials acknowledged significant problems with the system, and reported that nearly all scheduling problems were addressed by the end of 2014.

Student declarations point to management problems. Student and staff declarations provided by counsel for the plaintiffs paint a picture of five high schools in the Oakland, Compton, and Los Angeles school districts with numerous management problems. These include:

1. Scheduling problems (evidenced by students being placed into courses late, being placed in courses already completed, overcrowding of courses, and cancelled courses).

2. Staffing problems, including high teacher and administrator turnover (evidenced by students being instructed by multiple substitute teachers, report of high administrator turnover).

3. Counseling services problems (evidenced by overwhelmed counselors and poor counseling).

4. Insufficient course offerings for A-G completion (evidenced by students not able to enroll in A-G courses).

Some statements also indicated that the limited elective course offerings was associated with a decision on the part of the school districts to focus their resources on remedial instruction, which the plaintiffs acknowledge is necessary for many students in these schools. They state, "Fremont has invested its limited resources in providing intervention classes, which are necessary for many students to graduate, but this has come at the expense of offering sufficient classes and electives to fill the course schedules of students who are on track to graduate."

Analysis Prepared by: Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0000814

Date of Hearing: May 20, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1012

Author:(Jones-Sawyer) – As Amended Ver:May 6, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits, starting with the 2016-17 school year, a school district maintaining any of grades 7 to 12 from assigning any students to any "course period without educational content" for more than one week in any semester, or to a course that the student has previously completed with a grade sufficient to meet the A-G requirements and graduation requirements, unless specifically authorized per requirements of the bill. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines "course period without educational content” as one course period during which any of the following occurs: the pupil is sent home or released from campus before the conclusion of the designated schoolday; the pupil is assigned to service, instructional work experience, or to a course that has a different name, but involves the pupil providing assistance to a certificated employee in a situation in which the ratio of pupil to employee is greater than one to one; or the pupil is not assigned to any course for the relevant course period.

2. Sets forth reasons why a pupil may be assigned to a course without educational content and requires the principal or assistant principal to certify and place the rationale in the students cumulative file.

3. Clarifies a school district is not prohibited from establishing and offering evening high school classes, independent study, courses of work-based learning or work experience, or distance learning if the program otherwise meets all of the requirements of law governing that program.

4. Excludes pupils enrolled in an alternative school, a community day school, a continuation high school or an opportunity school from provisions of the bill.

5. Sets forth an expedited Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) process:

1. Requires the local education agency (LEA), within five days of receipt of a complaint, to conduct a complete investigation, issue a written decision, and if the agency determines the complaint has merit, report back to the Department of Education (CDE) regarding the basis for the complaint, the findings and the remedy provided.

2. Authorizes a complaint to be appealed to the CDE, who shall issue a written decision within 30 days of receipt of the appeal.

3. Requires the LEA, if the CDE renders a decision in favor of the complainant, to immediately convene a local assistance committee to develop a written plan to ensure that the school district satisfies the requirements of the complaint. Establishes the membership and stakeholders involved in the committee, including a CDE representative. Requires the committee to complete the plan no later than 21 days after the CDE makes the determination.

4. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to prepare an annual report detailing actions taken pursuant to the UCP process and submit to the Legislature.

5. Provides the SPI with all power and authority necessary to effectuate these requirements.

6. Requires the SPI to adopt regulations to establish procedures governing specified provisions, including the form of the certifications required by the bill and the new UCP.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Administrative costs to the CDE, potentially in excess of $800,000. Currently CDE does not have a unit tasked with the specific requirements of the bill. CDE indicates they would need substantial resources, potentially five to eight research consultants and legal staff, to adequately review UCP appeals. CDE staff would also be required to participate in local assistance committees under the new UCP process established by this bill. In order to meet the 21-day requirement for developing an action plan for the school, multiple local assistance committees will likely be convened at the same time. Sufficient CDE staff would need to be available to travel on short notice to participate in these committees.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, thousands of high school students across California are tracked into so-called “classes,” where they are given meaningless “credits” for sitting at home, in the office, or taking a course they’ve already passed. School districts have given these courses different names (“home,” “service,” “work-experience,” “college,” “adult”) and many of the affected students need real, academic classes to fulfill graduation or college access requirements. This bill would prohibit this practice unless the principal can certify why a student needs to be placed in such classes.

2. Pending litigation. This bill addresses one of the five parts of the Cruz v. State of California, a class action lawsuit filed May 29, 2014, in Alameda County Superior Court against the state on behalf of students in seven schools in four school districts: Oakland Unified School District (USD); Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), West Contra Costa USD, Compton USD.

The plaintiffs allege that the state has violated the Equal Protection clauses of the state constitution by failing to provide students with basic educational opportunities equal to those that other students elsewhere in the State receive with regard to meaningful learning time. They allege that this lack of instructional time is due to several factors.

On February 5^th of this year, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On April 24^th, Alameda County Superior Court Judge George C. Hernández, Jr. denied this motion, stating that “If, at this stage, Plaintiffs cannot supply reliable evidence regarding the actual practices of most California high schools with regard to the use of contentless classes and the timely implementation of appropriate master schedules, the court lacks a fair standard against which to measure the performance of Plaintiff’s own high schools and cannot determine, even preliminarily, whether Plaintiffs have some possibility of prevailing on their claims.” The plaintiffs have until June 16, 2015, to appeal the denial of their motion for preliminary injunction. If the plaintiffs do not appeal, they will continue with discovery on all allegations of the complaint.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Legislature approved $3.4 million in the current year for the CDE and SBE to contract for legal services related to this case, and the Governor’s Budget proposes providing an additional $3.7 million for this contract in 2015-16.

3. Uniform Complaint Procedures Process. The UCP was established in 1991 as a means of creating a “uniform system of complaint processing” for educational programs. The authority for this process is located in regulations, not state statute. Complaints permitted under this process include violations of state law regarding certain educational programs, discrimination, harassment and civil rights. Parents, students, employees, and community members can file complaints on behalf of themselves or on behalf of another individual. Most procedural activities required under the state’s UCP have been found to be reimbursable state mandates.

4. Related Legislation:

1. AB 379 (Gordon), pending in this committee, establishes an expedited UCP process requiring action within five days for complaints alleging violations of certain educational rights afforded to students in foster care and students who are homeless.

2. AB 304 (Garcia), pending in this committee, establishes an expedited UCP process, requiring action within five days with regard to lactation accommodations for students.

3. AB 907 (Burke), pending in this committee, extends the existing UCP process to financial aid recipients enrolled in COE programs in order to comply with federal requirements.

4. AB 1391 (Gomez), pending in this committee, authorizes complaints regarding local education agency (LEA) noncompliance with the physical education instructional minute requirement to be filed under the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) process.

Analysis Prepared by: Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1012

Author:Jones-Sawyer – As Amendedpril Ver:April 7, 2015

SUBJECT: Student instruction: course periods without educational content

SUMMARY: Defines “course periods without educational content,” prohibits school districts from assigning students in grades 7-12 to any such course period without specified certifications from school administrators, prohibits students from being assigned to a course they have already completed, and establishes a complaint process for violations of these requirements. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines a “course period without educational content” as a course period during which the student is expected to engage in activities with no assigned or planned substantive curricular content. This includes a course period during which a student is assigned to a room in which no certificated staff is designated to provide instruction or assistance with assignments or curricular content from other assigned courses, is sent home or released from campus before the conclusion of the designated school day, or is not assigned to any course for the relevant course period.

2. Prohibits school districts from assigning students to attend course periods without educational content because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the student to take in that period.

3. Prohibits a school district (with the exception of alternative schools, community day schools, continuation high schools, and opportunity schools) maintaining any of grades 7 to 12 from assigning any students to any course period without educational content for more than one week in any semester, unless certain conditions are met:

1. For students who have not met the A-G requirements of the University of California or California State University, or high school graduation requirements:

1. the principal an assistant principal of the school certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that the student will benefit from being assigned to the course period, and provides an individualized explanation in the written certification for that conclusion, which may include an individualized determination that the student will benefit from mentorship that will be provided by the certificated or certified employee supervising the student during the relevant period
   
   

2. the principal or an assistant principal of the school certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that providing a course period with educational content is not likely to benefit the student to the same extent as providing the course period without educational content, and provides an explanation in the written certification for that conclusion

3. the principal or an assistant principal of the school certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that the student is not being assigned to the course because there are no other courses with curricular content for the student to take during the relevant period in the designated schoolday.

4. the principal or an assistant principal of the school certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that the student and the parent, legal guardian, or educational rights holder of the student have consented to the student’s enrollment in the course period without educational content and that the school has obtained a consent form, signed by the student and the parent, legal guardian, or educational rights holder of the student.

5. the student is assigned to no more than one course period without educational content during a single semester.

2. For students who have fulfilled both the A-G and graduation requirements:

1. the principal or an assistant principal of the school certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that the student will benefit from being assigned to the course period and provides an individualized explanation in the written certification for that conclusion, which may include an individualized determination that the student will benefit from mentorship that will be provided by the certificated or certified employee supervising the student during the relevant period or identification of the educational or employment opportunity that assigning the course period will allow the student to pursue and reason for concluding the student will pursue that opportunity

2. the principal or an assistant principal of the school certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that the student is not being assigned to the course because there are no other courses with curricular content for the student to take during the relevant period in the designated schoolday

3. the principal or an assistant principal of the school certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that the student and the parent, legal guardian, or educational rights holder of the student have consented to the student’s enrollment in the course period without educational content and that the school has obtained a consent form, signed by the student and the parent, legal guardian, or educational rights holder of the student

4. States that nothing in this section shall be interpreted to limit the authority of a school district to establish and maintain evening high school programs, to offer independent study, to provide courses of work-based learning or work experience education, or to offer distance learning, if the program otherwise meets all of the requirements of law governing that program.

5. Prohibits a school district (with the exception of alternative schools, community day schools, continuation high schools, and opportunity schools) from assigning any student to a course that the student has previously completed with a grade sufficient to meet the A-G requirements and graduation requirements, unless all of the principal or assistant principal certifies that:

1. the course is designed to be repeated because students are exposed to a new curriculum year-to-year and are therefore expected to derive educational value from repeating the course

2. the student is not being assigned to the course because there are no other courses with curricular content to take during the relevant period

3. a school official met with the student and obtained the student’s signed consent to enroll in the course.

6. Requires that if a school district determines that, at any point during the current or preceding academic year, one or more of its schools has not satisfied the above requirements, it immediately notify the SPI and with a description of the circumstances that caused the school district not to satisfy the pertinent requirement, the number of students affected, the steps that the school district has taken to resolve the situation, and any changes to the school district’s policies or procedures to ensure that all of its schools satisfy those requirements.

7. Allows any member of the public to file a complaint directly with the CDE alleging that, at any point during the current or preceding academic year, a school district has not satisfied these requirements. Allows a complaint to be filed anonymously under certain circumstances.

8. Requires that within 21 days of receiving a complaint the CDE complete an investigation.

9. Requires that, to the extent that the CDE concludes that the school district has not taken appropriate action to resolve the situation, the SPI immediately convene a local assistance committee to develop a written plan to ensure that the school district satisfies these requirements.

10. In developing the plan, requires the local assistance committee to consult with students, parents, legal guardians or educational rights holders, and teachers at the affected schools, and to complete the plan no later than 21 days after the CDE makes the determination.

11. Requires the SPI to prepare an annual report detailing actions taken pursuant to this section and report to the Legislature.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Specifies requirements for graduation from high school, including: three courses in English; two courses in mathematics; two courses in science; three courses in social studies; one course in visual or performing arts, foreign language, or career technical education; and two courses in physical education. Authorizes school districts to adopt additional requirements for graduation.

2. Establishes course requirements for admission to the University of California and the California State University, known as the A-G requirements.

3. Requires that only the attendance of students under the immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee is counted toward the computation of average daily attendance.

4. Establishes the minimum day in middle school and high school as 240 minutes.

5. Through regulation, requires LEAs to adopt uniform complaint procedures through which the public can register complaints regarding educational programs and rights. (California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 4600).

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has been keyed a state-mandated local program by the Office of Legislative Counsel

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. The author’s office states, “Thousands of high school students across California are tracked into so-called “classes,” where they are given meaningless “credits” for sitting at home, in the office, or taking a course they’ve already passed.

School districts have given these courses different names (“home,” “service,” “work-experience,” “college,” “adult”), but they all have a common trait: they rob students of learning time and the opportunity for a real education. And many of the affected students need real, academic classes to fulfill graduation or college access requirements.

The schools where this occurs serve almost exclusively low-income students of color. Although this is not the norm across California, it is all-too common in communities where students can least afford to lose learning time. It is time to ensure that all of our schools have the support they need to provide real classes to every student until they graduate.”

Bill related to lawsuit filed by the sponsor. This bill is related to Cruz v. State of California, a class action lawsuit filed May 29^th, 2014 in Alameda County Superior Court against the state on behalf of students in seven schools.

The suit names as plaintiffs a class of current or future students attending Castlemont High School in the Oakland Unified School District, John C. Fremont High School in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Nystrom Elementary School in the West Contra Costa Unified School District, Franklin S. Whaley Middle School in the Compton Unified School District, Fremont High School in the Oakland Unified School District, Florence Griffith Joyner Elementary School in the LAUSD, and Compton High School in the Compton Unified School District.

The suit names as defendants the State of California, the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education (SBE), and the Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson.

The plaintiffs allege that the state has violated the rights of the plaintiffs provided by the Equal Protection clauses of the state constitution “by failing to provide them with basic educational opportunities equal to those that other students elsewhere in the State receive” with regard to meaningful learning time. The complaint alleges that at certain schools:

“the disparity in the availability of meaningful learning time, which is created and perpetuated by the State’s systematic failure to adequately staff and resource Plaintiffs’ schools and by the State’s failure to monitor practices at these schools responsible for such deprivations, denies Plaintiff students and their peers an equal chance to obtain essential basic literacy and mathematical skills, and the opportunity to meet the mandated academic content standards that assume students have these skills.”

They allege that the defendants’ “actions and inactions resulting in the creation and exacerbation of these disparities are deliberate and conscious, in that they are aware of the causes of these disparities, yet have failed to establish any system to monitor the provision of meaningful learning time in schools throughout California and remedy identified gaps.”

They allege that this lack of instructional time is due to several factors, including:

• “assignment of students to administrative tasks or free periods instead of assignment to classroom periods of instruction because of insufficient curricular offerings and a lack of available qualified teachers;

• violence or security disruptions, which result in cessation of instruction and traumatic after-effects, and insufficient access to mental health professionals to assist students and faculty in coping with these disruptions;

• late changes to the master course schedule requiring course and teacher changes well into the semester;

• unstable, transient teaching faculties and administrative teams (including principals, assistant principals, and counselors), resulting from under-resourced and stressful campuses not conducive to professional development and growth; and

• unaddressed student absenteeism, resulting in whole or part from campus conditions”

The complaint requests that the court address the state’s monitoring system and its intervention to prevent and remedy the causes of lost learning time.

On February 5^th of this year the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Last week (April 24^th), Alameda County Superior Court Judge George C. Hernández, Jr. denied this motion, stating that “If, at this stage, Plaintiffs cannot supply reliable evidence regarding the actual practices of most California high schools with regard to the use of contentless classes and the timely implementation of appropriate master schedules, the court lacks a fair standard against which to measure the performance of Plaintiff’s own high schools and cannot determine, even preliminarily, whether Plaintiffs have some possibility of prevailing on their claims.”

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Legislature approved $3.4 million in the current year for the CDE and SBE to contract for legal services related to this case, and the Governor’s Budget proposes providing an additional $3.7 million for this contract in 2015-16.

Why introduce this measure while litigation is pending? This bill addresses one of the five parts of the Cruz v. State of California complaint, and is before the Legislature while the court is reviewing the case. Counsel for the plaintiffs in the case has stated that any remedy ordered by the court will only apply to the schools in question, and that if these practices are occurring anywhere in the state they should be stopped immediately.

Because this bill is related to pending litigation, state information resources normally available to staff have been limited. As a result, staff is not aware of activities of the state to remedy the alleged problems through monitoring or intervention, nor is staff apprised of the state’s defense, except as refuted in the plaintiffs’ complaints. The Committee may wish to consider that, as a result, the analysis of this bill relies heavily on the evidence made available by the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case, and does not have the full benefit of information which would normally be available.

Districts respond to lawsuit by curtailing some practices. According to a reply brief submitted in support of the motion for preliminary injunction, Compton High School has ceased scheduling students in “home” periods and has placed “sharp limitations” on service periods since this suit was filed, and LAUSD has indicated that it will take some measures to limit “home” and “service” periods and produce timely, complete master schedules.

2014-15 scheduling problems in LAUSD caused by data system failure. The author’s office points to scheduling problems in the LAUSD in the current school year as evidence of the problem this bill is designed to address.

In August, 2014 students at Jefferson High School in the Los Angeles Unified School district (LAUSD) walked out of class during their third week of school in protest over a new scheduling system which failed to assign students to classes and assigned some to classes they’d already taken. Students reported sitting in auditoriums all day for days while course schedules were worked out, and being assigned to classes they had already completed. Teachers found elementary school students listed on high school attendance sheets.

The problems which occurred in LAUSD were related to a new data system, called MiSis, which was developed by the district and introduced this year. School district officials acknowledged significant problems with the system, and reported that nearly all scheduling problems were addressed by the end of 2014. The Committee may wish to consider that, while the problems of the current school year were significant and had serious consequences for students, they appear to represent an acute problem caused by a data system failure, and are not necessarily reflective of a chronic problem.

Evidence of management problems presented in student and staff interviews. Sudent and staff declarations provided by counsel for the plaintiffs paint a picture of five high schools in the Oakland, Compton, and Los Angeles school districts with numerous management problems. These include:

• Scheduling problems (evidenced by students being placed into courses late, being placed in courses already completed, overcrowding of courses, and cancelled courses)

• Staffing problems, including high teacher and administrator turnover (evidenced by students being instructed by multiple substitute teachers, report of high administrator turnover)

• Counseling services pro

• blems (evidenced by overwhelmed counselors and poor counseling)

• Insufficient course offerings for A-G completion (evidenced by students not able to enroll in A-G courses)

Some statements also indicated that the limited elective course offerings was associated with a decision on the part of the school districts to focus their resources on remedial instruction, which the plaintiff’s acknowledge is necessary for many students in these schools. They state,
“Fremont has invested its limited resources in providing intervention classes, which are necessary for many students to graduate, but this has come at the expense of offering sufficient classes and electives to fill the course schedules of students who are on track to graduate.”

Author states that this is not the norm. If so, why is a statewide mandate needed? While proponents of this bill have presented evidence of serious management problems in certain schools, they have not provided evidence that this is a problem common to many districts in the state. Indeed, the author’s office states that these practices are “not the norm across California.”

The class action complaint in Cruz v. State of California acknowledges this as well, stating that “most California public high schools offer sufficient courses such that students enroll as a routine matter in the courses they need to complete for graduation and college eligibility and students on track to meet graduation requirements have the option to take meaningful elective courses that enhance their education and keep them engaged in learning.”

In spite of this, AB 1012 proposes a state mandate which (see comments below) could have significant consequences for course offerings at all schools. This bill would have the effect of requiring all 1,000 school districts to review all of their elective courses to determine whether they meet the requirements of the law, when there is no evidence of a problem in most districts. The Committee may wish to consider why a statewide mandate is needed if this problem is limited to some school districts.

Administrative requirements for enrolling students in “courses without educational content” would effectively eliminate these courses. This bill requires that, in order to place a student in a “course without educational content,” a principal or assistant principal would have to certify, with an individualized determination, that the student would benefit more from such a course than one with educational content. The bill would also require that signed consent be obtained from the student’s parent or guardian.

Given the demands already placed on school administrators, the time required to make an individualized determination of educational benefit, the difficulty schools experience obtaining signed consent from parents, and other factors, the requirements of this bill would have the effect of, for all practical purposes, of eliminating “contentless courses.”

Valuable courses could be eliminated. What are those “contentless courses?” In some cases they may be the “service,” “home,” and “inside work experience,” and “academic literacy,” courses with no academic value to which students are assigned to fill holes in their schedules. These “courses” impede students’ progress toward graduation and college readiness.

But in other cases they may be valuable courses. Staff has heard concerns expressed that many such courses might be eliminated by this bill, and has also reviewed the course catalog of several school districts to try to identify courses which could be eliminated by this bill. These may include:

• AVID

• AVID peer support

• AVID tutor

• special education peer support

• study hall

• mentoring

• coaching assistant

• student council

• student newspaper

• IHigh Lab (online A-G courses)

• science research techniques

• International Baccalaureate support

• peer counseling

• yearbook

• conflict resolution and mediation

• teaching assistant

• peer resources

• rehearsal and performance

• advisory

• literary publications

• peer tutoring

• leadership

• math intervention

• homeroom

• pregnant and parenting peer support

The CDE does not collect information about many elective offerings. Given the diversity of elective course offerings in the state and the paucity of information about them at the state level, no matter how precisely drafted, any such legislation is likely to eliminate worthwhile course offerings for students. The Committee may wish to consider that the Legislature does not have, and may never have, enough information to create a definition which does not eliminate some valuable learning opportunities for students.

Would this bill eliminate homeroom and study hall? A good example of the problem the Legislature faces in determining what is “contentless” is study hall. This bill requires that study hall only be considered a course with education content if it is being staffed by a certificated employee.

CDE data on course enrollments show that for the course titled “Homeroom/Study Hall,” total enrollment in 2012-13 was just under 150,000 students at 413 schools. This may understate the number of students enrolled in study hall because reporting for homeroom and study hall is optional.

Staff has asked many parties whether study hall is generally staffed by certificated employees, and no one has been able to provide an answer. The Committee may wish to consider whether it is appropriate for the Legislature to approve course prohibitions when it is not able to determine how it will affect thousands of schools - and in this case as many as 150,000 students.

A curriculum solution for a management problem. Proponents of this bill argue that “contentless courses” are used to fill the gaps in the schedules of students when there are no course offerings available to that student. Not making key courses available to students, as stated above, is indicative of serious management problems. These courses could be viewed as a “patch” on a broken system. The Committee may wish to consider whether fixing this problem gets at the root causes of problems at these schools.

A new complaint process for this issue? This bill establishes a new complaint system which allows individuals to submit complaints directly to the CDE, establishes new timelines for the state’s response, and establishes new remedies.

This bill requires that, if through the investigation of a complaint an LEA is determined to have violated the law, the SPI “immediately” intervene by creating a local assistance committee to resolve the problem. The bill requires that the committee consult relevant stakeholders and prepare a written plan to remedy the problem in 21 days. As written, this intervention by the state could be triggered by as few as one student’s complaint.

Staff is unaware of any precedent for this kind of immediate state intervention regarding individual complaints. There is, however, precedent in statute for a requirement that when merit is found in a complaint, the LEA must “provide a remedy to all affected students, parents, and guardians.”

Since 1991, LEAs and the state have operated a system known as the Uniform Complaint Procedures, with the goal of making the complaint system easier to administer and more transparent to the public. These regulations require the adoption of the UCP by school districts, county offices of education, charter schools receiving federal funds, and local public or private agencies which receive direct or indirect state funding to provide school programs or special education or related services. The UCP is used for complaints regarding more than a dozen state and federal programs, as well as discrimination, harassment, bullying, intimidation, unlawful student fees, certain charter school requirements, and violations of the law establishing LCAPs.

The existing process for complaints is available and appears suitable for resolution of complaints regarding courses with no educational content. Given that the proposed process would add complexity to the complaint system, that in the proposed process there is no opportunity for the LEA to receive and resolve a complaint before involving the state, and given the poor precedent this would set, the Committee may wish to consider whether the bill should be amended to require use of the UCP instead of creating a new process.

Additional concerns. There are additional questions raised by this bill: How could it be implemented half way through the coming academic year (given the January 1, 2016 effective date)? Since there are no A-G requirements for middle school grades, how would an administrator determine what is required for enrollment of a middle school student?

Given these concerns, the Committee may wish to consider the following alternative means of addressing this problem:

1. Do not define and effectively prohibit “contentless courses,” as this may result in students being denied valuable educational opportunities.

2. Prohibit the most clear examples of poor course assignment, such as students being sent home because no course is available, and being assigned to a class they have already satisfactorily completed.

3. Address management problems by directing the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) to work with the districts in question to improve master scheduling, course availability, and course assignment.

The CCEE was established to provide advice and assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) in achieving the goals set forth in the Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs). The CCEE will contract with LEAs, among other entities, to provide this assistance. Problems related to master scheduling, course availability, and course assignment, to the extent they affect college and career readiness (state priorities addressed by LCAPs) are squarely in the purview of the CCEE, and other LEAs which have successfully addressed these problems could assist these districts. These districts would likely benefit from, for example, the experience of San Diego Unified School District, which has in recent years eliminated service and tutoring courses and replaced them with support courses attached to core academic courses. San Diego also uses an Interdivisional Curriculum Committee to review all course offerings for educational value. Through the CCEE, this school district might provide valuable peer guidance to the districts in question.

4. Use the established method of complaint resolution: the Uniform Complaint Process.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Civil Liberties Union of California (sponsor)

Black Organizing Project

Californians for Justice

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

EdVoice

Equal Justice Society

PICO California

Public Advocates

Public Counsel

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087