AB 2548: School accountability: statewide accountability system.
- Session Year: 2015-2016
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2016-08-31
(1)Existing law required, on or before July 1, 2014, the governing boards of school districts and county boards of education to adopt a local control and accountability plan using a state template adopted by the State Board of Education. Existing law requires the local control and accountability plan to include, among other things, a description of annual goals for all pupils and specified subgroups of pupils to be achieved for each state priority, as specified, and a description of the specific actions the school district or county superintendent of schools will take to achieve those goals. Existing law requires the charter petition for a charter school to include those same elements. Existing law provides that an adopted local control and accountability plan is effective for 3 years and shall be updated annually on or before July 1. Existing law requires the state board, on or before October 1, 2016, to adopt evaluation rubrics to, among other things, assist a school district, county office of education, or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement. Existing law establishes the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence for purposes of advising and assisting school districts, county superintendents of schools, and charter schools in achieving the goals set forth in a local control and accountability plan.
This bill would, for purposes of a statewide accountability system and to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities and federal law, require the state board to adopt a statewide accountability system that, among other things, is a single integrated system that aligns local, state, and federal accountability requirements. In identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local educational agency, the bill would require the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence and county superintendents of schools to analyze data aligned with all the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school or schools. By imposing additional duties on county superintendents of schools, and to the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local educational agency officials, the bill would impose 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 required, on or before July 1, 2014, the governing boards of school districts and county boards of education to adopt a local control and accountability plan using a state template adopted by the State Board of Education. Existing law requires the local control and accountability plan to include, among other things, a description of annual goals for all pupils and specified subgroups of pupils to be achieved for each state priority, as specified, and a description of the specific actions the school district or county superintendent of schools will take to achieve those goals. Existing law requires the charter petition for a charter school to include those same elements. Existing law provides that an adopted local control and accountability plan is effective for 3 years and shall be updated annually on or before July 1. Existing law requires the state board, on or before October 1, 2016, to adopt evaluation rubrics to, among other things, assist a school district, county office of education, or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement. Existing law establishes the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence for purposes of advising and assisting school districts, county superintendents of schools, and charter schools in achieving the goals set forth in a local control and accountability plan.
This bill would, for purposes of a statewide accountability system and to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities and federal law, require the state board to adopt a statewide accountability system. The bill would require the system to (1) satisfy the accountability requirements of specified federal law, (2) align Californias local control framework, which is focused on identifying and supporting local educational agencies with the additional need to identify, support, and improve Californias highest need schools, as specified, (3) rely upon data from key indicators established by the evaluation rubrics adopted by the state board and as otherwise specified, (4) provide the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multitiered system of review and assistance, and (5) ensure the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. system that, among other things, is a single integrated system that aligns local, state, and federal accountability requirements. In identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local educational agency, the bill would require the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence and county superintendents of schools to analyze data aligned with all the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school or schools. By imposing additional duties on county superintendents of schools, and to the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local educational agency officials, the bill would impose 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 required, on or before July 1, 2014, the governing boards of school districts and county boards of education to adopt a local control and accountability plan using a state template adopted by the State Board of Education. Existing law requires the local control and accountability plan to include, among other things, a description of annual goals for all pupils and specified subgroups of pupils to be achieved for each state priority, as specified, and a description of the specific actions the school district or county superintendent of schools will take to achieve those goals. Existing law requires the charter petition for a charter school to include those same elements. Existing law provides that an adopted local control and accountability plan is effective for 3 years and shall be updated annually on or before July 1. Existing law requires the state board, on or before October 1, 2016, to adopt evaluation rubrics to, among other things, assist a school district, county office of education, or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement. Existing law establishes the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence for purposes of advising and assisting school districts, county superintendents of schools, and charter schools in achieving the goals set forth in a local control and accountability plan.
This bill would, for purposes of a statewide accountability system and to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities and federal law, require the state board to adopt a statewide accountability system. The bill would require the system to (1) satisfy the accountability requirements of specified federal law, (2) align Californias local control framework, which is focused on identifying and supporting local educational agencies with the additional need to identify, support, and improve Californias highest need schools, as specified, (3) rely upon data from key indicators established by the evaluation rubrics adopted by the state board and as otherwise specified, (4) provide the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multitiered system of review and assistance, and (5) ensure the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. In identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local educational agency, the bill would require the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence and county superintendents of schools to analyze data aligned with all the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school or schools. By imposing additional duties on county superintendents of schools, and to the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local educational agency officials, the bill would impose 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 required, on or before July 1, 2014, the governing boards of school districts and county boards of education to adopt a local control and accountability plan using a state template adopted by the State Board of Education. Existing law requires the local control and accountability plan to include, among other things, a description of annual goals for all pupils and specified subgroups of pupils to be achieved for each state priority, as specified, and a description of the specific actions the school district or county superintendent of schools will take to achieve those goals. Existing law requires the charter petition for a charter school to include those same elements. Existing law provides that an adopted local control and accountability plan is effective for 3 years and shall be updated annually on or before July 1. Existing law requires the state board, on or before October 1, 2016, to adopt evaluation rubrics to, among other things, assist a school district, county office of education, or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement. Existing law establishes the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence for purposes of advising and assisting school districts, county superintendents of schools, and charter schools in achieving the goals set forth in a local control and accountability plan.
This bill would, for purposes of a statewide accountability system and to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities and federal law, require the state board to adopt a statewide accountability system. The bill would require the system to (1) satisfy the accountability requirements of specified federal law, (2) align Californias local control framework, which is focused on identifying and supporting local educational agencies with the additional need to identify, support, and improve Californias highest need schools, as specified, (3) rely upon data from key indicators established by the evaluation rubrics adopted by the state board and as otherwise specified, (4) provide the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multitiered system of review and assistance, and (5) ensure the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. In identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local educational agency, the bill would require the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence and county superintendents of schools to analyze data aligned with all the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school or schools. By imposing additional duties on county superintendents of schools, and to the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local educational agency officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2)Existing law requires county superintendents of schools and the Superintendent of Public Instruction to provide technical assistance, as provided, to any school district or county office of education, respectively, that fails to improve pupil achievement across more than one state priority for one or more pupil subgroups.
This bill would instead require county superintendents of schools and the Superintendent to provide that technical assistance if a school district or county office of education, respectively, fails to meet the standards for performance or expectations for improvements across more than one key indicator for one or more pupil subgroup. By imposing additional duties on county superintendents of schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(3)Existing law authorizes the Superintendent, with the approval of the state board, to identify school districts and county offices of education in need of intervention if, among other things, the school district or county office of education did not improve the outcomes for 3 or more pupil subgroups or, if the school district or county office of education has less than 3 pupil subgroups, all of the school districts or county office of educations pupil subgroups, in regard to more than one state or local priority in 3 out of 4 consecutive school years.
This bill would instead authorize the Superintendent to make that identification if, among other things, the school district or county office of education did not meet the standards for performance or expectations for improvement for 3 or more pupil subgroups or, if the school district or county office of education has less than 3 pupil subgroups, all of the school districts or county office of educations pupil subgroups, in regard to more than one key indicator in 3 out of 4 consecutive school years.
(4)
(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 required, on or before July 1, 2014, the governing boards of school districts and county boards of education to adopt a local control and accountability plan using a state template adopted by the State Board of Education. Existing law requires the local control and accountability plan to include, among other things, a description of annual goals for all pupils and specified subgroups of pupils to be achieved for each state priority, as specified, and a description of the specific actions the school district or county superintendent of schools will take to achieve those goals. Existing law requires the charter petition for a charter school to include those same elements. Existing law provides that an adopted local control and accountability plan is effective for 3 years and shall be updated annually on or before July 1. Existing law requires the state board, on or before October 1, 2016, to adopt evaluation rubrics to, among other things, assist a school district, county office of education, or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement. Existing law establishes the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence for purposes of advising and assisting school districts, county superintendents of schools, and charter schools in achieving the goals set forth in a local control and accountability plan.
This bill would, for purposes of a statewide accountability system and to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities and federal law, require the state board to adopt a statewide accountability system. The bill would require the system to (1) satisfy the accountability requirements of specified federal law, (2) align Californias local control framework, which is focused on identifying and supporting local educational agencies with the additional need to identify, support, and improve Californias highest need schools, as specified, (3) rely upon data from key indicators established by the evaluation rubrics adopted by the state board, and, working in concert with the collaborative, utilize a multitiered system of review, support, collaboration, and intervention, aligning the level of support to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school. The bill would authorize the state board to require local educational agencies to submit additional data to the state board or the State Department of Education in order to satisfy the federal accountability system requirements. To the extent this board and as otherwise specified, (4) provide the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multitiered system of review and assistance, and (5) ensure the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. In identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local educational agency, the bill would require the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence and county superintendents of schools to analyze data aligned with all the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school or schools. By imposing additional duties on county superintendents of schools, and to the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local educational agency officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2)Existing law requires county superintendents of schools and the Superintendent of Public Instruction to provide technical assistance, as provided, to any school district or county office of education, respectively, that fails to improve pupil achievement across more than one state priority for one or more pupil subgroups.
This bill would instead require county superintendents of schools and the Superintendent to provide that technical assistance if a school district or county office of education, respectively, fails to meet the standards for performance or expectations for improvements across more than one key indicator for one or more pupil subgroup. By imposing additional duties on county superintendents of schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(3)Existing law authorizes the Superintendent, with the approval of the state board, to identify school districts and county offices of education in need of intervention if, among other things, the school district or county office of education did not improve the outcomes for 3 or more pupil subgroups or, if the school district or county office of education has less than 3 pupil subgroups, all of the school districts or county office of educations pupil subgroups, in regard to more than one state or local priority in 3 out of 4 consecutive school years.
This bill would instead authorize the Superintendent to make that identification if, among other things, the school district or county office of education did not meet the standards for performance or expectations for improvement for 3 or more pupil subgroups or, if the school district or county office of education has less than 3 pupil subgroups, all of the school districts or county office of educations pupil subgroups, in regard to more than one key indicator in 3 out of 4 consecutive school years.
(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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(4)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 required, on or before July 1, 2014, the governing boards of school districts and county boards of education to adopt a local control and accountability plan using a state template adopted by the State Board of Education. Existing law requires the local control and accountability plan to include, among other things, a description of annual goals for all pupils and specified subgroups of pupils to be achieved for each state priority, as specified, and a description of the specific actions the school district or county superintendent of schools will take to achieve those goals. Existing law requires the charter petition for a charter school to include those same elements. Existing law provides that an adopted local control and accountability plan is effective for 3 years and shall be updated annually on or before July 1. Existing law requires the state board, on or before October 1, 2016, to adopt evaluation rubrics to, among other things, assist a school district, county office of education, or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement. Existing law establishes the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence for purposes of advising and assisting school districts, county superintendents of schools, and charter schools in achieving the goals set forth in a local control and accountability plan.
This bill would, for purposes of a statewide accountability system and to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities and federal law, require the state board to adopt a statewide accountability system. The bill would require the system to satisfy the accountability requirements of specified federal law, rely upon data from key indicators established by the evaluation rubrics adopted by the state board, and, working in concert with the collaborative, utilize a multitiered system of review, support, collaboration, and intervention, aligning the level of support to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school. The bill would authorize the state board to require local educational agencies to submit additional data to the state board or the State Department of Education in order to satisfy the federal accountability system requirements. To the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local educational agency officials, the bill would impose 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(a)(1)It is the intent of the Legislature and purpose of this article to do all of the following:
(A)Establish a coherent, aligned local-state-federal accountability system that addresses state, local, parent, community, and public needs, as well as federal requirements.
(B)Ensure ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement that encourage continuous improvement and the closure of opportunity and achievement gaps.
(C)Establish a mechanism using multiple measures that meaningfully differentiates the performance of schools and identifies schools and local educational agencies in need of technical assistance, support, and intervention.
(2)It is further the intent of the Legislature that the accountability system continues to support and advance the framework established by the local control funding formula and Californias emphasis on continuous improvement, technical assistance, and support.
(b)For purposes of a statewide accountability system and to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 and with federal law, the state board shall adopt a statewide accountability system that meets all of the following requirements:
(1)Is a single, integrated system that aligns local, state, and federal accountability requirements.
(2)Satisfies the accountability system requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95).
(3)Aligns Californias local control framework, which is focused on identifying and supporting local educational agencies with the additional need to identify, support, and improve Californias highest need schools. In doing so, the state board shall do all of the following:
(A)Set clear, ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement toward each of the key indicators described in paragraph (4) for pupils overall and for each numerically significant subgroup, as identified in Section 52052. To comply with federal law, these improvement standards shall be differentiated by subgroup so that subgroups that start off at lower performance levels make greater growth to achieve the statewide standards.
(B)Establish a mechanism to meaningfully differentiate the performance of all public schools, to identify local educational agencies for purposes of Sections 52071, 52071.5, 52072, and 52072.5 on an annual basis based on outcomes for all pupils and for each subgroup of pupils using the multiple measures identified in paragraph (4), and to do all of the following:
(i)Distinguish multiple levels of performance for purposes of continuous improvement, transparency, meaningful stakeholder engagement, recognition, and support, including the identification of the following:
(I)Not less than the lowest-performing 5 percent of all schools receiving federal Title I funds and all public high schools in the state failing to graduate one-third or more of their pupils.
(II)All schools in which any subgroup of pupils is consistently underperforming, as determined by the state board, based on all of the indicators identified in paragraph (4) and the system established pursuant this section.
(III)All schools where any one subgroup of pupils, on its own, would lead that school to be in the lowest 5 percent of schools for pupils overall.
(ii)Support parents and guardians in making informed school decisions on behalf of their children.
(iii)Enable school districts, county offices of education, the department, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to identify schools for recognition, support, and assistance and ensure that support and assistance is provided to at least those schools identified pursuant to clause (i).
(C)Comply with all notification, stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities required by Section 1111(d) of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95), and, to the extent required by state and federal law, ensure notifications of stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities are translated in the top five languages as identified by the department.
(4)(A)Relies upon data from key indicators established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5. At a minimum, for purposes of paragraph (3), those key indicators shall include, if not already included by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5, all of the following:
(i)For elementary and middle schools:
(I)A measure of pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science.
(II)A measure of academic growth.
(III)A measure of progress toward English proficiency, including, but not limited to, data on the reclassification rates of English learners and long-term English learners when available.
(IV)A measure of chronic absenteeism.
(V)A measure of school climate.
(ii)For high schools:
(I)A measure of pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science.
(II)A measure of graduation rates.
(III)A measure of progress toward English proficiency, including, but not limited to, data on the reclassification rates of English learners and long-term English learners when available.
(IV)A measure of college and career readiness.
(V)A measure of chronic absenteeism.
(VI)A measure of school climate.
(B)This paragraph shall not be construed as to preclude the state board from including additional statewide measures that can be disaggregated by subgroup in the accountability system for purposes of meaningful differentiation of all schools or from grouping the measures into common clusters. Furthermore, it is the intent of the Legislature that the state will continue to use the evaluation rubrics established pursuant to Section 52064.5 and all indicators identified as state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 and the subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 for purposes of continuous improvement and to guide the provision of technical assistance, support, and intervention.
(C)In order to comply with federal law, the academic indicators specified in subclauses (I) to (III), inclusive, of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall receive substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight than is afforded to all other indicators.
(D)For purposes of paragraph (3), performance of subgroups shall receive substantial weight.
(5)Provides the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence established pursuant to Section 52074, county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multitiered system of review and assistance. Notwithstanding the key indicators used for purposes of paragraph (3), in identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local educational agency, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence and the county superintendents of schools shall analyze data aligned with all the state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school or schools.
(6)Ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. Parents and the public shall have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the states priority areas for purposes of local control and accountability plans and the local control funding formula. It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that any Web-based data and analysis tools should enable all stakeholders to readily identify strengths and weaknesses, identify inequities between schools and subgroups of pupils across multiple measures, monitor academic achievement and improvement, provide for meaningful differentiation, as required by Section 1111(c)(4)(C) of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95), and enable users to download data and reports in machine-readable formats. It is further the intent of the Legislature to ensure that, to the extent required by state and federal law, the information on school, school district, and subgroup performance be made available in the top five languages as identified by the department.
SEC. 2.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)(1)It is the intent of the Legislature and purpose of this article to do all of the following:
(A)Establish a coherent, aligned local-state-federal accountability system that addresses state, local, parent, community, and public needs, as well as federal requirements.
(B)Ensure ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement that encourage continuous improvement and the closure of opportunity and achievement gaps.
(C)Establish a mechanism using multiple measures that meaningfully differentiates the performance of schools and identifies schools and local educational agencies in need of technical assistance, support, and intervention.
(2)It is further the intent of the Legislature that the accountability system continues to support and advance the framework established by the local control funding formula and Californias emphasis on continuous improvement, technical assistance, and support.
(b)For purposes of a statewide accountability system and to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 and with federal law, the state board shall adopt a statewide accountability system that does meets all of the following: following requirements:
(1)Is a single, integrated system that aligns local, state, and federal accountability requirements.
(1)
(2)Satisfies the accountability system requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95).
(2)
(3)Aligns Californias local control framework, which is focused on identifying and supporting local educational agencies with the additional need to identify, support, and improve Californias highest need schools. In doing so, the state board shall do all of the following:
(A)Set clear, ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement toward each of the key indicators described in paragraph (3) (4) for pupils overall and for each numerically significant subgroup, as identified in Section 52052. To comply with federal law, these improvement standards shall be differentiated by subgroup so that subgroups that start off at lower performance levels make greater growth to achieve the statewide standards.
(B)Establish a mechanism to meaningfully differentiate the performance of all public schools, to identify local educational agencies for purposes of Sections 52071, 52071.5, 52072, and 52072.5 on an annual basis based on outcomes for all pupils and for each subgroup of pupils using the multiple measures identified in paragraph (3), (4), and to do all of the following:
(i)Distinguish multiple levels of performance for purposes of continuous improvement, transparency, meaningful stakeholder engagement, recognition, and support, including the identification of the following:
(I)Not less than the lowest-performing 5 percent of all schools receiving federal Title I funds and all public high schools in the state failing to graduate one-third or more of their pupils.
(II)All schools in which any subgroup of pupils is consistently underperforming, as determined by the state board, based on all of the indicators identified in paragraph (3) (4) and the system established pursuant this section.
(III)All schools where any one subgroup of pupils, on its own, would lead that school to be in the lowest 5 percent of schools for pupils overall.
(ii)Support parents and guardians in making informed school decisions on behalf of their children.
(iii)Enable school districts, county offices of education, the department, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to identify schools for recognition, support, and assistance and ensure that support and assistance is provided to at least those schools identified pursuant to clause (i).
(C)Comply with all notification, stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities required by Section 1111(d) of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95). 114-95), and, to the extent required by state and federal law, ensure notifications of stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities are translated in the top five languages as identified by the department.
(3)
(4)(A)Relies upon data from key indicators established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5. At a minimum, for purposes of paragraph (2), (3), those key indicators shall include, if not already included by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5, all of the following:
(i)For elementary and middle schools:
(I)A measure of pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science.
(II)A measure of academic growth.
(III)A measure of progress toward English proficiency. proficiency, including, but not limited to, data on the reclassification rates of English learners and long-term English learners when available.
(IV)A measure of chronic absenteeism.
(V)A measure of school climate.
(ii)For high schools:
(I)A measure of pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science.
(II)A measure of graduation rates.
(III)A measure of progress toward English proficiency. proficiency, including, but not limited to, data on the reclassification rates of English learners and long-term English learners when available.
(IV)A measure of college and career readiness.
(V)A measure of chronic absenteeism.
(VI)A measure of school climate.
(B)This paragraph shall not be construed as to preclude the state board from including additional statewide measures that can be disaggregated by subgroup in the accountability system for purposes of meaningful differentiation of all schools or from grouping the measures into common clusters. Furthermore, it is the intent of the Legislature that the state will continue to use the evaluation rubrics established pursuant to Section 52064.5 and all indicators identified as state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 and the subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 for purposes of continuous improvement and to guide the provision of technical assistance, support, and intervention.
(C)In order to comply with federal law, the academic indicators specified in subclauses (I) to (III), inclusive, of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall receive substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight than is afforded to all other indicators.
(D)For purposes of paragraph (2), (3), performance of subgroups shall receive substantial weight.
(4)
(5)Provides the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence established pursuant to Section 52074, county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multitiered system of review and assistance. Notwithstanding the key indicators used for purposes of paragraph (2), (3), in identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local educational agency, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence and the county superintendents of schools shall analyze data aligned with all the state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school or schools.
(5)
(6)Ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. Parents and the public shall have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the states priority areas for purposes of local control and accountability plans and the local control funding formula. It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that any Web-based data and analysis tools should enable all stakeholders to readily identify strengths and weaknesses, identify inequities between schools and subgroups of pupils across multiple measures, monitor academic achievement and improvement, provide for meaningful differentiation, as required by Section 1111(c)(4)(C) of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95), and enable users to download data and reports in machine-readable formats. It is further the intent of the Legislature to ensure that, to the extent required by state and federal law, the information on school, school district, and subgroup performance be made available in the top five languages as identified by the department.
SEC. 2.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)(1)It is the intent of the Legislature and purpose of this article to do all of the following:
(A)Establish a coherent, aligned local-state-federal accountability system that addresses state, local, parent, community, and public needs, as well as federal requirements.
(B)Ensure ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement that encourage continuous improvement and the closure of opportunity and achievement gaps.
(C)Establish a mechanism using multiple measures that meaningfully differentiates the performance of schools and identifies schools and local educational agencies in need of technical assistance, support, and intervention.
(2)It is further the intent of the Legislature that the accountability system continues to support and advance the framework established by the local control funding formula and Californias emphasis on continuous improvement, technical assistance, and support.
(b)For purposes of a statewide accountability system and to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 and with federal law, the state board shall adopt a statewide accountability system that does all of the following:
(1)Satisfies the accountability system requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95).
(2)Aligns Californias local control framework, which is focused on identifying and supporting local educational agencies with the additional need to identify, support, and improve Californias highest need schools. In doing so, the state board shall do all of the following:
(A)Set clear, ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement toward each of the key indicators described in paragraph (3) for pupils overall and for each numerically significant subgroup, as identified in Section 52052. To comply with federal law, these improvement standards shall be differentiated by subgroup so that subgroups that start off at lower performance levels make greater growth to achieve the statewide standards.
(B)Establish a mechanism to meaningfully differentiate the performance of all public schools, to identify local educational agencies for purposes of Sections 52072 52071, 52071.5, 52072, and 52072.5 on an annual basis based on outcomes for all pupils and for each subgroup of pupils using the multiple measures identified in paragraph (3), and to do all of the following:
(i)Distinguish multiple levels of performance for purposes of continuous improvement, transparency, meaningful stakeholder engagement, recognition, and support, including the identification of the following:
(I)Not less than the lowest-performing 5 percent of all schools receiving federal Title I funds and all public high schools in the state failing to graduate one-third or more of their pupils.
(II)All schools in which any subgroup of pupils is consistently underperforming, as determined by the state board, based on all of the indicators identified in paragraph (3) and the system established pursuant this section.
(III)All schools where any one subgroup of pupils, on its own, would lead that school to be in the lowest 5 percent of schools for pupils overall.
(ii)Support parents and guardians in making informed school decisions on behalf of their children.
(iii)Enable school districts, county offices of education, the department, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to identify schools for recognition, support, and assistance and ensure that support and assistance is provided to at least those schools identified pursuant to clause (i).
(C)Comply with all notification, stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities required by Section 1111(d) of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95).
(3)(A)Relies upon data from key indicators established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5. At a minimum, for purposes of paragraph (2), those key indicators shall include, if not already included by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5, all of the following:
(i)For elementary and middle schools:
(I)A measure of pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science.
(II)A measure of academic growth.
(III)A measure of progress toward English proficiency.
(IV)A measure of chronic absenteeism.
(V)A measure of school climate.
(ii)For high schools:
(I)A measure of pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science.
(II)A measure of graduation rates.
(III)A measure of progress toward English proficiency.
(IV)A measure of college and career readiness.
(V)A measure of chronic absenteeism.
(VI)A measure of school climate.
(B)This paragraph shall not be construed as to preclude the state board from including additional statewide measures that can be disaggregated by subgroup in the accountability system for purposes of meaningful differentiation of all schools or from grouping the measures into common clusters. Furthermore, it is the intent of the Legislature that the state will continue to use the evaluation rubrics established pursuant to Section 52064.5 and all indicators identified as state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 and the subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 for purposes of continuous improvement and to guide the provision of technical assistance, support, and intervention.
(C)In order to comply with federal law, the academic indicators specified in subclauses (I) to (III), inclusive, of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall receive substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight than is afforded to all other indicators.
(D)For purposes of paragraph (2), performance of subgroups shall receive substantial weight.
(4)Provides the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence established pursuant to Section 52074, county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multitiered system of review and assistance. Notwithstanding the key indicators used for purposes of paragraph (2), in identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local educational agency, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence and the county superintendents of schools shall analyze data aligned with all the state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school or schools.
(5)Ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. Parents and the public shall have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the states priority areas for purposes of local control and accountability plans and the local control funding formula. It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that any Web-based data and analysis tools should enable all stakeholders to readily identify strengths and weaknesses, identify inequities between schools and subgroups of pupils across multiple measures, monitor academic achievement and improvement, provide for meaningful differentiation, as required by Section 1111(c)(4)(C) of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95), and enable users to download data and reports in machine-readable formats.
SEC. 2.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)(1)It is the intent of the Legislature and purpose of this article to do all of the following:
(A)Establish a coherent, aligned local-state-federal accountability system that addresses state, local, parent, community, and public needs, as well as federal requirements.
(B)Ensure ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement that encourage continuous improvement and the closure of opportunity and achievement gaps.
(C)Establish a mechanism using multiple measures that meaningfully differentiates the performance of schools and identifies schools and local educational agencies in need of technical assistance, support, and intervention.
(2)It is further the intent of the Legislature that the accountability system continues to support and advance the framework established by the local control funding formula and Californias emphasis on continuous improvement, technical assistance, and support.
(b)For purposes of a statewide accountability system and to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 and with federal law, the state board shall adopt a statewide accountability system that does all of the following:
(1)Satisfies the accountability system requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95).
(2)Aligns Californias local control framework, which is focused on identifying and supporting local educational agencies with the additional need to identify, support, and improve Californias highest need schools. In doing so, the state board shall do all of the following:
(A)Set clear, ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement toward each of the key indicators described in paragraph (3) for pupils overall and for each numerically significant subgroup, as identified in Section 52052. To comply with federal law, these improvement standards shall be differentiated by subgroup so that subgroups that start off at lower performance levels make greater growth to achieve the statewide standards.
(B)Establish a mechanism to meaningfully differentiate the performance of all public schools, to identify local educational agencies for purposes of Sections 52072 and 52072.5 on an annual basis based on outcomes for all pupils and for each subgroup of pupils using the multiple measures identified in paragraph (3), and to do all of the following:
(i)Distinguish multiple levels of performance for purposes of continuous improvement, transparency, meaningful stakeholder engagement, recognition, and support, including the identification of the following:
(I)Not less than the lowest-performing 5 percent of all schools receiving federal Title I funds and all public high schools in the state failing to graduate one-third or more of their pupils.
(II)All schools in which any subgroup of pupils is consistently underperforming, as determined by the state board, based on all of the indicators identified in paragraph (3) and the system established pursuant this section.
(III)All schools where any one subgroup of pupils, on its own, would lead that school to be in the lowest 5 percent of schools for pupils overall.
(ii)Support parents and guardians in making informed school decisions on behalf of their children.
(iii)Enable school districts, county offices of education, the department, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to identify schools for recognition, support, and assistance and ensure that support and assistance is provided to at least those schools identified pursuant to clause (i).
(C)Comply with all notification, stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities required by Section 1111(d) of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95).
(3)(A)Relies upon data from key indicators established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5. At a minimum, for purposes of paragraph (2), those key indicators shall include, if not already included by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5, all of the following:
(i)For elementary and middle schools:
(I)A measure of pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science.
(II)A measure of academic growth.
(III)A measure of progress toward English proficiency.
(IV)A measure of chronic absenteeism.
(V)A measure of school climate.
(ii)For high schools:
(I)A measure of pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science.
(II)A measure of graduation rates.
(III)A measure of progress toward English proficiency.
(IV)A measure of college and career readiness.
(V)A measure of chronic absenteeism.
(VI)A measure of school climate.
(B)This paragraph shall not be construed as to preclude the state board from including additional statewide measures that can be disaggregated by subgroup in the accountability system for purposes of meaningful differentiation of all schools or from grouping the measures into common clusters. Furthermore, it is the intent of the Legislature that the state will continue to use the evaluation rubrics established pursuant to Section 52064.5 and all indicators identified as state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 and the subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 for purposes of continuous improvement and to guide the provision of technical assistance, support, and intervention.
(C)In order to comply with federal law, the academic indicators specified in subclauses (I) to (III), inclusive, of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall receive substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight than is afforded to all other indicators.
(D)For purposes of paragraph (2), performance of subgroups shall receive substantial weight.
(4)Provides the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence established pursuant to Section 52074, county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multitiered system of review and assistance. Notwithstanding the key indicators used for purposes of paragraph (2), in identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local educational agency, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence and the county superintendents of schools shall analyze data aligned with all the state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school or schools.
(5)Ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. Parents and the public shall have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the states priority areas for purposes of local control and accountability plans and the local control funding formula. It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that any Web-based data and analysis tools should enable all stakeholders to readily identify strengths and weaknesses, identify inequities between schools and subgroups of pupils across multiple measures, monitor academic achievement and improvement, provide for meaningful differentiation, as required by Section 1111(c)(4)(C) of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95), and enable users to download data and reports in machine-readable formats.
SEC. 2.Section 52071 of the Education Code is amended to read:52071.(a)If a county superintendent of schools does not approve a local control and accountability plan or annual update to the local control and accountability plan approved by a governing board of a school district, or if the governing board of a school district requests technical assistance, the county superintendent of schools shall provide technical assistance, including, among other things, any of the following:
(1)Identification of the school districts strengths and weaknesses in regard to the state priorities described in subdivision (d) of Section 52060, communicated in writing to the school district. This identification shall include a review of effective, evidence-based programs that apply to the school districts goals.
(2)Assignment of an academic expert or team of academic experts to assist the school district in identifying and implementing effective programs that are designed to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052. The county superintendent of schools may also solicit another school district within the county to act as a partner to the school district in need of technical assistance.
(3)Request that the Superintendent assign the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to provide advice and assistance to the school district.
(b)Using an evaluation rubric adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5, the county superintendent of schools shall provide the technical assistance described in subdivision (a) to any school district that fails to meet the standards for performance or expectations for improvements across more than one key indicator, as specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 52053, for one or more pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052.
(c)Technical assistance provided pursuant to this section at the request of a school district shall be paid for by the school district requesting the assistance.
SEC. 3.Section 52071.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:52071.5.(a)If the Superintendent does not approve a local control and accountability plan or annual update to the local control and accountability plan approved by a county board of education, or if the county board of education requests technical assistance, the Superintendent shall provide technical assistance, including, among other things, any of the following:
(1)Identification of the county board of educations strengths and weaknesses in regard to the state priorities described in subdivision (d) of Section 52066, communicated in writing to the county board of education. This identification shall include a review of effective, evidence-based programs that apply to the boards goals.
(2)Assignment of an academic expert or team of academic experts, or the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence established pursuant to Section 52074, to assist the county board of education in identifying and implementing effective programs that are designed to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052. The Superintendent may also solicit another county office of education to act as a partner to the county office of education in need of technical assistance.
(b)Using an evaluation rubric adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5, the Superintendent shall provide the technical assistance described in subdivision (a) to any county office of education that fails to meet the standards for performance or expectations for improvements across more than one key indicator, as specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 52053, for one or more pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052.
(c)Technical assistance provided pursuant to this section at the request of a county board of education shall be paid for by the county board of education receiving assistance.
SEC. 4.Section 52072 of the Education Code is amended to read:52072.(a)The Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, identify school districts in need of intervention.
(b)The Superintendent shall only intervene in a school district that meets both of the following criteria:
(1)The school district did not meet the standards for performance or expectations for improvement for three or more pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 or, if the school district has less than three pupil subgroups, all of the school districts pupil subgroups, in regard to more than one key indicator specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 52053 in three out of four consecutive school years.
(2)The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence has provided advice and assistance to the school district pursuant to Section 52071 and submits either of the following findings to the Superintendent:
(A)That the school district has failed, or is unable, to implement the recommendations of the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence.
(B)That the inadequate performance of the school district, based upon an evaluation rubric adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5, is either so persistent or acute as to require intervention by the Superintendent.
(c)For school districts identified pursuant to subdivision (a), the Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, do one or more of the following:
(1)Make changes to a local control and accountability plan adopted by the governing board of the school district.
(2)Develop and impose a budget revision, in conjunction with revisions to the local control and accountability plan, that the Superintendent determines would allow the school district to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state and local priorities.
(3)Stay or rescind an action, if that action is not required by a local collective bargaining agreement, that would prevent the school district from improving outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state or local priorities.
(4)Appoint an academic trustee to exercise the powers and authority specified in this section on his or her behalf.
(d)The Superintendent shall notify the county superintendent of schools, the county board of education, the superintendent of the school district, and the governing board of the school district of any action by the state board to direct him or her to exercise any of the powers and authorities specified in this section.
SEC. 5.Section 52072.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:52072.5.(a)The Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, identify county offices of education in need of intervention.
(b)The Superintendent shall only intervene in a county office of education that meets both of the following criteria:
(1)The county office of education did not meet the standards for performance or expectations for improvement for three or more pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 or, if the county office of education has less than three pupil subgroups, all of the county office of educations pupil subgroups, in regard to more than one key indicator specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 52053 in three out of four consecutive school years.
(2)The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence has provided advice and assistance to the county office of education pursuant to Section 52071.5 and submits either of the following findings to the Superintendent:
(A)That the county office of education has failed, or is unable, to implement the recommendations of the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence.
(B)That the inadequate performance of the county office of education, based upon an evaluation rubric adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5, is either so persistent or acute as to require intervention by the Superintendent.
(c)For county offices of education identified pursuant to subdivision (a), the Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, do one or more of the following:
(1)Make changes to a local control and accountability plan adopted by the county board of education.
(2)Develop and impose a budget revision, in conjunction with revisions to the local control and accountability plan, that the Superintendent determines would allow the county office of education to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state and local priorities.
(3)Stay or rescind an action, if that action is not required by a local collective bargaining agreement, that would prevent the county office of education from improving outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state or local priorities.
(4)Appoint an academic trustee to exercise the powers and authority specified in this section on his or her behalf.
(d)The Superintendent shall notify the county board of education and the county superintendent of schools, in writing, of any action by the state board to direct him or her to exercise any of the powers and authorities specified in this section.
SEC. 6.SEC. 2.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)(1)It is the intent of the Legislature and purpose of this article to do all of the following:
(A)Establish a coherent, aligned local-state-federal accountability system that addresses state, local, parent, community, and public needs, as well as federal requirements.
(B)Ensure ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement that encourage continuous improvement and the closure of opportunity and achievement gaps.
(C)Establish a mechanism using multiple measures that meaningfully differentiates the performance of schools and identifies schools and local educational agencies in need of technical assistance, support, and intervention.
(2)It is further the intent of Legislature that the accountability system continues to support and advance the framework established by the local control funding formula and Californias emphasis on continuous improvement, technical assistance, and support.
(b)For purposes of a statewide accountability system and to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 and with federal law, the state board shall adopt a statewide accountability system that does all of the following:
(a)(1)Satisfies the accountability system requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95).
(2)The state board may require local educational agencies to submit additional data to the state board or the department in order to meet those requirements.
(2)Aligns Californias local control framework, which is focused on identifying and supporting local educational agencies with the additional need to identify, support, and improve Californias highest need schools. In doing so, the state board shall do all of the following:
(A)Set clear, ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement toward each of the key indicators described in paragraph (3) for pupils overall and for each numerically significant subgroup, as identified in Section 52052. To comply with federal law, these improvement standards shall be differentiated by subgroup so that subgroups that start off at lower performance levels make greater growth to achieve the statewide standards.
(B)Establish a mechanism to meaningfully differentiate the performance of all public schools, to identify local educational agencies for purposes of Sections 52072 and 52072.5 on an annual basis based on outcomes for all pupils and for each subgroup of pupils using the multiple measures identified in paragraph (3), and to do all of the following:
(i)Distinguish multiple levels of performance for purposes of continuous improvement, transparency, meaningful stakeholder engagement, recognition, and support, including the identification of the following:
(I)Not less than the lowest-performing 5 percent of all schools receiving federal Title I funds and all public high schools in the state failing to graduate one-third or more of their pupils.
(II)All schools in which any subgroup of pupils is consistently underperforming, as determined by the state board, based on all of the indicators identified in paragraph (3) and the system established pursuant this section.
(III)All schools where any one subgroup of pupils, on its own, would lead that school to be in the lowest 5 percent of schools for pupils overall.
(ii)Support parents and guardians in making informed school decisions on behalf of their children.
(iii)Enable school districts, county offices of education, the department, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to identify schools for recognition, support, and assistance and ensure that support and assistance is provided to at least those schools identified pursuant to clause (i).
(C)Comply with all notification, stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities required by Section 1111(d) of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95).
(b)
(3)(A)Relies upon data from key indicators established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5. At a minimum, for purposes of paragraph (2), those key indicators shall include, if not already included by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5, all of the following:
(i)For elementary and middle schools:
(I)A measure of pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science.
(II)A measure of academic growth.
(III)A measure of progress toward English proficiency.
(IV)A measure of chronic absenteeism.
(V)A measure of school climate.
(ii)For high schools:
(I)A measure of pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science.
(II)A measure of graduation rates.
(III)A measure of progress toward English proficiency.
(IV)A measure of college and career readiness.
(V)A measure of chronic absenteeism.
(VI)A measure of school climate.
(B)This paragraph shall not be construed as to preclude the state board from including additional statewide measures that can be disaggregated by subgroup in the accountability system for purposes of meaningful differentiation of all schools or from grouping the measures into common clusters. Furthermore, it is the intent of the Legislature that the state will continue to use the evaluation rubrics established pursuant to Section 52064.5 and all indicators identified as state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 and the subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 for purposes of continuous improvement and to guide the provision of technical assistance, support, and intervention.
(C)In order to comply with federal law, the academic indicators specified in subclauses (I) to (III), inclusive, of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall receive substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight than is afforded to all other indicators.
(D)For purposes of paragraph (2), performance of subgroups shall receive substantial weight.
(c)Working in concert with the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence established pursuant to Section 52074, utilizes a multitiered system of review, support, collaboration, and intervention, aligning the level of support to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school.
(4)Provides the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence established pursuant to Section 52074, county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multitiered system of review and assistance. Notwithstanding the key indicators used for purposes of paragraph (2), in identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local educational agency, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence and the county superintendents of schools shall analyze data aligned with all the state priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066 in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school or schools.
(5)Ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. Parents and the public shall have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the states priority areas for purposes of local control and accountability plans and the local control funding formula. It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that any Web-based data and analysis tools should enable all stakeholders to readily identify strengths and weaknesses, identify inequities between schools and subgroups of pupils across multiple measures, monitor academic achievement and improvement, provide for meaningful differentiation, as required by Section 1111(c)(4)(C) of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95), and enable users to download data and reports in machine-readable formats.
SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because this act implements a federal law or regulation and results only in costs mandated by the federal government, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
SEC. 2.Section 52071 of the Education Code is amended to read:52071.(a)If a county superintendent of schools does not approve a local control and accountability plan or annual update to the local control and accountability plan approved by a governing board of a school district, or if the governing board of a school district requests technical assistance, the county superintendent of schools shall provide technical assistance, including, among other things, any of the following:
(1)Identification of the school districts strengths and weaknesses in regard to the state priorities described in subdivision (d) of Section 52060, communicated in writing to the school district. This identification shall include a review of effective, evidence-based programs that apply to the school districts goals.
(2)Assignment of an academic expert or team of academic experts to assist the school district in identifying and implementing effective programs that are designed to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052. The county superintendent of schools may also solicit another school district within the county to act as a partner to the school district in need of technical assistance.
(3)Request that the Superintendent assign the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to provide advice and assistance to the school district.
(b)Using an evaluation rubric adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5, the county superintendent of schools shall provide the technical assistance described in subdivision (a) to any school district that fails to improve pupil achievement across more than one state priority described in subdivision (d) of Section 52060 meet the standards for performance or expectations for improvements across more than one key indicator, as specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 52053, for one or more pupil subgroup subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052.
(c)Technical assistance provided pursuant to this section at the request of a school district shall be paid for by the school district requesting the assistance.
SEC. 3.Section 52071.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:52071.5.(a)If the Superintendent does not approve a local control and accountability plan or annual update to the local control and accountability plan approved by a county board of education, or if the county board of education requests technical assistance, the Superintendent shall provide technical assistance, including, among other things, any of the following:
(1)Identification of the county board of educations strengths and weaknesses in regard to the state priorities described in subdivision (d) of Section 52066, communicated in writing to the county board of education. This identification shall include a review of effective, evidence-based programs that apply to the boards goals.
(2)Assignment of an academic expert or team of academic experts, or the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence established pursuant to Section 52074, to assist the county board of education in identifying and implementing effective programs that are designed to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052. The Superintendent may also solicit another county office of education to act as a partner to the county office of education in need of technical assistance.
(b)Using an evaluation rubric adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5, the Superintendent shall provide the technical assistance described in subdivision (a) to any county office of education that fails to improve pupil achievement in regard to more than one state priority described in subdivision (d) of Section 52066 meet the standards for performance or expectations for improvements across more than one key indicator, as specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 52053, for one or more pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052.
(c)Technical assistance provided pursuant to this section at the request of a county board of education shall be paid for by the county board of education receiving assistance.
SEC. 4.Section 52072 of the Education Code is amended to read:52072.(a)The Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, identify school districts in need of intervention.
(b)The Superintendent shall only intervene in a school district that meets both of the following criteria:
(1)The school district did not improve the outcomes meet the standards for performance or expectations for improvement for three or more pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 or, if the school district has less than three pupil subgroups, all of the school districts pupil subgroups, in regard to more than one state or local priority key indicator specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 52053 in three out of four consecutive school years.
(2)The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence has provided advice and assistance to the school district pursuant to Section 52071 and submits either of the following findings to the Superintendent:
(A)That the school district has failed, or is unable, to implement the recommendations of the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence.
(B)That the inadequate performance of the school district, based upon an evaluation rubric adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5, is either so persistent or acute as to require intervention by the Superintendent.
(c)For school districts identified pursuant to subdivision (a), the Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, do one or more of the following:
(1)Make changes to a local control and accountability plan adopted by the governing board of the school district.
(2)Develop and impose a budget revision, in conjunction with revisions to the local control and accountability plan, that the Superintendent determines would allow the school district to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state and local priorities.
(3)Stay or rescind an action, if that action is not required by a local collective bargaining agreement, that would prevent the school district from improving outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state or local priorities.
(4)Appoint an academic trustee to exercise the powers and authority specified in this section on his or her behalf.
(d)The Superintendent shall notify the county superintendent of schools, the county board of education, the superintendent of the school district, and the governing board of the school district of any action by the state board to direct him or her to exercise any of the powers and authorities specified in this section.
SEC. 5.Section 52072.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:52072.5.(a)The Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, identify county offices of education in need of intervention.
(b)The Superintendent shall only intervene in a county office of education that meets both of the following criteria:
(1)The county office of education did not improve the outcomes meet the standards for performance or expectations for improvement for three or more pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 or, if the county office of education has less than three pupil subgroups, all of the county office of educations pupil subgroups, in regard to more than one state or local priority key indicator specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 52053 in three out of four consecutive school years.
(2)The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence has provided advice and assistance to the county office of education pursuant to Section 52071.5 and submits either of the following findings to the Superintendent:
(A)That the county office of education has failed, or is unable, to implement the recommendations of the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence.
(B)That the inadequate performance of the county office of education, based upon an evaluation rubric adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5, is either so persistent or acute as to require intervention by the Superintendent.
(c)For county offices of education identified pursuant to subdivision (a), the Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, do one or more of the following:
(1)Make changes to a local control and accountability plan adopted by the county board of education.
(2)Develop and impose a budget revision, in conjunction with revisions to the local control and accountability plan, that the Superintendent determines would allow the county office of education to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state and local priorities.
(3)Stay or rescind an action, if that action is not required by a local collective bargaining agreement, that would prevent the county office of education from improving outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state or local priorities.
(4)Appoint an academic trustee to exercise the powers and authority specified in this section on his or her behalf.
(d)The Superintendent shall notify the county board of education and the county superintendent of schools, in writing, of any action by the state board to direct him or her to exercise any of the powers and authorities specified in this section.
SEC. 6.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
For purposes of a statewide accountability system and to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities established pursuant Sections 52060 and 52066 and with federal law, the state board shall adopt a statewide accountability system that does all of the following:
(a)(1)Satisfies the accountability system requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95).
(2)The state board may require local educational agencies to submit additional data to the state board or the department in order to meet those requirements.
(b)Relies upon data from key indicators established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5.
(c)Working in concert with the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence established pursuant to Section 52074, utilizes a multitiered system of review, support, collaboration, and intervention, aligning the level of support to the needs of the local educational agency or individual school.
SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because this act implements a federal law or regulation and results only in costs mandated by the federal government, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Jun 2, 2016 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| Sep 9, 2016 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2:30 p.m. |
| Aug 30, 2016 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6456.). |
| Aug 30, 2016 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Aug 26, 2016 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 28 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77. |
| Aug 24, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 5344.). |
| Aug 24, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Aug 22, 2016 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 19, 2016 | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Aug 15, 2016 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 11, 2016 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 11). |
| Aug 8, 2016 | Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Aug 2, 2016 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Aug 1, 2016 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (June 29). |
| Jun 9, 2016 | Referred to Com. on ED. |
| Feb 19, 2016 | Introduced. To print. |
| Jun 1, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 75. Noes 1.) |
| Jun 1, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 75. Noes 1. Page 5115.) |
| Jun 1, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| May 31, 2016 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 27, 2016 | Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading. |
| May 27, 2016 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 19. Noes 0.) (May 27). |
| May 4, 2016 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Apr 21, 2016 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (April 20). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 12, 2016 | Re-referred to Com. on ED. |
| Apr 11, 2016 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 8, 2016 | Referred to Com. on ED. |
| Feb 22, 2016 | Read first time. |
| Feb 21, 2016 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 22. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2016 | AB 2548 WEBER Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 24, 2016 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB2548 Weber By Liu | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 11, 2016 | Do pass | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Aug 8, 2016 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 29, 2016 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Education |
Passed |
|
| Jun 1, 2016 | AB 2548 WEBER Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 27, 2016 | Do pass as amended. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 20, 2016 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Education |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| A World Fit For Kids! | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Abriendo Puertas | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Ad Voice | * Indeterminate | Jun 29, 2016 |
| Alliance for Boys and Men of Color | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Asian & Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Asian American Advancing Justice-California | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Black Parallel School board | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Bohbot & Riles, PC | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Brea Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| CA Charter Schools Association | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| California Alliance of African American Educators | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| California Chamber Of Commerce | * Indeterminate | Jun 29, 2016 |
| California Charter Schools Association Advocates | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| California Teachers Association | * Indeterminate | Jun 29, 2016 |
| California Transit Association | * Support | Jun 20, 2018 |
| Californians Together | ** Support | Aug 24, 2016 |
| Cambridge Child Development Center | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Center for Ecoliteracy | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Center For Leadership Equity and Research | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Children Now | ** Support | Aug 24, 2016 |
| Children's Defense Fund-California | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Congregations Building Community | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Desert Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Dolores Huerta Foundation | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Education Trust-West | ** Support | Aug 24, 2016 |
| Educators 4 Excellence | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Edvoice | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Families and Schools | * Support | Apr 20, 2016 |
| Families In Schools | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Fight Crime and Invest in Kids | * Support | Apr 20, 2016 |
| Fight Crime: Invest in Kids - California | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| First 5 Santa Clara County | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Foster Care Alumni of America, CA Chapter | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Future is Now | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Gatepath | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Green Dot Public Schools | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Half Moon Bay Brewing Company | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Harbour Consulting | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Hayward Unified School District | * Indeterminate | Jun 29, 2016 |
| Honor Kids International, Peace Village Sanctuary | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Innovate Public Schools | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| InsideOUT Writers | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Issokson and Associates | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Jumpstart California | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| KIDS' OWN WISDOM | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| LA Metro | * Support | Jun 20, 2018 |
| LA Voice | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Lutheran Office of Public Policy-California | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Making Change For Children | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Mission Readiness | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Mothers' Club Family Learning Center | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Multicultural Council of America | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| National Center for Youth Law | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Opening Doors | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Our Family Coalition | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Parent Revolution | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Partnership for Children&Youth | * Indeterminate | Jun 29, 2016 |
| PICO California | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Public Counsel | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Raineth Housing | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| ReadyNation | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Sacramento Area Congregations Together | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Stoke Elementary School | * Indeterminate | Jun 29, 2016 |
| Students Matter | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Studentsfirst | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Teach for America | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Teach Plus | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| The GreenHouse | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| United Way of Greater Los Angeles | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| United Ways Of California | * Indeterminate | Jun 29, 2016 |
| University High School in Los Angeles | * Indeterminate | Jun 29, 2016 |
| Veteran Teacher | * Indeterminate | Jun 29, 2016 |
| Women's Empowerment | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
| Youth Policy and Programs Consultant | ** Support | May 4, 2016 |
GOVERNOR'S VETO
GV Bill Id:AB 2548
Author:(Weber)
As Enrolled Ver:September 9, 2016
2/3 vote
ASSEMBLY: | 75-1 | (June 1, 2016) | SENATE: | 39-0 | (August 24, 2016) |
ASSEMBLY: | 78-0 | (August 30, 2016) |
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY: Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt a statewide accountability system aligned to state and federal accountability requirements. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires the accountability system to:
- Be a single, integrated system that aligns local, state, and federal accountability requirements;
- Satisfy the requirements of the federal Every Student Succeed Act (ESSA);
- Align California's local control framework with the need to identify, support, and improve California's highest need schools; and
- Rely upon data from key indicators adopted by the SBE pursuant to the SBE-adopted evaluation rubrics.
- Requires the SBE, with regard to developing the statewide accountability system, to rely upon data from key indicators established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics adopted by the SBE. Requires, at a minimum, the key indicators to include all of the following:
- For elementary and middles schools, a measure of: pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science; academic growth; progress toward English proficiency; chronic absenteeism; school climate.
- For high schools, a measure of: pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science; graduation rates; progress toward English proficiency; college and career readiness; chronic absenteeism; and school climate.
- Requires substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight, to be given to the measure of: pupil achievement in English language arts (ELA), math and science; academic growth and progress towards English proficiency.
- Requires, in identifying appropriate assistance for a school or Local Educational Agency (LEA), the California collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) and the county superintendents of schools to analyze data aligned with all the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the LEA or individual school or schools.
- Requires the accountability system to ensure the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. Parents and the public must have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the state's priority areas for purposes of local control and accountability plans and the local control funding formula.
- Requires notifications of stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities to be translated in the top five languages as identified by the California Department of Education (CDE).
- States the intent of the Legislature that, to the extent required by state and federal law, the information on school, school district, and subgroup performance be made available in the top five languages as identified by the CDE.
The Senate amendments:
- Require the accountability system to be a single system that integrates local, state, and federal accountability requirements;
- Require the measure of progress toward English proficiency to include, but not be limited to, data on the reclassification rates of English learners and long-term English learners, when available;
- Require the SBE to establish a mechanism to meaningfully differentiate the performance of all public schools based on pupil outcomes for purposes of advice and assistance from the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence and county offices of education;
- Require notifications of stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities to be translated in the top five languages as identified by the California Department of Education (CDE); and
- State the intent of the Legislature that, to the extent required by state and federal law, the information on school, school district, and subgroup performance be made available in the top five languages as identified by the CDE.
EXISTING LAW:
- Establishes the Local Control Funding Formula, requires local educational agencies to adopt and annually update a Local Control and Accountability Plan that includes a description of:
- The annual goals, for all students and each subgroup, to be achieved for each of the state priorities and for any additional local priorities; and
- The specific actions the school district or county office of education will take during each year to achieve the goals, including any specific actions to correct any deficiencies in regard to the state priorities (Education Code (EC) Section 42238, et seq., Section 52060, and Section 52066)
- Requires the SBE to adopt evaluation rubrics to assist:
- A school district, county office of education or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement;
- A county superintendent of schools in identifying school districts and charter schools in need of technical assistance and the specific priorities upon which the technical assistance should be focused; and
- The Superintendent of Public Instruction in identifying school districts for intervention.
- Requires the SBE to adopt, as part of the evaluation rubrics, standards for school district and individual school performance and expectations for improvement in regard to each of the state priorities. (EC Section 52064.5)
Existing federal law:
- Establishes the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which requires states to establish accountability systems that include the following indicators:
- Proficiency in reading and math; Graduation rates for high schools; English language proficiency;
- For elementary and middle schools, student growth or another indicator that is valid, reliable, and statewide; and
- At least one other indicator of school quality or success, such as measures of safety, student engagement, or educator engagement.
- Requires the accountability system to have substantial weights on specified academic indicators.
- Requires states, at least once every three years, to identify the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools and all high schools with a graduation rate that is below 67% for comprehensive support. (United States Code, Title 20, § 6301, et seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
- Unknown General Fund costs, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for CDE to comply with the data components of this bill. This bill requires data to be provided to parents and the public that is "meaningful and accessible" and displayed through an electronic platform. The bill requires parents and the public to have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the state's priority areas. The current school data systems, CALPADs and DataQuest, do not present data in this format. It is not clear if CDE would be able to adapt existing systems or if a new data system would need to be developed. Either way, significant resources would be needed to present data in this manner.
- Unknown Proposition 98/GF cost pressures, in the millions of dollars, to the extent this expanded accountability system identifies more school districts or school sites in need of state intervention and assistance.
- The CDE estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $320,000 for two positions to support the development, implementation, and maintenance of a new state/federal aligned accountability system. These positions are needed irrespective of this bill. The CDE has submitted a budget request for this staffing support and the request is still being considered by the Legislature.
COMMENTS: According to co-sponsors of this bill, Children Now and Education Trust West, this bill will align the state and federal accountability requirements, avoiding the confusing and sometimes conflicting systems of the past, and bringing together the strengths of both systems to promote high levels of achievement and equity. Specifically, according to the sponsors, the bill proposes to establish common "key indicators" that apply to both districts and schools and also align with the state's values. The bill also sets forth criteria for identifying districts and schools in need of support and improvement and clarifies that the CCEE and county superintendents shall analyze data aligned with all of the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local education agency or individual school or schools. The bill also requires the development of a data dashboard, showing student outcomes from multiple measures.
I am returning Assembly Bill 2548 without my signature.
This bill would impose new requirements for the public school accountability system that the State Board of Education has already developed.
The Board has spent more than two years listening to parents, students, teachers, school leaders and the public in order to create a thoughtful and integrated federal, state and local accountability system based on the Local Control Funding Formula.
On September 8, 2016, the Board adopted the Local Control Funding Formula indicators which serve as the foundation of the new accountability system. The Board is committed to continuously improving the system and has an annual review process in place for just that reason. It is unnecessary and premature to impose additional requirements at this time.
Analysis Prepared by: Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0005138
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2548
Author:(Weber)
As Amended Ver:August 19, 2016
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: | 75-1 | (June 1, 2016) | SENATE: | 39-0 | (August 24, 2016) |
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY: Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt a statewide accountability system aligned to state and federal accountability requirements. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires the accountability system to:
- Be a single, integrated system that aligns local, state, and federal accountability requirements;
- Satisfy the requirements of the federal Every Student Succeed Act (ESSA);
- Align California's local control framework with the need to identify, support, and improve California's highest need schools; and
- Rely upon data from key indicators adopted by the SBE pursuant to the SBE-adopted evaluation rubrics.
- Requires the SBE, with regard to developing the statewide accountability system, to rely upon data from key indicators established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics adopted by the SBE. Requires, at a minimum, the key indicators to include all of the following:
- For elementary and middle schools, a measure of: pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science; academic growth; progress toward English proficiency; chronic absenteeism; school climate.
- For high schools, a measure of: pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science; graduation rates; progress toward English proficiency; college and career readiness; chronic absenteeism; and school climate.
- Requires substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight, to be given to the measure of: pupil achievement in English language arts (ELA), math and science; academic growth and progress towards English proficiency.
- Requires, in identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local educational agency (LEA), the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) and the county superintendents of schools to analyze data aligned with all the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the LEA or individual school or schools.
- Requires the accountability system to ensure the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. Parents and the public must have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the state's priority areas for purposes of local control and accountability plans and the local control funding formula.
- Requires notifications of stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities to be translated in the top five languages as identified by the California Department of Education (CDE).
- States the intent of the Legislature that, to the extent required by state and federal law, the information on school, school district, and subgroup performance be made available in the top five languages as identified by the California Department of Education.
The Senate amendments:
- Require the accountability system to be a single system that integrates local, state, and federal accountability requirements;
- Require the measure of progress toward English proficiency to include, but not be limited to, data on the reclassification rates of English learners and long-term English learners, when available;
- Require the SBE to establish a mechanism to meaningfully differentiate the performance of all public schools based on pupil outcomes for purposes of advice and assistance from the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence and county offices of education;
- Require notifications of stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities to be translated in the top five languages as identified by the California Department of Education (CDE); and
- State the intent of the Legislature that, to the extent required by state and federal law, the information on school, school district, and subgroup performance be made available in the top five languages as identified by the CDE.
EXISTING LAW:
- Establishes the Local Control Funding Formula, requires local educational agencies to adopt and annually update a Local Control and Accountability Plan that includes a description of:
- The annual goals, for all students and each subgroup, to be achieved for each of the state priorities and for any additional local priorities; and
- The specific actions the school district or county office of education will take during each year to achieve the goals, including any specific actions to correct any deficiencies in regard to the state priorities (Education Code Section 42238, et seq., Section 52060 and Section 52066)
- Requires the SBE to adopt evaluation rubrics to assist:
- A school district, county office of education or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement;
- A county superintendent of schools in identifying school districts and charter schools in need of technical assistance and the specific priorities upon which the technical assistance should be focused; and
- The Superintendent of Public Instruction in identifying school districts for intervention.
- Requires the SBE to adopt, as part of the evaluation rubrics, standards for school district and individual school performance and expectations for improvement in regard to each of the state priorities. (Education Code Section 52064.5)
Existing federal law:
- Establishes the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which requires states to establish accountability systems that include the following indicators:
- Proficiency in reading and math; graduation rates for high schools; English language proficiency;
- For elementary and middle schools, student growth or another indicator that is valid, reliable, and statewide; and
- At least one other indicator of school quality or success, such as measures of safety, student engagement, or educator engagement.
- Requires the accountability system to have substantial weights on specified academic indicators.
- Requires states, at least once every three years, to identify the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools and all high schools with a graduation rate that is below 67% for comprehensive support. (United States Code, Title 20, Section 6301, et seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
- Unknown General Fund costs, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for CDE to comply with the data components of this bill. This bill requires data to be provided to parents and the public that is "meaningful and accessible" and displayed through an electronic platform. This bill requires parents and the public to have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the state's priority areas. The current school data systems, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADs) and DataQuest, do not present data in this format. It is not clear if CDE would be able to adapt existing systems or if a new data system would need to be developed. Either way, significant resources would be needed to present data in this manner.
- Unknown Proposition 98/GF cost pressures, in the millions of dollars, to the extent this expanded accountability system identifies more school districts or school sites in need of state intervention and assistance.
- The CDE estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $320,000 for two positions to support the development, implementation, and maintenance of a new state/federal aligned accountability system. These positions are needed irrespective of this bill. The CDE has submitted a budget request for this staffing support and the request is still being considered by the Legislature.
COMMENTS: According to co-sponsors of this bill, Children Now and Education Trust West, this bill will align the state and federal accountability requirements, avoiding the confusing and sometimes conflicting systems of the past, and bringing together the strengths of both systems to promote high levels of achievement and equity. Specifically, according to the sponsors, the bill proposes to establish common "key indicators" that apply to both districts and schools and also align with the state's values. The bill also sets forth criteria for identifying districts and schools in need of support and improvement and clarifies that the CCEE and county superintendents shall analyze data aligned with all of the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local education agency or individual school or schools. The bill also requires the development of a data dashboard, showing student outcomes from multiple measures.
Analysis Prepared by: Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0004841
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2548
:
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 8-0, 6/29/16
AYES: Liu, Block, Hancock, Huff, Leyva, Monning, Pan, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Mendoza
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-1, 6/1/16 - See last page for vote
Education Trust-West
DIGEST: This bill requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to establish state performance standards for key indicators and adopt an accountability system for K-12 public schools that is aligned to the requirements of federal law, relies upon data from specified key indicators, and ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/16 add the requirement for specified information to be translated to the extent already required by law, and expands measure of English proficiency to include additional data when available.
Existing federal law:
- Establishes the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which requires states to establish accountability systems that include the following indicators:
- Proficiency in reading and math;
- Graduation rates for high schools;
- English language proficiency;
- For elementary and middle schools, student growth or another indicator that is valid, reliable, and statewide; and
- At least one other indicator of school quality or success, such as measures of safety, student engagement, or educator engagement.
- Requires the accountability system to have substantial weights on indicators a) through d) and, in aggregate, indicators a) through d) must have much greater weight than indicator e).
- Requires states, at least once every three years, to identify the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools and all high schools with a graduation rate that is below 67% for comprehensive support. (United States Code, Title 20, § 6301, et seq.)
Existing state law:
- Establishes the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to adopt and annually update a Local Control and Accountability Plan that includes a description of:
- The annual goals, for all students and each subgroup, to be achieved for each of the state priorities and for any additional local priorities.
- The specific actions the school district or county office of education will take during each year to achieve the goals, including any specific actions to correct any deficiencies in regard to the state priorities. (Education Code § 42238, et seq., § 52060 and § 52066)
- Requires the SBE to adopt evaluation rubrics to assist:
- A school district, county office of education or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement.
- A county superintendent of schools in identifying school districts and charter schools in need of technical assistance and the specific priorities upon which the technical assistance should be focused.
- The Superintendent of Public Instruction in identifying school districts for intervention.
- Requires the SBE to adopt, as part of the evaluation rubrics, standards for school district and individual school performance and expectations for improvement in regard to each of the state priorities. (EC § 52064.5)
This bill:
- Requires the SBE to adopt a statewide accountability system, to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities and federal law, that meets all of the following requirements:
- Is a single, integrated system that aligns local, state, and federal accountability requirements.
- Satisfies the accountability system requirements of the federal ESSA.
- Aligns the state’s local control framework, which is focused on identifying and supporting local educational agencies with the additional need to identify, support, and improve the highest need schools.
- Relies upon data from specified key indicators (see #2 below) established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics.
- Provides the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE), county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multi-tiered system of review and assistance.
- Ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform.
Key indicators
- Requires the key indicators for the accountability system to include, if not already included by the SBE, all of the following:
For elementary and middle schools
- A measure of student achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics and science.
- A measure of academic growth.
- A measure of progress toward English proficiency, including but not limited to, data on the reclassification rates of English learners and long-term English learners when available.
- A measure of chronic absenteeism.
- A measure of school climate.
For high schools
- A measure of student achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics and science.
- A measure of graduation rates.
- A measure of progress toward English proficiency, including but not limited to, data on the reclassification rates of English learners and long-term English learners when available.
- A measure of college and career readiness.
- A measure of chronic absenteeism.
- A measure of school climate.
- Requires the academic indicators in a)-c) and f)-h) above to receive substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight than is afforded to all other indicators.
- Requires the performance of subgroups to receive substantial weight.
- Provides that the SBE is not precluded from including additional statewide measures that can be disaggregated by subgroup in the accountability system for purposes of meaningful differentiation of all schools or from grouping the measures into common clusters.
- States legislative intent that the state will continue to use the evaluation rubrics and all indicators identified as state priorities and subgroups for purposes of continuous improvement and to guide the provision of technical assistance, support and intervention.
Alignment of state and federal accountability
- Requires the SBE to do all of the following:
- Set clear, ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement toward each of the key indicators described in #2 for students overall and for each numerically significant subgroup.
- Establish a mechanism to meaningfully differentiate the performance of all public schools, to identify school districts and county offices of education for intervention or technical assistance on an annual basis based on outcomes for all students and for each subgroup using the key indicators (#2) and to do all of the following:
- Distinguish multiple levels of performance for purposes of continuous improvement, transparency, meaningful stakeholder engagement, recognition, and support, as specified.
- Support parents in making informed school decisions on behalf of their children.
- Enable school districts, county offices of education, the California Department of Education, and the CCEE to identify schools for recognition, support, and assistance and ensure that support and assistance is provided to at least those schools identified pursuant to i).
- Comply with all notification, stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities required by the federal ESSA, and to the extend required by state and federal law, ensure notifications are translated in the top five languages as identified by the California Department of Education.
- Requires the standards for improvement to be differentiated by subgroup so that subgroups that start off at lower performance levels make greater growth to achieve the statewide standards.
Multiple levels of performance
- Provides that the multiple level of performance includes the identification of the following:
- Not less than the lowest-performing 5% of all schools receiving federal Title I funds and all public high schools in the state failing to graduate one-third or more of their students.
- All schools in which any subgroup of students is consistently underperforming, as determined by the SBE, based on all of the key indicators in #2 and the accountability system established pursuant to this bill.
- All schools where any one subgroup of students, on its own, would lead that school to be in the lowest 5% of schools for students overall.
Technical assistance and intervention
- Requires the CCEE and county superintendents of schools, in identifying appropriate assistance for a school or LEA, to analyze data aligned with all the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of LEAs or individual schools.
Digital dashboard
- Requires that parents and the public have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, student performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the state’s LCFF and Local Control and Accountability Plan priority areas.
- States legislative intent to ensure that any Web-based data and analysis tools should enable all stakeholders to readily identify strengths and weaknesses, identify inequities between schools and subgroups of students across multiple measures, monitor academic achievement and improvement, provide for meaningful differentiation, and enable users to download data and reports in machine-readable formats.
Comments
Status of the new accountability system. The LCFF, among other things, requires school districts and county offices of education to develop and annually update a Local Control And Accountability Plan that includes a description of the annual goals to be achieved for each of the eight state priorities and a description of the specific actions that will be taken to achieve the identified goals of the district or county office of education. Pursuant to the LCFF, the SBE is developing a new accountability system that relies upon multiple measures (rather than solely on test scores), and encompasses a system of continuous improvement and support for schools.
According to the SBE, the new accountability system will build on the foundations of the LCFF, consisting of the Local Control And Accountability Plan, the evaluation rubrics, and the CCEE support structure. The SBE has taken several actions related to the development of the new accountability system; some notable recent actions include:
- Approved a set of indicators that form the foundation for the new multiple measures accountability system:
- Student test scores and individual growth.
- Progress of English learners toward English proficiency.
- Graduation rates.
- Measures of student engagement including suspension rates (and chronic absence when available at the state level).
- Approved a measure of college and career readiness, as specified.
- Approved a methodology for establishing standards for specified state priorities.
- Approved inclusion of a standard for the use of local climate surveys to support a broader assessment of performance.
- Approved inclusion of an Equity Report, which identifies instances where any student subgroup is in the two lowest performance categories on a state indicator.
- Directed staff to develop, in advance of the September 2016 SBE meeting, a proposed timeline through the end of the 2017 calendar year that addresses the further developmental work after approval of the initial phase of the evaluation rubrics, as specified.
- Approved a method for calculating performance as a combination of outcome and improvement, allowing performance to be differentiated at the school, district and county office of education levels as well as for student subgroups.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- Unknown, but likely significant costs in the hundreds of thousands, to the California Department of Education related to the creation of a data and reporting system on school performance according to the specifications provided in this bill. (General Fund)
- Possible reimbursable state mandate costs for county superintendents of schools to analyze data related to the state priorities to align the level of support and intervention provided to the needs of the LEAs. See staff comments. (Proposition 98)
Children Now (co-source)
Education Trust-West (co-source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/18/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-1, 6/1/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, 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, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Rendon
NOES: Medina
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hadley, Rodriguez, Thurmond, Wood
8/22/16 23:05:45
**** END ****
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2548
:
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 8-0, 6/29/16
AYES: Liu, Block, Hancock, Huff, Leyva, Monning, Pan, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Mendoza
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-1, 6/1/16 - See last page for vote
Education Trust-West
DIGEST: This bill requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to establish state performance standards for key indicators and adopt an accountability system for K-12 public schools that is aligned to the requirements of federal law, relies upon data from specified key indicators, and ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance.
Existing federal law:
- Establishes the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which requires states to establish accountability systems that include the following indicators:
- Proficiency in reading and math;
- Graduation rates for high schools;
- English language proficiency;
- For elementary and middle schools, student growth or another indicator that is valid, reliable, and statewide; and
- At least one other indicator of school quality or success, such as measures of safety, student engagement, or educator engagement.
- Requires the accountability system to have substantial weights on indicators a) through d) and, in aggregate, indicators a) through d) must have much greater weight than indicator e).
- Requires states, at least once every three years, to identify the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools and all high schools with a graduation rate that is below 67% for comprehensive support. (United States Code, Title 20, § 6301, et seq.)
Existing state law:
- Establishes the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to adopt and annually update a Local Control and Accountability Plan that includes a description of:
- The annual goals, for all students and each subgroup, to be achieved for each of the state priorities and for any additional local priorities.
- The specific actions the school district or county office of education will take during each year to achieve the goals, including any specific actions to correct any deficiencies in regard to the state priorities. (Education Code § 42238, et seq., § 52060 and § 52066)
- Requires the SBE to adopt evaluation rubrics to assist:
- A school district, county office of education or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement.
- A county superintendent of schools in identifying school districts and charter schools in need of technical assistance and the specific priorities upon which the technical assistance should be focused.
- The Superintendent of Public Instruction in identifying school districts for intervention.
- Requires the SBE to adopt, as part of the evaluation rubrics, standards for school district and individual school performance and expectations for improvement in regard to each of the state priorities. (EC § 52064.5)
This bill:
- Requires the SBE to adopt a statewide accountability system, to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities and federal law, that does all of the following:
- Satisfies the accountability system requirements of the federal ESSA.
- Aligns the state’s local control framework, which is focused on identifying and supporting local educational agencies with the additional need to identify, support, and improve the highest need schools.
- Relies upon data from specified key indicators (see #2 below) established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics.
- Provides the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE), county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multi-tiered system of review and assistance.
- Ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform.
Key indicators
- Requires the key indicators for the accountability system to include, if not already included by the SBE, all of the following:
For elementary and middle schools
- A measure of student achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics and science.
- A measure of academic growth.
- A measure of progress toward English proficiency.
- A measure of chronic absenteeism.
- A measure of school climate.
For high schools
- A measure of student achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics and science.
- A measure of graduation rates.
- A measure of progress toward English proficiency.
- A measure of college and career readiness.
- A measure of chronic absenteeism.
- A measure of school climate.
- Requires the academic indicators in a)-c) and f)-h) above to receive substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight than is afforded to all other indicators.
- Requires the performance of subgroups to receive substantial weight.
- Provides that the SBE is not precluded from including additional statewide measures that can be disaggregated by subgroup in the accountability system for purposes of meaningful differentiation of all schools or from grouping the measures into common clusters.
- States legislative intent that the state will continue to use the evaluation rubrics and all indicators identified as state priorities and subgroups for purposes of continuous improvement and to guide the provision of technical assistance, support and intervention.
Alignment of state and federal accountability
- Requires the SBE to do all of the following:
- Set clear, ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement toward each of the key indicators described in #2 for students overall and for each numerically significant subgroup.
- Establish a mechanism to meaningfully differentiate the performance of all public schools, to identify school districts and county offices of education for intervention or technical assistance on an annual basis based on outcomes for all students and for each subgroup using the key indicators (#2) and to do all of the following:
- Distinguish multiple levels of performance for purposes of continuous improvement, transparency, meaningful stakeholder engagement, recognition, and support, as specified.
- Support parents in making informed school decisions on behalf of their children.
- Enable school districts, county offices of education, the California Department of Education, and the CCEE to identify schools for recognition, support, and assistance and ensure that support and assistance is provided to at least those schools identified pursuant to i).
- Comply with all notification, stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities required by the federal ESSA.
- Requires the standards for improvement to be differentiated by subgroup so that subgroups that start off at lower performance levels make greater growth to achieve the statewide standards.
Multiple levels of performance
- Provides that the multiple level of performance includes the identification of the following:
- Not less than the lowest-performing 5% of all schools receiving federal Title I funds and all public high schools in the state failing to graduate one-third or more of their students.
- All schools in which any subgroup of students is consistently underperforming, as determined by the SBE, based on all of the key indicators in #2 and the accountability system established pursuant to this bill.
- All schools where any one subgroup of students, on its own, would lead that school to be in the lowest 5% of schools for students overall.
Technical assistance and intervention
- Requires the CCEE and county superintendents of schools, in identifying appropriate assistance for a school or LEA, to analyze data aligned with all the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of LEAs or individual schools.
Digital dashboard
- Requires that parents and the public have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, student performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the state’s LCFF and Local Control and Accountability Plan priority areas.
- States legislative intent to ensure that any Web-based data and analysis tools should enable all stakeholders to readily identify strengths and weaknesses, identify inequities between schools and subgroups of students across multiple measures, monitor academic achievement and improvement, provide for meaningful differentiation, and enable users to download data and reports in machine-readable formats.
Comments
Status of the new accountability system. The LCFF, among other things, requires school districts and county offices of education to develop and annually update a Local Control And Accountability Plan that includes a description of the annual goals to be achieved for each of the eight state priorities and a description of the specific actions that will be taken to achieve the identified goals of the district or county office of education. Pursuant to the LCFF, the SBE is developing a new accountability system that relies upon multiple measures (rather than solely on test scores), and encompasses a system of continuous improvement and support for schools.
According to the SBE, the new accountability system will build on the foundations of the LCFF, consisting of the Local Control And Accountability Plan, the evaluation rubrics, and the CCEE support structure. The SBE has taken several actions related to the development of the new accountability system; some notable recent actions include:
- Approved a set of indicators that form the foundation for the new multiple measures accountability system:
- Student test scores and individual growth.
- Progress of English learners toward English proficiency.
- Graduation rates.
- Measures of student engagement including suspension rates (and chronic absence when available at the state level).
- Approved a measure of college and career readiness, as specified.
- Approved a methodology for establishing standards for specified state priorities.
- Approved inclusion of a standard for the use of local climate surveys to support a broader assessment of performance.
- Approved inclusion of an Equity Report, which identifies instances where any student subgroup is in the two lowest performance categories on a state indicator.
- Directed staff to develop, in advance of the September 2016 SBE meeting, a proposed timeline through the end of the 2017 calendar year that addresses the further developmental work after approval of the initial phase of the evaluation rubrics, as specified.
- Approved a method for calculating performance as a combination of outcome and improvement, allowing performance to be differentiated at the school, district and county office of education levels as well as for student subgroups.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- Unknown, but likely significant costs in the hundreds of thousands, to the California Department of Education related to the creation of a data and reporting system on school performance according to the specifications provided in this bill. (General Fund)
- Possible reimbursable state mandate costs for county superintendents of schools to analyze data related to the state priorities to align the level of support and intervention provided to the needs of the LEAs. See staff comments. (Proposition 98)
Children Now (co-source)
Education Trust-West ((co-source)
Californians Together
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-1, 6/1/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, 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, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Rendon
NOES: Medina
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hadley, Rodriguez, Thurmond, Wood
8/15/16 20:30:00
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 2548 (Weber) - School accountability: statewide accountability system
Version: May 27, 2016 | Policy Vote: ED. 8 - 0 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: August 8, 2016 | Consultant: Jillian Kissee |
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary:
This bill requires the State Board of Education (Board) to establish state performance standards for key indicators and adopt an accountability system for kindergarten through grade 12 public schools that is aligned to the requirements of federal law, relies upon data from specified key indicators, and ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance.
Fiscal Impact:
- Unknown, but likely significant costs in the hundreds of thousands, to the California Department of Education (CDE) related to the creation of a data and reporting system on school performance according to the specifications provided in this bill. See staff comments. (General Fund)
- Possible reimbursable state mandate costs for county superintendents of schools to analyze data related to the state priorities to align the level of support and intervention provided to the needs of the local educational agencies (LEAs). See staff comments. (Proposition 98)
Background:
The Budget Act of 2013 established a new formula to allocate funding to LEAs. The formula consolidated most of the state’s numerous separate funding streams and associated restrictions. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), among other things, requires LEAs to develop and annually update a local control and accountability plan that includes a description of the annual goals to be achieved for each of the eight state priorities and a description of the specific actions that will be taken to achieve the identified goals. The LCFF statute directed the Board to develop significant components of the accountability system through regulations. The Board is currently developing a system that relies upon multiple measures and includes a system of continuous improvement and support for schools. In addition, the federal government adopted the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December 2015 which provides an opportunity to create one coherent accountability system.
The Board is scheduled to adopt evaluation rubrics in September 2016 to assist LEAs in evaluating its strengths and weaknesses; to assist a county superintendent of schools in identifying school districts and charter schools in need of technical assistance; and for the Superintendent to identify school districts in need of intervention. As part of the evaluation rubrics, the Board must adopt standards for school district and individual school performance and expectations for improvement regarding each of the state priority areas outlined in existing law.
Proposed Law:
This bill requires the Board to adopt a statewide accountability system that ensures alignment with the state priorities established in current law and with the accountability system requirements of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
In addition to satisfying federal law, the Board must adopt a statewide accountability system that:
- Aligns the state’s framework of identifying and supporting LEAs with the additional need to identify, support, and improve the state’s highest need schools. In doing so the Board is required to:
- Set clear, ambitious statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement toward each of the key indicators for all students and for each numerically significant subgroup. The bill provides that, to comply with federal law, the standards must be differentiated by subgroup so that subgroups that start off from at a lower performance level makes greater growth to achieve statewide standards.
- Establish a mechanism to:
- Meaningfully differentiate the performance of all public schools to identify LEAs in need of intervention on an annual basis based on outcomes for all students and for each subgroup of students using multiple measures.
- Distinguish multiple levels of performance for continuous improvement, transparency, meaningful stakeholder engagement, recognition, and support, including the identification of: at least the lowest performing five percent of all school receiving federal Title I funds and all high schools failing to graduate one-third or more of their students; all schools in which any subgroup of students is consistently underperforming; and all schools where any one subgroup of students would lead that school to be in the lowest five percent of schools for students overall.
- Support parents in making informed decisions on behalf of their children.
- Enable LEAs, the CDE, and the Collaborative to identify schools for recognition, support, and assistance, and ensure that support and assistance is provided to at least those in the lowest-performing five percent.
- Comply with all notification, stakeholder engagement, school support, and implementation activities required by federal law.
- Relies upon data from key indicators established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics adopted by the Board. At a minimum the key indicators must include, if not already included by the Board, a measure of all of the following:
- Student achievement in at least in English language arts, math, and science
- Academic growth
- Progress toward English proficiency
- Chronic absenteeism
- School climate.
Key indicators specific to high schools also include a measure of graduation rates and a measure of college and career readiness. Certain high school key indicators as well as the performance of subgroups are required to receive additional weight.
- Provides the Collaborative, county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multi-tiered system of review and assistance.
- Ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform.
Staff Comments:
The actual costs attributed to this bill are difficult to identify at this time as the net effect of the bill’s requirements is unclear. Some of the requirements in this bill are consistent with recent Board actions, some preempt decisions that have yet been made, or conflict with past decisions. In addition, it is difficult to know if the requirements in this bill will be inconsistent federal law as federal regulations are still under development.
With regard to including specified key indicators in the state accountability system, the Board included a high school college and career readiness indicator, consistent with this bill. It has also included chronic absenteeism, but there has been no final decision on including this as a key indicator specific to high school. In addition, this bill requires two separate key indicators for student achievement in statewide assessments and academic growth. However, the Board has adopted a state indicator that combines student achievement, when available, with a measure of individual student growth. Therefore, if enacted, the Board would have to revisit this decision. Staff notes that the new statewide science assessment is in development, and no data are currently available to be included in the indicator. Also, the Board has not yet taken action relative to weighting certain key indicators and subgroup performance as federal regulations are still being developed.
The major cost driver of this bill relates to the creation of a data and reporting system that provides information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. It further specifies that parents and the public are required to have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, student performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the state’s priority areas. The bill establishes the Legislature’s intent that the web-based data and analysis tools enable stakeholders to identify strengths and weaknesses, identify inequities between schools and subgroups of students across multiple measures, monitor academic achievement and improvement, provide for meaningful differentiation, and to allow users to download data and reports.
Though this bill requires the Board to ensure the development of this data and reporting system, the CDE is the entity with this responsibility. CDE currently provides comprehensive data on school, district, and statewide performance and the Budget Act of 2016 includes funding for the San Joaquin County Office of Education for the development of the evaluation rubrics, the School Accountability Report Cards, and a data dashboard. Existing data systems do not include the analytical and reporting features required in this bill. Therefore it is likely that significant resources would be needed to fulfill these specifications. According to the CDE, it is unclear whether this could be accomplished through enhancements to existing systems or whether a new system would need to be developed.
Finally, this bill could result in possible reimbursable state mandate costs for county superintendents of schools to analyze data related to the state priorities to align the level of support and intervention provided to the needs of the LEAs. Incremental costs beyond existing law are unclear as county offices of education are currently required to provide technical assistance under certain circumstances, including to any school district that fails to improve student achievement across more than one state priority for at least one student subgroup. The evaluation rubrics will be used to assist county superintendent of schools in identifying school districts and charter schools in need of technical assistance. It is unclear how existing law and this bill’s requirement will interact and whether it will create additional workload for county offices of education. However, by specifically mandating this activity in statute, a county office of education may be able to submit a claim for reimbursement of related activities to the Commission on State Mandates.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2548
Author: | |||
Version: | May 27, 2016 Hearing Date: June 29, 2016 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Lynn Lorber | ||
Subject: School accountability: statewide accountability system
SUMMARY
This bill requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to establish state performance standards for key indicators and adopt an accountability system for K-12 public schools that is aligned to the requirements of federal law, relies upon data from specified key indicators, and ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance.
BACKGROUND
Existing state law:
- Establishes the Local Control Funding Formula, requires local educational agencies to adopt and annually update a Local Control and Accountability Plan that includes a description of:
- The annual goals, for all students and each subgroup, to be achieved for each of the state priorities and for any additional local priorities.
- The specific actions the school district or county office of education will take during each year to achieve the goals, including any specific actions to correct any deficiencies in regard to the state priorities.
(Education Code § 42238, et seq., § 52060 and § 52066)
- Requires the SBE to adopt evaluation rubrics to assist:
- A school district, county office of education or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement.
- A county superintendent of schools in identifying school districts and charter schools in need of technical assistance and the specific priorities upon which the technical assistance should be focused.
- The Superintendent of Public Instruction in identifying school districts for intervention.
- Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt, as part of the evaluation rubrics, standards for school district and individual school performance and expectations for improvement in regard to each of the state priorities.
(EC § 52064.5)
Existing federal law:
- Establishes the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which requires states to establish accountability systems that include the following indicators:
- Proficiency in reading and math;
- Graduation rates for high schools;
- English language proficiency;
- For elementary and middle schools, student growth or another indicator that is valid, reliable, and statewide; and
- At least one other indicator of school quality or success, such as measures of safety, student engagement, or educator engagement.
- Requires the accountability system to have substantial weights on indicators a) through d) and, in aggregate, indicators a) through d) must have much greater weight than indicator e).
- Requires states, at least once every three years, to identify the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools and all high schools with a graduation rate that is below 67% for comprehensive support. (United States Code, Title 20, § 6301, et seq.)
ANALYSIS
This bill requires the SBE to establish state performance standards for key indicators and adopt an accountability system for K-12 public schools that is aligned to the requirements of federal law, relies upon data from specified key indicators, and ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires the SBE to adopt a statewide accountability system, to ensure alignment and fidelity with the state priorities and federal law, that does all of the following:
- Satisfies the accountability system requirements of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act.
- Aligns the state’s local control framework, which is focused on identifying and supporting local educational agencies with the additional need to identify, support, and improve the highest need schools.
- Relies upon data from specified key indicators (see #2 below) established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics.
- Provides the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE), county superintendents of schools, and the public with data to be used in a multi-tiered system of review and assistance.
- Ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform.
- Satisfies the accountability system requirements of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act.
Key indicators
- Requires the key indicators for the accountability system to include, if not already included by the State Board of Education (SBE), all of the following:
For elementary and middle schools
- A measure of student achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics and science.
- A measure of academic growth.
- A measure of progress toward English proficiency.
- A measure of chronic absenteeism.
- A measure of school climate.
- A measure of student achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics and science.
For high schools
- A measure of student achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics and science.
- A measure of graduation rates.
- A measure of progress toward English proficiency.
- A measure of college and career readiness.
- A measure of chronic absenteeism.
- A measure of school climate.
- A measure of student achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics and science.
- Requires the academic indicators in a)-c) and f)-h) above to receive substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight than is afforded to all other indicators.
- Requires the performance of subgroups to receive substantial weight.
- Provides that the SBE is not precluded from including additional statewide measures that can be disaggregated by subgroup in the accountability system for
purposes of meaningful differentiation of all schools or from grouping the measures into common clusters.
- States legislative intent that the state will continue to use the evaluation rubrics and all indicators identified as state priorities and subgroups for purposes of continuous improvement and to guide the provision of technical assistance, support and intervention.
Alignment of state and federal accountability
- Requires the State Board of Education to do all of the following:
- Set clear, ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement toward each of the key indicators described in #2 for students overall and for each numerically significant subgroup.
- Establish a mechanism to meaningfully differentiate the performance of all public schools, to identify school districts and county offices of education for intervention by the Superintendent of Public Instruction on an annual basis based on outcomes for all students and for each subgroup using the key indicators (#2) and to do all of the following:
- Distinguish multiple levels of performance for purposes of continuous improvement, transparency, meaningful stakeholder engagement, recognition, and support, as specified.
- Support parents in making informed school decisions on behalf of their children.
- Enable school districts, county offices of education, the California Department of Education, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to identify schools for recognition, support, and assistance and ensure that support and assistance is provided to at least those schools identified pursuant to i).
- Distinguish multiple levels of performance for purposes of continuous improvement, transparency, meaningful stakeholder engagement, recognition, and support, as specified.
- Comply with all notification, stakeholder engagement, school support, and improvement activities required by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act.
- Set clear, ambitious, statewide standards for performance and expectations for improvement toward each of the key indicators described in #2 for students overall and for each numerically significant subgroup.
- Requires the standards for improvement to be differentiated by subgroup so that subgroups that start off at lower performance levels make greater growth to achieve the statewide standards.
Multiple levels of performance
- Provides that the multiple level of performance includes the identification of the following:
- Not less than the lowest-performing 5% of all schools receiving federal Title I funds and all public high schools in the state failing to graduate one-third or more of their students.
- All schools in which any subgroup of students is consistently underperforming, as determined by the State Board of Education (SBE), based on all of the key indicators in #2 and the accountability system established pursuant to this bill.
- All schools where any one subgroup of students, on its own, would lead that school to be in the lowest 5% of schools for students overall.
- Not less than the lowest-performing 5% of all schools receiving federal Title I funds and all public high schools in the state failing to graduate one-third or more of their students.
Technical assistance and intervention
- Requires the CCEE and county superintendents of schools, in identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local educational agency (LEA), to analyze data aligned with all the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of LEAs or individual schools.
Digital dashboard
- Requires that parents and the public have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, student performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the state’s Local Control Funding Formula and Local Control and Accountability Plan priority areas.
- States legislative intent to ensure that any web-based data and analysis tools should enable all stakeholders to readily identify strengths and weaknesses, identify inequities between schools and subgroups of students across multiple measures, monitor academic achievement and improvement, provide for meaningful differentiation, and enable users to download data and reports in machine-readable formats.
STAFF COMMENTS
- Need for the bill. According to the author, “In December 2015, the federal government adopted the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) which replaces the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The California State Board of Education and California Department of Education are developing California's state accountability plan, which is slated to be submitted to the United States Department of Education as early as January 2017. The plan must be approved by the United States Department of Education in time to launch the new TK-12 public education accountability system by the 2017-18 school year. Absent legislation, the Local Control Funding Formula's focus on targeting assistance to local educational agencies based on all state priorities and ESSA's need to focus assistance on individual schools based on key indicators will result in a bifurcated system sending mixed messages similar to the dueling state and federal systems
we had under No Child Left Behind Act. California has an opportunity to create a single, coherent local-state-federal system of accountability and continuous improvement for public education.”
- Status of the new accountability system. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), among other things, requires school districts and county offices of education to develop and annually update a local control and accountability plan that includes a description of the annual goals to be achieved for each of the eight state priorities and a description of the specific actions that will be taken to achieve the identified goals of the district or county office of education. Pursuant to the LCFF, the State Board of Education (SBE) is developing a new accountability system that relies upon multiple measures (rather than solely on test scores), and encompasses a system of continuous improvement and support for schools.
According to the SBE, the new accountability system will build on the foundations of the LCFF, consisting of the local control and accountability plan, the evaluation rubrics, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence support structure. The SBE has taken several actions related to the development of the new accountability system; some notable recent actions include:- Approved a set of indicators that form the foundation for the new multiple measures accountability system:
- Student test scores and individual growth.
- Progress of English learners toward English proficiency.
- Graduation rates.
- Measures of student engagement including suspension rates (and chronic absence when available at the state level).
- Student test scores and individual growth.
- Directed staff to provide an update in July about the options for incorporating the following indicators into the evaluation rubrics:
- College and career readiness measures.
- Local school climate surveys.
- Composite measure of English learner proficiency, including English learner proficiency rates, reclassification rates, and long-term English learner rates.
- College and career readiness measures.
- Directed staff to prepare a recommendation for establishing standards for priority areas that are not addressed by the key indicators, and how those standards will be used to assess a local educational agencies eligibility for technical assistance and intervention:
- Appropriately assigned teachers, access to curriculum-aligned instructional materials, and safe, clean and functional facilities (state priority 1).
- Implementation of state academic standards (state priority 2).
- Parent engagement (state priority 3).
- Access to a broad course of study (state priority 7).
- Outcomes in a broad course of study (state priority 8).
- Appropriately assigned teachers, access to curriculum-aligned instructional materials, and safe, clean and functional facilities (state priority 1).
- Approved a method for calculating performance as a combination of outcome and improvement, allowing performance to be differentiated at the school, district and county office of education levels as well as for student subgroups.
- Approved a set of indicators that form the foundation for the new multiple measures accountability system:
This bill requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to include key indicators that the SBE has already acted to include, and additional key indicators that the SBE only recently directed its staff to provide options for incorporating the additional indicators into the evaluation rubrics. The indicators that the SBE has approved reflect those for which state-level data is available; local educational agencies would be expected to also use local indicators to ensure all state priorities are reflected. The staff recommendations are to be presented to the SBE at its July meeting.
- Weight of key indicators. This bill requires the following key indicators to receive substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight than is afforded to all other indicators, as is required by Every Student Succeeds Act:
All schools
- A measure of student achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science.
- A measure of progress toward English proficiency.
Elementary and middle schools
- A measure of academic growth.
High schools
- A measure of graduation rates.
The SBE has not yet taken action relative to weighting, as federal regulations are still being developed. Staff notes that the LCFF does not include weighting requirements, as technical assistance and intervention are based on a priority-by-priority review. - Standards for performance and expectations for improvement. The SBE approved a method for calculating performance as a combination of outcome and improvement, allowing performance to be differentiated at the school, district and county office of education levels as well as for student subgroups. This bill requires the standards for improvement to be differentiated by subgroup so that subgroups that start off at lower performance levels make greater growth to achieve the statewide standards. It appears that the draft regulations to implement Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) require a trajectory to meet a goal, which could be interpreted as this bill proposes, or that it is one of the available options. This bill codifies elements of ESSA, yet federal regulations are still under development. Is it prudent to codify provisions that may change once federal regulations are adopted?
The SBE approved a method for calculating performance as a combination of outcome and improvement. The SBE has also approved a methodology establishing five performance bands for each state indicator. According to the SBE, the performance outcome can serve as a status measurement and the performance improvement can measure changes in performance over time. This bill requires the SBE to adopt a mechanism to meaningfully differentiate the performance of all schools, including distinguish multiple levels of performance. The requirements of this bill may meet the requirements of ESSA but it is unclear if the state system of accountability will consist of multiple indicators of performance or if it will produce a single rating or index to reflect performance. (See comment # 5.) - Remaining issue. The emerging state system of school accountability currently proposes to calculate performance as a combination of outcome and improvement separately for each indicator, while draft regulations to implement ESSA require states to assign a single rating to each school. This bill does not provide a resolution to this issue. This bill requires the multiple levels of performance to include identification of factors required by ESSA, such as identification of the lowest-performing 5% of schools, and schools with subgroups that consistently underperform. The draft federal regulations stipulate that the single school rating is to be based on at least three levels of school performance (a single summative rating using a combination of performance on the specified indicators that has at least three performance levels). This bill may meet the requirements of ESSA but it is unclear if the state system of accountability will consist of multiple indicators of performance or if it will produce a single rating or index to reflect performance.
- Identification of schools for intervention. This bill requires the SBE to establish a mechanism to identify school districts and county offices of education for intervention by the SPI on an annual basis based on outcomes for all students and for each subgroup using the key indicators. Staff recommends an amendment to require the mechanism to also identify local educational agencies for advice and assistance from the CCEE or the county office of education.
- Data dashboard. This bill requires SBE to adopt an accountability system that, among other things, ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. The 2016 Budget Act includes funding for the San Joaquin County Office of Education to develop a data dashboard. This bill becomes effective on January 1, 2017. It is unclear if all of the data for these measures will be available at the state level when this bill becomes operative. It is unclear if the data dashboard envisioned by the State Board of Education (SBE) or the existing state data system will meet the requirements of this bill (see #7a).
- Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill imposes the following costs:
- Unknown General Fund costs, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for California Department of Education (CDE) to comply with the data components of this bill. The current school data systems, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data Systems and DataQuest, do not present data in formats required under the bill. It is not clear if CDE would be able to adapt existing systems or if a new data system would need to be developed. Either way, significant resources would be needed to present data in the manner prescribed in the bill.
- Unknown Proposition 98/General Fund cost pressures, in the millions of dollars, to the extent this expanded accountability system identifies more school districts or school sites in need of state intervention and assistance.
- Unknown General Fund costs, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for California Department of Education (CDE) to comply with the data components of this bill. The current school data systems, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data Systems and DataQuest, do not present data in formats required under the bill. It is not clear if CDE would be able to adapt existing systems or if a new data system would need to be developed. Either way, significant resources would be needed to present data in the manner prescribed in the bill.
SUPPORT
Abriendo Puertas/Opening Doors
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
Asian Americans Advancing Justice – California
Black Parallel School Board
California Alliance of African American Educators
California Chamber of Commerce
California Charter Schools Association Advocates
California School-Based Health Alliance
Camino Nuevo Charter Academy
Cesar Chavez Foundation
Center for leadership Equity and Research (CLEAR)
Children Now
Children’s Defense Fund – California
Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth
College Board
Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement
Democrats for Education Reform
Dolores Huerta Foundation
Educate 78
Education Trust-West
Educators 4 Excellence
EdVoice
Equal Justice Society
Families in Schools
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids
First 5 Santa Clara County
Future Is Now
Great Public Schools Now
Half Moon Bay Brewing Company
Innovate Public Schools
KIDS’ OWN WISDOM
LA Voices
Los Angeles Trust for Children’s Health
MISSION READINESS – MILITARY LEADERS FOR KIDS
National Center for Youth Law
Our Family Coalition
Parent Revolution
Partnership for Children & Youth
PICO California
Public Counsel
Raineth Housing
Sacramento Area Congregations Together
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
Stand Up
Students for Education Reform
Students Matter
The GreenHouse
United Way of Greater Los Angeles
United Ways of California
Women’s Empowerment
OPPOSITION
California Teachers Association
-- END --
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:
Author:(Weber)
As Amended Ver:May 27, 2016
Majority vote
Committee | Votes | Ayes | Noes |
Education | 5-0 | Olsen, Kim, McCarty, Santiago, Weber | |
Appropriations | 19-0 | Gonzalez, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Calderon, Chang, Daly, Eggman, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Holden, Jones, Obernolte, Quirk, Santiago, Wagner, Weber, Wood |
|
SUMMARY: Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt a statewide accountability system aligned to California's local framework and that satisfies the federal accountability system requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Specifically, this bill:
- Requires the SBE, with regard to developing the statewide accountability system, to rely upon data from key indicators established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics adopted by the SBE. Requires, at a minimum, the key indicators to include all of the following:
- For elementary and middles schools, a measure of: pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science; academic growth; progress toward English proficiency; chronic absenteeism; school climate.
- For high schools, a measure of: pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science; graduation rates; progress toward English proficiency; college and career readiness; chronic absenteeism; and school climate.
- Requires substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight, to be given to the measure of: pupil achievement in ELA, math and science; academic growth and progress towards English proficiency.
- Requires, in identifying appropriate assistance for a school or LEA, the CCEE and the county superintendents of schools to analyze data aligned with all the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the LEA or individual school or schools.
- Requires the accountability system to ensure the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. Parents and the public must have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the state's priority areas for purposes of local control and accountability plans and the local control funding formula.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
- Unknown General Fund costs, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for California Department of Education (CDE) to comply with the data components of this bill. The current school data systems, CALPADs and DataQuest, do not present data in formats required under the bill. It is not clear if CDE would be able to adapt existing systems or if a new data system would need to be developed. Either way, significant resources would be needed to present data in the manner prescribed in the bill.
- Unknown Proposition 98/General Fund cost pressures, in the millions of dollars, to the extent this expanded accountability system identifies more school districts or school sites in need of state intervention and assistance.
- The CDE estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $320,000 for two positions to support the development, implementation, and maintenance of a new state/federal aligned accountability system. These positions are needed irrespective of this bill.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to co-sponsors of this bill, Children Now and Education Trust West, this bill will align the state and federal accountability requirements, avoiding the confusing and sometimes conflicting systems of the past, and bringing together the strengths of both systems to promote high levels of achievement and equity. Specifically, according to the sponsors, the bill proposes to establish common "key indicators" that apply to both districts and schools and also align with the state's values. The bill also sets forth criteria for identifying districts and schools in need of support and improvement and clarifies that the CCEE and county superintendents shall analyze data aligned with all of the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local education agency or individual school or schools. The bill also requires the development of a data dashboard, showing student outcomes from multiple measures.
- Background. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was enacted to provide a more equitable distribution of education dollars – especially among districts with populations of low income pupils, English learners, and pupils in foster care – and to provide more local discretion over the use of those dollars. Accountability for the use of those dollars is achieved though the requirement for local education agencies to adopt and annually revise their local control accountability plans (LCAPs). Each LCAP must address eight state priorities that include a mix of inputs (such as appropriate teacher assignment and level of parental involvement) and outputs (such as performance on academic assessments or English learner reclassification rates). The law also provides that schools and school districts may be identified by county superintendents of schools and the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) as needing intervention and support. The state created the CCEE to assist the state with these supports and interventions.
While much of the structure for these new requirements is set in statute, the law also gave significant authority to the SBE to develop regulations governing the expenditure of funds and to develop a system of continuous improvement for all schools. As the state was in the middle of redesigning its accountability system, the federal government adopted the ESSA in December 2015. This has presented California with the opportunity to craft one single, coherent state-federal system of accountability.
The SPI established the Accountability and Continuous Improvement Task Force to advise the state in the development of the new accountability system. The Task Force, which began meeting in September 2015, consists of 30 members representing a broad cross section of the education and academic communities, as well as organizations representing parents and other stakeholders. Children Now, the sponsor of this bill, is represented on the Task Force.
The Task Force presented its final report to the SBE in May. Many of the recommendation in the Task Force report are consistent with the requirements of this bill.
- Opposition. The California Teachers Association is opposed to this bill. The CTA states this bill is premature in its assertion of key indicators for determination of intervention and technical support for districts and COEs for each of the state priority areas. They note the SBE is still in the process of identifying key indicators and other metrics for implementation of the LCAP rubrics. Establishing additional requirements in legislation hinders adjustments and changes that may be needed as the state continues to implement the components of the statewide accountability system and align the system to new federal policies that are also still under development. CTA believes the process for developing an accountability program requires time and should be deliberate and sequential. They believe this bill would impede the current process.
Analysis Prepared by: Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0003236
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2548
Author:(Weber) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2016
Policy Committee: | Education | Vote: | 5 - 0 |
|
| ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt a statewide accountability system aligned to California's local framework and that satisfies the federal accountability system requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Specifically, this bill:
- Requires the SBE, with regard to developing the statewide accountability system, to rely upon data from key indicators established pursuant to the evaluation rubrics adopted by the SBE. Requires, at a minimum, the key indicators to include all of the following:
- For elementary and middles schools, a measure of: pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science; academic growth; progress toward English proficiency; chronic absenteeism; school climate.
- For high schools, a measure of: pupil achievement in at least English language arts, mathematics, and science; graduation rates; progress toward English proficiency; college and career readiness; chronic absenteeism; and school climate.
- Requires substantial weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight, to be given to the measure of: pupil achievement in ELA, math and science; academic growth and progress towards English proficiency.
- Requires, in identifying appropriate assistance for a school or LEA, the CCEE and the county superintendents of schools to analyze data aligned with all the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the LEA or individual school or schools.
- Requires the accountability system to ensure the creation of a data and reporting system that provides meaningful and accessible information on school and school district performance that is displayed through an electronic platform. Parents and the public must have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the state’s priority areas for purposes of local control and accountability plans and the local control funding formula.
FISCAL EFFECT:
- Unknown General Fund costs, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for CDE to comply with the data components of this bill. This bill requires data to be provided to parents and the public that is "meaningful and accessible" and displayed through an electronic platform. The bill requires parents and the public to have the ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the state’s priority areas. The current school data systems, CALPADs and DataQuest, do not present data in this format. It is not clear if CDE would be able to adapt existing systems or if a new data system would need to be developed. Either way, significant resources would be needed to present data in this manner.
- Unknown Proposition 98/GF cost pressures, in the millions of dollars, to the extent this expanded accountability system identifies more school districts or school sites in need of state intervention and assistance.
- The CDE estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $320,000 for two positions to support the development, implementation, and maintenance of a new state/federal aligned accountability system. These positions are needed irrespective of this bill. The CDE has submitted a budget request for this staffing support and the request is still being considered by the Legislature.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to co-sponsors of this bill, Children Now and Education Trust West, this bill will align the state and federal accountability requirements, avoiding the confusing and sometimes conflicting systems of the past, and bringing together the strengths of both systems to promote high levels of achievement and equity. Specifically, according to the sponsors, the bill proposes to establish common "key indicators" that apply to both districts and schools and also align with the state's values. The bill also sets forth criteria for identifying districts and schools in need of support and improvement and clarifies that the CCEE and county superintendents shall analyze data aligned with all of the state priorities in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and intervention to the needs of the local education agency or individual school or schools. The bill also requires the development of a data dashboard, showing student outcomes from multiple measures.
- Background. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was enacted to provide a more equitable distribution of education dollars—especially among districts with populations of low income pupils, English learners, and pupils in foster care—and to provide more local discretion over the use of those dollars. Accountability for the use of those dollars is achieved though the requirement for local education agencies to adopt and annually revise their local control accountability plans (LCAPs). Each LCAP must address eight state priorities that include a mix of inputs (such as appropriate teacher assignment and level of parental involvement) and outputs (such as performance on academic assessments or English learner reclassification rates). The law also provides that schools and school districts may be identified by county superintendents of schools and the SPI as needing intervention and support. The state created the CCEE to assist the state with these supports and interventions.
While much of the structure for these new requirements is set in statute, the law also gave significant authority to the State Board of Education (SBE) to develop regulations governing the expenditure of funds and to develop a system of continuous improvement for all schools. As the state was in the middle of redesigning its accountability system, the federal government adopted the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December 2015. This has presented California with the opportunity to craft one single, coherent state-federal system of accountability.
The SPI established the Accountability and Continuous Improvement Task Force to advise the state in the development of the new accountability system. The Task Force, which began meeting in September 2015, consists of 30 members representing a broad cross section of the education and academic communities, as well as organizations representing parents and other stakeholders. Children Now, the sponsor of this bill, is represented on the Task Force.
The Task Force is in the process of preparing a final report, which will be presented to the SBE in May.
- Debate over key indicators. Since January, the SBE has been discussing how the enactment of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) presents an opportunity to develop a single coherent local, state and federal accountability and continuous improvement system grounded on LCFF. Because the current LCFF evaluation rubrics propose using the key indicators to analyze performance of LEAs and schools, the SBE has determined that the availability, reliability and comparability of quantitative data statewide is an essential characteristic for potential key indicators. It is not possible to analyze performance on a statewide basis if the underlying data is either not available at the state level or is defined or collected inconsistently.
Some of the key indicators proposed to be added by this bill (school climate and college and career readiness) have been considered and denied by the SBE at this stage in the process. The SBE found, while these indicators are important for informed local decision making, they are not appropriate for the current LCFF evaluation rubrics because data are not currently collected and/or reported statewide.
According to the SBE Agenda for May 16, 2016, the SBE staff recommendation is to adopt the following key indictors: student test scores; progress of English learners toward English language proficiency; high school graduation rate; pupil achievement in grade 3 ELA and Grade 8 Math using the state CAASPP scores; and suspension rates by grade span. Staff also recommends the SBE develop an annual process to consider key indicators as valid and reliable data becomes available in the future, for example, issues such as chronic absenteeism and performance on science assessments. These are indicators also included in this bill.
- Opposition. The California Teachers Association is opposed to this bill. The CTA states this bill is premature in its assertion of key indicators for determination of intervention and technical support for districts and COEs for each of the state priority areas. They note the SBE is still in the process of identifying key indicators and other metrics for implementation of the LCAP rubrics. Establishing additional requirements in legislation hinders adjustments and changes that may be needed as the state continues to implement the components of the statewide accountability system and align the system to new federal policies that are also still under development. CTA believes the process for developing an accountability program requires time and should be deliberate and sequential. They believe this bill would impede the current process.
Analysis Prepared by: Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Discussed in Hearing
4MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality
50SEC
Assembly Floor
1MIN
Senate Floor
13MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Education
1MIN
Assembly Floor
3MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations
52MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Education
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):
