The Comprehensive Reading Leadership Program Act of 1996 authorizes county offices of education to apply to the State Board of Education to design a reading leadership program and develop materials that focus on reading skills, including phonics.

This bill would require the state board, on or before December 31, 2017, to develop a reading assessment identify formative reading diagnostic tools that can be used by the public schools to assess pupils pupils developmental levels of reading proficiency in grades 1 to 3, inclusive, in their ability to read proficiently by the end of grade 3. 3 and to post a list of those diagnostic tools on the departments Internet Web site. The bill would require require, on or before the beginning of the 201819 school year, public schools that enroll pupils in these grades, grades 1 to 4, inclusive, and at which less than 50% of 4th grade pupils demonstrate proficiency on English language arts standards on the statewide assessment administered the previous school year, on or before the start of the 201819 school year, to ensure that each pupils reading competency proficiency is measured using at least one of the reading assessment. formative reading diagnostic tools identified above. The bill would require any pupil who has a significant reading deficiency, does not have an appropriate developmental reading level, as provided, to have a reading plan to be created in collaboration with the pupils parent and teacher. The bill would require the reading plan to have certain elements to be reviewed at least annually by the school and updated or revised as appropriate. By expanding the duties of a public school, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

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.

The Comprehensive Reading Leadership Program Act of 1996 authorizes county offices of education to apply to the State Board of Education to design a reading leadership program and develop materials that focus on reading skills, including phonics.

This bill would require the state board, on or before December 31, 2017, to develop a reading assessment that can be used by the public schools to assess pupils in grades 1 to 3, inclusive, in their ability to read proficiently by the end of grade 3. The bill would require public schools that enroll pupils in these grades, on or before the start of the 201819 school year, to ensure that each pupils reading competency is measured using the reading assessment. The bill would require any pupil who has a significant reading deficiency, as provided, to have a reading plan to be created in collaboration with the pupils parent and teacher. The bill would require the reading plan to have certain elements to be reviewed at least annually by the school and updated or revised as appropriate. By expanding the duties of a public school, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing law establishes the After School Education and Safety Program to serve pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 9, inclusive, at participating public elementary, middle, junior high, and charter schools. Existing law requires each component of the program to have specified elements, including that the program have an educational and literacy element in which tutoring or homework assistance is offered in one or more specified areas.

This bill would require, if the program is designed for pupils in elementary school, that tutoring and homework assistance be instead offered in language arts.

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.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

SB 1145 (Hueso) - Language arts: reading: diagnostic tools and plans

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

Bill Summary:

This bill requires public schools with less than 50 percent of 4^th grade students demonstrating proficiency on English language arts standards to ensure that each student’s reading proficiency is measured throughout the school year using a formative reading diagnostic tool. This bill also requires a reading plan, as specified, to be created for a student in grades 1-3 who is not at the appropriate developmental reading level for his or her grade.

Fiscal Impact:

• Mandate costs: Unknown costs, but the requirement to measure certain students’ reading proficiency; to create, update, and implement a reading plan for specified students; and to furnish the plan to their parents could drive reimbursable state mandate costs in the hundreds of millions. See staff comments. (Proposition 98)
  
• Administrative costs: Potential costs in the high hundreds of thousands. The California Department of Education (CDE) cites the need for additional staff related to developing a Request for Information to gather information about currently available diagnostic tests and formative tools with estimated costs of $293,000 initially and a like amount if the list is to be updated in the future. Additional costs to implement a special study in which educators would review and evaluate diagnostic assessment and tools submitted would drive costs of $686,000, according to the CDE. (General Fund)

Background:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the State’s assessment system as the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress and includes, beginning with the 2013-14 school year, a summative assessment in English language arts for grades 3-8 and 11 that measures content standards adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE). (Education Code § 60640)
   
2. Requires, by November 1, 2014, the CDE to identify and make available to school districts information regarding existing assessments in language arts and mathematics that are aligned to the common core academic standards and appropriate for students in grade 2 for diagnostic use by classroom teachers. Existing law requires the CDE to ensure that the selected diagnostic assessments are valid for purposes of identifying particular knowledge or skills a student has or has not acquired in order to inform instruction and make educational decisions. (EC § 60644)
   
3. Requires the governing board of each school district to adopt a local control and accountability plan (LCAP) using a template adopted by the SBE. Existing law requires each LCAP to include, for the school district and each school within the school district, a description of goals to be achieved for students in each of the state priorities and a description of the actions the school district will take to achieve those goals. (EC § 52060)
   

The Budget Act of 2013 established a new formula which currently allocates 90 percent of K-12 education funding to local educational agencies. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) consolidated most of the state’s numerous separate funding streams for prescribed purposes and removed most of the former funding restrictions. The LCFF instead allocates funding according to base rates tied to four grade spans and additional funding based on the number and concentration of English learners, low income students, and foster youth.

Proposed Law:

This bill requires, by the 2018-19 school year, a public school that enrolls students in grades 1-4, in which less than 50 percent of 4^th grade students demonstrate proficiency on English language arts standards on the statewide assessment administered in the prior year, must ensure that each student’s reading proficiency is measured throughout the school year using at least one of the formative reading diagnostic tools identified by the State Board of Education (Board) to determine if a student has an appropriate developmental reading level for the student’s grade level.

This bill requires the Board to identify a list, and post it on the CDE’s website, of formative reading diagnostic tools that can be used by the schools, as referenced above, to assess a student’s developmental level of reading proficiency in grades 1-3 and define what it means for a student to have an appropriate “developmental reading level,” such that the student is on track to reading proficiency by the end of grade 3, as determined by the formative reading diagnostic tools.

This bill also requires a reading plan to be created for a student in grades 1-3 who is not at the appropriate developmental reading level for the student’s grade level as defined by the Board. The plan must include specified components, among which are the goals and benchmarks for the student’s growth in attaining reading proficiency by the end of 3^rd grade and the type of additional instructional services and interventions the student will receive in reading. The plan must be provided to the student’s parent along with certain specific statements pertaining to the importance of reading competency among children, the risks to students not achieving reading competency by 4^th grade, and the role of the parent with regard to the child achieving reading competency as well as implementing a child’s reading plan.

Staff Comments:

This bill creates several state-level mandates for schools. A school district could submit a test claim to the Commission on State Mandates for the requirements included in this bill to obtain a decision on whether these costs are required to be reimbursed by the state. The activities included in this bill are likely to be determined a reimbursable state mandate even if schools are already implementing the requirements of this bill. Those schools that may be doing similar work would have to make refinements in their programs to come into full compliance with this bill if it were to be enacted, and those costs, as well as ongoing costs would be reimbursable.

First, it requires certain schools to ensure that each student’s reading proficiency is measured using at least one of the formative reading diagnostic tools identified by the Board to determine if the student is at an appropriate reading level. The schools that are subject to this requirement are those that enroll students in grades 1 through 4, at which less than 50 percent of 4^th grade students demonstrate proficiency on English language arts standards on the statewide assessment. Though the state does not use “proficiency” to indicate performance on statewide assessments, this term could be interpreted to mean a student meeting or exceeding the content standard.

According to results of the 2015 Smarter Balanced English language arts assessment, 4,058 out of 6,035, or 67.2 percent of schools would be affected by this requirement. Assuming a like percentage of students in grades 1 through 3 whose reading proficiency would have to be measured, this could affect about 954,000 students, regardless of their reading capabilities. This bill also requires that each student’s reading proficiency is measured throughout the school year. Assuming affected schools purchase a diagnostic assessment tool for 67.2 percent of teachers in grades 1 through 3 (about 61,000) and administer it twice per year for one hour, statewide costs could be in the low tens of millions. Actual costs would be dependent upon the cost of the diagnostic assessment tool used by the school, the time it takes to administer the assessments, and the time it takes and frequency in which the assessments are administered.

Second, this bill requires a reading plan to be created for a student in grades 1 through 3 who is not at the appropriate developmental reading level, as defined by the Board. Assuming the definition of this term yields a similar percentage of students in grade 3 that did not meet the standard on the 2015 Smarter Balanced English language arts assessment (41 percent), 582,000 students would be required to have a reading plan. A school could claim costs related to staff time to develop the plan, update the plan as necessary, review the plan at least annually by the school, and implement the “additional instructional services and interventions the student will receive in reading.” Statewide costs for these activities could be in the mid hundreds of millions.

The author’s office indicates that the intent for the plan requirement is to only apply to students not at the appropriate reading level for the subset of schools described above. In this case, statewide costs for these activities would be in the low hundreds of millions, affecting about 130,000 students.

Actual costs would depend on a number of factors, including the definition developed by the Board, the time spent on developing and implementing each plan, and the types of services provided to each student. For example, requiring a parent to read at home with their child would not be a reimbursable cost to the school district but if the plan required additional tutoring time by a teacher or other school employee, this cost could be reimbursable. This estimate assumes services of two hours per month per student with a reading specialist. The bill requires a student’s reading plan to continue to be implemented until the student demonstrates reading proficiency, so these costs would be ongoing assuming the services required did not change.

The final mandated activity is related to the requirement that parents are to be provided a copy of their child’s reading plan along with specified statements. This activity could also be reimbursable and could drive statewide costs in the tens of thousands.

Finally, this bill provides legislative intent to increase the LCFF base rate for students in kindergarten and grades 1 through 3 only at those schools in which 50 percent or more of students in grade 4 score below reading proficiency on a statewide assessment. A separate provision provides legislative intent to increase the LCFF base rate for grades 1 through 3 to fund the requirements of this bill. To the extent the state provides funding for these activities, this will likely offset some or all of the mandated activity costs, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. It is likely that if funding is provided through LCFF base rates, this will create an administrative burden to adjust the rates to certain school districts to reflect student reading proficiency.

Recommended Amendments:

Clarify that of the students measured for reading proficiency in certain schools (those with less than 50 percent of 4^th grade students demonstrating proficiency on the English language arts standards statewide assessment), only those who are not at the appropriate reading level would be required to have a plan created. This would reflect the intent of bill according to the author’s office.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Carol Liu, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No:

Subject:

SUMMARY

This bill requires public schools with less than 50 percent of 4^th grade students demonstrating proficiency on English language arts standards to ensure that each student’s reading proficiency is measured throughout the school year using a formative reading diagnostic tool.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Establishes the State’s assessment system as the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress and includes, beginning with the 2013-14 school year, a consortium summative assessment in English language arts for grades 3-8 and 11 that measures content standards adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE). (Education Code § 60640)
   
2. Requires, by November 1, 2014, the California Department of Education (CDE) to identify and make available to school districts information regarding existing assessments in language arts and mathematics that are aligned to the common core academic standards and appropriate for students in grade 2 for diagnostic use by classroom teachers. Existing law requires the CDE to ensure that the selected diagnostic assessments are valid for purposes of identifying particular knowledge or skills a student has or has not acquired in order to inform instruction and make educational decisions. (EC § 60644)
   
3. Requires the governing board of each school district to adopt a local control and accountability plan (LCAP) using a template adopted by the SBE. Existing law requires each LCAP, to include, for the school district and each school within the school district, both of the following:
   
   1. 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 identified by the governing board of the school district.
      
   2. A description of the specific actions the school district will take during each year to achieve the goals, including the enumeration of any specific actions necessary for that year to correct any deficiencies in regard to the state priorities. (EC § 52060)

ANALYSIS

This bill requires public schools with less than 50 percent of 4^th grade students demonstrating proficiency on English language arts standards to ensure that each student’s reading proficiency is measured throughout the school year using a formative reading diagnostic tool. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires, beginning with the 2018-19 school year, public schools that serve students in grades 1-4 with less than 50 percent of 4^th grade students demonstrating proficiency on English language arts standards to ensure that each student’s reading proficiency is measured throughout the school year using at least one of the formative reading diagnostic tools identified pursuant to #10 below.
   
2. Provides that proficiency on English language arts standards is to be based upon the statewide assessment administered the previous school year.
   
3. Provides that the purpose of the formative reading diagnostic tools is to determine if a student has a developmental reading level for that student’s grade level.
   
4. Requires a reading plan to be created for each student in grades 1-3 who is not at the appropriate developmental reading proficiency level for the student’s grade, as defined by the State Board of Education pursuant to #12 below.
   
5. Requires a reading plan to include all of the following:
   
6. The student’s specific, diagnosed developmental reading level that needs to be addressed in order for the student to attain reading proficiency.
   
7. The goals and benchmarks for the student’s growth in attaining reading proficiency by the end of grade 3.
   
8. The type of additional instructional services and interventions the student will receive in reading as determined by the school.
   
9. The strategies the student’s parent is encouraged to use in assisting their child to achieve reading proficiency that are designed to supplement the additional instructional services and interventions to be provided.
   
10. Any additional services that are deemed available and appropriate to accelerate the student’s reading skill development.
    
11. Requires the plan to be created in collaboration with the student’s parent and teacher if possible, and as soon as possible after the student’s developmental reading level is identified.
    
12. Requires a reading plan to be reviewed at least annually by the school and updated or revised as appropriate to facilitate the student’s progress in demonstrating reading proficiency.
    
13. Requires a reading plan to be implemented until the student demonstrates reading proficiency.
    
14. Requires the parent to be provided with a copy of the reading plan with the following information:
    
15. The state’s goal is for all children in California to graduate from high school having attained skill levels that adequately prepare them for postsecondary studies or for the workforce, and research demonstrates that achieving reading competency by grade 3 is a critical milestone in achieving this goal.
    
16. If a student enters grade 4 without achieving reading competency, he or she is significantly more likely to fall behind in all subject areas beginning in grade 4 and continuing in later grades. If a student’s reading skill deficiencies are not remediated, it is likely the student will not have the skills necessary to complete the coursework required to graduate from high school.
    
17. The parent plays a central role in supporting the student’s efforts to achieve reading competency and is strongly encouraged to work with his or her child’s teacher in implementing the reading plan, and the reading plan will include strategies the parent is encouraged to use at home to support the student’s reading success in order to supplement the intervention instruction the student receives in school.
    
18. Requires the State Board of Education (SBE), by December 31, 2017, to identify a list of formative reading diagnostic tools that can be used to assess the developmental levels of reading proficiency of students in grades 1-3, in their ability to read proficiently by the end of grade 3.
    
19. Requires the SBE to post, by December 31, 2017, a list of these diagnostic tools on the California Department of Education’s website.
    
20. Requires the SBE, to define, for a student to have an appropriate “developmental reading level” in grades 1-3, such that the student is not on track to reading proficiency by the end of grade 3, as determined by the formative reading diagnostic tools.
    
21. States legislative intent to increase the Local Control Funding Formula base rate of funding for K-3 for the purposes of this bill.
    
22. States legislative intent, that schools serving students in grades 1-3 work with parents and teachers to provide instructional programming, intervention

instruction, and support necessary to ensure that students can demonstrate reading proficiency by the completion of grade 3.

1. States legislative findings and declaration relative to the importance of reading proficiently by the end of grade 3.
   

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Rationale for the bill. According to the author, “A student’s performance in the 4^th grade is a critical benchmark that provides valuable insights into the ability of that child to go on to be successful academically and find gainful employment in the workplace. According to the California Department of Education (CDE), 60 percent of all California 4^th graders do not meet the standards for reading as set by the Smarter Balanced test. Things get worse for low-income and minority students. 69 percent of all low-income 4^th graders are not at grade level for reading, with 68 percent of all Hispanic 4^th graders not meeting standards and 72 percent of all African American 4^th graders. These deficiencies compound over time, leading to a reading gap in students that can create lifelong barriers to success. A child who is not reading at grade level by the 4^th grade is four times less likely to graduate on time, and is more likely to face incarceration later in life, more prone to poverty in adulthood, and more likely to have a teenage pregnancy. The struggling reader in the 3^rd grade of today is the struggling adult of tomorrow”
   
2. Increases testing in the era of reduced testing. The Legislature passed sweeping reforms to the State’s assessment system in 2013, which eliminated several assessments and eliminated the requirement that state assessments be administered to students in grade 2. The Legislature also imposed a requirement that the CDE identify and make available to school districts, information regarding existing assessments in language arts and mathematics that are aligned to the common core academic standards and appropriate for students in grade 2 for diagnostic use by classroom teachers. The CDE was required to ensure that the selected diagnostic assessments are valid for purposes of identifying particular knowledge or skills a student has or has not acquired in order to inform instruction and make educational decisions. Information regarding existing grade 2 diagnostic assessments in English language arts can be found here: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ai/gd2elatbl1.asp

The Legislature recently acted to reduce the number of required assessments, and diagnostic assessments are currently available for schools to identify particular knowledge or skills a student has or has not acquired in order to inform instruction and make educational decisions. Should the Legislature reverse its stance by increasing required assessments?

1. Does not consider English language acquisition. This bill makes no provision for the consideration of a student’s level of language acquisition. It is very likely that many students who have not met English language arts standards are English learners, which is different than being a native English speaker who is struggling to read. Should reading diagnostics be administered to, and reading

plans be developed for, students who are learning English? Could the reading plans be in conflict with instruction and services provided to English learners?

1. Diagnostic tools currently available. The State’s assessment system includes Smarter Balanced summative assessments (required for grades 3-8 and 11), interim assessments that are designed to inform and promote teaching and learning, and a digital library consisting of tools and practices designed to help teachers utilize formative assessment processes for improved teaching and learning. The California Department of Education has identified information regarding existing assessments in language arts and mathematics that are aligned to the common core academic standards and appropriate for students in grade 2 for diagnostic use by classroom teachers.
   
   This bill requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to identify a list of formative reading diagnostic tools that can be used to assess the developmental levels of reading proficiency of students in grades 1-3. Are the existing diagnostic assessments, interim assessments, digital library and formative assessment tools insufficient? Is it necessary to require the identification of additional diagnostic tools?
   
2. How many schools would be affected? This bill requires public schools with less than 50 percent of 4^th grade students demonstrating proficiency on English language arts standards to ensure that each student’s reading proficiency is measured throughout the school year using a formative reading diagnostic tool. According to results of the 2015 Smarter Balanced English language arts assessment, 4,058 out of 6,035, or 67.2 percent, of schools would be affected by this bill. Is it reasonable to impose new assessment and intervention requirements based upon results of an assessment that has been administered in California only since 2014?
   
3. Developmental reading level. This bill requires the SBE to define what it means for a student to have an appropriate “developmental reading level” in grades 1-3, such that the student is not on track to reading proficiency by the end of grade 3, as determined by the formative reading diagnostic tools. The SBE has established cut-scores or performance levels for certain state-required assessments; the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium established the performance standards for the Smarter Balanced assessments in English language arts and mathematics. While there may be a single expectation of performance, this bill requires the SBE to establish performance levels for each identified formative reading diagnostic tool. Is this a reasonable expectation? Would SBE establish developmental reading levels via regulation, or by vote of the SBE?
   
4. Reading plans. This bill requires a reading plan to be created for a student in grades 1-3 who is not at the appropriate developmental reading level for that student’s grade level, as determined by the SBE. This bill requires a reading plan to include, among other things, the type of additional instructional services and interventions the student will receive in reading as determined by the school.

This provision appears to require the development of an individualized education program (IEP)-like document that describes instruction and services that must be provided by the local educational agency.

This bill requires the reading plan to be created in collaboration with the student’s parent and teacher, if possible. It is unclear exactly who is to develop the reading plans, and why the parent and teacher are to be involved only if possible.

This bill requires a student’s reading plan to be implemented until the student demonstrates reading proficiency. Is “reading proficiency” to be demonstrated via the state assessment in English language arts (the Smarter Balanced assessment), which is administered on an annual basis?

This bill makes no consideration for students who may have an IEP in place. Is there a potential for a reading plan to conflict with the specifications of a student’s IEP?

1. Local control and accountability plans. Existing law requires the governing board of each school district to adopt a local control and accountability plan (LCAP), and include in that plan a description of the annual goals, for all students and each subgroup, to be achieved for each of the state priorities, and a description of the specific actions the school district will take during each year to achieve the goals, including the enumeration of any specific actions necessary for that year to correct any deficiencies in regard to the state priorities.
   
   The State does not require specific assessments be administered to students in grades 1-2; however, there is an expectation that local educational agencies (LEAs) are measuring and evaluating student performance.
   
   The State Board of Education is required to adopt the evaluation rubrics by October 1, 2016. It is anticipated that the evaluation rubrics will allow LEAs to display performance data at the school level and by subgroup. This should make it easier for LEAs to identify deficiencies in meeting their goals as well as more transparent for parents.
   
   It is unclear what is deficient in the existing requirements regarding LCAPs. Should additional mandates be imposed before the final stages of the LCAP process has been developed, let alone implemented?
   
2. Recommendations for a comprehensive assessment system. The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) recently released recommendations that could address the problem this bill attempts to solve. Specifically, the SPI recommends that the California Department of Education vet state-supported resources and tools that support implementation of a comprehensive assessment system and provide those resources for local use. The SPI further recommended that the State provide regional assessment support to LEAs on the implementation of the comprehensive assessment tools and resources. These recommendations provide additional supports and tools to LEAs but stops short of requiring LEAs to utilize those supports and tools.
   
3. Other issues of concern. This bill requires diagnostic assessments to be administered in schools with less than 50 percent of 4^th grade students demonstrating proficiency on English language arts standards. Performance on the English language arts Smarter Balanced assessment can be disaggregated by domains, such as reading. Should additional reading diagnostics be required based on performance on all domains within English language arts?
   
   This bill imposes requirements based upon the results of assessments administered in grade 4, which results are known toward the end of grade 4. Is it appropriate to require the administration of diagnostic assessments to students in grades 1-3 based on the performance of students in grade 4? Is it reasonable to assume that students in grades 1-3 are at risk based on the performance of students in grade 4?
   
   This bill requires schools to measure the reading proficiency of each student in grades 1-3 throughout the school year to determine if a student has an appropriate developmental reading level for that student’s grade level. This appears to require the measurement of all students’ reading proficiency, throughout the school year, regardless of the student’s performance on the State assessment or on an initial diagnostic assessment. Should the reading proficiency be repeatedly measured for students who have already reached higher performance levels in reading?
   
   This bill uses the term “proficiency,” which is no longer used in relation to performance on the state assessment in English language arts (the Smarter Balanced assessment). The State now uses performance levels (Level 1 means the standard was not met; Level 2 means the standard was nearly met; Level 3 means the standard was met; Level 4 means the standard was exceeded).
   

This bill applies to all public schools with less than 50 percent of 4^th grade students demonstrating proficiency on English language arts standards. It appears, therefore, that a school may be relieved of the requirements imposed by this bill only once more than 50 percent of the school’s students achieve Level 3 or Level 4 on the Smarter Balanced assessment in English language arts.

This bill does not require the identified reading diagnostic tools to be aligned with the State Board of Education-adopted common core academic standards.

This bill requires the State Board of Education to identify a list of formative reading diagnostic tools. It would be more appropriate for the California Department of Education to identify a list of formative reading diagnostic tools, as it has already identified existing assessments in language arts and mathematics that are aligned to the common core academic standards and appropriate for students in grade 2 for diagnostic use by classroom teachers.

1. Suggested alternative approach. This bill attempts to address a worthy issue; there is no question that reading is a critical skill. However, this bill takes an approach that is contrary to several efforts the State has recently undertaken and projects that are still under development. As an alternative to the provisions
   
   currently in this bill, staff recommends amendments to instead create a grant program to provide funding to local educational agencies to:
   
   1. Provide professional development on the existing diagnostic, formative and interim assessment tools that are available from the State, and how to evaluate the data from assessment results, adjust instruction, and create system of continuous improvement.
      
   2. Administer and score the existing diagnostic, formative and interim assessment tools that are available from the State, evaluate the data, adjust instruction and create a system of continuous improvement.
      
2. Fiscal impact. This bill creates unfunded mandates, thereby imposing unknown but likely significant costs. Further, this bill states legislative intent to increase the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) base rate of funding for K-3 for the purposes of this bill.

SUPPORT

Center for Latino Education and Innovation

Reality Changers

San Ysidro Women’s Club

StudentsFirst

OPPOSITION

None received.

-- END --