(1)Commencing with the 201718 school year, the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, requires the state to identify schools for comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to specified accountability system requirements.

Existing state law, the Open Enrollment Act, Act (the act), authorizes the parent of a pupil enrolled in a low-achieving school, as defined, to submit an application for the pupil to attend a school in a school district other than the school district in which the parent resides, as specified. The act defines low-achieving school to mean a school on a list created annually by the Superintendent of Public Instruction of 1,000 schools ranked by increasing Academic Performance Index score with the same ratio of elementary, middle, and high schools as existed in decile 1 in the 200809 school year.

Commencing July 1, 2018, this bill would instead define a low-achieving school for purposes of the Open Enrollment Act act to include, among others, a school identified by the Superintendent or the State Board of Education for comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to federal specified accountability system requirements, including, among others, a school identified as being in the lowest performing 5% of all Title I schools, or a high school failing to graduate ¹/₃ or more of its pupils. Notwithstanding those provisions, the The bill would provide that a low-achieving school shall not include a court, community, or community day school, or a charter school. school, limit the total number of low-achieving schools to no more than 1,000, and prohibit more than 10% of a local educational agencys schools from being low-performing. Commencing July 1, 2018, the bill would prohibit a school district of enrollment from not accepting transfers due to the costs associated with those transfers or because the pupil is special needs, including an individual with exceptional needs, or the pupil is an English learner, and would authorize a school district of residence to prohibit or limit transfers pursuant to the act only in specified circumstances relating to desegregation. The bill would also make conforming changes. To the extent the bill would expand the duties of school districts under the Open Enrollment Act, act, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)The act requires the Superintendent to contract for an independent evaluation of the open enrollment program, as provided. Existing law requires the Superintendent to provide a final evaluation report to the Legislature, Governor, and State Board of Education on or before October 1, 2014.

This bill would require the Legislative Analysts Office to complete an evaluation of, and to make recommendations on, the open enrollment program, as provided. The bill would require the Legislative Analysts Office to submit the final evaluation report to the Legislature, Governor, and state board on or before December 1, 2021. The bill would require the Superintendent to provide the data necessary to complete the report to the Legislative Analysts Office by December 1, 2020.

(5)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)Commencing with the 201718 school year, the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, requires the state to identify schools for comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to specified accountability system requirements.

Existing state law, the Open Enrollment Act, authorizes the parent of a pupil enrolled in a low-achieving school, as defined, to submit an application for the pupil to attend a school in a school district other than the school district in which the parent resides, as specified. The act defines low-achieving school to mean a school on a list created annually by the Superintendent of Public Instruction of 1,000 schools ranked by increasing Academic Performance Index score with the same ratio of elementary, middle, and high schools as existed in decile 1 in the 200809 school year.

Commencing July 1, 2018, this bill would instead define a low-achieving school for purposes of the Open Enrollment Act to include, among others, a school identified by the Superintendent or the State Board of Education for comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to federal specified accountability system requirements, including, among others, a school identified as being in the lowest performing 5% of all Title I schools, or a high school failing to graduate ¹/₃ or more of its pupils. Notwithstanding those provisions, the bill would provide that a low-achieving school shall not include a court, community, or community day school, or a charter school. The bill would also make conforming changes. To the extent the bill would expand the duties of school districts under the Open Enrollment Act, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to contract for an independent evaluation of the open enrollment program, as provided. Existing law requires the Superintendent to provide a final evaluation report to the Legislature, Governor, and State Board of Education on or before October 1, 2014.

This bill would require the Superintendent, in conjunction with the Legislative Analysts Office, Office to complete an evaluation of, and to make recommendations on, the open enrollment program, as provided. The bill would require the Superintendent Legislative Analysts Office to submit the final evaluation report to the Legislature, Governor, and state board no later than one year after the implementation of the states new accountability system. on or before December 1, 2021. The bill would require the Superintendent to provide the data necessary to complete the report to the Legislative Analysts Office by December 1, 2020.

(3)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)Commencing with the 201718 school year, the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, requires the state to identify schools for comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to specified accountability system requirements.

Existing state law, the Open Enrollment Act, authorizes the parent of a pupil enrolled in a low-achieving school, as defined, to submit an application for the pupil to attend a school in a school district other than the school district in which the parent resides, as specified. The act defines low-achieving school to mean a school on a list created annually by the Superintendent of Public Instruction of 1,000 schools ranked by increasing Academic Performance Index score with the same ratio of elementary, middle, and high schools as existed in decile 1 in the 200809 school year.

Commencing July 1, 2017, 2018, this bill would instead define a low-achieving school for purposes of the Open Enrollment Act to include, among others, a school identified by the Superintendent or the State Board of Education for comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to federal specified accountability system requirements, including, among others, a school identified as being in the lowest performing 5% of all Title I schools, or a high school failing to graduate ¹/₃ or more of its pupils. Notwithstanding those provisions, the bill would provide that a low-achieving school shall not include a court, community, or community day school, or a charter school. The bill would also make conforming changes. To the extent the bill would expand the duties of school districts under the Open Enrollment Act, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)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.

Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, with approval of the State Board of Education, to develop an Academic Performance Index, to measure the performance of schools and school districts, especially the academic performance of pupils.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to that provision.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 1156

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 9-0, 4/13/16

AYES: Liu, Block, Hancock, Huff, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/27/16

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

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 6/2/16

AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/29/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill amends the Open Enrollment Act by replacing the Academic Performance Index with new eligibility criteria for identifying low-achieving schools.

Assembly Amendments specify that the list of low achieving schools not exceed 1,000 schools; and, specifies that no more than 10% of schools in a local education agency shall be identified on the list of low achieving schools. The amendments also make other requirements for school districts participating in the Open Enrollment Act, as specified, including the requirement for communications to parents by school districts of enrollment to be factually accurate.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Open Enrollment Act as follows:
   1. Allows the parent of a pupil attending a school identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) as “low-achieving” to submit an application for the pupil to attend another school within the same district or transfer to another school district (school district of enrollment). A list of 1,000 “low-achieving schools” ranked by increasing Academic Performance Index (API) is identified by the SPI each year.
   2. Provides that a school district of enrollment may adopt specific written standards for acceptance and rejection of transfer applications, including consideration of the capacity of a program, class, grade level, or school building, or adverse fiscal impact.
   3. Prohibits a school district of enrollment from considering a pupil’s previous academic achievement, physical condition, and proficiency in the English language, family income or any of the individual characteristics set forth in Section 200 of the Education Code, and shall ensure that pupils are enrolled in a school with a higher API than the school in which the pupil was previously enrolled.
   4. Requires that pupils are selected through a random, unbiased process, except that pupils applying for transfer are assigned specific priorities, with the first priority given to siblings of children who already attend the desired school and second priority for pupils transferring from a program improvement school ranked in decile 1 on the API. (Education Code § 48350, et seq.)
2. Authorizes inter-district transfers known as "school districts of choice" in which the governing board of a school district may declare a district to be a district of choice that is willing to accept a specified number of inter-district transfers. A district of choice is not required to admit pupils but the pupils that it does elect to admit must be selected through a random process that prohibits enrollment based on academic or athletic performance. School districts of choice must give priority for attendance to siblings of children already in attendance in that district. A district of choice may reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the district to create a new program to serve that pupil, but prohibits a district of choice from rejecting the transfer of special needs pupils, individuals with exceptional needs, and English learners. Districts of choice are required to collect specific data about the students who transfer to their district and report that data to surrounding districts and the state. These provisions are currently scheduled to become inoperative on July 1, 2017. (Education Code § 48300, et seq.)
3. Establishes the CCEE for the purpose of advising and assisting school districts, county superintendent of schools, and charter schools in achieving the goals set forth in a local control and accountability plan (LCAP). (Education Code § 52074)
4. Requires the county superintendent of schools to provide technical assistance, including any of the following, if the county superintendent does not approve an LCAP or annual update of a school district, or if the governing board of a school district requests technical assistance:
   1. Identification of the school district’s strengths and weaknesses in regard to the state priorities.
   2. Assignment of an academic expert or team to assist the school district in identifying and implementing effective programs that are designed to improve the outcomes for all student subgroups.\
   3. Requests that the SPI assign the CCEE to provide advice and assistance to the school district. (EC § 52071)
5. Requires the SPI to provide technical assistance, including any of the following, if the SPI does not approve an LCAP or annual update of a county office of education, or if the county board of education requests technical assistance:
   1. Identification of the county board of education’s strengths and weaknesses in regard to the state priorities.
   2. Assignment of an academic expert or team, or the CCEE, to assist in identifying and implementing effective programs that are designed to improve the outcomes for all student subgroups. (EC § 52071.5)
6. Authorizes the SPI to direct the CCEE to advise and assist a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school in any of the following circumstances:
   1. If the governing board of a school district, county board of education, or governing body or a charter school requests the advice and assistance of the CCEE.
   2. If the county superintendent of schools determines, following the provision of technical assistance, that the advice and assistance of the CCEE is necessary to help the district or charter school accomplish the goals described in the LCAP.
   3. If the SPI determines that the advice and assistance of the CCEE is necessary to help the school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school accomplish the goals set forth in the LCAP. (EC § 52074)

This bill:

1. Removes the existing definition of “low-achieving school” under the Open Enrollment Act, effective July 1, 2018, which means any school on the list created by the SPI ranked by the API, as specified.
2. Establishes the definition of low-achieving school to mean either of the following for purposes of the Open Enrollment Act:
   1. A school that is identified by the SPI or the State Board of Education for comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to the accountability system requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95), including all of the following:
      1. A school identified as being in the lowest performing five percent of all Title I schools.
      2. A high school that fails to graduate one-third or more of its pupils.
      3. A school subject to a mandatory targeted support and improvement plan.
   2. A school receiving mandatory assistance from the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, as directed by the SPI.
3. Provides that a low-achieving school shall not include court, community, or community day schools, or charter schools.
4. Specifies that the list of low achieving schools not exceed 1,000 schools; and, specifies that no more than 10% of schools in a local education agency shall be identified on the list of low achieving schools.
5. Provides that a school district of enrollment shall ensure that pupils enrolled pursuant to standards adopted pursuant to this section are enrolled in a school that is not identified as being a low-achieving school and are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based on his or her individual academic or athletic performance, or any of the other characteristics set forth, except that pupils applying for a transfer shall be assigned priority for approval, as follows:
   1. First priority for the siblings of children who already attend the desired school.
   2. Second priority for unduplicated pupils, as specified, transferring from a low-achieving school.
   3. If the number of pupils who request a particular school exceeds the number of spaces available at that school, a lottery shall be conducted in the group priority order to select pupils at random until all of the available spaces are filled.
6. Requires communications to parents by school districts of enrollment to be factually accurate and not target individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a child's actual or perceived academic or athletic performance or any other personal characteristic; and requires all communications from the school district of enrollment regarding the transfer opportunities pursuant to this article shall be available in all languages required for the school district of residence.
7. Specifies that a school district of enrollment shall not prohibit a transfer of a pupil based upon a determination by the governing board of that school district that the additional cost of educating the pupil would exceed the amount of additional state aid received as a result of the transfer. A school district of enrollment shall not reject the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs, as defined, or an English learner.
8. Authorizes, on July 1, 2018, a school district of residence, upon notification of the pupil's acceptance to the school district of enrollment, to prohibit the transfer of a pupil or limit the number of pupils so transferred if the governing board of the school district of residence determines that the transfer would negatively impact any of the following:
   1. The court-ordered desegregation plan of the school district of residence.
   2. The voluntary desegregation plan of the school district of residence, consistent with the provisions of Proposition 209, an initiative measure adopted by the voters at the November 5, 1996, General Election.
   3. The racial and ethnic balance of the school district of residence, consistent with the provisions of Proposition 209, an initiative measure adopted by the voters at the November 5, 1996, General Election.
9. Requires each school district of enrollment to keep an accounting of all requests made for alternative attendance and records of all disposition of those requests; requires the data to be reported to the school board, the school boards of adjacent school districts, the county board of education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and, requires this data to be reported annually to the Legislature and Governor, as specified.
10. Requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to complete an evaluation of the open enrollment program, as specified, and to make recommendations on any additional or revised eligibility criteria based on the state’s new accountability system adopted for purposes of complying with federal law, including the use of local control funding formula unduplicated subgroup criteria. Provides that the LAO may also include recommendations on whether other open enrollment program provisions should be altered, expanded, or deleted. Requires the final evaluation report to be submitted to the Legislature, Governor, and State Board of Education on or before December 1, 2021, and for the SPI to provide the data necessary to complete the report to the LAO by December 1, 2020, or on an otherwise agreed upon date between the SPI and the LAO.
11. Extends the sunset date to July 1, 2022, and repeal date to January 1, 2023.

Comments

Need for the bill. According to the author’s office, “the Academic Performance Index (API), along with a specified, sometimes confusing legislatively mandated calculation has been the previous method for identifying the 1,000 low-achieving schools whose enrollment assignment would trigger a student’s eligibility for Open Enrollment. The last published list of 1,000 is outdated with no new API’s being produced in the last two years. And, some schools objected to the current formula, which resulted in some of the lowest-performing schools in California not being on the list at all. With the state adoption of a new system called the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), and the temporary and possibly permanent hiatus on the publication of a new API, there is an interest in using updated definitions and information more accurately reflecting the concept of persistently low school performance. The API is no longer being updated and the last published list is based on the old STAR Program instead of the CAASPP scores.”

Federal Every Student Succeeds Act. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorizes and updates the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was signed into law on December 10, 2015. The 2016-17 school year is a transition year for local educational agencies (LEAs), as most of the provisions of ESSA will take effect in the 2017-18 school year, including the new accountability provisions. One notable change under ESSA is the elimination of the requirement for LEAs to provide low-income students attending Title I schools in Program Improvement year 2 and beyond with supplemental educational services and public school choice and spend a portion of their Title I funds for these purposes. In eliminating these provisions, the ESSA will allow LEAs the flexibility to choose what services and activities will be provided to students using Title I funds. Another key difference under ESSA is that states will have the ability to create their own accountability system based on multiple measures and not just on test scores. States will be required to identify their lowest-performing schools—those falling in the bottom five percent. However, there will be a reduced federal role in determining interventions, leaving it up to states to decide.

State’s evolving accountability system. The exact details of the state’s new accountability system have not been finalized, yet major themes have been determined, including ensuring that the new system emphasizes a culture of continuous support and on-going learning. And with the enactment of ESSA, the state will have the opportunity to streamline state and local requirements into a single, coherent accountability and continuous improvement system. A critical component of the accountability system will be the evaluation rubrics, which the State Board of Education is required to adopt by October 1, 2016. The rubrics are intended to serve several purposes, including assistance for LEAs to evaluate their strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement, and also to assist the SPI in identifying school districts for which intervention is warranted.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, there would be administrative costs to the California Department of Education of approximately $230,000, starting July 1, 2018, to maintain a list of open enrollment schools, develop a template to assist districts with the collection and maintenance of data on transfers, and to comply with reporting requirements to the Legislature, Governor and LAO. Unknown, potentially reimbursable, state mandated costs for school districts of enrollment to track and report data on transfer requests and report information to their school board, county office of education and the SPI. Unknown costs to the LAO, likely in the tens of thousands, however, for existing staff to produce an evaluation and recommendation of the Open Enrollment program.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/16)

EdVoice

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/30/16)

American Civil Liberties Union

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/29/16

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon

Prepared by:

8/30/16 14:15:09

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1156

Author:(Huff)

As Amended Ver:June 30, 2016

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 39-0

SUMMARY: Makes changes to the Open Enrollment Act by replacing the Academic Performance Index with new eligibility criteria for identifying low-achieving schools. Specifically, this bill:

1. Deletes the existing definition of "low-achieving school" and instead establishes the definition of low-achieving school to mean either of the following, effective July 1, 2018, for purposes of the Open Enrollment Act:
   1. A school that is identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) or the State Board of Education for comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to the accountability system requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95), including all of the following:
      1. A school identified as being in the lowest performing 5% of all Title I schools.
      2. A high school that fails to graduate one-third or more of its pupils.
      3. A school subject to a mandatory targeted support and improvement plan.
   2. A school receiving mandatory assistance from the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE), as directed by the SPI.
2. Provides that a low-achieving school shall not include court, community or community day schools.
3. Specifies that the list of low achieving schools not exceed 1,000 schools; and, specifies that no more than 10% of schools in a local education agency shall be identified on the list of low achieving schools.
4. Provides that a school district of enrollment shall ensure that pupils enrolled are enrolled in a school that is not identified as being a low-achieving school and are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based on his or her individual academic or athletic performance, or any of the other characteristics, except that pupils applying for a transfer shall be assigned priority for approval, as follows:
   1. First priority for the siblings of children who already attend the desired school.
   2. Second priority for unduplicated pupils, as specified, transferring from a low-achieving school.
   3. If the number of pupils who request a particular school exceeds the number of spaces available at that school, a lottery shall be conducted in the group priority order to select pupils at random until all of the available spaces are filled.
5. Requires communications to parents by school districts of enrollment to be factually accurate and not target individual parents or residential neighborhoods on the basis of a child's actual or perceived academic or athletic performance or any other personal characteristic; and requires all communications from the school district of enrollment regarding the transfer opportunities pursuant to this article shall be available in all languages required for the school district of residence.
6. Specifies that a school district of enrollment shall not prohibit a transfer of a pupil based upon a determination by the governing board of that school district that the additional cost of educating the pupil would exceed the amount of additional state aid received as a result of the transfer. A school district of enrollment shall not reject the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs, as defined, or an English learner.
7. On July 1, 2018, authorizes a school district of residence, upon notification of the pupil's acceptance to the school district of enrollment, to prohibit the transfer of a pupil or limit the number of pupils so transferred if the governing board of the school district of residence determines that the transfer would negatively impact any of the following:
   1. The court-ordered desegregation plan of the school district of residence.
   2. The voluntary desegregation plan of the school district of residence, consistent with the provisions of Proposition 209, an initiative measure adopted by the voters at the November 5, 1996, General Election.
   3. The racial and ethnic balance of the school district of residence, consistent with the provisions of Proposition 209, an initiative measure adopted by the voters at the November 5, 1996, General Election.
8. Requires each school district of enrollment to keep an accounting of all requests made for alternative attendance and records of all disposition of those requests; requires the data to be reported to the school board, the school boards of adjacent school districts, the county board of education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and, requires this data to be reported annually to the Legislature and Governor, as specified.
9. Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to complete an evaluation of the open enrollment program, as specified, and to make recommendations on any additional or revised eligibility criteria based on the state's new accountability system adopted for purposes of complying with federal law, including the use of local control funding formula unduplicated subgroup criteria. Provides that the LAO may also include recommendations on whether other open enrollment program provisions should be altered, expanded, or deleted. Requires the final evaluation report to be submitted to the Legislature, Governor, and State Board of Education on or before December 1, 2021, and for the SPI to provide the data necessary to complete the report to the LAO by December 1, 2020, or on an otherwise agreed upon date between the SPI and the LAO.
10. Extends the sunset date to July 1, 2022 and repeal date to January 1, 2023.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Open Enrollment Act as follows:
   1. Allows the parent of a pupil attending a school identified by the SPI as "low-achieving" to submit an application for the pupil to attend another school within the same district or transfer to another school district (school district of enrollment). A list of 1,000 "low-achieving schools" ranked by increasing Academic Performance Index (API) is identified by the SPI each year.
   2. Provides that a school district of enrollment may adopt specific written standards for acceptance and rejection of transfer applications, including consideration of the capacity of a program, class, grade level, or school building, or adverse fiscal impact.
   3. Prohibits a school district of enrollment from considering a pupil's previous academic achievement, physical condition, and proficiency in the English language, family income or any of the individual characteristics set forth in Education Code Section 200, and shall ensure that pupils are enrolled in a school with a higher API than the school in which the pupil was previously enrolled.
   4. Requires that pupils are selected through a random, unbiased process, except that pupils applying for transfer are assigned specific priorities, with the first priority given to siblings of children who already attend the desired school and second priority for pupils transferring from a program improvement school ranked in decile 1 on the API. (Education Code (EC) 48350, et seq.)
2. Establishes the CCEE for the purpose of advising and assisting school districts, county superintendent of schools, and charter schools in achieving the goals set forth in a local control and accountability plan (LCAP). (EC 52074)
3. Authorizes the SPI to direct the CCEE to advise and assist a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school in any of the following circumstances:
   1. If the governing board of a school district, county board of education, or governing body or a charter school requests the advice and assistance of the CCEE.
   2. If the county superintendent of schools determines, following the provision of technical assistance, that the advice and assistance of the CCEE is necessary to help the district or charter school accomplish the goals described in the LCAP.
   3. If the SPI determines that the advice and assistance of the CCEE is necessary to help the school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school accomplish the goals set forth in the LCAP. (EC 52074)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, administrative costs to the California Department of Education (CDE) of approximately $230,000, starting July 1, 2018, to maintain a list of open enrollment schools, develop a template to assist districts with the collection and maintenance of data on transfers, and to comply with reporting requirements to the Legislature, Governor and LAO. Unknown, potentially reimbursable, state mandated costs for school districts of enrollment to track and report data on transfer requests and report information to their school board, county office of education and the SPI. Unknown costs to the LAO, likely in the tens of thousands, however, for existing staff to produce an evaluation and recommendation of the Open Enrollment program.

COMMENTS: The Open Enrollment Act was created during a time when the State was competing for Federal funding called Race to the Top. Despite making several changes to state law, California was not awarded Race to the Top funding. The statutory changes made at the time have continued despite the State's lack of participation in the Race to the Top program. The Open Enrollment program requires the SPI to create a list of the 1,000 lowest achieving schools based on the API and requires that parents at those schools be notified that their child attends a school on this list. Students that attend the 1,000 lowest achieving schools are then authorized to transfer to higher achieving schools. The State has replaced the API with a new assessment system and the API is now outdated. The Open Enrollment program has largely been duplicative of federal law which, until the recent reauthorization of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), allowed students who attend schools in program improvement to transfer to higher achieving schools. Federal law no longer specifies that students in low achieving schools must be allowed to transfer, therefore this program is no longer a requirement of federal law.

This bill changes the calculation of how the schools are identified to participate in the Open Enrollment program. Specifically, this bill provides that a low-achieving school is a school that is identified in the lowest 5% of Title 1 schools, has high dropout rates, is identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the State Board of Education for comprehensive support and improvement, as specified, or a school that is receiving mandatory assistance by the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE).

According to the author, "the Academic Performance Index (API), along with a specified sometimes confusing legislatively mandated calculation has been the previous method for identifying the 1,000 low achieving schools whose enrollment assignment would trigger a student's eligibility for Open Enrollment. The last published list of 1,000 is out dated with no new APIs being produced in the last two years. And, some schools objected to the current formula, which resulted in some of the lowest performing schools in California not being on the list at all. With the state adoption of a new assessment system called the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), and the temporary and possibly permanent hiatus on the publication of a new API, there is an interest in using updated definitions and information more accurately reflecting the concept of persistently low school performance. The API is no longer being updated and the last published list is based on the old STAR Program instead of the CAASPP scores. SB 1156 updates the eligibility for additional public school options for students enrolled in persistently low performing schools by maintaining the Open Enrollment Act, and referencing definitions of persistently low performance in the newly enacted federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and state Local Control Funding Formula statutes as the criteria for defining low performing schools. The Open Enrollment Act provides students who are otherwise zip-code assigned to the lowest performing schools a choice to attend a higher performing public school even if the neighborhood school is persistently low performing. Accordingly, SB 1156 helps the state protect students' constitutional guarantee to equitable opportunity for a quality public education in California."

Racial Segregation in Schools. According to an April 2016, Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, Better Use of Information Could Help Agencies Identify Disparities and Address Racial Discrimination, "The percentage of K-12 public schools in the United States with students who are poor and are mostly Black or Hispanic is growing and these schools share a number of challenging characteristics. From school years 2000-01 to 2013-14 (the most recent data available), the percentage of all K-12 public schools that had high percentages of poor and Black or Hispanic students grew from 9 to 16%, according to GAO's analysis of data from the Department of Education. These schools were the most racially and economically concentrated: 75 to 100% of the students were Black or Hispanic and eligible for free or reduced-price lunch—a commonly used indicator of poverty. GAO's analysis of Education data also found that compared with other schools, these schools offered disproportionately fewer math, science, and college preparatory courses and had disproportionately higher rates of students who were held back in 9th grade, suspended, or expelled."

The Assembly should consider whether the Open Enrollment program will exacerbate racial segregation in California schools as limited evidence shows is happening with the similar District of Choice program.

Analysis Prepared by: Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0004094

Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1156

Author:(Huff) – As Amended Ver:June 30, 2016

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

SUMMARY:

This bill makes changes to the Open Enrollment Act (Act), starting July 1, 2018, and extends the sunset on the program through January 1, 2023. Specifically, this bill:

1. Changes the definition of "low performing school" for purposes of the Act to include schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to the federal accountability system (rather than the state Academic Performance Index which is no longer operative). Specifies that no more than 1,000 schools and no more than 10% of schools from a single school district can be designated as "low performing". Exempts court and community day schools from the definition.
2. Sets forth requirements to prohibit discrimination of students that seek a transfer, specifically special education students and English learners. Prohibits denial of a transfer based on costs to the district. Prohibits the district of enrollment from targeting parents or neighborhoods with the intent of recruiting a student based on athletic or academic ability. Makes these provisions subject to annual audit requirements.
3. Requires, rather than permits, the school district of enrollment to keep an accounting of all request made for alternative attendance, as specified, and report this information to the governing board of the district at a regularly scheduled meeting. Also requires this information to be reported to the geographically adjacent school district, the county office of education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) through the state's data reporting system (CALPADS). Authorizes the SPI to provide a template to school districts to ensure the complete reporting of required data.
4. Requires the SPI develop a plan, by July 1, 2017, for the collection and reporting of transfer data from each school district of enrollment. Requires the SPI to provide this information online and to the Legislature, Governor and Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO).
5. Requires the LAO to complete an evaluation of the open enrollment program, as specified, and to make recommendations on any additional or revised eligibility criteria based on the state’s new accountability system. Authorizes the LAO to also include recommendations on whether other open enrollment program provisions should be altered, expanded, or deleted. Requires the final evaluation report to be submitted to the Legislature, Governor, and State Board of Education on or before December 1, 2021, and for the SPI to provide the data necessary to complete the report to the LAO by December 1, 2020, or on an otherwise agreed upon date between the SPI and the LAO.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Administrative costs to the California Department of Education (CDE) of approximately $230,000, starting July 1, 2018, to maintain a list of open enrollment schools, develop a template to assist districts with the collection and maintenance of data on transfers, and to comply with reporting requirements to the Legislature, Governor and LAO.
2. Unknown, potentially reimbursable, state mandated costs for school districts of enrollment to track and report data on transfer requests and report information to their school board, county office of education and the SPI. The author estimates approximately 355 schools would be required to allow students to transfer under the Act, it is not clear how many students would choose to transfer and where these students would choose to enroll.
3. Unknown costs to the LAO, likely in the tens of thousands, however, for existing staff to produce an evaluation and recommendation of the Open Enrollment program.

COMMENTS:

1. Background and Purpose. Existing law establishes the Open Enrollment Act which allows the parent of a student attending a school identified as low achieving to submit an application for the student to attend another school with in the same district or transfer to another school district. The Act requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to provide an annual list of low-achieving schools based on API rankings Academic Performance Index (API).

Since the implementation of the state’s new student assessment system, the API has been suspended and the list of low achieving schools has not been updated to identify schools newly eligible for the Open Enrollment program. This bill updates the Open Enrollment Act to reflect federal and state law definitions of schools that are persistently lowest performing.

1. Comments. This bill provides that certain requirements of the Act, including enrolling students without bias and communications with parents, be subject to the annual audit process for school districts. This expands the scope of the internal audits conducted by local education agencies and could increase costs at a local level. CDE staff note that the audit is currently limited to financial matters and the department questions whether this is the correct way to address programmatic compliance. It is also not clear what the consequences for non-compliance would be.

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

Date of Hearing: June 22, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1156

Author:(Huff) – As Amended Ver:June 1, 2016

SENATE VOTE: 39-0

SUBJECT: School accountability: Open Enrollment Act: low-achieving schools

SUMMARY: Makes changes to the Open Enrollment Act by replacing the Academic Performance Index with new eligibility criteria for identifying low-achieving schools; and deletes the requirement that the list of low-achieving schools to be 1,000. Specifically, this bill:

1. Deletes the existing definition of "low-achieving school" and instead establishes the definition of low-achieving school to mean either of the following, effective July 1, 2018, for purposes of the Open Enrollment Act:
   1. A school that is identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) or the State Board of Education for comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to the accountability system requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95), including all of the following:
      1. A school identified as being in the lowest performing five percent of all Title I schools.
      2. A high school that fails to graduate one-third or more of its pupils.
      3. A school subject to a mandatory targeted support and improvement plan.
   2. A school receiving mandatory assistance from the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE), as directed by the SPI.
2. Provides that a low-achieving school shall not include court, community, community day schools, or charter schools.
3. Provides that a school district of enrollment shall ensure that pupils enrolled are enrolled in a school that is not identified as being a low-achieving school and are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based on his or her individual academic or athletic performance, or any of the other characteristics, except that pupils applying for a transfer shall be assigned priority for approval, as follows:
   1. First priority for the siblings of children who already attend the desired school.
   2. Second priority for unduplicated pupils, as specified, transferring from a low-achieving school.
   3. If the number of pupils who request a particular school exceeds the number of spaces available at that school, a lottery shall be conducted in the group priority order to select pupils at random until all of the available spaces are filled.
4. Requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to complete an evaluation of the open enrollment program, as specified, and to make recommendations on any additional or revised eligibility criteria based on the state’s new accountability system adopted for purposes of complying with federal law, including the use of local control funding formula unduplicated subgroup criteria. Provides that the LAO may also include recommendations on whether other open enrollment program provisions should be altered, expanded, or deleted. Requires the final evaluation report to be submitted to the Legislature, Governor, and State Board of Education on or before December 1, 2021, and for the SPI to provide the data necessary to complete the report to the LAO by December 1, 2020, or on an otherwise agreed upon date between the SPI and the LAO.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Open Enrollment Act as follows:
   1. Allows the parent of a pupil attending a school identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) as “low-achieving” to submit an application for the pupil to attend another school within the same district or transfer to another school district (school district of enrollment). A list of 1,000 “low-achieving schools” ranked by increasing Academic Performance Index (API) is identified by the SPI each year.
   2. Provides that a school district of enrollment may adopt specific written standards for acceptance and rejection of transfer applications, including consideration of the capacity of a program, class, grade level, or school building, or adverse fiscal impact.
   3. Prohibits a school district of enrollment from considering a pupil’s previous academic achievement, physical condition, and proficiency in the English language, family income or any of the individual characteristics set forth in Section 200 of the Education Code, and shall ensure that pupils are enrolled in a school with a higher API than the school in which the pupil was previously enrolled.
   4. Requires that pupils are selected through a random, unbiased process, except that pupils applying for transfer are assigned specific priorities, with the first priority given to siblings of children who already attend the desired school and second priority for pupils transferring from a program improvement school ranked in decile 1 on the API. (Education Code (EC) 48350, et seq.)
2. Under the District of Choice (DOC) authorization, established by AB 19 (Quackenbush), Chapter 160, Statutes of 1993, a school board may declare the district to be a DOC willing to accept a specified number of inter-district transfers. A DOC is not required to admit pupils but it is required to select those pupils that it does elect to admit through a random process that does not choose pupils based upon academic or athletic talent. Either the district of residence or DOC may prevent a transfer under this law if the transfer would exacerbate racial segregation. Each DOC is required to keep records of: 1) The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as well as the reasons for the denials; 2) The number of pupils transferred out of the district; 3) The number of pupils transferred into the district; 4) The race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status and the district of residence for each student in #2 and #3 above; and, 5) The number of pupils in #2 and #3 above who are English Learners or individuals with exceptional needs. The DOC program becomes inoperative on July 1, 2017 and repealed on January 1, 2018. (EC 48300-48316)
3. Establishes the CCEE for the purpose of advising and assisting school districts, county superintendent of schools, and charter schools in achieving the goals set forth in a local control and accountability plan (LCAP). (EC 52074)
4. Authorizes the SPI to direct the CCEE to advise and assist a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school in any of the following circumstances:
   1. If the governing board of a school district, county board of education, or governing body or a charter school requests the advice and assistance of the CCEE.
   2. If the county superintendent of schools determines, following the provision of technical assistance, that the advice and assistance of the CCEE is necessary to help the district or charter school accomplish the goals described in the LCAP.
   3. If the SPI determines that the advice and assistance of the CCEE is necessary to help the school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school accomplish the goals set forth in the LCAP. (EC 52074)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, costs, potentially in the tens of thousands, to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) for existing staff to produce an evaluation and recommendations for the program. (General Fund) Minor costs to California Department of Education (CDE) to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the LAO regarding data sharing. (General Fund)

COMMENTS: The Open Enrollment Act was created during a time when the State was competing for Federal funding called Race to the Top. Despite making several changes to state law, California was not awarded Race to the Top funding. The statutory changes made at the time have continued despite the State's lack of participation in the Race to the Top program. The Open Enrollment program requires the SPI to create a list of the 1,000 lowest achieving schools based on the Annual Performance Index (API) and requires that parents at those schools be notified that their child attends a school on this list. Students that attend the 1,000 lowest achieving schools are then authorized to transfer to higher achieving schools. The State has replaced the API with a new assessment system and the API is now outdated. The Open Enrollment program has largely been duplicative of federal law which, until the recent reauthorization of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), allowed students who attend schools in program improvement to transfer to higher achieving schools. Federal law no longer specifies that students in low achieving schools must be allowed to transfer, therefore this program is no longer a requirement of federal law. For these reasons, the committee should consider whether the Open Enrollment program needs updating, or whether the program should be eliminated.

This bill changes the calculation of how the schools are identified to participate in the Open Enrollment program. Specifically, this bill provides that a low-achieving school is a school that is identified in the lowest 5% of Title 1 schools, has high dropout rates, is identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the State Board of Education for comprehensive support and improvement, as specified, or a school that is receiving mandatory assistance by the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE).

According to the author, "the Academic Performance Index (API), along with a specified sometimes confusing legislatively mandated calculation has been the previous method for identifying the 1,000 low achieving schools whose enrollment assignment would trigger a student’s eligibility for Open Enrollment. The last published list of 1,000 is out dated with no new APIs being produced in the last two years. And, some schools objected to the current formula, which resulted in some of the lowest performing schools in California not being on the list at all. With the state adoption of a new assessment system called the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), and the temporary and possibly permanent hiatus on the publication of a new API, there is an interest in using updated definitions and information more accurately reflecting the concept of persistently low school performance. The API is no longer being updated and the last published list is based on the old STAR Program instead of the CAASPP scores. SB 1156 updates the eligibility for additional public school options for students enrolled in persistently low performing schools by maintaining the Open Enrollment Act, and referencing definitions of persistently low performance in the newly enacted federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and state Local Control Funding Formula statutes as the criteria for defining low performing schools. The Open Enrollment Act provides students who are otherwise zip-code assigned to the lowest performing schools a choice to attend a higher performing public school even if the neighborhood school is persistently low performing. Accordingly, SB 1156 helps the state protect students’ constitutional guarantee to equitable opportunity for a quality public education in California."

Federal Every Student Succeeds Act. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorizes and updates the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was signed into law on December 10, 2015. The 2016-17 school year is a transition year for local educational agencies (LEAs), as most of the provisions of ESSA will take effect in the 2017-18 school year, including the new accountability provisions. One notable change under ESSA is the elimination of the requirement for LEAs to provide low-income students attending Title I schools in Program Improvement year 2 and beyond with supplemental educational services and public school choice and spend a portion of their Title I funds for these purposes. In eliminating these provisions, the ESSA will allow LEAs the flexibility to choose what services and activities will be provided to students using Title I funds. Another key difference under ESSA is that states will have the ability to create their own accountability system based on multiple measures and not just on test scores. States will be required to identify their lowest-performing schools—those falling in the bottom five percent. However, there will be a reduced federal role in determining interventions, leaving it up to states to decide.

State’s evolving accountability system. The exact details of the state’s new accountability system have not been finalized, yet major themes have been determined, including ensuring that the new system emphasizes a culture of continuous support and on-going learning. And with the enactment of ESSA, the state will have the opportunity to streamline state and local requirements into a single, coherent accountability and continuous improvement system. A critical component of the accountability system will be the evaluation rubrics, which the State Board of Education is required to adopt by October 1, 2016. The rubrics are intended to serve several purposes, including assistance for LEAs to evaluate their strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement, and also to assist the SPI in identifying school districts for which intervention is warranted.

Calculating the list of low achieving schools: Existing law requires the SPI to create a list of 1,000 low achieving schools and limits the number of schools identified in any one district to 10%. This bill eliminates the requirement that the list be no more than 1,000 schools and the bill eliminates the requirement that no more than 10% of a school district's schools be identified as low achieving. The committee should consider whether to continue to limit the number of schools identified as low achieving to 1,000. According to the author, the new definition of low achieving school identifies approximately 355 schools. While the number of schools identified today may not reach the 1,000 limit, this limit could be important in the future. The committee should also consider whether to limit the number of schools identified in a single school district to 10%.

Similarity to the District of Choice program: There are safeguards in the District of Choice (DOC) program that are not included in the Open Enrollment program, though these programs are similar. The committee should consider whether it is appropriate to continue a school choice program without including the same safeguards as the DOC program, which include:

1. Requiring that communications to parents do not target individual families or neighborhoods.
2. Requiring an annual audit of the random selection process and communications to parents.
3. Requiring a sunset date for the program after the evaluation.
4. Specifying explicitly that a district of enrollment may not reject the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs as defined in EC Section 56026, and an English learner.
5. Requiring each district of enrollment to keep records of: 1) The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as well as the reasons for the denials; 2) The number of pupils transferred out of the district; 3) The number of pupils transferred into the district; and, 4) The race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, free and reduced priced meal eligibility, and the school district of residence of each of the pupils described above.
6. Requiring the information listed above to be reported to the governing board of the district of enrollment and to each school district that is geographically adjacent to the district of enrollment, the county office of education in which the district is located, and the SPI in CALPADS or other system.
7. Requiring the information listed above to be annually reported to the Legislature and the Governor by the SPI.
8. Authorizing either a district of residence or district of enrollment to limit the number of students transferring if it would negatively impact a voluntary desegregation plan.

Charter Schools: The committee should consider whether to add charter schools to the list of schools required to participate in the open enrollment program. Existing law requires the list of low achieving schools be based on the API Decile 1 rankings from the 2008-09 school year. Of the 945 schools ranked in Decile One based on the API in 2008-09, there were 103 charter schools. This means that 103 of California’s lowest achieving charter schools will be excluded from the open enrollment program and an equal number of higher achieving traditional public schools will be required to participate in this program. Since charter school pupils who leave a charter school only have enrollment rights in their district of residence, this exclusion will limit the opportunity for charter school students to move to a higher-performing school if they choose to leave their low performing (charter) school. There is no clear rationale for limiting the opportunity for charter school pupils to leave a low-performing school, and treating charter pupils differently than non-charter pupils in this respect.

Racial Segregation in Schools. According to an April 2016, Government Accountability Office report entitled, Better Use of Information Could Help Agencies Identify Disparities and Address Racial Discrimination, "The percentage of K-12 public schools in the United States with students who are poor and are mostly Black or Hispanic is growing and these schools share a number of challenging characteristics. From school years 2000-01 to 2013-14 (the most recent data available), the percentage of all K-12 public schools that had high percentages of poor and Black or Hispanic students grew from 9 to 16 percent, according to GAO’s analysis of data from the Department of Education (Education). These schools were the most racially and economically concentrated: 75 to 100 percent of the students were Black or Hispanic and eligible for free or reduced-price lunch—a commonly used indicator of poverty. GAO’s analysis of Education data also found that compared with other schools, these schools offered disproportionately fewer math, science, and college preparatory courses and had disproportionately higher rates of students who were held back in 9th grade, suspended, or expelled."

The committee should consider whether the Open Enrollment program will exacerbate racial segregation in California schools as limited evidence shows is happening with the similar District of Choice program. The committee should consider whether the program should be amended to provide some of the same safeguards that currently exist in the District of Choice program or whether the program should be eliminated.

Committee Amendments: Make the following substantive amendments to the Open Enrollment program:

• 1. Reinstate the requirement in existing law that the list of low achieving schools not exceed 1,000 and reinstate the requirement that a local education agency shall not have more than 10 percent of its schools on the list.
  2. Require districts of enrollment to ensure that communications to parents do not target individual families or neighborhoods and that any communication regarding transferring into their district be translated into the necessary languages for parents in the district of residence pursuant to Section 48985.
  3. Include charter schools on the list of schools required to participate in the open enrollment program.

Require the Open Enrollment program contain all the same safeguards provided in the DOC program:

• 1. Require each district of enrollment to keep records of: 1) The number of requests granted, denied, or withdrawn as well as the reasons for the denials; 2) The number of pupils transferred out of the district; 3) The number of pupils transferred into the district; and, 4) The race, ethnicity, gender, self-reported socioeconomic status, free and reduced priced meal eligibility, and the school district of residence of each of the pupils described above.
  2. Require the information listed above to be reported to the governing board of the district of enrollment and to each school district that is geographically adjacent to the district of enrollment, the county office of education in which the district is located, and the SPI through CALPADS or other system.
  3. Require the information listed above to be annually reported to the Legislature and the Governor.
  4. Require this program be included in the district's annual audit.
  5. Include a July 1, 2022 sunset date for the program, to coincide with the evaluation of the program.
  6. Specify explicitly that a district of enrollment may not reject the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs as defined in EC Section 56026, and an English learner.
  7. Authorize a district of residence to limit the number of students transferring if it would negatively impact a voluntary desegregation plan.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

EdVoice

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1156

Author:

: 6/1/16

Vote:

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 9-0, 4/13/16

AYES: Liu, Block, Hancock, Huff, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/27/16

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

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill amends the Open Enrollment Act by replacing the Academic Performance Index with new eligibility criteria for identifying low-achieving schools. Specifically, this bill provides that a low-achieving school is either a school that is identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the State Board of Education for comprehensive support and improvement, as specified, or a school that is receiving mandatory assistance by the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Open Enrollment Act as follows:
   1. Allows the parent of a pupil attending a school identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) as “low-achieving” to submit an application for the pupil to attend another school within the same district or transfer to another school district (school district of enrollment). A list of 1,000 “low-achieving schools” ranked by increasing Academic Performance Index (API) is identified by the SPI each year.
   2. Provides that a school district of enrollment may adopt specific written standards for acceptance and rejection of transfer applications, including consideration of the capacity of a program, class, grade level, or school building, or adverse fiscal impact.
   3. Prohibits a school district of enrollment from considering a pupil’s previous academic achievement, physical condition, and proficiency in the English language, family income or any of the individual characteristics set forth in Section 200 of the Education Code, and shall ensure that pupils are enrolled in a school with a higher API than the school in which the pupil was previously enrolled.
   4. Requires that pupils are selected through a random, unbiased process, except that pupils applying for transfer are assigned specific priorities, with the first priority given to siblings of children who already attend the desired school and second priority for pupils transferring from a program improvement school ranked in decile 1 on the API. (Education Code § 48350, et seq.)
2. Authorizes inter-district transfers known as "school districts of choice" in which the governing board of a school district may declare a district to be a district of choice that is willing to accept a specified number of inter-district transfers. A district of choice is not required to admit pupils but the pupils that it does elect to admit must be selected through a random process that prohibits enrollment based on academic or athletic performance. School districts of choice must give priority for attendance to siblings of children already in attendance in that district. A district of choice may reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the district to create a new program to serve that pupil, but prohibits a district of choice from rejecting the transfer of special needs pupils, individuals with exceptional needs, and English learners. Districts of choice are required to collect specific data about the students who transfer to their district and report that data to surrounding districts and the state. These provisions are currently scheduled to become inoperative on July 1, 2017. (Education Code § 48300, et seq.)
3. Establishes the CCEE for the purpose of advising and assisting school districts, county superintendent of schools, and charter schools in achieving the goals set forth in a local control and accountability plan (LCAP). (Education Code § 52074)
4. Requires the county superintendent of schools to provide technical assistance, including any of the following, if the county superintendent does not approve an LCAP or annual update of a school district, or if the governing board of a school district requests technical assistance:
   1. Identification of the school district’s strengths and weaknesses in regard to the state priorities.
   2. Assignment of an academic expert or team to assist the school district in identifying and implementing effective programs that are designed to improve the outcomes for all student subgroups.\
   3. Requests that the SPI assign the CCEE to provide advice and assistance to the school district. (EC § 52071)
5. Requires the SPI to provide technical assistance, including any of the following, if the SPI does not approve an LCAP or annual update of a county office of education, or if the county board of education requests technical assistance:
   1. Identification of the county board of education’s strengths and weaknesses in regard to the state priorities.
   2. Assignment of an academic expert or team, or the CCEE, to assist in identifying and implementing effective programs that are designed to improve the outcomes for all student subgroups. (EC § 52071.5)
6. Authorizes the SPI to direct the CCEE to advise and assist a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school in any of the following circumstances:
   1. If the governing board of a school district, county board of education, or governing body or a charter school requests the advice and assistance of the CCEE.
   2. If the county superintendent of schools determines, following the provision of technical assistance, that the advice and assistance of the CCEE is necessary to help the district or charter school accomplish the goals described in the LCAP.
   3. If the SPI determines that the advice and assistance of the CCEE is necessary to help the school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school accomplish the goals set forth in the LCAP. (EC § 52074)
7. Requires the governing board of each school district and each county board of education to adopt an LCAP, and to update the plan annually. Existing law requires LCAPs to include both of the following:
   1. A description of the annual goals, for all students and each subgroup of students, to be achieved for each of the state priorities and for any additional local priorities identified by the governing board.
   2. A description of the specific actions the school district will take during each year of the LCAP 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 and § 52066)
8. Requires the State Board of Education to adopt evaluation rubrics, by October 1, 2016, for all of the following purposes:
   1. To assist a school district, county office of education or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement.
   2. To assist 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.
   3. To assist the SPI in identifying school districts for which intervention is warranted. (EC § 52064.5)

This bill:

1. Removes the existing definition of “low-achieving school” under the Open Enrollment Act, effective July 1, 2018, which means any school on the list created by the SPI ranked by the API, as specified.
2. Establishes the definition of low-achieving school to mean either of the following for purposes of the Open Enrollment Act:
   1. A school that is identified by the SPI or the State Board of Education for comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to the accountability system requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95), including all of the following:
      1. A school identified as being in the lowest performing five percent of all Title I schools.
      2. A high school that fails to graduate one-third or more of its pupils.
      3. A school subject to a mandatory targeted support and improvement plan.
   2. A school receiving mandatory assistance from the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, as directed by the SPI.
3. Provides that a low-achieving school shall not include court, community, or community day schools, or charter schools.
4. Provides that a school district of enrollment shall ensure that pupils enrolled pursuant to standards adopted pursuant to this section are enrolled in a school that is not identified as being a low-achieving school and are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based on his or her individual academic or athletic performance, or any of the other characteristics set forth, except that pupils applying for a transfer shall be assigned priority for approval, as follows:
   1. First priority for the siblings of children who already attend the desired school.
   2. Second priority for unduplicated pupils, as specified, transferring from a low-achieving school.
   3. If the number of pupils who request a particular school exceeds the number of spaces available at that school, a lottery shall be conducted in the group priority order to select pupils at random until all of the available spaces are filled.
5. Requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to complete an evaluation of the open enrollment program, as specified, and to make recommendations on any additional or revised eligibility criteria based on the state’s new accountability system adopted for purposes of complying with federal law, including the use of local control funding formula unduplicated subgroup criteria. Provides that the LAO may also include recommendations on whether other open enrollment program provisions should be altered, expanded, or deleted. Requires the final evaluation report to be submitted to the Legislature, Governor, and State Board of Education on or before December 1, 2021, and for the SPI to provide the data necessary to complete the report to the LAO by December 1, 2020, or on an otherwise agreed upon date between the SPI and the LAO.
6. Requires the final evaluation report to be submitted to the Legislature in conformance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.

Comments

Need for the bill. According to the author’s office, “the Academic Performance Index (API), along with a specified, sometimes confusing legislatively mandated calculation has been the previous method for identifying the 1,000 low-achieving schools whose enrollment assignment would trigger a student’s eligibility for Open Enrollment. The last published list of 1,000 is outdated with no new API’s being produced in the last two years. And, some schools objected to the current formula, which resulted in some of the lowest-performing schools in California not being on the list at all. With the state adoption of a new system called the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), and the temporary and possibly permanent hiatus on the publication of a new API, there is an interest in using updated definitions and information more accurately reflecting the concept of persistently low school performance. The API is no longer being updated and the last published list is based on the old STAR Program instead of the CAASPP scores.”

Federal Every Student Succeeds Act. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorizes and updates the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was signed into law on December 10, 2015. The 2016-17 school year is a transition year for local educational agencies (LEAs), as most of the provisions of ESSA will take effect in the 2017-18 school year, including the new accountability provisions. One notable change under ESSA is the elimination of the requirement for LEAs to provide low-income students attending Title I schools in Program Improvement year 2 and beyond with supplemental educational services and public school choice and spend a portion of their Title I funds for these purposes. In eliminating these provisions, the ESSA will allow LEAs the flexibility to choose what services and activities will be provided to students using Title I funds. Another key difference under ESSA is that states will have the ability to create their own accountability system based on multiple measures and not just on test scores. States will be required to identify their lowest-performing schools—those falling in the bottom five percent. However, there will be a reduced federal role in determining interventions, leaving it up to states to decide.

State’s evolving accountability system. The exact details of the state’s new accountability system have not been finalized, yet major themes have been determined, including ensuring that the new system emphasizes a culture of continuous support and on-going learning. And with the enactment of ESSA, the state will have the opportunity to streamline state and local requirements into a single, coherent accountability and continuous improvement system. A critical component of the accountability system will be the evaluation rubrics, which the State Board of Education is required to adopt by October 1, 2016. The rubrics are intended to serve several purposes, including assistance for LEAs to evaluate their strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement, and also to assist the SPI in identifying school districts for which intervention is warranted.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Costs, potentially in the tens of thousands, to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) for existing staff to produce an evaluation and recommendations for the program. (General Fund)
  
• Minor costs to California Department of Education (CDE) to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the LAO regarding data sharing. (General Fund)

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/27/16)

EdVoice

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/27/16)

None received

Prepared by:

6/1/16 18:41:38

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

SB 1156 (Huff) - School accountability: Open Enrollment Act: low-achieving schools

Bill Summary:

This bill amends the Open Enrollment Act by replacing the Academic Performance Index with new eligibility criteria for identifying low-achieving schools. Specifically, the bill provides that a low-achieving school is either a school that is identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the State Board of Education for comprehensive support and improvement, as specified, or a school that is receiving mandatory assistance by the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 27, 2016

Fiscal Impact:

• Costs, potentially in the tens of thousands, to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) for existing staff to produce an evaluation and recommendations for the program. (General Fund)
  
• Minor costs to California Department of Education (CDE) to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the LAO regarding data sharing. (General Fund)

Committee Amendments:

Require only the LAO to conduct the program evaluation report and delay the date it is required to be submitted to the Legislature. Require CDE to submit by a certain date, the data necessary for the LAO to complete the report.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

SB 1156 (Huff) - School accountability: Open Enrollment Act: low-achieving schools

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

Bill Summary:

This bill amends the Open Enrollment Act by replacing the Academic Performance Index with new eligibility criteria for identifying low-achieving schools. Specifically, the bill provides that a low-achieving school is either a school that is identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (Superintendent) or the State Board of Education (Board) for comprehensive support and improvement, as specified, or a school that is receiving mandatory assistance by the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (Collaborative).

Fiscal Impact:

• Reporting: Costs to the California Department of Education (CDE) and the Legislative Analyst’s Office likely in the low hundreds of thousands for existing staff to work together to produce an evaluation and recommendations for the program. However, in order to produce a report as intended by this bill, the submittal date would need to be postponed several years. See staff comments. (General Fund)
  
• Data System Updates: The CDE notes costs related to updating its data collection system to include student transfer data. These costs would be potentially significant to the extent these changes would be required to be made prior to the 2017-18 fiscal year. (General Fund)

Background:

Existing law establishes the Open Enrollment Act which allows the parent of a student attending a school identified as low achieving to submit an application for the student to attend another school with in the same district or transfer to another school district. Current law defines a low-achieving school by a list developed annually by the Superintendent which ranks 1,000 low-achieving schools by increasing Academic Performance Index. However, since the implementation of the state’s new student assessment system, the Academic Performance Index has been suspended and therefore the list has not been updated to identify schools newly eligible for the Open Enrollment program. According to the CDE, the last available list which is being used for 2016-17 school year is based on the assessment results from the former statewide student assessments aligned to the prior state content standards.

The federal and state accountability systems are undergoing major changes. Beginning in the 2017-18 school year, the recent enactment of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) replaces identification for school improvement, corrective action, restructuring, public school choice, and supplemental educational services with two categories: (1) comprehensive support and improvement; and (2) targeted support and improvement for LEAs with schools which have “consistently underperforming” subgroups. Schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement are those that are in the lowest performing 5 percent performing in the state; high schools that graduate less than two-thirds or their students; and schools subject to targeted support and improvement. The ESSA provides public school choice as an option, not a requirement, to LEAs with schools identified by the Superintendent for comprehensive support and improvement.

The state’s new accountability system establishes, among other things, an entity to provide support and intervention through the Collaborative. Its purpose is to provide advice and assistance to LEAs to achieve the goals specified in their local control and accountability plans (LCAPs). Existing law requires, at the direction of the Collaborative, the fiscal agent to contract with individuals, LEAs, or organizations with the expertise, experience, and a record of success to assist LEAs in meeting their goals.

Proposed Law:

For purposes of the Open Enrollment Act, this bill amends the definition of a low-achieving school, a status that allows parents of a student enrolled in that school to submit an application for transfer to another school within or outside the district of residence. This bill removes the provisions referencing schools with the lowest Academic Performance Index, effective July 1, 2018. Instead, it defines a low-achieving school as one that is identified by the Superintendent or the State Board of Education for comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to the accountability provisions of the federal ESSA and the state accountability system through the Collaborative.

This bill also requires the school district in which the student transfers to ensure that the student is enrolled in a new school that is not identified as being low-achieving, instead of enrolled in a school with a higher Academic Performance Index as required by existing law. This bill updates the order of priority for students applying for a transfer to provide as second priority, students that generate additional funding through the state’s Local Control Funding Formula (low-income, English learner, or foster youth) transferring from a low-achieving school.

Finally, this bill requires the Superintendent, with the Legislative Analyst’s Office, to complete an evaluation of the open enrollment program, as specified. It also requires both entities to make recommendations regarding the eligibility criteria for the open enrollment program based on the state’s new accountability system with respect to complying with federal ESSA, including the use of LCFF unduplicated subgroup criteria, and may also include recommendations on the future of the program.

Related Legislation:

SB 451 (Huff, 2013) proposed to expand the Open Enrollment Act to authorize the parent of a student, regardless of whether the student attends a low-achieving school, to submit an application for the student to attend another school. SB 541 failed passage in the Senate Education Committee.

Staff Comments:

Staff notes that the new provisions of the Open Enrollment Act in this bill are operative July 2018. The evaluation report is due no later than one year after the implementation of the state’s accountability system for purposes of complying with federal ESSA which would likely be the 2018-19 fiscal year. This timeline makes it difficult to analyze the new program. Allowing for the new requirements to be in effect for a few years may yield better information from which to make recommendations on the effectiveness and future of the program. This would also provide time for the CDE to make necessary changes to its data collection system and track the data over multiple years.

SBX5 4 (Romero, Chapter 3, Statutes of 2010) established, among other things, the Open Enrollment Act which was intended to make the state eligible for the federal Race to the Top grant. The Commission on State Mandates determined certain requirements of the program to be a higher level of service than federal law and therefore reimbursable by the state. Mandated activities included: notifying parents of the option to transfer out of a low-achieving school; ensuring the transferred student is in a school with a higher Academic Performance Index; and notifying the school district of residence and the parent of a student’s accepted application for transfer. The costs attributed to this mandate have historically been in the mid tens of thousands. This bill updates the program’s current requirements to conform to the changes in the federal and state accountability systems and would continue the program’s mandated activities.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Carol Liu, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No:

Subject:

SUMMARY

This bill amends the Open Enrollment Act by replacing the Academic Performance Index with new eligibility criteria for identifying low-achieving schools. Specifically, the bill provides that a low-achieving school is either a school that is identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the State Board of Education for comprehensive support and improvement, as specified, or a school that is receiving mandatory assistance by the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Open Enrollment Act as follows:
   1. Allows the parent of a pupil attending a school identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) as “low-achieving” to submit an application for the pupil to attend another school within the same district or transfer to another school district (school district of enrollment). A list of 1,000 “low-achieving schools” ranked by increasing Academic Performance Index (API) is identified by the SPI each year.
   2. Provides that a school district of enrollment may adopt specific written standards for acceptance and rejection of transfer applications, including consideration of the capacity of a program, class, grade level, or school building, or adverse fiscal impact.
   3. Prohibits a school district of enrollment from considering a pupil’s previous academic achievement, physical condition, and proficiency in the English language, family income or any of the individual characteristics set forth in Section 200 of the Education Code, and shall ensure that pupils are enrolled in a school with a higher API than the school in which the pupil was previously enrolled.
   4. Requires that pupils are selected through a random, unbiased process, except that pupils applying for transfer are assigned specific priorities, with the first priority given to siblings of children who already attend the desired school and second priority for pupils transferring from a program improvement school ranked in decile 1 on the Academic Performance Index (API). (Education Code § 48350, et seq.)
2. Authorizes inter-district transfers known as "school districts of choice" in which the governing board of a school district may declare a district to be a district of choice that is willing to accept a specified number of inter-district transfers. A district of choice is not required to admit pupils but the pupils that it does elect to admit must be selected through a random process that prohibits enrollment based on academic or athletic performance. School districts of choice must give priority for attendance to siblings of children already in attendance in that district. A district of choice may reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the district to create a new program to serve that pupil, but prohibits a district of choice from rejecting the transfer of special needs pupils, individuals with exceptional needs, and English learners. Districts of choice are required to collect specific data about the students who transfer to their district and report that data to surrounding districts and the state. These provisions are currently scheduled to become inoperative on July 1, 2017.

(Education Code § 48300, et seq.)

1. Establishes the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) for the purpose of advising and assisting school districts, county superintendent of schools, and charter schools in achieving the goals set forth in a local control and accountability plan (LCAP). (Education Code § 52074)
2. Requires the county superintendent of schools to provide technical assistance, including any of the following, if the county superintendent does not approve an LCAP or annual update of a school district, or if the governing board of a school district requests technical assistance:
   
   1. Identification of the school district’s strengths and weaknesses in regard to the state priorities.
      
   2. Assignment of an academic expert or team to assist the school district in identifying and implementing effective programs that are designed to improve the outcomes for all student subgroups.
      
   3. Request that the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) assign the CCEE to provide advice and assistance to the school district.

(EC § 52071)

1. Requires the SPI to provide technical assistance, including any of the following, if the SPI does not approve an LCAP or annual update of a county office of education, or if the county board of education requests technical assistance:
   
   1. Identification of the county board of education’s strengths and weaknesses in regard to the state priorities.
      
   2. Assignment of an academic expert or team, or the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE), to assist in identifying and implementing effective programs that are designed to improve the outcomes for all student subgroups. (EC § 52071.5)
      
2. Authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to direct the CCEE to advise and assist a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school in any of the following circumstances:
   
   1. If the governing board of a school district, county board of education, or governing body or a charter school requests the advice and assistance of the CCEE.
      
   2. If the county superintendent of schools determines, following the provision of technical assistance, that the advice and assistance of the CCEE is necessary to help the district or charter school accomplish the goals described in the local control and accountability plan (LCAP).
      
   3. If the SPI determines that the advice and assistance of the CCEE is necessary to help the school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school accomplish the goals set forth in the LCAP. (EC § 52074)
      
3. Requires the governing board of each school district and each county board of education to adopt an LCAP, and to update the plan annually. Existing law requires LCAPs to include both of the following:
   
   1. A description of the annual goals, for all students and each subgroup of students, to be achieved for each of the state priorities and for any additional local priorities identified by the governing board.
      
   2. A description of the specific actions the school district will take during each year of the LCAP 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 and § 52066)
      
4. Requires the State Board of Education to adopt evaluation rubrics, by October 1, 2016, for all of the following purposes:
   
   1. To assist a school district, county office of education or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement.
      
   2. To assist 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.
      
   3. To assist the SPI in identifying school districts for which intervention is warranted. (EC § 52064.5)
      
5. Requires the evaluation rubrics to reflect a holistic, multidimensional assessment of school districts and individual schoolsite performance and include all of the state priorities. Existing law requires, as part of the evaluation rubrics, the State Board of Education to adopt standards for school district and individual schoolsite performance and expectations for improvement in regard to each of the state priorities. (EC § 52064.5)

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Removes the existing definition of “low-achieving school” under the Open Enrollment Act, effective July 1, 2017, which means any school on the list created by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) ranked by the Academic Performance Index (API), as specified.
2. Establishes the definition of low-achieving school to mean either of the following for purposes of the Open Enrollment Act:
   1. A school that is identified by the SPI and the State Board of Education for

comprehensive support and improvement pursuant to the accountability system requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95), including all of the following:

• • 1. A school identified as being in the lowest performing five percent of

all schools.

• • 1. A high school that fails to graduate one-third or more of its pupils.
    2. A school subject to a mandatory targeted support and improvement

plan.

• 1. A school receiving mandatory assistance from the California Collaborative

for Educational Excellence, as directed by the SPI.

1. Removes the existing prohibition in which charter schools, and court, community, or community day schools shall not be included on the list of schools eligible for the Open Enrollment Act.
2. Provides that a school district of enrollment shall ensure that pupils enrolled pursuant to standards adopted pursuant to this section are enrolled in a school that is not identified as being low-achieving and are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based on his or her individual academic or athletic performance, or any of the other characteristics set forth, except that pupils applying for a transfer shall be assigned priority for approval, as follows:
   1. First priority for the siblings of children who already attend the desired school.
   2. Second priority for unduplicated pupils, as specified, transferring from a low-achieving school.
   3. If the number of pupils who request a particular school exceeds the number of spaces available at that school, a lottery shall be conducted in the group priority order to select pupils at random until all of the available spaces are filled.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author’s office, “the Academic Performance Index (API), along with a specified, sometimes confusing legislatively mandated calculation has been the previous method for identifying the 1,000 low-achieving schools whose enrollment assignment would trigger a student’s eligibility for Open Enrollment. The last published list of 1,000 is outdated with no new API’s being produced in the last two years. And, some schools objected to the current formula, which resulted in some of the lowest-performing schools in California not being on the list at all. With the state adoption of a new system called the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), and the temporary and possibly permanent hiatus on the publication of a new API, there is an interest in using updated definitions and information more accurately reflecting the concept of persistently low school performance. The API is no longer being updated and the last published list is based on the old STAR Program instead of the CAASPP scores.”
2. Federal Every Student Succeeds Act. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorizes and updates the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was signed into law on December 10, 2015. The 2016-17 school year is a transition year for local educational agencies (LEAs), as most of the provisions of ESSA will take effect in the 2017-18 school year, including the new accountability provisions. One notable change under ESSA is the elimination of the requirement for LEAs to provide low-income students attending Title I schools in Program Improvement year 2 and beyond with supplemental educational services and public school choice and spend a portion of their Title I funds for these purposes. In eliminating these provisions, the ESSA will allow LEAs the flexibility to choose what services and activities will be provided to students using Title I funds. Another key difference under ESSA is that states will have the ability to create their own accountability system based on multiple measures and not just on test scores. States will be required to identify their lowest-performing schools—those falling in the bottom five percent. However, there will be a reduced federal role in determining interventions, leaving it up to states to decide.
3. State’s evolving accountability system. The exact details of the state’s new accountability system have not been finalized, yet major themes have been determined, including ensuring that the new system emphasizes a culture of continuous support and on-going learning. And with the enactment of ESSA, the state will have the opportunity to streamline state and local requirements into a single, coherent accountability and continuous improvement system. A critical component of the accountability system will be the evaluation rubrics, which the State Board of Education is required to adopt by October 1, 2016. The rubrics are intended to serve several purposes, including assistance for local educational agencies (LEAs) to evaluate their strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement, and also to assist the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) in identifying school districts for which intervention is warranted.
4. Committee amendments. In light of the recent changes in federal law as well as the state’s evolving accountability system, staff recommends several amendments to this measure, some of which are either technical or conforming to federal law, while others are more substantive and provide the state additional flexibility in determining its own eligibility criteria upon adoption of the accountability system.
   1. With the evolving nature of the state’s accountability system, it is premature to amend the eligibility criteria for the Open Enrollment Act? It may be prudent to wait until after the state’s adoption of a new accountability system and more specifically, how that system will identify schools in need of support or intervention. It is possible that a more appropriate method of identifying low-achieving schools (for purposes of the Open Enrollment Act) could result. However, the bill proposes eligibility criteria that are derived from new federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requirements, which appear to be reasonable because it is expected that the state will adopt a more streamlined and coherent accountability system, rather than having two separate state and federal accountability structures. To ensure an opportunity for the state to utilize its own criteria to develop the list of eligible schools that may result from its adoption of a new accountability system, staff recommends that the bill be amended to require the SPI to make recommendations on any additional or revised eligibility criteria for the Open Enrollment Act based on the new accountability system no later than one year after adoption, including the use of Local Control Funding Formula unduplicated subgroup criteria.
   2. In February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed, which among other things, established $4 billion for one-time state incentive grants known as Race to the Top (RTTP). One of the eligibility requirements for RTTP is identifying persistently lowest-achieving schools in the state and requiring them to implement one of four intervention models, which include closing a school, converting a school to a charter school, and replacing a principal and other staff. When the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SBX5 4 (Romero, Chapter 3, Statutes of 2010), which established the Open Enrollment Act program, part of the rationale was that it would enable the state’s Race for the Top (RTTP) application to be more competitive.

As indicated under comment No. 2, the new federal ESSA eliminates the requirement for local educational agencies to provide low-income students attending Title I schools in Program Improvement year 2 and beyond with the public school choice option. To the extent that part of the rationale for establishing the Open Enrollment Act was in response to federal law at the time and now that ESSA has changed some of those provisions, the Committee may wish to revisit the state’s public school choice options. Therefore, staff recommends that the bill be amended to require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to complete the evaluation of the Open Enrollment Act specified in Education Code Section 48360 and provide that it may also include recommendations on whether to continue the program in light of recent changes to federal law.

• 1. The accountability provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) will not take effect until the 2017-18 school year. While the State Department of Education (SDE) anticipates it will begin identifying the lowest five percent of schools during that school year, it is unclear when the SDE will have completed the list. The bill’s provisions would become operative, July 1, 2017, and specifies that enrollment applications would be due by January 1^st, so to the extent that the list has not been completed by this date, the bill’s effective date may not be practical to implement. For this reason, staff recommends that the bill’s operative date be amended to July 1, 2018.
  2. Staff also recommends that the bill be amended to clarify that the list of the bottom five percent of schools be applied to only Title I schools, not all schools, to be consistent with ESSA. Staff further recommends that the bill be amended to prohibit charter schools, and court, community, or community day schools from being included on the list of eligible schools, to be consistent with existing Open Enrollment Act provisions.

1. Suspension of the API. The Academic Performance Index has been suspended for several years now and in its absence, the SDE has not compiled a new list of eligible schools for the Open Enrollment Act. It is unclear at the local level if school districts are continuing to use this “outdated” list.
2. Program evaluation. The Open Enrollment Act has been operative for approximately six years. An evaluation of the program by the Superintendent of Public Instruction was due to the Legislature, Governor, and SBE by October 1, 2014, and was to include the changes in academic achievement of pupils that transfer, fiscal and programmatic effects on school districts, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of pupils that transfer. However, the evaluation was predicated upon federal funds being appropriated for that purpose and that never materialized.
3. Related legislation.

SB 1432 (Huff) repeals the sunset date of the District of Choice program thereby extending the operation of the program indefinitely. This bill was heard by and passed this Committee on April 6, 2016, by a vote of 9-0.

1. Previous legislation.

SB 451 (Huff, 2013), proposed to expand the Open Enrollment Act to authorize the parent of a pupil, regardless of whether the pupil attends a “low-achieving school”, to submit an application for the pupil to attend another school within the same district or to a school outside their district of residence. SB 451 was heard by this Committee on April 10, 2013 and failed passage, by a vote of 2-4.

SBX5 4 (Huff, 2010), Chapter 3, Statutes of 2010, established the Open Enrollment Act to allow any pupil in a low-achieving school, as defined, to transfer to another school in the district or any school outside of their district of residence.

SB 680 (Romero), Chapter 198, Statutes of 2009, extended the sunset date of the District of Choice program to July 1, 2016.

SUPPORT

EdVoice

OPPOSITION

None received.

-- END --