BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2548
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 2548
(Weber) - As Amended April 11, 2016
SUBJECT: School accountability: statewide accountability
system
SUMMARY: Establishes a Statewide Accountability System, as
specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Expresses the intent of the Legislature to do the following:
a) Establish a coherent, aligned local-state-federal
accountability system that addresses state, local, parent,
community, and public needs, as well as federal
requirements;
b) Ensure ambitious, statewide standards for performance
and expectations for improvement that encourage continuous
improvement and the closure of opportunity and achievement
gaps; and
c) Establish a mechanism using multiple measures that
meaningfully differentiates the performance of schools and
identifies schools and local educational agencies in need
AB 2548
Page 2
of technical assistance, support, and intervention.
2)Expresses the intent of Legislature that the accountability
system continue to support and advance the framework
established by the local control funding formula (LCFF) and
California's emphasis on continuous improvement, technical
assistance, and support.
3)Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt a
statewide accountability system that does the following:
a) Satisfies the accountability system requirements of the
recently-enacted federal Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA);
b) Aligns California's local control framework with the
need to identify, support, and improve California's highest
need schools. In doing so, requires the SBE to do all of
the following:
i) Set clear, ambitious, statewide standards for
performance and expectations for improvement toward
specified key indicators, and requires these standards to
be differentiated by pupil subgroup so that subgroups
that start off at lower performance levels make greater
growth to achieve the statewide standards;
ii) Establish a mechanism to meaningfully differentiate
the performance of all public schools, to identify local
educational agencies for purposes of support and
intervention on an annual basis based on outcomes for all
pupils and for each subgroup of pupils using specified
multiple measures identified in paragraph, and to do all
AB 2548
Page 3
of the following:
(1) Distinguish multiple levels of performance for
purposes of continuous improvement, transparency,
meaningful stakeholder engagement, recognition, and
support, including the identification of the
following:
(a) Not less than the lowest-performing 5
percent of all schools receiving federal Title I
funds and all public high schools in the state
failing to graduate one-third or more of their
pupils;
(b) All schools in which any subgroup of
pupils is consistently underperforming, as
determined by the state board, based on specified
key indicators; and
(c) All schools where any one subgroup of
pupils, on its own, would lead that school to be in
the lowest 5 percent of schools for pupils overall.
(2) Support parents and guardians in making
informed school decisions on behalf of their children;
and
(3) Enable school districts, county offices of
education, the CDE, and the California Collaborative
for Educational Excellence (CCEE) to identify schools
for recognition, support, and assistance and ensure
that support and assistance is provided to at least
those schools identified as in need of improvement.
AB 2548
Page 4
iii) Comply with all notification, stakeholder
engagement, school support, and improvement activities
required by ESSA.
c) Relies upon data from key indicators established
pursuant to evaluation rubrics adopted by the SBE. At a
minimum, those key indicators shall include, all of the
following:
i) For elementary and middle schools:
(1) A measure of pupil achievement in at least
English language arts, mathematics, and science;
(2) A measure of academic growth;
(3) A measure of progress toward English
proficiency;
(4) A measure of chronic absenteeism; and
(5) A measure of school climate.
ii) For high schools:
(1) A measure of pupil achievement in at least
English language arts, mathematics, and science;
AB 2548
Page 5
(2) A measure of graduation rates
(3) A measure of progress toward English
proficiency;
(4) A measure of college and career readiness;
(5) A measure of chronic absenteeism; and
(6) A measure of school climate.
d) Specifies that the SBE is not precluded from including
additional statewide measures that can be disaggregated by
subgroup in the accountability system for purposes of
meaningful differentiation of all schools or from grouping
the measures into common clusters
e) Expresses the intent of the Legislature that the state
will continue to use the SBE-adopted evaluation rubrics and
all indicators identified as state priorities and specified
pupil subgroups for purposes of continuous improvement and
to guide the provision of technical assistance, support,
and intervention.
f) Provides that, in order to comply with ESSA, the
following academic indicators shall receive substantial
weight and, in aggregate, much greater weight than is
afforded to all other indicators:
i) A measure of pupil achievement in at least English
AB 2548
Page 6
language arts, mathematics, and science;
ii) A measure of academic growth; and
iii) A measure of progress toward English proficiency.
g) Provides the CCEE, county superintendents of schools,
and the public with data to be used in a multitiered system
of review and assistance. Notwithstanding the key
indicators used for purposes of paragraph (2), in
identifying appropriate assistance for a school or local
educational agency, the CCEE and the county superintendents
of schools shall analyze data aligned with all the state
priorities established pursuant to Sections 52060 and 52066
in order to align the level of support, collaboration, and
intervention to the needs of the local educational agency
or individual school or schools.
h) Ensures the creation of a data and reporting system that
provides meaningful and accessible information on school
and school district performance that is displayed through
an electronic platform and gives parents and the public the
ability to easily access, compare, analyze, and summarize
school reports, pupil performance results, and the progress
made by schools and school districts in reaching all of the
state's priority areas.
i) Expresses the intent of the Legislature to ensure that
any Web-based data and analysis tools should enable all
stakeholders to readily identify strengths and weaknesses,
identify inequities between schools and subgroups of pupils
across multiple measures, monitor academic achievement and
improvement, provide for meaningful differentiation, and
enable users to download data and reports in
AB 2548
Page 7
machine-readable formats.
4)Requires key indicators to be used to identify schools, school
districts, and county offices of education for intervention
and assistance.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires the SPI, with the approval of the SBE, to develop an
Academic Performance Index (API), to measure the performance
of schools and school districts, especially the academic
performance of pupils.
2)Requires a school or school district to demonstrate comparable
improvement in academic achievement as measured by the API by
all numerically significant pupil subgroups at the school or
school district, including:
a) Ethnic subgroups;
b) Socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils;
c) English learners;
d) Pupils with disabilities;
e) Foster youth; and
f) Homeless youth.
AB 2548
Page 8
3)Requires the API to consist of a variety of indicators
currently reported to the CDE, including, but not limited to,
the results of the California Assessment of Student
Performance and Progress (CAASPP); attendance rates for pupils
in elementary schools, middle schools, and secondary schools;
and the graduation rates for pupils in secondary schools.
4)Authorizes the SPI, with the approval of the SBE, to also
incorporate into the API the rates at which pupils
successfully promote from one grade to the next in middle
school and high school, and successfully matriculate from
middle school to high school.
5)Requires the SPI to develop and the SBE to adopt statewide
performance and expected annual percentage growth targets for
all schools based on their API baseline score from the
previous year.
6)Requires school districts and county offices of education
(COEs) to adopt and annually update local control and
accountability plans (LCAPs), which describe the annual goals
for all pupils and each subgroup of pupils and the specific
actions that will be taken to achieve those goals.
7)Requires each LCAP to address eight state priorities:
a) The degree to which the teachers of the school district
are appropriately assigned and fully credentialed in the
subject areas, and, for the pupils they are teaching, every
pupil in the school district has sufficient access to
standards-aligned instructional materials.
AB 2548
Page 9
b) Implementation of the academic content and performance
standards adopted by SBE, including how the programs and
services will enable English learners to access the common
core academic content standards and the English language
development standards adopted by the SBE.
c) Parental involvement, including efforts the school
district makes to seek parent input in making decisions for
the school district and each individual schoolsite, and
including how the school district will promote parental
participation in programs for unduplicated pupils and
individuals with exceptional needs.
d) Pupil achievement, as measured by all of the following,
as applicable:
i) Statewide assessments;
ii) The API;
iii) The percentage of pupils who have successfully
completed courses that satisfy the requirements for
entrance to the University of California and the
California State University, or career technical
education sequences or programs of study that align with
state board-approved career technical education standards
and frameworks;
iv) The percentage of English learner pupils who make
progress toward English proficiency as measured by the
California English Language Development Test or any
subsequent assessment of English proficiency, as
certified by the state board;
AB 2548
Page 10
v) The English learner reclassification rate;
vi) The percentage of pupils who have passed an advanced
placement examination with a score of 3 or higher; and
vii) The percentage of pupils who participate in, and
demonstrate college preparedness pursuant to, the Early
Assessment Program or any subsequent assessment of
college preparedness.
e) Pupil engagement, as measured by all of the following,
as applicable:
i) School attendance rates;
ii) Chronic absenteeism rates;
iii) Middle school dropout rates; and
iv) High school dropout and graduation rates.
f) School climate, as measured by all of the following, as
applicable:
i) Pupil suspension rates;
ii) Pupil expulsion rates; and
iii) Other local measures, including surveys of pupils,
parents, and teachers on the sense of safety and school
connectedness.
g) The extent to which pupils have access to, and are
enrolled in, a broad course of study; and
h) Pupil outcomes, if available, in other specified, as
applicable.
AB 2548
Page 11
8)Establishes a system of interventions and support for school
districts and COEs that fail to meet performance or growth
standards.
9)Establishes the CCEE to provide advice and assistance to LEAs
upon request of the LEA or if the LEA has been identified as
needing intervention and support.
10)Requires the SBE, on or before October 1, 2016, to adopt
evaluation rubrics for all of the following purposes:
a) To assist a school district, COE, or charter school in
evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that
require improvement;
b) 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; and
c) To assist the SPI in identifying school districts for
which is warranted.
11)Requires the evaluation rubrics to reflect a holistic,
multidimensional assessment of school district and individual
schoolsite performance and shall include all of the eight
state priorities.
12)Requires the SBE, as part of the evaluation rubrics to adopt
standards for school district and individual schoolsite
performance and expectations for improvement in regard to each
of the eight state priorities.
13)Establishes the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),
which requires states to establish their own accountability
systems that include the following indicators:
a) Proficiency in reading and math;
AB 2548
Page 12
b) Graduation rates for high schools;
c) English language proficiency;
d) For elementary and middle schools, student growth or
another indicator that is valid, reliable, and statewide;
and
e) At least one other indicator of school quality or
success, such as measures of safety, student engagement, or
educator engagement.
14)Requires the accountability system to have substantial
weights on indicators a) through d) and, in aggregate,
indicators a) through d) mush weigh more than indicator e).
15)Requires states, at least once every three years, to identify
the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools and all high
schools with a graduation rate that is below 67% for
comprehensive support.
FISCAL EFFECT: State-mandated local program
COMMENTS:
A brief history of accountability in California. In 1999, the
Legislature and Governor enacted the Public School
Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA), which established a
state-wide accountability system based primarily on student
scores on state, standards-aligned assessments. The PSAA set a
target API score of 800 for all schools. If a school's base API
was below 800, that school was assigned an annual growth target
equal to 5% of the difference between 800 and its base API.
Thus, the PSAA held schools accountable for growth.
AB 2548
Page 13
The PSAA was followed by the enactment of the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB), which established a federal accountability
system. NCLB evaluated schools on the basis of Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP). AYP measured the percentage of pupils who meet
grade level standards. This measures increases in the number of
pupils who meet minimum standards, but it was not a measure of
overall academic growth.
More recently, California adopted the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS), which created a need to revise the state
assessments to bring them into alignment with the new standards.
The new assessments were developed by the multi-state
SmarterBalanced consortium, of which California is a member.
Except for pilot and field tests, the SmarterBalanced tests,
which are computer-assisted, were administered for the first
time in the Spring of 2015.
During this time, it also became clear that an accountability
system based primarily on student scores has undesirable
consequences, such as teaching to the test and narrowing the
curriculum to only those academic areas (English language arts,
mathematics, and science) that are tested, which result in
providing incomplete and inaccurate information about the
performance of individual schools. Accordingly, the Legislature
enacted legislation directing the SPI to make recommendations
regarding a new approach to accountability based on multiple
measures (SB 1458, Steinberg, Chapter 577, Statutes of 2012 and
AB 484, Bonilla, Chapter 489, Statutes of 2013.) In the
meantime, California has suspended its use of the API.
Current status of accountability. In 2013, California enacted
the LCFF and established the requirement for districts and COEs
to adopt and annually update LCAPs. While this was a
fundamental change in how the state funds its schools, it was
AB 2548
Page 14
also a fundamental change in the state's approach to
accountability by putting more emphasis on local accountability
through the LCAP process and establishing a system of continuous
improvement for all schools. However, schools and school
districts may still be identified by county superintendents of
schools and the SPI as needing intervention and support
In this changing context, the SPI established the Accountability
and Continuous Improvement Task Force to make recommendations
regarding the state's accountability system. The Task Force,
which began meeting in September 2015, consists of 30 members
representing a broad cross section of the education and academic
communities, as well as organizations representing parents and
other stakeholders. Children Now, the sponsor of this bill, is
represented on the Task Force.
The Task Force is in the process of preparing a final report,
which will be presented to the SBE in May. One of the guiding
principles of the Task Force is to align state and federal
accountability and continuous improvements systems to create one
single integrated system for use by the state, COEs, LEA's, and
schools. At its February 2016 meeting, the SBE received
information from the CDE on the potential architecture of this
unified system. The diagram below shows this potential system.
As the diagram shows, the first level of accountability is at
the LEA level, and centers on the LCAP, which must address the
eight state priorities. Each LCAP describes the goals of the
LEA with respect to the priorities and the specific actions the
district will take to achieve those goals. After the evaluation
rubrics are adopted, LEAs will use them to measure their own
progress toward achieving their goals. LEAs are required to
involve all local stakeholders in the development of the LCAP.
The next step is the establishment of the evaluation rubrics
AB 2548
Page 15
(represented by the middle column), which the SBE is required to
adopt by October 1, 2016. Existing law requires the rubrics to
be based on the eight state priorities, and they will also be
used to develop the key indicators for ESSA accountability. The
rubrics will also be used to support the local planning and
review processes that are part of developing the LCAP. This
step also includes organizing the evaluation rubrics into key
indicators, which is needed for compliance with ESSA.
The third column represents the use of the rubrics and key
indicators to identify districts and schools in need of
assistance and to inform the assistance and support that is
needed. The goal is have the key indicators be congruent with
the evaluation rubrics to establish clear, consistent criteria
for evaluating LEAs and that LEAs can use to evaluate
themselves.
This bill preempts an ongoing process. As directed by the
Legislature, the CDE has been engaged in a process of consulting
stakeholders, convening task forces, and working with the SBE to
establish a new accountability system. This bill imposes a new
accountability system before this process has been allowed to
play out. In addition, by enacting provisions related to the
requirements of ESSA, this bill presupposes the outcome of final
regulations from the U. S. Department of Education, which are
not expected until later this year.
This bill narrows accountability. Under existing law, LEAs will
be identified for technical assistance based on their
performance relative to the eight state priorities, which
include academic outcomes, but also includes other factors such
as parental involvement, pupil engagement, and school climate.
The statutory goal is to have a system that "reflect[s] a
holistic, multidimensional assessment of school district and
individual schoolsite performance" (Education Code Section
52064.5. This bill bases the identification of LEAs for
AB 2548
Page 16
technical assistance only on the key indicators, which are based
solely on academic performance. This reverses the direction the
Legislature has taken to have a multiple measures approach to
accountability.
Arguments in support. Supporters argue that this bill is needed
to ensure compliance with ESSA and that "California's new
multiple measure system of accountability needs to provide
greater emphasis on growth, equity and transparency in ways not
currently being considered." In addition, supporters argue that
this bill will strengthen efforts to increase equity and
transparency and close achievement gaps.
Arguments in opposition. Opponents argue that this bill is
premature, because the SBE is still in the process of
identifying the key indicators and other metrics for
implementation of the evaluation rubrics. Also, establishing
new statutory requirements at this time impedes the
collaborative process already underway to develop and implement
a new accountability system.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Children Now (Co-Sponsor)
Education Trust-West (Co-Sponsor)
AB 2548
Page 17
A World Fit For Kids!
Abriendo Puertas/Opening Doors
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
Asian American Advancing Justice-California
Asian & Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus
Black Parallel School Board
Bohbot & Riles, PC
Brea Chamber of Commerce
CA Charter Schools Association
California Alliance of African American Educators
California Chamber of Commerce
California Charter Schools Association Advocates
Cambridge Child Development Center
AB 2548
Page 18
Center for Ecoliteracy
Center For Leadership Equity and Research
Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa
Children's Defense Fund-California
Congregations Building Community
Desert Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce
Dolores Huerta Foundation
Educators 4 Excellence
EdVoice
Families in Schools
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids - California
First 5 Santa Clara County
Foster Care Alumni of America, CA Chapter
AB 2548
Page 19
Future Is Now
Gatepath
Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce
Green Dot Public Schools
Half Moon Bay Brewing Company
Harbour Consulting
Honor Kids International, Peace Village Sanctuary
Innovate Public Schools
InsideOUT Writers
Issokson and Associates
Jumpstart California
KIDS' OWN WISDOM
LA Voice
AB 2548
Page 20
Lutheran Office of Public Policy-California
Making Change For Children
Mission Readiness
Mothers' Club Family Learning Center
Multicultural Council of America
National Center for Youth Law
Our Family Coalition
Parent Revolution
Partnership for Children and Youth
PICO California
Public Counsel
Raineth Housing
ReadyNation
AB 2548
Page 21
Sacramento Area Congregations Together
Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce
South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce
StudentsFirst
Students Matter
Teach For America
Teach Plus
The GreenHouse
The L.A. Trust for Children's Health
United Way of Greater Los Angeles
Women's Empowerment
Youth Policy and Programs Consultant
AB 2548
Page 22
Opposition
California Teachers Association
Analysis Prepared by:Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087