Bill Text: CA AB1130 | 2009-2010 | Regular Session | Introduced
NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft
Bill Title: Academic performance.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 3-0)
Status: (Passed) 2009-10-11 - Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 273, Statutes of 2009. [AB1130 Detail]
Download: California-2009-AB1130-Introduced.html
Bill Title: Academic performance.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 3-0)
Status: (Passed) 2009-10-11 - Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 273, Statutes of 2009. [AB1130 Detail]
Download: California-2009-AB1130-Introduced.html
BILL NUMBER: AB 1130 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Solorio
FEBRUARY 27, 2009
An act to amend Section 52052.5 of the Education Code, relating to
education.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1130, as introduced, Solorio. Academic performance.
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to
establish an advisory committee to make recommendations by July 1,
2005, on a methodology for generating a measurement of academic
performance by utilizing unique pupil identifiers for pupils and
annual academic achievement growth to provide a more accurate measure
of a school's growth over time. Existing law also requires, if
appropriate and feasible, the Superintendent, with the approval of
the state board, to implement this measurement of academic
performance.
This bill would state findings and declarations regarding
standards-based education reform, assessments, and accountability and
the use of cohort growth measures in accountability systems and
intervention determinations.
This bill would remove provisions limiting the responsibility of
the board to make recommendations regarding measurement of academic
performance to completion on or before July 1, 2005. The bill would
require the committee's recommendations to be on a methodology for
generating a measurement of academic performance by using annual
academic achievement growth by cohort. The bill would require the
advisory committee to make these recommendations to the
Superintendent and to the state board.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that the
committee take into consideration specified recommendations and
consider measures already in use by other states. The bill would also
require the measure of academic performance approved by the board,
if appropriate and feasible, to meet specified requirements.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
AB 1130, as introduced, Solorio. Academic performance.
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to
establish an advisory committee to make recommendations by July 1,
2005, on a methodology for generating a measurement of academic
performance by utilizing unique pupil identifiers for pupils and
annual academic achievement growth to provide a more accurate measure
of a school's growth over time. Existing law also requires, if
appropriate and feasible, the Superintendent, with the approval of
the state board, to implement this measurement of academic
performance.
This bill would state findings and declarations regarding
standards-based education reform, assessments, and accountability and
the use of cohort growth measures in accountability systems and
intervention determinations.
This bill would remove provisions limiting the responsibility of
the board to make recommendations regarding measurement of academic
performance to completion on or before July 1, 2005. The bill would
require the committee's recommendations to be on a methodology for
generating a measurement of academic performance by using annual
academic achievement growth by cohort. The bill would require the
advisory committee to make these recommendations to the
Superintendent and to the state board.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that the
committee take into consideration specified recommendations and
consider measures already in use by other states. The bill would also
require the measure of academic performance approved by the board,
if appropriate and feasible, to meet specified requirements.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
AB 1130, as introduced, Solorio. Academic performance.
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to
establish an advisory committee to make recommendations by July 1,
2005, on a methodology for generating a measurement of academic
performance by utilizing unique pupil identifiers for pupils and
annual academic achievement growth to provide a more accurate measure
of a school's growth over time. Existing law also requires, if
appropriate and feasible, the Superintendent, with the approval of
the state board, to implement this measurement of academic
performance.
This bill would state findings and declarations regarding
standards-based education reform, assessments, and accountability and
the use of cohort growth measures in accountability systems and
intervention determinations.
This bill would remove provisions limiting the responsibility of
the board to make recommendations regarding measurement of academic
performance to completion on or before July 1, 2005. The bill would
require the committee's recommendations to be on a methodology for
generating a measurement of academic performance by using annual
academic achievement growth by cohort. The bill would require the
advisory committee to make these recommendations to the
Superintendent and to the state board.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that the
committee take into consideration specified recommendations and
consider measures already in use by other states. The bill would also
require the measure of academic performance approved by the board,
if appropriate and feasible, to meet specified requirements.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) California began the 21st Century among a small group of
states that lead the nation in standards-based education reform,
assessments, and accountability. However, other states have now
surpassed California, particularly with the use of cohort growth
measures in accountability systems and intervention determinations.
(b) California's current public school accountability system is
based on a static model that compares snapshots of individual school
and school district academic performance by grade level. Therefore,
determinations of whether or not schools have met growth targets are
calculated by comparing the difference in achievement from one year
to the next of different cohorts of pupils.
(c) This accountability system fails to adjust for the fact that
beginning levels of achievement vary each school year among cohorts.
As a result, schools and school districts, particularly with middle
grades and at the secondary level, are often unfairly held
accountable for the low performance of the school the pupils
previously attended.
(d) The limitations of a static model make it difficult for
California's accountability system to provide meaningful, reliable,
and valid longitudinal information to parents, educators, and policy
makers on whether or not local schools and school districts are
improving at a rate that will achieve success for all of California's
pupils within a reasonable period of time.
(e) A cohort growth measure incorporated into California's public
school accountability system will enable the state to more fairly
evaluate the academic achievement of California public schools and
school districts, and to hold them accountable for results.
(f) At the school and school district level, measuring each cohort'
s academic growth over time will provide better information to assist
educators in identifying pupils who need additional assistance and
identify where resources can best be targeted to close achievement
gaps.
(g) Parents, educators, and community leaders will be best served
by a public school accountability system that includes a cohort
growth measure that provides consistent, reliable, and valid
information as they collaborate to meet the needs of all pupils, each
year.
SEC. 2. Section 52052.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:
52052.5. (a) The Superintendent of Public Instruction
shall establish a broadly representative and diverse
advisory committee to advise the Superintendent of Public
Instruction and the State Board of Education
state board on all appropriate matters relative
to the creation of the Academic Performance Index and the
implementation of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools
Program and the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program. Members of
the advisory committee shall serve without compensation for terms not
to exceed two years. The State Department of Education
department shall provide staff to the advisory
panel.
(b) By July 1, 2005, the The
advisory committee established pursuant to this section shall make
recommendations to the Superintendent of Public Instruction
and the state board on the appropriateness and
feasibility of a methodology for generating a measurement of academic
performance by utilizing unique pupil identifiers for pupils in
kindergarten and any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, and annual
academic achievement growth by cohort to provide a more
accurate measure of a school's and district's growth over
time. If
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that, in conducting its
responsibilities pursuant to subdivision (b), the committee take into
consideration the recommendations of the California pilot study
conducted pursuant to Provision 10 of Item 6110-113-0890 of the
Budget Act of 2007, the statutory and regulatory requirements and
related guidance pursuant to the federal Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), and waivers for
cohort growth measures approved for other states by the United States
Secretary of Education.
(d) It is the intent of the Legislature that the committee also
consider measures already in use by other states to facilitate the
identification of various performance levels of cohort growth,
including, but not limited to, whether each student, subgroup,
school, and school district made at least one year's academic growth
in one year's time and whether the amount of academic growth is
adequate to reach a performance level of proficient within a
timeframe specified in the state's approved accountability plan
required pursuant to the federal Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), and to provide the ability
to determine the following with reasonable statistical confidence:
(1) High achievement with a growth rate indicating ability to
remain at proficiency or to move into the highest range of
achievement.
(2) High achievement with a growth rate indicating ability to
remain at least at proficiency.
(3) Low achievement with a growth rate indicating ability to reach
proficiency within a specified timeframe.
(4) Low achievement with a growth rate indicating significant
inability to reach proficiency within a specified timeframe.
(e) If appropriate and feasible,
the Superintendent of Public Instruction , with
the approval of the State Board of Education
state board , shall thereafter implement
this the measurement of academic
performance recommended by the advisory committee .
(f) The measure of academic performance approved by the state
board pursuant to subdivision (e) or adopted through a state plan
approved by the state board acting as the State Educational Agency
pursuant to any provision, or waiver of, the federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), or any
other plan submitted by the state board or the state as a
requirement of receiving or allocating federal funds shall:
(1) Utilize a growth model in the public domain that is not
proprietary.
(2) Be able to be replicated by an independent statistician.
(3) Be fully and accurately explained, including the generation of
all results, the specification of the standard error, and the
stringency of the confidence interval used to determine whether the
annual change in test scores is statistically significant, in a
document available to the public.
SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) California began the 21st Century among a small group of
states that lead the nation in standards-based education reform,
assessments, and accountability. However, other states have now
surpassed California, particularly with the use of cohort growth
measures in accountability systems and intervention determinations.
(b) California's current public school accountability system is
based on a static model that compares snapshots of individual school
and school district academic performance by grade level. Therefore,
determinations of whether or not schools have met growth targets are
calculated by comparing the difference in achievement from one year
to the next of different cohorts of pupils.
(c) This accountability system fails to adjust for the fact that
beginning levels of achievement vary each school year among cohorts.
As a result, schools and school districts, particularly with middle
grades and at the secondary level, are often unfairly held
accountable for the low performance of the school the pupils
previously attended.
(d) The limitations of a static model make it difficult for
California's accountability system to provide meaningful, reliable,
and valid longitudinal information to parents, educators, and policy
makers on whether or not local schools and school districts are
improving at a rate that will achieve success for all of California's
pupils within a reasonable period of time.
(e) A cohort growth measure incorporated into California's public
school accountability system will enable the state to more fairly
evaluate the academic achievement of California public schools and
school districts, and to hold them accountable for results.
(f) At the school and school district level, measuring each cohort'
s academic growth over time will provide better information to assist
educators in identifying pupils who need additional assistance and
identify where resources can best be targeted to close achievement
gaps.
(g) Parents, educators, and community leaders will be best served
by a public school accountability system that includes a cohort
growth measure that provides consistent, reliable, and valid
information as they collaborate to meet the needs of all pupils, each
year.
SEC. 2. Section 52052.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:
52052.5. (a) The Superintendent of Public Instruction
shall establish a broadly representative and diverse
advisory committee to advise the Superintendent of Public
Instruction and the State Board of Education
state board on all appropriate matters relative
to the creation of the Academic Performance Index and the
implementation of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools
Program and the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program. Members of
the advisory committee shall serve without compensation for terms not
to exceed two years. The State Department of Education
department shall provide staff to the advisory
panel.
(b) By July 1, 2005, the The
advisory committee established pursuant to this section shall make
recommendations to the Superintendent of Public Instruction
and the state board on the appropriateness and
feasibility of a methodology for generating a measurement of academic
performance by utilizing unique pupil identifiers for pupils in
kindergarten and any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, and annual
academic achievement growth by cohort to provide a more
accurate measure of a school's and district's growth over
time. If
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that, in conducting its
responsibilities pursuant to subdivision (b), the committee take into
consideration the recommendations of the California pilot study
conducted pursuant to Provision 10 of Item 6110-113-0890 of the
Budget Act of 2007, the statutory and regulatory requirements and
related guidance pursuant to the federal Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), and waivers for
cohort growth measures approved for other states by the United States
Secretary of Education.
(d) It is the intent of the Legislature that the committee also
consider measures already in use by other states to facilitate the
identification of various performance levels of cohort growth,
including, but not limited to, whether each student, subgroup,
school, and school district made at least one year's academic growth
in one year's time and whether the amount of academic growth is
adequate to reach a performance level of proficient within a
timeframe specified in the state's approved accountability plan
required pursuant to the federal Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), and to provide the ability
to determine the following with reasonable statistical confidence:
(1) High achievement with a growth rate indicating ability to
remain at proficiency or to move into the highest range of
achievement.
(2) High achievement with a growth rate indicating ability to
remain at least at proficiency.
(3) Low achievement with a growth rate indicating ability to reach
proficiency within a specified timeframe.
(4) Low achievement with a growth rate indicating significant
inability to reach proficiency within a specified timeframe.
(e) If appropriate and feasible,
the Superintendent of Public Instruction , with
the approval of the State Board of Education
state board , shall thereafter implement
this the measurement of academic
performance recommended by the advisory committee .
(f) The measure of academic performance approved by the state
board pursuant to subdivision (e) or adopted through a state plan
approved by the state board acting as the State Educational Agency
pursuant to any provision, or waiver of, the federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), or any
other plan submitted by the state board or the state as a
requirement of receiving or allocating federal funds shall:
(1) Utilize a growth model in the public domain that is not
proprietary.
(2) Be able to be replicated by an independent statistician.
(3) Be fully and accurately explained, including the generation of
all results, the specification of the standard error, and the
stringency of the confidence interval used to determine whether the
annual change in test scores is statistically significant, in a
document available to the public.
SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) California began the 21st Century among a small group of
states that lead the nation in standards-based education reform,
assessments, and accountability. However, other states have now
surpassed California, particularly with the use of cohort growth
measures in accountability systems and intervention determinations.
(b) California's current public school accountability system is
based on a static model that compares snapshots of individual school
and school district academic performance by grade level. Therefore,
determinations of whether or not schools have met growth targets are
calculated by comparing the difference in achievement from one year
to the next of different cohorts of pupils.
(c) This accountability system fails to adjust for the fact that
beginning levels of achievement vary each school year among cohorts.
As a result, schools and school districts, particularly with middle
grades and at the secondary level, are often unfairly held
accountable for the low performance of the school the pupils
previously attended.
(d) The limitations of a static model make it difficult for
California's accountability system to provide meaningful, reliable,
and valid longitudinal information to parents, educators, and policy
makers on whether or not local schools and school districts are
improving at a rate that will achieve success for all of California's
pupils within a reasonable period of time.
(e) A cohort growth measure incorporated into California's public
school accountability system will enable the state to more fairly
evaluate the academic achievement of California public schools and
school districts, and to hold them accountable for results.
(f) At the school and school district level, measuring each cohort'
s academic growth over time will provide better information to assist
educators in identifying pupils who need additional assistance and
identify where resources can best be targeted to close achievement
gaps.
(g) Parents, educators, and community leaders will be best served
by a public school accountability system that includes a cohort
growth measure that provides consistent, reliable, and valid
information as they collaborate to meet the needs of all pupils, each
year.
SEC. 2. Section 52052.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:
52052.5. (a) The Superintendent of Public Instruction
shall establish a broadly representative and diverse
advisory committee to advise the Superintendent of Public
Instruction and the State Board of Education
state board on all appropriate matters relative
to the creation of the Academic Performance Index and the
implementation of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools
Program and the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program. Members of
the advisory committee shall serve without compensation for terms not
to exceed two years. The State Department of Education
department shall provide staff to the advisory
panel.
(b) By July 1, 2005, the The
advisory committee established pursuant to this section shall make
recommendations to the Superintendent of Public Instruction
and the state board on the appropriateness and
feasibility of a methodology for generating a measurement of academic
performance by utilizing unique pupil identifiers for pupils in
kindergarten and any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, and annual
academic achievement growth by cohort to provide a more
accurate measure of a school's and district's growth over
time. If
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that, in conducting its
responsibilities pursuant to subdivision (b), the committee take into
consideration the recommendations of the California pilot study
conducted pursuant to Provision 10 of Item 6110-113-0890 of the
Budget Act of 2007, the statutory and regulatory requirements and
related guidance pursuant to the federal Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), and waivers for
cohort growth measures approved for other states by the United States
Secretary of Education.
(d) It is the intent of the Legislature that the committee also
consider measures already in use by other states to facilitate the
identification of various performance levels of cohort growth,
including, but not limited to, whether each student, subgroup,
school, and school district made at least one year's academic growth
in one year's time and whether the amount of academic growth is
adequate to reach a performance level of proficient within a
timeframe specified in the state's approved accountability plan
required pursuant to the federal Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), and to provide the ability
to determine the following with reasonable statistical confidence:
(1) High achievement with a growth rate indicating ability to
remain at proficiency or to move into the highest range of
achievement.
(2) High achievement with a growth rate indicating ability to
remain at least at proficiency.
(3) Low achievement with a growth rate indicating ability to reach
proficiency within a specified timeframe.
(4) Low achievement with a growth rate indicating significant
inability to reach proficiency within a specified timeframe.
(e) If appropriate and feasible,
the Superintendent of Public Instruction , with
the approval of the State Board of Education
state board , shall thereafter implement
this the measurement of academic
performance recommended by the advisory committee .
(f) The measure of academic performance approved by the state
board pursuant to subdivision (e) or adopted through a state plan
approved by the state board acting as the State Educational Agency
pursuant to any provision, or waiver of, the federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.), or any
other plan submitted by the state board or the state as a
requirement of receiving or allocating federal funds shall:
(1) Utilize a growth model in the public domain that is not
proprietary.
(2) Be able to be replicated by an independent statistician.
(3) Be fully and accurately explained, including the generation of
all results, the specification of the standard error, and the
stringency of the confidence interval used to determine whether the
annual change in test scores is statistically significant, in a
document available to the public.
