AB 1012

Page 1

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1012

Author:Jones-Sawyer – As Amendedpril Ver:April 7, 2015

SUBJECT: Student instruction: course periods without educational content

SUMMARY: Defines “course periods without educational content,” prohibits school districts from assigning students in grades 7-12 to any such course period without specified certifications from school administrators, prohibits students from being assigned to a course they have already completed, and establishes a complaint process for violations of these requirements. Specifically, this bill:

1)  Defines a “course period without educational content” as a course period during which the student is expected to engage in activities with no assigned or planned substantive curricular content. This includes a course period during which a student is assigned to a room in which no certificated staff is designated to provide instruction or assistance with assignments or curricular content from other assigned courses, is sent home or released from campus before the conclusion of the designated school day, or is not assigned to any course for the relevant course period.

2)  Prohibits school districts from assigning students to attend course periods without educational content because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the student to take in that period.

3)  Prohibits a school district (with the exception of alternative schools, community day schools, continuation high schools, and opportunity schools) maintaining any of grades 7 to 12 from assigning any students to any course period without educational content for more than one week in any semester, unless certain conditions are met:

a)  For students who have not met the A-G requirements of the University of California or California State University, or high school graduation requirements:

  1. the principal an assistant principalof the school certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that the student will benefit from being assigned to the course period, and provides an individualized explanation in the written certification for that conclusion, which may include an individualized determination that the student will benefit from mentorship that will be provided by the certificated or certified employee supervising the student during the relevant period
  2. the principal or an assistant principalof the school certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that providing a course period with educational content is not likely to benefit the student to the same extent as providing the course period without educational content, and provides an explanation in the written certification for that conclusion
  1. the principal or an assistant principalof the school certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that the student is not being assigned to the course because there are no other courses with curricular content for the student to take during the relevant period in the designated schoolday.

4.  the principal or an assistant principal of the school certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that the student and the parent, legal guardian, or educational rights holder of the student have consented to the student’s enrollment in the course period without educational content and that the school has obtained a consent form, signed by the student and the parent, legal guardian, or educational rights holder of the student.

5.  the student is assigned to no more than one course period without educational content during a single semester.

b)  For students who have fulfilled both the A-G and graduation requirements:

  1. the principalor an assistant principalof the school certifies ina document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that the student will benefitfrom being assigned to the course period and provides anindividualizedexplanation in the written certification for that conclusion, which may include an individualized determination that the student will benefit from mentorship that will be provided by the certificated or certified employee supervising the student during the relevant period or identification of the educational or employment opportunity that assigning the course period will allow the student to pursue and reason for concluding the student will pursue that opportunity
  1. the principal or an assistant principalof the school certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that the student is not being assigned to the course because there are no other courses with curricular content for the student to take during the relevant period in the designated schoolday

3.  the principal or an assistant principal of the school certifies in a document to be placed in the student’s cumulative file that the student and the parent, legal guardian, or educational rights holder of the student have consented to the student’s enrollment in the course period without educational content and that the school has obtained a consent form, signed by the student and the parent, legal guardian, or educational rights holder of the student

4)  States that nothing in this section shall be interpreted to limit the authority of a school district to establish and maintain evening high school programs, to offer independent study, to provide courses of work-based learning or work experience education, or to offer distance learning, if the program otherwise meets all of the requirements of law governing that program.

5)  Prohibits a school district (with the exception of alternative schools, community day schools, continuation high schools, and opportunity schools) from assigning any student to a course that the student has previously completed with a grade sufficient to meet the A-G requirements and graduation requirements, unless all of the principal or assistant principal certifies that:

a)  the course is designed to be repeated because students are exposed to a new curriculum year-to-year and are therefore expected to derive educational value from repeating the course

b)  the student is not being assigned to the course because there are no other courses with curricular content to take during the relevant period

c)  a school official met with the student and obtained the student’s signed consent to enroll in the course.

6)  Requires that if a school district determines that, at any point during the current or preceding academic year, one or more of its schools has not satisfied the above requirements, it immediately notify the SPI and with a description of the circumstances that caused the school district not to satisfy the pertinent requirement, the number of students affected, the steps that the school district has taken to resolve the situation, and any changes to the school district’s policies or procedures to ensure that all of its schools satisfy those requirements.

7)  Allows any member of the public to file a complaint directly with the CDE alleging that, at any point during the current or preceding academic year, a school district has not satisfied these requirements. Allows a complaint to be filed anonymously under certain circumstances.

8)  Requires that within 21 days of receiving a complaint the CDE complete an investigation.

9)  Requires that, to the extent that the CDE concludes that the school district has not taken appropriate action to resolve the situation, the SPI immediately convene a local assistance committee to develop a written plan to ensure that the school district satisfies these requirements.

10) In developing the plan, requires the local assistance committee to consult with students, parents, legal guardians or educational rights holders, and teachers at the affected schools, and to complete the plan no later than 21 days after the CDE makes the determination.

11) Requires the SPI to prepare an annual report detailing actions taken pursuant to this section and report to the Legislature.

EXISTING LAW:

1)  Specifies requirements for graduation from high school, including: three courses in English; two courses in mathematics; two courses in science; three courses in social studies; one course in visual or performing arts, foreign language, or career technical education; and two courses in physical education. Authorizes school districts to adopt additional requirements for graduation.

2)  Establishes course requirements for admission to the University of California and the California State University, known as the A-G requirements.

3)  Requires that only the attendance of students under the immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee is counted toward the computation of average daily attendance.

4)  Establishes the minimum day in middle school and high school as 240 minutes.

5)  Through regulation, requires LEAs to adopt uniform complaint procedures through which the public can register complaints regarding educational programs and rights. (California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 4600).

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has been keyed a state-mandated local program by the Office of Legislative Counsel

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. The author’s office states, “Thousands of high school students across California are tracked into so-called “classes,” where they are given meaningless “credits” for sitting at home, in the office, or taking a course they’ve already passed.

School districts have given these courses different names (“home,” “service,” “work-experience,” “college,” “adult”), but they all have a common trait: they rob students of learning time and the opportunity for a real education. And many of the affected students need real, academic classes to fulfill graduation or college access requirements.

The schools where this occurs serve almost exclusively low-income students of color. Although this is not the norm across California, it is all-too common in communities where students can least afford to lose learning time. It is time to ensure that all of our schools have the support they need to provide real classes to every student until they graduate.”

Bill related to lawsuit filed by the sponsor. This bill is related to Cruz v. State of California, a class action lawsuit filed May 29th, 2014 in Alameda County Superior Court against the state on behalf of students in seven schools.

The suit names as plaintiffs a class of current or future students attending Castlemont High School in the Oakland Unified School District, John C. Fremont High School in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Nystrom Elementary School in the West Contra Costa Unified School District, Franklin S. Whaley Middle School in the Compton Unified School District, Fremont High School in the Oakland Unified School District, Florence Griffith Joyner Elementary School in the LAUSD, and Compton High School in the Compton Unified School District.

The suit names as defendants the State of California, the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education (SBE), and the Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson.

The plaintiffs allege that the state has violated the rights of the plaintiffs provided by the Equal Protection clauses of the state constitution “by failing to provide them with basic educational opportunities equal to those that other students elsewhere in the State receive” with regard to meaningful learning time. The complaint alleges that at certain schools:

“the disparity in the availability of meaningful learning time, which is created and perpetuated by the State’s systematic failure to adequately staff and resource Plaintiffs’ schools and by the State’s failure to monitor practices at these schools responsible for such deprivations, denies Plaintiff students and their peers an equal chance to obtain essential basic literacy and mathematical skills, and the opportunity to meet the mandated academic content standards that assume students have these skills.”

They allege that the defendants’ “actions and inactions resulting in the creation and exacerbation of these disparities are deliberate and conscious, in that they are aware of the causes of these disparities, yet have failed to establish any system to monitor the provision of meaningful learning time in schools throughout California and remedy identified gaps.”

They allege that this lack of instructional time is due to several factors, including:

·  “assignment of students to administrative tasks or free periods instead of assignment to classroom periods of instruction because of insufficient curricular offerings and a lack of available qualified teachers;

·  violence or security disruptions, which result in cessation of instruction and traumatic after-effects, and insufficient access to mental health professionals to assist students and faculty in coping with these disruptions;

·  late changes to the master course schedule requiring course and teacher changes well into the semester;

·  unstable, transient teaching faculties and administrative teams (including principals, assistant principals, and counselors), resulting from under-resourced and stressful campuses not conducive to professional development and growth; and

·  unaddressed student absenteeism, resulting in whole or part from campus conditions”

The complaint requests that the court address the state’s monitoring system and its intervention to prevent and remedy the causes of lost learning time.

On February 5th of this year the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Last week (April 24th), Alameda County Superior Court Judge George C. Hernández, Jr. denied this motion, stating that “If, at this stage, Plaintiffs cannot supply reliable evidence regarding the actual practices of most California high schools with regard to the use of contentless classes and the timely implementation of appropriate master schedules, the court lacks a fair standard against which to measure the performance of Plaintiff’s own high schools and cannot determine, even preliminarily, whether Plaintiffs have some possibility of prevailing on their claims.”

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Legislature approved $3.4 million in the current year for the CDE and SBE to contract for legal services related to this case, and the Governor’s Budget proposes providing an additional $3.7 million for this contract in 2015-16.

Why introduce this measure while litigation is pending? This bill addresses one of the five parts of the Cruz v. State of California complaint, and is before the Legislature while the court is reviewing the case. Counsel for the plaintiffs in the case has stated that any remedy ordered by the court will only apply to the schools in question, and that if these practices are occurring anywhere in the state they should be stopped immediately.

Because this bill is related to pending litigation, state information resources normally available to staff have been limited. As a result, staff is not aware of activities of the state to remedy the alleged problems through monitoring or intervention, nor is staff apprised of the state’s defense, except as refuted in the plaintiffs’ complaints. The Committee may wish to consider that, as a result, the analysis of this bill relies heavily on the evidence made available by the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case, and does not have the full benefit of information which would normally be available.