NEW STUDY SHOWS SEVERE CUTS TO STATE PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS - MORE EXPECTED: Recession Forces Severe Cuts to Some State Preschool Programs Annual survey labels impact ‘a depression for many young children’.

press release | Executive summary | California Highlights

National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) @ the Graduate school of Education, Rutgers University | http://www.nieer.org

26  April 2011 – Washington, D.C. — For the second year in a row preschool-age children felt the effects of the recession only the impact was far greater the second year, according the annual survey of state-funded early education programs.

“Overall, state cuts to preschool funding transformed the recession into a depression for many young children,” said W. Steven Barnett, co-director of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) and author of the report, The State of Preschool 2010: State Preschool Yearbook.

“In the 2009-2010 school year the effects of the recession became fully apparent despite federal government aid to the states for education,” Barnett said. “Total enrollment barely increased over the prior year. Total spending by the states decreased, and per-child spending declined in inflation-adjusted dollars.”

smf: In a press briefing prior to the report’s release US Education Secretary Arne Duncan noted that pre-K has proven its effectiveness but is susceptible to budget cuts because 3 and 4 year olds can't vote and they don't have a union or hire lobbyists. He also warned against across the board cuts for states. States need to look at what works (pre-K) and cut what doesn't on a state-by-state basis.

Barnett questioned some of the priority-setting being done by state governments. “We don’t eliminate first grade in tough economic times …why do we cut preschool?

“Prioritizing cutting pre-K budgets now is done at the high cost of failure in the future. I was just in Shanghai – as you know one of the leaders in early childhood education. There the government has said that because parents in a recession have less to spend on preschool the government will spend more.”

The funding situation may get worse even as the economy slowly recovers. Federal funds to help states weather the recession are now gone. Without the aid from the federal economic stimulus, funding per child would have been even lower, approaching its lowest level since 2002 when NIEER began tracking state preschool performance.

The Yearbook findings were released today at the Oyster-Adams Bilingual Elementary School by Barnett and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
The depth of the decline varied considerably by state. A few made modest progress. Many held steady. In others, cutbacks were sometimes severe.

On the positive side, two states, Alaska and Rhode Island, started programs for the first time. These are the first new states to provide pre-K in many years, though both efforts are modest pilot programs. The top 10 states ranked by percentage of children served at age 4 were Oklahoma, Florida, West Virginia, Georgia, Vermont, Wisconsin, Texas, New York, Arkansas, and Iowa. On the other end of the scale, 10 states still provided no state-funded preschool education programs. They were Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

NIEER reports state rankings on enrollment, spending, and quality standards (how many of 10 benchmarks the state meets). Key findings in this year’s Yearbook include:

Enrollment

• Five states (Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio) now enroll fewer children in state preschool programs than they did 10 years ago.
• Enrollment nationally increased by 26,996 children. Nearly 1.3 million children attended state-funded preschool education, more than 1 million at age 4 alone.
• Fourteen states increased the percent of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in state pre-K programs by at least one percentage point while seven states decreased by at least one percentage point in the 2009-2010 school year.
• Enrollment of 3-year-olds decreased across the country with nine states cutting enrollment by 10 percent or more. They were Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, and Washington.

Spending

• The 2009-2010 school year was the first tracked by NIEER in which total state funding for pre-K fell from the prior year.
• State pre-K spending per child decreased by $114 to $4,028 adjusted for inflation even with funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This year NIEER adds a second estimate of per-child spending, $4,212, which reflects a redefinition of California's preschool program.

• State spending per child was almost $700 below its 2001-2002 level.
• After adjusting for inflation, state funding per child declined in 19 of 40 states with programs. While only three states (Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont) increased per-child spending by more than 10 percent, nine states (Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Ohio, and South Carolina) cut per-child spending by more than 10 percent.

Quality Standards

• Twenty-three of 40 states failed to fully meet NIEER benchmarks for teacher qualifications and 26 failed to meet the benchmark for assistant teacher qualifications.
• Five state programs met all 10 quality standards. They were Alabama, Alaska, one of the three Louisiana programs, North Carolina, and Rhode Island.
• Four states (Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia) improved on NIEER’s Quality Standards Checklist, but two states (Ohio and Nebraska) lost ground.

Years of research have demonstrated the benefits of high-quality preschool. Compared to children denied high-quality preschool, children who attend are more likely to graduate high school and go on to higher education. They are less likely to require special education or repeat a grade, become teenage parents, or commit crimes as teens or adults, all at great savings to taxpayers. As adults, they are more likely to be qualified to fill the demand for skilled workers that will keep America competitive in the global economy.

Cutting state pre-K puts pressure on the larger system of public supports for early learning that includes federally funded Head Start and child care. Congress is considering steep cuts to Head Start and child care that would further decrease support at a time when parents are less able to pay for early education on their own. Rather than cut federal support for early learning, Congress should find ways to increase support. The President has proposed an Early Learning Challenge Fund to incentivize states to increase and maintain their support rather than cut.

Summing up the findings of the Yearbook, Barnett said:

“America has far to go before every child has access to a high-quality education even at age 4, much less earlier. Yet, in much of the rest of the world this opportunity is taken for granted. As America falls behind in the early education of our children, we also fall behind in school success and economic competitiveness. As we exit the current recession, America will make critical decisions about how much we are willing to invest in our children’s future. Decisions about state pre-K will be among the most important.”

####

The National Institute for Early Education Research (www.nieer.org), a unit of the Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, supports early childhood education policy by providing objective, nonpartisan information based on research. NIEER is supported through grants from The Pew Charitable Trusts and others.

NIEER Yearbook 2010: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STATE-FUNDED PRE-K PROGRAMS IN DECLINE NATIONWIDE

In the 2009-2010 school year the effects of the recession became fully apparent despite federal government aid to the states for education. Total enrollment barely increased over the prior year. Total spending by the states decreased, and per child spending declined in inflation-adjusted dollars. Without the aid from federal economic stimulus, funding per child would have been even lower, approaching its lowest level since 2002 when NIEER began tracking spending.

The depth of the decline varies considerably by state. A few states made modest progress. Many held steady.

Others faced cutbacks that were sometimes severe. Overall, state cuts to pre-K transformed the recession into a depression for many young children in the 2009-2010 school year.

All the news was not bad. Alaska and Rhode Island created new pre-K programs in the 2009-2010 school year. These are the first new states to provide pre-K in many years, though both efforts are modest pilot programs. Nationally, pre-K enrollment was just over 26 percent at age 4 as the total across all states increased by nearly 27,000 children.

Yet the bad news outweighed the good. The decline in spending per child comes on top of the previous year’s decline. Many states already failed to provide enough funding to ensure programs could meet minimum quality standards, so this is a serious problem. Rather than raising quality, states are struggling not to lose what they have.

WHAT’S NEW?

• Total state funding for pre-K decreased by nearly $30 million and would have fallen by at least an additional $49.3 million if not for funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This is the first time since NIEER began tracking spending that total spending decreased from the previous year.

• State pre-K spending per child decreased by $114 to $4,028 adjusted for inflation even with ARRA funds.

This year we add a second estimate of per-child spending, $4,212, which reflects a redefinition of California’s preschool program.*

• After adjusting for inflation, state funding per child declined in 19 of 40 states with programs. While three states increased their per-child spending by more than 10 percent, nine states cut per-child spending by more than 10 percent.

• Only 17 states could be verified as providing enough funding to meet all 10 benchmarks for quality standards.

• Enrollment increased by 26,996 children. Nearly 1.3 million children attended state-funded preschool education, more than 1 million at age 4 alone.

• Fourteen states increased the percent of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in state pre-K programs by at least one percentage point, while seven states decreased by at least one percentage point in the 2009-2010 school year.

• Two states had programs for the first time this year—Alaska and Rhode Island.

• Combining general and special education enrollments, 31 percent of 4-year-olds and 8 percent of 3-year-olds are served across the states.

• Four states improved on NIEER’s Quality Standards Checklist, while two states lost ground on standards.

• Twenty-three of 40 states failed to fully meet NIEER benchmarks for teacher qualifications and 26 failed to meet the benchmark for assistant teacher qualifications.†

THE PICTURE IN CALIFORNIA IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, SOMEWHAT CONFUSING AND HIGHLIGHTED WITH A LARGE ASTERISK

It all started out well enough....

In 1965, California became one of the first states in the nation to make state-funded preschool education available through the State Preschool Program (CSPP). The state later established the Prekindergarten and Family Literacy Program (PKFLP) in the 2007-2008 school year, modeling the initiative after CSPP. PKFLP provided either half- or full-day services with an added literacy component to children who are from families at or below 75 percent of the state median income (SMI), are receiving protective services, or are at risk for abuse, neglect, or family violence.

The California State Preschool Program Act was signed into law in 2008, with the purpose of streamlining funding for the state’s multiple preschool programs. As of July 1, 2009, all part-day and full-day programs in CSPP and PKFLP, as well as General Child Care programs that served preschool age children, were consolidated into a newly formed California State Preschool Program. The program provides 3- and 4-year-old children with part- and full-day services through local education agencies, colleges, community action agencies, and private nonprofit agencies.

Unless children are receiving protective services or have been referred as at risk of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, families must have an income of 75 percent of the SMI to be eligible for the program.

State funding for the current State Preschool Program is provided to school districts, private child care and faith- based centers, and Head Start agencies and other public agencies through a competitive application process.

CSPP usually funds part-day programs, but also provides a full-day program and works with other state-funded and federal child care assistance programs to fund extended days for children whose parents who work full time.

Eligibility is limited to children ages 3 to 5 from families with an income below 75 percent of the SMI or to children who have experienced or are at risk for abuse, neglect, or exploitation.

In 2008, California also developed and published the California Preschool Learning Foundations, a set of early learning standards focusing on social-emotional development, language and literacy, English language development, and mathematics. Although these standards have not yet been implemented, a second volume of the California Preschool Learning Foundations focusing on visual and performing arts and physical development and health will be released in the spring of 2011. The California State Preschool Program uses the Desired Results for Children and Families system, which has been aligned with the Preschool Learning Foundations Volume I, to record children’s development and to plan curriculum and other developmentally appropriate activities.

* Due to changes in the California State Preschool Program, funding and enrollment figures for the 2009-2010 school year represent the effects of program consolidation rather than an actual increase over previous years.

In prior years, California funded child care programs with the same standards as state preschool, but because eligibility was based on parental work status and income NIEER did not count them as preschool. In 2009, California merged these child care programs into state preschool. With this policy change, preschool data from California are no longer consistent with those from previous years. Therefore, we report two figures for spending in the 2009-2010 school year. The first ($4,028) nets out the effect of the California policy change on the national average to produce a figure consistent with prior years. The second ($4,212) calculates a new national average that includes. California’s consolidated preschool. Note that because California did not increase enrollment or funding, this higher figure is purely the result of program redefinition.

The State of Preschool 2010

http://nieer.org/yearbook/

by W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D., Dale J. Epstein, Ph.D., Megan E. Carolan, Jen Fitzgerald, Debra J. Ackerman, Ph.D., Allison H. Friedman, Ed.M.

The 2010 State Preschool Yearbook is the eighth in a series of annual reports profiling state-funded prekindergarten programs in the United States. This latest Yearbook presents data on state-funded prekindergarten during the 2009-2010 school year. The first report in this series focused on programs for the 2001-2002 school year and established a baseline against which we may now measure progress over nine years. Tracking these trends is essential, since changes in states' policies on preschool education will influence how successfully America's next generation will compete in the knowledge economy.

Full Report (8MB PDF)	Executive Summary (400KB PDF)	Table of Contents
State Data	Charts	All Yearbooks

The 2010 Yearbook is organized into three major sections. The first section offers a summary of the data, and describes national trends for enrollment in, quality of, and spending on preschool. The second section presents detailed profiles outlining each state's policies with respect to preschool access, quality standards, and resources for the 2009-2010 program year. In addition to providing basic program descriptions, these state profiles describe unique features of a state's program and recent changes that can be expected to alter the future Yearbook statistics on a program. Profile pages are again included for states without state-funded programs. A description of our methodology follows the state profiles. The last section of the report contains appendices, which are available online only. The appendices include tables that provide the complete 2009-2010 survey data obtained from every state, as well as Head Start, child care, U.S. Census, and special education data.

State-funded preschool programs represent an important and sizeable component of the nation's patchwork of early childhood education programs. The National Institute for Early Education Research has developed the State Preschool Yearbook series to provide information on services offered through these programs to children at ages 3 and 4. We hope that this report will serve as a resource for policymakers, advocates, and researchers to make more informed decisions as state-funded preschool education moves forward.

While parents strive to guide children's growth and development in the home, state and local governments bear primary responsibility for classroom-based education in the United States. Programs that serve young children operate under a variety of names and auspices, including the federal Head Start program as well as privately and publicly funded child care. State prekindergarten programs will play an increasingly important role as part of this larger array of programs. The Yearbook seeks to improve the public's knowledge and understanding of state efforts to expand the availability of high-quality education to young children in the 21st century.

Limited time offer: Receive a free printed copy of the Yearbook
To receive a free printed copy of the 2010 State Preschool Yearbook, please e-mail your name and mailing address to yearbook@nieer.org. Complimentary copies of some previous editions are also available.

View the complete report (8MB PDF)

This just in: SCHWARZENEGGER SIGNS 14 EDUCATION BILLS, VETOES 17

 

from Capitol Alert | SAcramento Bee

October 11, 2009 | As legislative leaders continue talks on a package of water bills, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office released word of the fate of 183 bills.

The governor, who threatened to veto "a lot" of bills if leaders can't strike a water deal, has until midnight to act on the more than 500 bills remaining on his desk.

See the governor's office's list of the 89 bills he signed and the 94 bills struck down with the veto pen after the jump.

EDUCATION BILLS IN RED

Bills Signed:

• SB 19 by Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) - Education data.
• SB 36 by Senator Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) - Real estate, finance lender, and residential mortgage lender licenses: mortgage loan originators.
• SB 48 by Senator Elaine Alquist (D-San Jose) - Joint powers agencies: City of Santa Clara.
• SB 102 by Committee on Local Government - Validations.
• SB 103 by Committee on Local Government - Validations.
• SB 117 by Senator Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) - Adult day health care services: eligibility criteria: Medi-Cal reimbursement methodology and limit.
• SB 136 by Senator Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) - State real property.
• SB 143 by Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-Los Angeles) - Hazardous materials: California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act of 2004.
• SB 147 by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) - California State University: career technical education courses.
• SB 148 by Senator Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach) - Mammogram machines: inspection: posting of results.
• SB 149 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) - Claims against the state: appropriation.
• SB 150 by Senator Roderick Wright (D-Inglewood) - Sentencing.
• SB 224 by Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) - Housing assistance.
• SB 237 by Senator Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) - Real estate appraisers.
• SB 239 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) - Mortgage fraud.
• SB 240 by Senator Roderick Wright (D-Inglewood) - Vehicles: Department of Transportation vehicles.
• SB 247 by Senator Elaine Alquist (D-San Jose) - Instructional materials.
• SB 249 by Senator Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks) - Vaccinations: meningococcal disease.
• SB 273 by Senator Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) - Domestic Violence.
• SB 283 by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) - Department of Water Resources: recycled water.
• SB 285 by Senator Roderick Wright (D-Inglewood) - Disability benefits: attachment.
• SB 312 by Senator Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) - Public meetings and hearings.
• SB 337 by Senator Elaine Alquist (D-San Jose) - Health information.
• SB 357 by Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego) - Tribal gaming: grants to local jurisdictions.
• SB 412 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) - Electricity: self-generation incentive program.
• SB 419 by Committee on Veterans Affairs - County veteran service officers: funding.
• SB 448 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) - California State Safe Harbor Agreement Program Act.
• SB 471 by Senator Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) - California Stem Cell and Biotechnology Education and Workforce Development Act of 2009.
• SB 478 Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) - Employment safety: manlifts.
• SB 481 by Senator Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks) - Airports: wildlife.
• SB 511 by Committee on Education - Education.
• SB 519 by Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) - Public employment.
• SB 532 by Senator Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto) - State Highway Routes 1, 108, 132, and 201.
• SB 538 by Committee on Public Employment and Retirement - County employees' retirement: mandatory retirement.
• SB 588 by Committee on Public Safety - Sex Offender Management Board.
• SB 592 by Senator Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) - Charter Schools Facilities Program.
• SB 614 by Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) - Vessels.
• SB 619 by Senator Tony Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks) - Flood control: County of Santa Barbara: Lower Mission Creek.
• SB 651 by Senator Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) - Pupil retention.
• SB 680 by Senator Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) - School attendance: interdistrict transfers.
• SB 702 by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) - Ancillary day care centers: employees: trustline providers. See attached signing message.
• SB 734 by Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) - Transportation.
• SB 744 by Senator Tony Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks) - Clinical laboratories.
• SB 751 by Senator Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) - Teacher credentials.
• SB 792 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) - Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San Francisco: Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and Candlestick Point.
• SB 822 by Committee on Revenue and Taxation - Property taxation: local administration.
• SB 826 by Committee on Governmental Organization - General obligation bonds.
• SB 827 by Senator Roderick Wright (D-Inglewood) - South Coast Air Quality Management District: CEQA: permits.
• SB 831 by Committee on Governmental Organization - California State Lottery: multistate lottery.
• SB 833 by Committee on Natural Resources and Water - Natural resources: mining: conservation lands: Native American historical sites: tidelands and submerged lands.
• SBX3 18 by Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego) - Corrections.
• AB 14 by Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes (D-Sylmar) - Vehicles: nuisance abatement: impoundment.
• AB 37 by Assemblymember Warren Furutani (D-South Los Angeles County) - Public postsecondary education: honorary degrees.
• AB 66 by Assemblymember Joel Anderson (R-El Cajon) - Pupil work permits.
• AB 73 by Assemblymember Mary Hayashi (D-Hayward) - Marriage licenses: vital records: fees: domestic violence.
• AB 74 by Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata) - Flood control: Middle Creek and Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Projects.
• AB 92 by Assemblymember Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) - State claims.
• AB 93 by Assemblymember Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) - Claims against the state: appropriation.
• AB 94 by Assemblymember Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) - Natural Heritage Preservation Tax Credit Act of 2000.
• AB 136 by Assemblymember Jim Silva (R- Huntington Beach) - Horse racing: imported harness or quarter horse races.
• AB 154 by Assemblymember Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) - Adoption assistance: federal law.
• AB 167 by Assemblymember Anthony Adams (R-Hesperia) - High school graduation: local requirements: foster children.
• AB 236 by Assemblymember Sandré R. Swanson (D-Alameda) - Employment: car washes.
• AB 242 by Assemblymember Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) - Dog fighting.
• AB 246 by Senator (former Assemblymember) Curren Price (D-Inglewood) - Horse racing: deductions and distributions: trust funds: harness and quarter horse racing.
• AB 262 by Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) - American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan: energy activities, programs, or projects.
• AB 275 by Assemblymember Jose Solorio (D-Anaheim) - Missing persons: DNA database.
• AB 282 by Committee on Transportation - Transportation.
• AB 286 by Assemblymember Mary Salas (D-Chula Vista) - Vehicles: additional registration fees.
• AB 287 by Assemblymember Jim Beall (D-San Jose) - Persons with developmental disabilities: employment.
• AB 292 by Assemblymember Yamada (D-Solano) - Personal income taxes: contributions: Alzheimer's disease.
• AB 293 by Assemblymember Tony Mendoza (D-Norwalk) - Gambling regulation.
• AB 299 by Committee on Insurance - Insurance.
• AB 318 by Assemblymember Bill Emmerson (R-Redlands) - Bureau of Automotive Repair: inspection fees.
• AB 329 by Assemblymember Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) - Reverse mortgages.
• AB 343 by Assemblymember Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego) - Pupils: military families.
• AB 344 by Assemblymember Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) - State highways: relinquishment.
• AB 386 by Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City) - Public postsecondary education: instructional materials: disabled students.
• AB 399 by Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) - Public employee benefits.
• AB 483 by Assemblymember Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo) - Workers' compensation: Internet Web sites.
• AB 485 by Assemblymember Wilmer Amina Carter (D-Rialto) - Civil Air Patrol: California Wing: employment leave.
• AB 523 by Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) - Hospitals: seismic safety.
• AB 530 by Assemblymember Paul Krekorian (D-Burbank) - Unlawful detainer: controlled substances and firearms.
• AB 547 by Assemblymember Tony Mendoza (D-Norwalk) - Commercial feed: license fee: inspection tonnage tax.
• AB 595 by Assemblymember Anthony Adams (R-Hesperia) - Placement of children: criminal background checks.
• AB 601 by Assemblymember Martin Garrick (R-Carlsbad) - Motor vehicle insurance: special assessments.
• AB 636 by Assemblymember Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) - Charter-party carriers: busdrivers.
• AB 654 by Assemblymember Tony Mendoza (D-Norwalk) - State teachers' retirement.
• AB 665 by Assemblymember Alberto Torrico (D-Fremont) - State adoption services: investment.

Bills Vetoed:

• SB 20 by Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) - Personal information: privacy.
• SB 34 by Senator Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) - Petitions: compensation for signatures.
• SB 45 by Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) - Public works: payment of prevailing wage: violations.
• SB 84 by Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) - Education finance.
• SB 86 by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) - Public postsecondary education: executive officer compensation.
• SB 109 by Senator Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) - Auctioneers: real estate.
• SB 115 by Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) - Public employment.
• SB 158 by Senator Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) - Health care coverage: cervical cancer screening: human papillomavirus vaccination. .
• SB 161 by Senator Roderick Wright (D-Inglewood) - Health care coverage: cancer treatment.
• SB 172 by Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter) - Voter registration.
• SB 173 by Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter) - Food safety: testing and recalls.
• SB 193 by Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) - Class size reduction: Long Beach Unified School District.
• SB 196 by Senator Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) - Emergency medical services.
• SB 201 by Senator Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach) - Vehicles: illegal taxicabs.
• SB 212 by Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter) - Pupil health: communicable diseases.
• SB 213 by Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter) - Gambling licenses.
• SB 218 by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) - Public records: state agency: auxiliary organizations.
• SB 219 by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) - Disclosure of improper governmental activities: University of California: damages.
• SB 242 by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) - Civil rights: language restrictions.
• SB 248 by Senator Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach) - Educational equity: Title IX.
• SB 257 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) - Lactation accommodation: state employees.
• SB 262 by Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) - Coastal resources: California Coastal Commission: meeting.
• SB 272 by Senator Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) - Local government: organization.
• AB 1 by Assemblymember William Monning (D-Carmel) - Teachers: program of professional growth: conflict resolution. See attached veto message.
• AB 3 by Assemblymember V. Manuel Pérez (D-Coachella) - Workforce development: Renewable Energy Workforce Readiness Initiative: local workforce investment boards.
• AB 6 by Assemblymember Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego) - Initiatives: paid circulators.
• AB 8 by Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) - Education finance: working group.
• AB 21 by Assemblymember Paul Krekorian (D-Burbank) - Renewable energy resources.
• AB 24 by Assemblymember Marty Block (D-San Diego) - California State University: feasibility study: Chula Vista.
• AB 43 by Assemblymember Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) - California Earthquake Authority: employees.
• AB 56 by Assemblymember Anthony Portantino (D-Pasadena) - Health care coverage: mammographies.
• AB 57 by Senator (former Assemblymember) Curren Price (D-Inglewood) - University of California hospitals: staffing.
• AB 82 by Assemblymember Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) - Dependent children: psychotropic medications.
• AB 98 by Assemblymember Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate) - Maternity services.
• AB 101 by Assemblymember Joel Anderson (R-El Cajon) - Elections: vote by mail ballots.
• AB 115 by Assemblymember Jim Beall (D-San Jose) - Adult Health Coverage Expansion Program.
• AB 120 by Assemblymember Mary Hayashi (D-Hayward) - Healing arts: peer review.
• AB 132 by Assemblymember Tony Mendoza (D-Norwalk) - School safety: immigration investigations.
• AB 146 by Assemblymember Tony Mendoza (D-Norwalk) - Instructional materials: delivery.
• AB 147 by Assemblymember Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego) - Hazardous waste: electronic waste.
• AB 213 by Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) - Vehicles: parking.
• AB 217 by Assemblymember Jim Beall (D-San Jose) - Medi-Cal: alcohol and drug screening and brief intervention services.
• AB 241 by Assemblymember Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) - Dogs and cats: breeding for sale.
• AB 243 by Assemblymember Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) - Animal abuse: penalties.
• AB 244 by Assemblymember Jim Beall (D-San Jose) - Health care coverage: mental health services.
• AB 245 by Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) - Physicians and surgeons.
• AB 249 by Assemblymember Wilmer Amina Carter (D-Rialto) - Health facilities: marking patient devices.
• AB 261 by Assemblymember Mary Salas (D-Chula Vista) - Pupil records: privacy rights.
• AB 267 by Assemblymember Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch) - Education finance districts: taxes.
• AB 311 by Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) - Property taxation: certificated aircraft assessment.
• AB 320 by Assemblymember Jose Solorio (D-Anaheim) - County jails: reentry facilities.
• AB 322 by Assemblymember Jim Silva (R-Huntington Beach) - Less lethal weapons.
• AB 324 by Assemblymember Jim Beall (D-San Jose) - Aging: Elder Economic Security Standard Index.
• AB 330 by Assemblymember Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego) - Elections: voting devices.
• AB 335 by Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes (D- Sylmar) - Employment contracts.
• AB 337 by Assemblymember Norma Torres (D-Pomona) - Juvenile court records: sealing and destruction.
• AB 338 by Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) - Transit village developments: infrastructure financing.
• AB 358 by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) - Criminal procedure: narcotics and drug abuse cases.
• AB 368 by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) - State lands: oil, gas, and mineral leases.
• AB 369 by Assemblymember Mariko Yamada (D-Solano) - Adult day health care centers.
• AB 374 by Assemblymember Marty Block (D-San Diego) - Consequences of dropping out notice.
• AB 382 by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) - Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: inmates and wards: classification.
• AB 402 by Assemblymember Mike Davis (D-Los Angeles) - Employment: entertainment work permits.
• AB 423 by Assemblymember Norma Torres (D-Pomona) - Emergency telephone systems.
• AB 429 by Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) - Public school accountability: advisory committee.
• AB 436 by Assemblymember Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego) - Elections: initiatives.
• AB 442 by Assemblymember Juan Arambula (I-Fresno) - Notaries public.
• AB 443 by Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani (D-Livingston) - Apple pests: pest and disease prevention.
• AB 469 by Assemblymember Mike Eng (D-Monterey Park) - Sales and use taxes: qualified use tax payment.
• AB 472 by Assemblymember Bob Blumenfield (D-San Fernando Valley) - Earthquake and emergency preparedness.
• AB 473 by Assemblymember Bob Blumenfield (D-Woodland) - Solid waste: recycling: multifamily dwellings.
• AB 476 by Assemblymember Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch) - Standardized Testing and Reporting Program.
• AB 503 by Assemblymember Warren Furutani (D-South Los Angeles County) - Battered women's shelters: grant program.
• AB 504 by Assemblymember Warren Furutani (D-South Los Angeles County) - Peace officers: training.
• AB 513 by Assemblymember Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) - Health care coverage: breast-feeding.
• AB 517 by Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) - Safe Body Art Act.
• AB 527 by Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes (D-Sylmar) - Employee complaints: proceedings: payroll records.
• AB 543 by Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) - Perinatal care: The Nurse-Family Partnership.
• AB 1401 by Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) - Transition to Organics Act.
• AB 1404 by Assemblymember Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) - California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: offsets.
• AB 1435 by Assemblymember V. Manuel Perez (D-Coachella) - Public school accountability.
• AB 1439 by Assemblymember Jose Solorio (D-Anaheim) - Gang and youth violence: prevention.
• AB 1447 by Assemblymember John Perez (D-Los Angeles) - State Compensation Insurance Fund: audits.
• AB 1462 by Assemblymember Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) - Medi-Cal: inpatient hospital services contracts.
• AB 1510 by Assemblymember Mike Eng (D-Monterey Park) - Public schools: parental access.
• AB 1512 by Assemblymember Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) - Food and drugs: sale.
• AB 1527 by Assemblymember Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) - Motor vehicle emission reduction projects.
• AB 1559 by Committee on Labor and Employment - Workforce development: summer youth job training.
• AB 1561 by Committee on Labor and Employment - Occupational safety and health: citation outcome analysis.
• AB 1562 by Committee on Labor and Employment - Employment: garnishment of wages.
• AB 1563 by Committee on Labor and Employment - Employment: contracts or agreements for labor or services.
• AB 1567 by Committee on Veterans Affairs - Employment training panel: 3-year plan: training programs: veterans.
• AB 1577 by Assemblymember Joe Coto (D-San Jose) - Problem and pathological gambling.
• AB 1580 by Assemblymember Charles Calderon (D-Montebello) - Taxation: federal conformity.

GET PERSONAL: Action to close the Achievement Gap begins with blunt talk.

by Linda Nathan | in the Sept '09 Edutopia | Illustrations by Wesley Bedrosian

 

No issue in American education is talked about more or with more agony and frustration than the achievement gap. Current government policy, which I characterize wistfully as testing our way to equality, has done little to make things better. In fact, many of the practices introduced in the name of closing the gap have been profoundly counterproductive, in some cases worsening the problems.

For teachers in urban schools, the majority of whom are dedicated and well intentioned, the achievement gap is a hugely personal issue. The notion that we are not helping equalize opportunity is frustrating, demoralizing, and, frequently, overwhelming. When I read the exhortations of policy makers to narrow the gap, especially when the commands aren't supported with constructive plans of action, I get angry.

It's not that I deny the problem. I stare it in the face every day. I just can't stand the hypocrisy of policy makers who believe that issuing an edict is enough to make the complex issue go away.

I've learned, as coheadmaster of the Boston Arts Academy [1], a public high school, that any effective strategy for tackling the achievement gap must be anchored in honesty. At Boston Arts, we saw that African American male students were not doing nearly as well as their peers.

By looking at their grades, test scores, and participation in open honors (additional honors-level work given in mixed-level classes), we realized these students were at risk of falling further behind if we didn't intervene. After many faculty discussions, we decided to make raising the achievement of African American males a schoolwide goal.

It sounds simple, but it was deeply complex. The conversations that led to the decision were wide open, honest, and, at times, difficult. One teacher insisted that math is color-blind. "Race doesn't matter in my class," he said. The response from a colleague was blunt: "Nothing in school or life is ever color-blind. We have to be able to acknowledge that there is always the possibility that there is another agenda going on."

This kind of dialogue among the faculty led to discussions about who we are as individuals, and it brought up our own experiences with issues of race, class, and gender. It was a process of personal, as well as professional, development, and it led to deeper trust and profound respect among our faculty -- even when we could not agree. It also resulted, as hoped, in a plan to eliminate our school's achievement gap.

Each teacher developed classroom-based action plans and agreed to observe and give feedback to colleagues. One teacher put two of her African American male students -- one high achieving but unmotivated, the other low achieving -- in leadership positions in the classroom. She talked to them about it, and they agreed to keep a journal about this experience.

A colleague of the teacher watched as the approach brought new levels of success to the participants, and he was inspired to try something in his own classroom: He read his students an article by New York University researcher Josh Aronson called "The Threat of Stereotype [2]."

He thought they would be surprised to learn that doing well or poorly on a test might be related to race or gender. He was right. Some of his students even decided to make a video about the questions raised in the article.

Viewing that student film, continuing our discussions, and focusing on classroom practices helped us adopt some common strategies. We had to find more ways to give students support in study skills and in reading. We changed our schedule to ensure that all students could benefit from a support or enrichment block during the school day.

We embarked on a schoolwide approach to teaching reading and writing, and we worked hard to become teachers of reading. Additionally, we instituted a summer reading program to help our most needy readers.

We also introduced a peer-mentoring program. We developed an advisory model so that more students would have at least one adult who knew them well. That adult, in turn, would be able to bring in a student's family members so that everyone was working together to increase the student's achievement.

There is no fairy-tale ending to this story. We have seen improvement, but not all our African American male students are on the honor roll -- yet. We continue to test, evaluate, and tinker with our models.

We've accomplished some tasks that ensure our future success. We've learned that the only way we can truly increase student achievement across all racial, language, gender, and cultural groups is by first talking openly about the gap. Local, schoolwide changes conceived in honesty can attack that gap, while nationwide testing will not change a thing.

Linda Nathan is the founding headmaster of the Boston Arts Academy.

SCHOOL GAINS ARE PUT AT RISK

Mockler: “The budget bell is ringing for California's schools to take a recessionary recess from reform.”

George Skelton, Capitol Journal | LA Times

January 12, 2009 -- From Sacramento -- It's inevitable that California public schools soon will be whacked with hefty program cuts. And that's a shame because students recently have been making significant gains.
A decade of academic advancement due to class-size reduction, tougher curriculum, higher standards, testing, accountability and other reforms could be stalled -- even reversed -- by the necessity to cut spending.

But there's no way around it. When the state's general fund is projected to be nearly $42 billion in the hole by the middle of next year and the cost of kindergarten-through-community college eats up roughly 40% of that fund, schools must take a hit, even after the probable tax increases.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed shorting schools $2.1 billion during the rest of this academic year and $3.1 billion the next. Perhaps most eye-opening, he'd save the state $1.1 billion by cutting off money for one week's worth of instruction. The number of school days would be reduced to 175 from 180.

"It's a loss of learning opportunities," notes state Supt. Of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell. "Only eight states have fewer than 180 days."

Among other cuts, Schwarzenegger has proposed saving $114 million by eliminating a special program to bolster learning in "low-performing" schools. Democrats have suggested the same thing.

Also in jeopardy are class-size reduction, advanced placement programs for the university-bound, extra help for English learners, special ed, summer school, counseling, gifted programs, arts and music and a long list of other "categorical" programs that local districts would be free to cannibalize to make ends meet.

"If we were a baseball team, we'd be playing with seven players to the other team's nine and still be expected to beat them," says veteran education consultant John Mockler, referring to California's challenge in educating the most diverse school population in the nation -- 25% are English learners -- on relatively sparse rations.

A new report by Education Week, a national publication, ranks California 47th among the states in per-pupil spending, "adjusted for regional cost differences."

Mockler says that 4.4% of Californians' personal income is spent on public schools. By comparison, it was 5.6% in 1972 when Ronald Reagan was governor. That 1.2% difference, he says, is the equivalent of $22 billion. "Bring back Ron, I say."

A bit about Mockler: He's not exactly a household name, except around the Capitol, where he is a legend. The pony-tailed ed guru has been at the center of most education policy debates as a legislative staffer, gubernatorial appointee or consultant for 44 years.

Only a handful of people truly understand the complexities of school finance. And nobody does better than Mockler because he wrote the law: Proposition 98. Sponsored by the California Teachers Assn. and approved by voters in 1988, Prop. 98 basically guarantees K-12 schools and community colleges 40% of the general fund.

But it's far from that simple. And Mockler, 67, has made a very good living explaining, manipulating and protecting Prop. 98. "It allowed me to send my two kids to college," he says, grinning.

"Schwarzenegger once came over to me and said, 'I think I understand. Every time I screw with Prop. 98, you get richer.' "

Mockler is currently on a crusade to prove that California is getting its money's worth on schools. He stopped me in a cross-walk to deliver his pitch.

"If you only read newspapers or listened to talk shows, you'd think high schools were places of violence and sloth and didn't do squat," he said. "The system's not perfect. But there's significant improvement.

"It's not true that the sky's falling."

He offered some testing data from the Department of Education covering the last five years:

• There has been a 31% gain in students of all grades who score "proficient" or "advanced" in reading. (In 2003, 35% did; by 2008 the figure was up to 46%.)
• For math, there has been a 23% gain (from 35% to 43%.)
• The figures are most dramatic for targeted groups that started at a lower base. Among Latinos, there was a 60% gain into the higher reading levels (from 20% of students to 32%.) For blacks, 50% tested higher (from 22% to 33%.) And for the "educationally [economically] disadvantaged" the rise was 60% (from 20% to 32%).
• These groups also showed significant gains in math testing: 43% higher for Latinos, 47% for blacks and 37% for educationally disadvantaged.
• And a lot more kids overall have been taking high-end math and science courses.

The actual "achievement gap" -- the difference between the higher scores of whites and Asians versus the lower results of blacks and Latinos -- has not narrowed much, although it did begin to budge last year. But a bigger percentage of blacks and Latinos are improving.

Mockler says it's likely the budget cuts will slow the gains, but not reverse them.

O'Connell isn't so sure. He fears that the cuts threaten "a major setback" in efforts to close the achievement gap. "More than 1.5 million English learners attend school in California. It's critical to our entire state's economic future that they succeed and are well prepared for the competitive global economy."

"We're making progress," he adds. "It's slow, it's hard, it's incremental. But we've been on the right track. Reducing the school year, in particular, would be a step backward."

Unfortunately, the budget bell is ringing for California's schools to take a recessionary recess from reform.

SCHOOL GROUPS HOPE K-12 GETS SHARE OF STIMULUS: Some hope education programs—not just school construction projects—will snare funding to help boost the economy.

By Alyson Klein | Education Week

December 23, 2008 -- As President-elect Barack Obama and Congress begin laying the groundwork for a massive economic stimulus package, education groups are hoping for a major infusion of cash—beyond just construction projects—to help put financially struggling school districts on firmer fiscal footing.

Mr. Obama announced in a recent radio address that his administration would seek to direct a portion of a federal spending bill aimed at getting the economy back on track to school construction and to expanding broadband access in schools. The overall legislation could cost as much as $850 billion, according to published reports.

But, as more states warn of substantial cuts to K-12 spending, some school and state officials are lobbying lawmakers and the Obama transition team to include money for programs such as special education, teacher training, and grants to help districts educate disadvantaged students.

“The context has shifted so dramatically with this economic meltdown, but I think it also creates an opportunity for bold action, and that’s what it will take to make education a priority,” said Edward R. Kealy, the executive director of the Committee for Education Funding, a Washington lobbying coalition.

He argued that, over the long term, education is one of the best places to target federal dollars because “it actually has the strongest possibility of being able to pay back” the government, since students and workers will be better equipped to compete in the global economy.

Best Approach Debated

President-elect Obama said he would like Congress, which convenes next month, to get a stimulus package ready for his signature shortly after he takes office Jan. 20, providing an immediate jolt to the stumbling economy.

But fiscal-policy experts are split over whether aid for schools’ operating costs—such as materials and teacher salaries—will help create jobs and eventually generate revenue for states and the federal government.

Many states already face yawning deficits, and it’s possible that federal relief would simply help stave off cuts to education programs, rather than allow schools to purchase more materials, or hire additional teachers, said Nick Johnson, the director of the state fiscal project at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group in Washington focused on the needs of low-income families.

Still, in tight times, even keeping major cuts at bay might help save jobs, he said.

“When states make cuts, it is very bad for the economy,” Mr. Johnson said. “They lay off workers, cancel payments to vendors and so on.”

But Chris Edwards, an economist at the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank in Washington, said the projected size of the stimulus package is simply opening the door for education organizations and state policymakers to “recycle long-standing requests for aid” that may have nothing to do with stimulating economic growth. Mr. Edwards is also skeptical that increased government spending will spur a recovery.

It’s too early to say if federal relief for cash-strapped states—if any—can help states avoid or scale-back cuts to K-12 programs.

When President-elect Obama met with the majority of the nation’s governors in Philadelphia earlier this month, most expressed support for federal help, but education took a back seat to other priorities. ("Governors Make Pitch to Obama for Stimulus Money," Dec. 10, 2008.)

And in testifying before the House Appropriations Committee this month, Gov. James E. Doyle, a Democrat from Wisconsin, said that extra money for programs such as Medicaid might help state legislatures shift resources to education programs.

But another Democratic governor, Jon Corzine of New Jersey, said he’d like to see “some kind of block grant,” possibly geared just for schools.

Some lawmakers on the panel agreed with him. “Count two for that plan,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-Fla., said, noting that schools in her South Florida congressional district were considering hiring freezes and layoffs. “I couldn’t agree with you more.”

Special Education Relief

Education organizations are encouraged by the President-elect’s high-profile support for making school construction money and funds for expanded broadband access part of a stimulus package.

In a letter sent this month to congressional leaders, the Committee for Education Funding said that investing $20 billion over five years in school facilities could support about 50,000 jobs. If such construction took a “green,” or environmentally friendly, approach, it could save up to $20 billion in energy costs over 10 years, the organization wrote.

But education lobbyists are also hoping for money for career and technical programs, Pell Grants for college students, pre-kindergarten programs, and state data systems.

And one item makes nearly everyone’s wish list: Increasing the federal share of funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Under the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, the federal government is authorized to cover up to 40 percent of the states’ excess special education costs, based on the national average per-pupil expenditure. That 40 percent is what is considered “full funding.” But annual federal appropriations have fallen far short of that goal. In fiscal 2008, which ended Sept. 30, the federal government covered 17 percent of such costs.

In November, the National Governors Association sent a letter to Congress asking for $19 billion over the next two years to fund IDEA. And some groups, including the American Association of School Administrators, want the funding to become mandatory, meaning that the federal share of IDEA would be financed automatically by law and not subject to the annual appropriations process.

Providing more money for special education would take pressure off state coffers, help relieve property taxes, and boost districts’ bottom lines, said Mary L. Kusler, the assistant director of government relations for AASA, which is based in Arlington, Va.

“If the federal government really wanted to do something that would help everybody at the local level,” it would fully fund IDEA, she said.

If the federal government decides to provide substantial funding for IDEA and other programs in the stimulus, it’s likely that education organizations and state policymakers will keep pressure on Congress to continue with the investment even after the economic outlook has brightened.

“We will hold their feet to the fire to make sure they keep full funding,” said Randall Moody, the chief lobbyist for the National Education Association, a 3.2 million member Washington-based union.

CDE News Release: STATE SUPERINTENDENT JACK O'CONNELL RELEASES 2007 STAR RESULTS SHOWING ENCOURAGING, TROUBLING TRENDS

Contact: Rel #07-98 Pam Slater communications@cde.ca.gov 916-319-0818 August 15, 2007 State Superintendent Jack O'Connell Releases 2007 STAR Results Showing Encouraging, Troubling Trends INGLEWOOD/SAN DIEGO — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today released the results of the 2007 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program that show California students are continuing to improve academically in most subjects and grades. "This year's results offer both encouragement and reason for serious concern," O'Connell said. "We can be pleased that gains in student achievement made over the past five years are either increasing or holding steady. This progress means that hundreds of thousands of California students will have a better shot at success. But the data also show the persistent achievement gaps in our system that California simply cannot afford to accept – morally, economically, or socially." Compared with 2003, when all the California Standards Tests (CSTs) were for the first time completely aligned to state standards, the percentage of students scoring advanced or proficient in 2007 increased by 8 points in English-language arts (ELA) or from 35 percent to 43 percent, (Table 1) and 6 points in math, from 35 percent to 41 percent (Table 5). The percentage of students scoring at the proficient and advanced levels on the fifth grade science test has increased by 13 points since 2004; the first year the test was given (Table 10). The percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in grades two, four, seven, and eight have increased in ELA by double digits over the four-year span beginning in 2003 (Table 1). The greatest improvement over the four-year period for math was made by students in grades three, four, five, and seven with the proficient and advanced percentage increasing by 12, 12, 14, and 10 points, respectively (Table 5). O'Connell pointed out the lack of progress made in closing the achievement gap among racial groups. While all student subgroup populations have continued to improve since 2003, the gap in achievement between African Americans or blacks and whites and the gap in achievement between Hispanics or Latinos and whites remain relatively unchanged. "Once again, these annual test scores shine a glaring light on the disparity in achievement between students who are African American or Hispanic and their white or Asian counterparts. We know all children can learn to the same high levels, so we must confront and change those things that are holding back groups of students." This achievement gap cannot always be explained away because of the poverty that has been so often associated with low performance, he said. "The results show this explanation not to be universally true," he said. "In fact, African American and Hispanic students who are not poor are achieving at lower levels in math than their white counterparts who are poor. These are not just economic achievement gaps, they are racial achievement gaps. We cannot afford to excuse them; they simply must be addressed. We must take notice and take action." In response to this pressing issue, O'Connell early this year charged the statewide P-16 council – including leaders from all segments of education as well as business, labor, and community leaders – with examining factors contributing to achievement gaps and strategies for closing those gaps. He is calling on all those interested in this issue to attend the Achievement Gap Summit scheduled for November 13-14, 2007, in Sacramento. "The intent of this working Summit is to create an inclusive, interactive, and collaborative environment where educators will gather to share best practices and learn strategies immediately useable to address their daily challenges," he said. "I'm committed to addressing this issue, to creating the partnerships, sharing the information and employing the strategies that will ensure success for all California students," O'Connell said. "I am excited about this challenge because I know it is one we can overcome. I believe in the ability, in the talent, and in the dedication present in our public schools." Under the STAR program, California students attain one of five levels of performance on the CSTs for each subject tested: advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, and far below basic. The State Board of Education has established the proficient level as the desired achievement goal for all students. This goal is consistent with school growth targets for state accountability and the federal No Child Left Behind requirements. The state target is for all students to score at the proficient or advanced level. Approximately 4.8 million students participated in 2007 in the STAR program, which is comprised of five components: California Standards Tests (CSTs) are standards-based tests that measure the achievement of state content standards in English-language arts, mathematics, science, and history-social science. California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) is for students who have significant cognitive disabilities. California Achievement Tests (CAT/6) are nationally norm-referenced tests, taken in grades three and seven only. Aprenda: La prueba de logros en español, Tercera edición (Aprenda 3) is a nationally norm-referenced achievement test of general academic knowledge in Spanish for Spanish-speaking English learners (for grades five through eleven in 2007). Standards-based Tests in Spanish (STS), are designed for Spanish-speaking English learners to measure the achievement of state content standards in reading-language arts and mathematics in Spanish, for grades two, three, and four in 2007. The STAR Program data released today is preliminary because a small number of school districts have not yet completed testing and have not yet had time to complete a review of the results to verify their accuracy. A second posting of preliminary results that will include all students tested is scheduled for September. Final results after local corrections are incorporated are scheduled for posting during December. School, school district, county, and state level results for the 2007 STAR Program have been posted on the California Department of Education's Web site at http://star.cde.ca.gov/. # # # # Attachments Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program California Standards Test Results, 2003-2007 English–Language Arts Table 1: Percentages of Students Scoring at Proficient and Above* Grade 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change in Percentage 2006–2007 Change in Percentage 2003–2007 2 36 35 42 47 48 1 12 3 33 30 31 36 37 1 4 4 39 39 47 49 51 2 12 5 36 40 43 43 44 1 8 6 36 36 38 41 42 1 6 7 36 36 43 43 46 3 10 8 31 33 39 41 41 0 10 9 38 37 43 43 47 4 9 10 33 35 36 37 37 0 4 11 32 32 36 36 37 1 5 State Total 2 - 11 35 35 40 42 43 1 8 *Data for 2003 through 2006 are final statewide results. The 2007 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99% of the students in grades two through eleven. Complete results will be available during September 2007. Percentages included in this table may differ from the percentages printed on the Internet reports due to rounding. Back to top California Standards Test and California Alternate Performance Assessment Results, 2003-2007 English–Language Arts Table 2: Percentages of Students Scoring at Proficient and Above by Subgroup* Subgroup 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change in percentage 2003-2007 All Students 35 36 40 42 44 9 Gender Female 39 40 44 46 48 9 Male 31 32 36 38 40 9 Ethnicity African American or Black 22 23 27 29 31 9 American Indian or Alaskan Native 31 31 36 37 39 8 Asian 55 57 61 64 66 11 Filipino 48 50 55 58 60 12 Hispanic or Latino 20 21 25 27 29 9 Pacific Islander 31 31 36 39 41 10 White 53 54 58 60 62 9 Economic Status Economically Disadvantaged 20 21 25 27 29 9 Not Economically Disadvantaged 49 50 57 58 60 11 Disability Status Students Received Special Education Services 9 14 16 17 18 9 English Proficiency English Only Students 44 44 49 51 52 8 Initially-Fluent English Proficient (I-FEP) 46 48 53 56 58 12 Reclassified-Fluent English Proficient (R-FEP) 40 42 48 50 51 11 English Learners 10 10 12 14 15 5 *Data for 2003 through 2006 are final statewide results. The 2007 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99% of the students in grades two through eleven. Complete results will be available during September 2007. This table includes results from the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA), and the percentages included in this table may differ from the percentages printed on the Internet reports. Back to top English–Language Arts Table 3: Percentages of Economically Disadvantaged Students Scoring at Proficient and Above* Ethnicity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change in percentage 2003-2007 African American or Black 16 17 21 23 24 8 American Indian or Alaskan Native 20 21 26 27 29 9 Asian 35 37 42 46 48 13 Filipino 37 39 45 48 49 12 Hispanic or Latino 16 17 21 24 26 10 Pacific Islander 21 21 26 29 30 9 White 32 32 37 39 41 9 Table 4: Percentages of Not Economically Disadvantaged Students Scoring at Proficient and Above* Ethnicity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change in percentage 2003-2007 African American or Black 31 32 36 38 40 9 American Indian or Alaskan Native 41 41 46 48 49 8 Asian 69 70 74 76 77 8 Filipino 53 55 60 62 64 11 Hispanic or Latino 32 33 38 40 42 10 Pacific Islander 40 40 45 48 50 10 White 58 59 64 66 67 9 *Data for 2003 through 2006 are final statewide results. The 2007 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99% of the students in grades two through eleven. Complete results will be available during September 2007. These tables include results from the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA), and the percentages included in these tables may differ from the percentages printed on the Internet reports. Back to top California Standards Test Results, 2003-2007 Mathematics Table 5: Percentages of Students Scoring at Proficient and Above* Grade 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change in Percentage 2006–2007 Change in Percentage 2003–2007 Grade 2 53 51 56 58 59 1 6 Grade 3 46 48 54 57 58 1 12 Grade 4 45 45 50 54 57 3 12 Grade 5 35 38 44 48 49 1 14 Grade 6 34 35 40 42 42 0 8 Grade 7 30 33 37 41 40 -1 10 General Mathematics 20 20 22 22 21 -1 1 Algebra I† 21 18 19 23 23 0 2 First time test takers 26 Repeat test takers 15 Geometry 26 24 26 26 24 -2 -2 Algebra II 29 24 26 25 27 2 -2 Summative High School Math 43 41 45 46 48 2 5 Integrated 1 7 7 7 9 9 0 2 State Total Grades 2 - 7 and End-of-Course tests 35 34 38 41 41 0 6 *Data for 2003 through 2006 are final statewide results. The 2007 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99% of the students in the states. Complete results will be available during September 2007. Percentages included in this table may differ from the percentages printed on the Internet reports due to rounding. †Prior to 2007, algebra I was an end-of-course test for grades eight through eleven students. In 2007, students in grades seven were allowed to take the algebra I test. Note: The results for integrated 2 and 3 are not reported due to the small numbers of test-takers. Back to top Mathematics Table 6: Numbers of Students Tested* Test 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change in Number 2006-2007 Change in Number 2003-2007 General Mathematics 451,126 417,946 374,900 340,335 305,413 -34,922 -145,713 Algebra I 505,883 614,347 681,924 707,285 741,152 33,867 235,269 Geometry 270,560 301,112 333,334 359,926 370,120 10,194 99,560 Algebra II 162,672 181,883 196,079 213,770 230,881 17,111 68,209 Sum. High School Math 76,560 80,574 90,983 99,348 108,769 9,421 32,209 Integrated 1 14,359 9,679 8,716 6,771 7,010 239 -7,349 Integrated 2 9,733 7,905 6,698 4,273 3,626 -647 -6,107 Integrated 3 10,043 4,424 3,558 2,223 1,657 -566 -8,386 Total 1,500,936 1,617,870 1,696,192 1,733,931 1,768,628 34,697 267,692 *Data for 2003 through 2006 are final statewide results. The 2007 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99% of the students in the state. Complete results will be available during September 2007. Percentages included in this table may differ from the percentages printed on the Internet reports due to rounding. Back to top California Standards Test and California Alternate Performance Assessment Results, 2003-2007 Mathematics Table 7: Percentages of Students Scoring at Proficient and Above by Subgroup* Subgroup 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change in percentage 2003-2007 All Students 35 34 38 41 41 6 Gender Female 34 34 38 40 40 6 Male 35 35 39 41 41 6 Ethnicity African American or Black 19 19 23 25 25 6 American Indian or Alaskan Native 29 28 32 34 34 5 Asian 60 60 64 67 67 7 Filipino 44 45 50 53 53 9 Hispanic or Latino 23 23 27 30 30 7 Pacific Islander 31 31 35 38 38 7 White 47 46 51 53 53 6 Economic Status Economically Disadvantaged 24 25 29 31 31 7 Not Economically Disadvantaged 45 44 49 52 52 7 Disability Status Students Received Special Education Services 13 16 18 20 20 7 English Proficiency English Only Students 39 39 43 45 45 6 Initially-Fluent English Proficient (I-FEP) 45 45 49 52 53 8 Reclassified-Fluent English Proficient (R-FEP) 37 37 41 43 42 5 English Learners 20 20 24 26 26 6 *Data for 2003 through 2006 are final statewide results. The 2007 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99% of the students in the state. Complete results will be available during September 2007. This table includes results from the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA), and the percentages included in this table may differ from the percentages printed on the Internet reports. Back to top Mathematics Table 8: Percentages of Economically Disadvantaged Students Scoring at Proficient and Above* Ethnicity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change in percentage 2003-2007 African American or Black 16 16 20 22 22 6 American Indian or Alaskan Native 23 23 27 29 28 5 Asian 45 46 51 53 54 9 Filipino 40 41 46 49 48 8 Hispanic or Latino 21 22 26 28 29 8 Pacific Islander 25 25 30 32 33 8 White 33 32 37 38 38 5 Table 9: Percentages of Not Economically Disadvantaged Students Scoring at Proficient and Above* Ethnicity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change in percentage 2003-2007 African American or Black 24 24 27 30 30 6 American Indian or Alaskan Native 35 34 38 40 40 5 Asian 71 70 73 76 76 5 Filipino 46 46 52 55 55 9 Hispanic or Latino 29 29 33 36 36 7 Pacific Islander 37 36 40 43 44 7 White 51 50 54 57 56 5 *Data for 2003 through 2006 are final statewide results. The 2007 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99% of the students in the state. Complete results will be available during September 2007. These tables include results from the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA), and the percentages included in these tables may differ from the percentages printed on the Internet reports. Back to top California Standards Test Results, 2004-2007 Science—Grade Level Tests* Table 10: Percentages of Students Scoring at Proficient and Above† Grade 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change in Percentage 2006-2007 Change in Percentage 2004-2007 5 24 28 32 37 5 13 8 NA NA 38 43 5 NA 10 NA NA 34 35 1 NA State Total 5, 8, & 10 NA NA 35 38 3 NA *The Grade Five California Science Standards Test was first administered in spring 2004. The Grade Eight California Science Standards and the Grade Ten California Life Science Standards Tests were first administered during spring 2006. †Data for 2004 through 2006 are final statewide data. The 2007 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99% of the students in the state. Complete results will be available during September 2007. Percentages included in this table may differ from the percentages printed on the Internet reports due to rounding. Back to top Science—End-of-Course Tests (Grades Nine Through Eleven) Table 11: Percentages of Students Scoring at Proficient and Above* Test 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change in Percentage 2006-2007 Change in Percentage 2003-2007 Earth Science 21 22 23 23 26 3 5 Biology 37 30 32 35 37 2 0 Chemistry 31 28 27 27 31 4 0 Physics 29 29 31 32 36 4 7 Integrated 1 7 5 8 9 11 2 4 Integrated 2 8 8 6 5 7 2 -1 State Total for End-of-Course Tests 29 24 27 28 31 3 2 *Data for 2003 through 2006 are final statewide results. The 2007 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99% of the students in the state. Complete results will be available during September 2007. Percentages included in this table may differ from the percentages printed on the Internet reports due to rounding. Note: The results for integrated 3 and 4 are not reported due to the small numbers of test-takers Back to top Science—End-of-Course (Grades Nine Through Eleven) Table 12: Numbers of Students Tested* Test 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change in Number 2006-2007 Change in Number 2003-2007 Earth Science 89,676 134,953 173,958 195,394 206,192 10,798 116,516 Biology 334,005 397,909 453,685 498,204 505,316 7,112 171,311 Chemistry 153,491 181,420 196,700 213,387 227,435 14,048 73,944 Physics 44,878 52,586 59,382 61,088 63,357 2,269 18,479 Integrated 1 62,008 101,824 111,366 107,068 96,235 -10,833 34,227 Integrated 2 25,983 24,654 20,629 17,407 13,787 -3,620 -12,196 Integrated 3 10,621 5,870 3,414 2,540 1,973 -567 -8,648 Integrated 4 1,515 1,601 1,040 817 951 134 -564 Total 722,177 900,817 1,020,174 1,095,905 1,115,246 19,341 393,069 *Data for 2003 through 2006 are final statewide results. The 2007 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99% of the students in the state. Complete results will be available during September 2007. Percentages included in this table may differ from the percentages printed on the Internet reports due to rounding. Back to top History–Social Science Table 13: Percentages of Students Scoring at Proficient and Above† Grade 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change in Percentage 2006-2007 Change in Percentage 2003-2007 8 27 27 31 34 35 1 8 11 (U.S. History) 34 32 37 35 35 0 1 World History (End-of-Course)* 27 27 31 30 29 -1 2 State Total 8, 11 Plus End-of-Course Test 29 28 33 33 33 0 4 †Data for 2003 through 2006 are final statewide results. The 2007 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99% of the students in the state. Complete results will be available during September 2007. Percentages included in this table may differ from the percentages printed on the Internet reports due to rounding. *Prior to 2007, the world history test was an end-of-course test for grade ten students only. In 2007, students in grades nine through eleven took the end-of-course world history. Back to top Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program Summary of 2007 Results Background The 2007 STAR Program consists of five components, including the California Standards Tests (CSTs) and the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA). In spring 2007, the following CSTs were required for all students: English–language arts Grades 2 – 11 Mathematics Grades 2 – 9 Science Grades 5, 8, and 10 (life science) History–social science Grades 8 and 11 (U.S. history) Students were also able to take end-of-course tests in math and science in grades 9 through 11 if they were enrolled in the corresponding courses. Students who were unable to take the CSTs with accommodations or modifications took the CAPA in ELA and mathematics. Reporting STAR Program Results The CST and CAPA results are reported using five performance levels: advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, and far below basic. The state target is to have all students score at the proficient level or above. The percentages of students scoring at each performance level are reported by grade and subject for all students and for subgroups of students. Summary of CST Results A summary of statewide student performance on the CSTs is provided below by content area. (CAPA results are included in the English–language arts and mathematics subgroup tables 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9.) Note that while final data are available for the years 2003 through 2006, the results reported for 2007 are preliminary and include only the results for students tested through June 30, 2007. English–Language Arts (ELA) The percentage of students in grades two through eleven scoring at proficient and advanced levels increased approximately 8 percent between 2003 and 2007. The one-year increase, however, was a modest 1 percent (see Table 1). Notably, since 2003, the percentage of students scoring proficient and advanced in ELA in grades two and four, has increased by 12 percent; in grades seven and eight by 10 percent (see Table 1). While all student subgroups have continued to improve since 2003, the gap in achievement between African Americans or blacks and whites and the gap in achievement between Hispanics or Latinos and whites remain unchanged (see Table 2). Since 2003, the student subgroups showing the greatest improvement in achieving proficient and advanced were Asians (11percent), Filipinos (12percent), and Pacific Islanders (10 percent) (see Table2). The student subgroups whose performance showed the least improvement in achieving proficient and advanced were African Americans or blacks (9 percent), American Indians or Alaskan Natives (8 percent), Hispanics or Latinos (9percent), and whites (9 percent). The results listed in Tables 3 and 4 show that the performance of African Americans or blacks and Hispanics or Latinos continues to lag behind whites regardless of economic status. In fact, for 2007, the percentage of not economically disadvantaged African Americans or blacks (40 percent) and the percentage of not economically disadvantaged Hispanics or Latinos (42 percent) achieving proficient and advanced are nearly the same as the percentage of economically disadvantaged whites (41 percent) achieving proficient and advanced. Mathematics Overall, students in all grades and courses scoring at proficient and advanced levels in mathematics showed an increase of approximately 6 percent between 2003 and 2007 (see Table 5). However, the overall percentage of students scoring at proficient and advanced remains unchanged from last year. The greatest improvements over the four-year period in achieving proficient and advanced were made by students in grades three (12 percent), four (12percent), five (14 percent), and seven (10 percent). Modest declines were observed in grade 7 (-1), General Mathematics (-1), and Geometry (-2) from last year. Nearly three-quarters of a million students took the algebra I test (see Table 6). Of the 741,152 students who took the algebra I test, 26 percent of the first-time test-takers scored proficient and advanced and 15 percent of the repeat test-takers scored proficient and advanced (see Table 5). While all student subgroups have continued to improve since 2003, the gap in achievement between African Americans or blacks and whites and the gap in achievement between Hispanics or Latinos and whites remain unchanged (see Table 7). The results listed in tables 8 and 9 show that the performance of African Americans or blacks and Hispanics or Latinos continues to lag behind whites regardless of economic status. In fact, for 2007, the percentage of not economically disadvantaged African Americans or blacks (30 percent) and the percentage of not economically disadvantaged Hispanics or Latinos (36 percent) achieving proficient and advanced is below the percentage of economically disadvantaged whites (38percent) achieving proficient and advanced. Science The percentage of students scoring at the proficient and advanced levels on the grade five science test has increased by 13 percent since 2004, and the percentages of students scoring at the proficient and advanced levels on the grades eight and ten science tests increased by 5 percent and 1 percent respectively since the tests were first administered in 2006 (see Table 10). Overall, an increase of 2 percentage points was observed in the four-year period for the science end-of-course tests. Gains were noted in physics (7percent), earth sciences (5 percent), and integrated 1 (4 percent). No gains were seen for students taking the biology and chemistry tests, and a 1 percent loss was seen for students taking integrated 2 (see Table 11). An overall 3-point increase in the percentage of students scoring at the proficient and advanced levels in the end-of-course tests was noted from last year. Approximately 1.1 million students in grades nine through eleven took end-of-course tests in science in 2007. Since 2003, the number of students taking biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, and integrated 1 increased by 414,477 (see Table 12). History–Social Science The results for students on the history–social science tests were mixed. Since 2003, students taking the grade eight history–social science test scoring at proficient and advanced levels showed an increase of 8 percent, while students taking the grade eleven (U.S. history) test and the end-of-course world history test showed modest gains with increases of 1 and 2 percent respectively (see Table13). Overall, the percentage of students scoring proficient and advanced remains unchanged from last year. Please note: prior to 2007 the world history test was a grade-level test for students in grade ten only. In 2007, students in grades nine, ten,and eleven took this test if they were completing a world history course. Back to top # # # # JACK O'CONNELL - STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION - ROOM 5206 - 916-319-0818 - FAX 916-319-0111