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.

The news that didn’t fit from April 19th

THE TWO MAJOR CALIFORNIA TEACHERS UNIONS AGREE THAT THE STATE OWES EDUCATION BILLION$, CTA Goes to the Ballot Box, CFT to the Courts
Thursday, April 16, 2009 11:43 PM
The latest on California politics and government  Posted by Kevin Yamamura, SACBEE  April 16 - The California Teachers Association has pumped $5 million so far into a campaign to pass Propositions 1A and 1B, with the carrot of $9.3 billion in total additional education revenues starting in 2011-12 under 1B.  But the California Federation of Teachers believes there's a different way to get that

L.A. ACADEMY SPEAKS OUT AGAINST PROPOSED LAUSD TEACHER CUTS
Saturday, April 18, 2009 12:57 PM
by Nadra Kareem | Contributing Writer The Watts Times  April 16, 2009 -- Lamar Queen considered applying to three school districts in Southern California upon graduating from Louisiana’s Grambling State University. In the end, the math teacher settled on the Los Angeles Unified School District.  “They had a nice incentive program for new teachers who were going to teach math, so I went with

YouTube: CTA’s YES ON 1A & 1B COMMERCIAL
Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:16 AM
4LAKIDS unenthusiastically recommends  YES votes on 1A, 1B & 1C. We don’t like any of them, but they are the best we are going to get in this economy with politics-as-unusual in Sacramento.     1D  and 1E hold early childhood education and mental health programs temporary hostage for education, if you can accept that – vote YES.     1E is a no brainer.    Familiarize yourself with the measures

NY Times’ Los Angeles Journal: GIVING LESSONS IN TRAFFIC SAFETY AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Thursday, April 16, 2009 5:18 AM
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER | NEW YORK TIMES    Michal Czerwonka for The New York Times - Mitchell Summer, the dean of students at Florence Nightingale Middle School in Los Angeles, helps students cross the street  April 10, 2009 — LOS ANGELES — At 2:58 each weekday afternoon, the adults brace for traffic chaos at Florence Nightingale Middle School.  The bell sounds, and children dash to the left

5000? 5400? 6850? THE NUMBERS OF LAUSD LAYOFFS LIKE THE SIZE OF THE BUDGET DEFICIT AND THE SIZE OF THE FEDERAL STIMULUS REMAINS UNKNOWN. BUT HOWEVER MANY OF THEM THERE ARE THEY ARE LIKE, SO FIRED! OR NOT.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:17 PM
Update 4/15 | 3pm:           Before yesterday’s vote to “save” 1996 elementary school jobs Reduction in Force/RIF/layoff  notices  had been sent to 10,571 employees.            The final vote technically authorized 8,541 layoffs,             Superintendent Ramon Cortines and Chief Financial Officer Megan Reilly said the district would route state funding to individual schools, allowing them to

“DO THE RIGHT THING FOR KIDS …AND THE RIGHT THING IS NOT TO PROCEED WITH THIS BUDGET”
Saturday, April 18, 2009 2:48 PM
“You have heard from Jackie Goldberg and John Mockler;  you have heard from teachers and parents and student. Listen to them.” 

smf to the Board of Ed at the April 14th Meeting:  Members of the Board of Education, I speak today as Vice President of Los Angeles Tenth District PTA and I bring the greetings of Thirty-first District. Together we represent the entirely of PTA in LAUSD.   I am here in

LABOR ORGANIZES AGAINST BUDGET MEASURE 1-A + Strange 1A fellows move their beds closer together
Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:10 AM
By Kevin Yamamura | Sacramento Bee     Monday, Apr. 13, 2009 - A powerful California public employee union formed a campaign committee Monday with two other labor groups to oppose Proposition 1A, a May 19 ballot measure that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders have said will solve future budget problems.  Service Employees International Union's California State Council, which says

 

COALITION OF LAUSD UNIONS & H.O.P.E PARENT COALITION TALKING POINTS

Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:34 PM
Spend the Stimulus monies to ensure a future for the kids  &  Deny the District’s self-defeating and rash cuts.     Guiding Principle From 4/6 Meetings                        Public Interest Message of Hope· Maintain level of consistency of instructional and operational support.· Equity.           ·

BUSH IMPACT ON SCHOOLS TO OUTLIVE TERM: NCLB Law Key Element of President’s Domestic Legacy

By David J. Hoff | Education Week | Vol. 28, Issue 15, Pages 1,18-19

President Bush sits with 4th graders, from left, Khadijah McCain, Damien Goolsby, and Darlet Horton, at Pierre Laclede Elementary School in St. Louis on Jan. 5, 2004, for the second anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. The law was a top priority of his first term. —Lawrence Jackson/AP-File

10 Dec 2008 - George W. Bush entered the White House determined to change federal education policy.

“Bipartisan education reform will be the cornerstone of my administration,” he wrote in the foreword to a 29-page document outlining his K-12 agenda, released five days after his 2001 inauguration.

By the end of that year, President Bush had forged a bipartisan consensus around the No Child Left Behind Act, which he signed into law on Jan. 8, 2002. For the first time, states receiving federal K-12 education funding would be required to hold districts and schools accountable for the achievement of students, regardless of their income levels, special education status, or ethnic, racial, or native-language backgrounds.

As Mr. Bush prepares to leave office Jan. 20, he is calling the NCLB law one of his most important domestic accomplishments.

“It focused the country’s attention on the fact that we had an achievement gap that—you know, white kids were reading better in the 4th grade than Latinos or African-American kids. And that’s unacceptable for America,” the president said in a Nov. 28 interview conducted by his sister Doro Bush Koch for an oral-history project.

An aide prepares for a speech by President Bush at J.E.B. Stuart High School in Falls Church, Va., in 2005.

—J. Scott Applewhite/AP

“And the No Child Left Behind Act started holding people to account, and the achievement gap is narrowing,” Mr. Bush said, according to a transcript released by the White House.

While many educators disagree with Mr. Bush about the success of the law, most observers say that his administration has had a greater impact on local schools than any since President Lyndon B. Johnson won passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the original version of what is now the NCLB law.

President Bush “was the first one to set specific targets for the achievement of poor and minority kids in the basic subjects,” said Charles Barone, who helped draft the law as an aide to House Democrats. “People pay more attention to the education that poor and minority children are getting.”

Focus Too Narrow?

Yet the nearly 7-year-old law is unpopular, particularly among educators, who say that its accountability rules focus too narrowly on test scores, and that it doesn’t provide schools with enough money and other support needed to improve student achievement.

“Right now, the only accountability is for standardized-test scores,” said George Wood, the principal of Federal Hocking High School in Stewart, Ohio, and the executive director of the Forum for Education and Democracy. That coalition of researchers and educators is trying to eliminate use of standardized tests in accountability decisions.

The NCLB law’s accountability system is so focused on improving test scores in reading and mathematics, Mr. Wood said, that schools have responded by narrowing what they teach to what’s measured on those tests, which often are low-level skills in those subjects.

Despite the flaws in such tests, the test-score data have alerted the public that not all schools are successfully educating students, said Michael J. Petrilli, the vice president of national programs and policy for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington think tank dedicated to education policy.

“What No Child Left Behind has done is, it has created a sense of urgency at the local level,” said Mr. Petrilli, who served as a political appointee in the U.S. Department of Education from 2001 to 2005.

Because the law’s accountability system has identified struggling schools, it has encouraged local officials to add charter schools, attempt new ways of recruiting and rewarding teachers, and other efforts that they believe will improve achievement, Mr. Petrilli said.

But the law has overreached, he added, because it assumed that the federal government could be instrumental in turning around low-performing schools.

Domestic Priority

The most pressing issues of President Bush’s tenure have been the post-Sept. 11, 2001, fight against terrorism, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the financial-sector crisis and current economic recession. But one of his first priorities in 2001 was to improve schools.

Five days after taking office, he invited four leaders of the congressional education committees to the White House to discuss the topic and release an outline of his plan to reauthorize the ESEA and rename it the No Child Left Behind Act.

“It was remarkable that [early on] he was putting his attention on education,” said Christopher T. Cross, a educational consultant based in Danville, Calif., who was an assistant U.S. secretary of education under President George H.W. Bush. “That gave him leverage from that day on.”

The younger President Bush’s desire to address schools was no surprise. Throughout the 2000 campaign, he had emphasized his education plan, which was modeled after the testing-and-accountability measures crafted on his watch as governor of Texas in 1995.

In his proposal, Mr. Bush embraced the notion that the federal government should require states to set academic standards, create assessments to measure students’ knowledge and abilities, and hold schools accountable for improving student achievement based on those test scores.

Building on the previous version of the ESEA, passed in 1994 and signed by President Bill Clinton, the new Bush administration proposed to expand the amount of testing—in reading and mathematics—from three times in a student’s career to every year in grades 3-8 and once during high school.

Going further than the 1994 law, the administration wanted to require schools to report test scores broken down by students’ income levels, race, ethnicity, and factors such as their disability status and whether they were English-language learners.

The administration also proposed requiring states and districts to offer public school choice or free tutoring to students in schools that did not meet achievement goals.

President Bush and his appointees have often referred to what he calls the “soft bigotry of low expectations” in advocating the need for disaggregated data that show the academic shortcomings of disadvantaged students.

“Before ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations’ became part of the political landscape, most citizens admitted [the achievement gap] was a problem, shrugged their shoulders, and walked away,” said Eugene W. Hickok, who served as deputy secretary of education during President Bush’s first term.

While all of the president’s proposals built on pieces of the 1994 version of the ESEA, congressional Republicans never embraced the standards-and-accountability provisions in the Clinton-era legislation.

“Nobody would have thought” that a conservative Republican would lead the expansion of federal influence over K-12 schools, Mr. Cross said.

But Mr. Bush’s experience as Texas governor had convinced him that the standards-and-accountability model should be replicated throughout the country, and that schools should be held accountable for improving the achievement of children from all backgrounds.

“Democrats were willing to go along [with the Bush proposals], and it was Bush’s job to bring along the Republicans,” said Jack Jennings, the president of the Center on Education Policy, a Washington-based research and advocacy group that has tracked the law’s implementation, and a former longtime aide to House Democrats.

Democratic Partners

As President Bush said in the January 2001 blueprint for the NCLB law, he wanted his education bill to be a bipartisan effort.

Starting with the event on his fifth day in office, he met several times with the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate and House education committees.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, the president invited congressional education leaders to the White House to reinvigorate negotiations on the NCLB bill.

The Democrats’ involvement added key components to the law, particularly around accountability.

“There was a feeling in the room—and it was bipartisan, no doubt about it—that we needed to be tougher,” said Sandy Kress, an Austin, Texas-based lawyer and lobbyist who worked as an unpaid White House adviser helping to get the NCLB law through Congress.

Rep. George Miller of California, the senior House Democrat on education issues in 2001 and now the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, was “as hawkish about this as anyone at the table,” Mr. Kress said. “Any sign of softness and he was on you.”

President Bush speaks at J.E.B. Stuart High School in Falls Church, Va., on Jan. 12, 2005. He was launching a push to require high school students to take the same mathematics and reading tests required of younger students under the No Child Left Behind Act.

—Susan Walsh/AP-File

The final version of the NCLB law required schools to meet achievement targets in every designated subgroup of students. Under the law, a school fails to make adequate yearly progress—a central measure of performance—if any subgroup fails to reach the achievement goals set by its state.

Under President Bush’s original plan, test data for each subgroup would have been reported to the public, but only the results for low-income students would have been used for accountability purposes.

The legislation also added the goal that all students would be proficient in reading and math by the end of the 2013-14 school year—an element that wasn’t in the White House’s original plan.

The alliance with Democrats became strained, however, over the president’s proposals for funding the law. The dollar figures appropriated for the NCLB law’s Title I program for disadvantaged students grew quickly in the two fiscal years after President Bush signed the legislation.

On the law’s second anniversary, in January 2004, Rep. Miller, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and eight other Democratic senators sent a letter to then-Secretary of Education Rod Paige saying the law had been underfunded by $7.5 billion in fiscal 2003.

“Underfunding by such a drastic amount undermines not only successful implementation, but the very spirit of the law,” the letter said.

Making It Work

It took the first year of President Bush’s administration to get the NCLB law through Congress. Implementing the law over the next seven years was more difficult.

From Mr. Bush’s signing of the measure in 2002 through the 2004 election, the administration strictly enforced the law’s rules, denying states’ requests to reduce the number of grades in which they had to assess students and turning down requests to ease the potential accountability sanctions.

The idea was to send a message to states that they wouldn’t be able to avoid the law’s goal that the achievement of all students would increase on a pace necessary so that all would be proficient by the end of the 2013-14 school year, Mr. Hickok said. ("Commentary: Secretary Spellings' Unintended Legacy," this issue.)

Part of the reason for the inflexibility, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said, was that states didn’t have the data or the technical expertise to pursue accountability programs that differed from the law’s method of comparing one year’s cohort of students against the previous year’s.

“We couldn’t do growth models and graduate-level accountability,” said Ms. Spellings, who was President Bush’s domestic-policy adviser during his first term and played an oversight role in the law’s early implementation.

Shortly after Ms. Spellings became education secretary in 2005, she launched a series of efforts intended to reduce states’ burdens under the law. ("Spellings' Worldview: There's No Going Back on K-12 Accountability," this issue.)

Those efforts included creating a pilot project to let some states make accountability decisions based on the year-to-year growth of student achievement—so-called “growth models”—and to create alternative assessments for a wider population of students with disabilities.

But Ms. Spellings refused to approve proposals that would have delayed the target for achieving 100 percent proficiency, and she stood fast on requirements for disaggregating achievement data.

With those requirements in place, educators continue to feel pressure to reach goals that most consider unattainable. That pressure has led to the widespread unpopularity of the law itself, even though polls suggest the public supports the premise that schools be held accountable.

“There could’ve been more done to make it clear to educators that the law was not out to get them,” said Mr. Petrilli of the Fordham Institute.

What’s Next?

The Bush legacy on education won’t be complete until Congress decides on the NCLB law’s future.

The backlash against the law may lead to major changes when Congress finally revisits it. Lawmakers were scheduled to reauthorize the law in 2007 but were unable to do so before the presidential-election campaign revved up.

Rep. Miller, the California congressman who is one of the law’s architects, said last year that its accountability and other rules are too rigid and don’t always fairly assess schools.

President-elect Barack Obama has endorsed the law’s goals and its use of testing. But he also has said he wants to improve the quality of testing and change the law’s focus to reward good schools rather than target low-performing ones.

The law could be in for major changes. The Democratic majorities in the incoming 111th Congress may back away from much of the NCLB law’s testing and accountability rules, mostly because they’re associated with an unpopular president, said Maris A. Vinovskis, a professor of history at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and the author of a new book on the history of national education policy since the 1983 report A Nation at Risk.

“The story isn’t going to be written until the new Congress meets,” Mr. Vinovskis said.

Although the law certainly will change, members of Congress are unlikely to abandon the federal government’s role in school accountability, Mr. Vinovskis and others said.

“The rhetorical emphasis on accountability will remain,” said Mr. Hickok, who is now a senior policy director for Dutko Worldwide, a Washington-based lobbying firm. “They would have a difficult time walking away from accountability.”

 

The Bush Record On Education

President George W. Bush’s administration has been notable not only for one of the most significant shifts in federal oversight of education, under the No Child Left Behind Act, but also for new laws, programs, and developments in other areas affecting schools.

No Child Left Behind Act
President Bush made the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act a top priority upon entering office. The resulting NCLB law, which he signed Jan. 8, 2002, expanded student testing and introduced new accountability rules for schools that receive federal aid. It requires schools to assess students in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and once in high school. If schools fail to keep their students on pace toward proficiency in those subjects, they are identified as needing improvement and face a series of interventions, such as offering public school choice and free tutoring, and eventually being restructured. The law also added a requirement that all teachers be highly qualified according to federal and state rules.

Reading First
The NCLB law also created the Reading First program, which provided some $1 billion a year to pay for curricular materials and professional development focused on the primary grades. Although popular among educators, the Department of Education’s inspector general issued a series of reports questioning whether department officials overstepped their authority in pushing states to use specific curricula and assessments under the program. The department’s research office also released a report saying that the funding had been successful in improving students’ decoding and other basic skills, but not their reading comprehension.

School Choice
As part of his original plan for the NCLB law, President Bush had sought to allow students in low-performing public schools to use federal aid to attend private schools, as well as to transfer to higher-performing public schools. But facing staunch Democratic opposition, he agreed to drop the voucher element. The public-school-choice provision was enacted, but is widely viewed as ineffective, with very few parents transferring their children to other public schools.

In 2002, the Bush administration argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the constitutionality of including religious schools in publicly funded voucher programs. The court agreed, ruling that the inclusion of religious schools in such programs does not violate the First Amendment’s prohibition against a government establishment of religion. In 2004, the president signed into law the nation’s first federally funded voucher program, which targets students from low-income families in the District of Columbia. It was narrowly enacted in 2004 when Republicans held majorities in Congress, with most Democrats strongly opposed. It provides vouchers worth up to $7,500 per year, and they can be used at religious schools.

Special Education
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was reauthorized during President Bush’s first term, with language that ties the special education law to NCLB on such issues as highly qualified teachers for students with disabilities, and the importance of including students with disabilities in assessments. The administration introduced some testing flexibility for states by allowing different state assessments to be used for students with significant cognitive impairments, and students who could meet modified grade-level standards.

Educational Research
The 2002 passage of the Education Sciences Reform Act gave the Bush administration a rare opportunity to abolish the Department of Education’s existing research operation and create a new research agency out of the ashes. The newly christened Institute of Education Sciences, under Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst, spearheaded the department’s campaign to transform education into an evidence-based practice, much like medicine.

Under Mr. Whitehurst’s six-year tenure, the agency increased the number of randomized experiments the department finances, revamped the agency’s peer-review process, retooled the federal education research laboratory system, and created new grant programs to nurture research talent for the field. The office’s best-known accomplishment, though, may be the What Works Clearinghouse, a sometimes-controversial project set up to vet the evidence base that undergirds many of the programs, policies, and practices used in the nation’s schools.

Gender Issues
First-term Secretary of Education Rod Paige in 2002 established a commission to study Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal law that bars sex discrimination in federally funded schools and colleges. Some civil rights and women’s advocacy groups feared the effort was a bid to soften enforcement of the law. After receiving a report full of mostly minor recommendations about athletic participation at the college level, the Education Department largely ignored them, issuing a document in 2003 clarifying previous Title IX guidance.

Meanwhile, citing research that educating boys and girls separately was proving effective in some circumstances, the department in 2006 issued regulations making it easier for public schools to experiment with single-sex education.

Race Issues
The Bush administration weighed in against the use of race in education in a series of landmark Supreme Court cases. In appeals involving race-conscious admissions policies in higher education, the administration struck a cautious tone, and the Education Department issued reports emphasizing ways in which schools and colleges could achieve racial diversity without relying on racial preferences. In those cases, from the University of Michigan, the justices affirmed the constitutionality of affirmative action but struck down some practices.

The administration was more assertive when the justices took up race-conscious student-assignment policies from the Seattle and Jefferson County, Ky., school districts in 2006. It urged the Supreme Court to strike down the plans, which the court did in a 2007 decision that sharply limited the ways K-12 schools could rely on race.

Higher Education
Secretary Margaret Spellings helped spur a dialogue over student financial assistance and college accountability by convening a task force to study higher education. The panel’s 2006 report called for a major new investment in federal student aid. And, more controversially, it encouraged colleges and universities to use value-added assessments to measure students’ skills at the beginning and end of their college careers. Colleges and universities should make the results of those tests public, the panel concluded.

—David J. Hoff, Alyson Klein, Erik W. Robelen, Christina A. Samuels, Debra Viadero, and Mark Walsh

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