Individual legislator voting records for this vote are not currently available. Includes all politicians who were in office at any point during the 2011-2012 Legislature.

AB 1668 - An Act to Amend Sections 52052 and 52052.3 of the Education Code, Relating to School Accountability.

School accountability: academic performance: dropout recovery high schools. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, with approval of the State Board of Education, to develop an Academic Performance Index (API), as part of the Public School Performance Accountability Program, to measure the performance of schools, especially the academic performance of pupils. Existing law requires the Superintendent, with approval of the state board, to develop an… More
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, with approval of the State Board of Education, to develop an Academic Performance Index (API), as part of the Public School Performance Accountability Program, to measure the performance of schools, especially the academic performance of pupils. Existing law requires the Superintendent, with approval of the state board, to develop an alternative accountability system for specified types of schools and allows these schools to receive an API score, but prohibits them from being included in the API rankings of schools. Existing law requires the Superintendent and the state board, as part of the alternative accountability system for schools, or any successor system, to allow no more than 10 dropout recovery high schools to report the results of an individual pupil growth model, as specified, instead of reporting other indicators, and requires the Superintendent to review the individual pupil growth model proposed by a dropout recovery high school and certify that model if it meets specified criteria. Existing law defines a dropout recovery high school as a school offering instruction in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in which 50% or more of its pupils are designated as dropouts, as specified, and the school provides specified instruction.

This bill would change the definition of a dropout recovery high school to mean a school offering instruction in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in which 50% or more of its pupils are either designated as dropouts, as specified, or left a school and were not otherwise enrolled in a school for a period of at least 180 days and the school provides specified instruction. The bill also would require a dropout recovery high school to submit to the Superintendent a certification that the high school meets the definition of a dropout recovery high school, as defined, and provide specified data in support of that designation.

Existing law prohibits graduation rates for pupils in dropout recovery high schools, as defined, from being included in the API.

This bill would revise the definition of dropout recovery high school for purposes of this provision to also include a high school in which 50% or more of its pupils left a school and were not otherwise enrolled in a school for a period of at least 180 days. Hide
 
Status:
The bill has become law (chaptered). 
Assembly Vote: On Passage

PASSED on August 13, 2012.

voted YES: 79 voted NO: 0
1 voted present/not voting

An Act to Amend Sections 52052 and 52052.3 of the Education Code, Relating to School Accountability.

AB 1668 — 2011-2012 Legislature

Summary
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, with approval of the State Board of Education, to develop an Academic Performance Index (API), as part of the Public School Performance Accountability Program, to measure the performance of schools, especially the academic performance of pupils. Existing law requires the Superintendent, with approval of the state board, to develop an alternative accountability system for specified types of schools and allows these schools to receive an API score, but prohibits them from being included in the API rankings of schools. Existing law requires the Superintendent and the state board, as part of the alternative accountability system for schools, or any successor system, to allow no more than 10 dropout recovery high schools to report the results of an individual pupil growth model, as specified, instead of reporting other indicators, and requires the Superintendent to review the individual pupil growth model proposed by a dropout recovery high school and certify that model if it meets specified criteria. Existing law defines a dropout recovery high school as a school offering instruction in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive,… More
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, with approval of the State Board of Education, to develop an Academic Performance Index (API), as part of the Public School Performance Accountability Program, to measure the performance of schools, especially the academic performance of pupils. Existing law requires the Superintendent, with approval of the state board, to develop an alternative accountability system for specified types of schools and allows these schools to receive an API score, but prohibits them from being included in the API rankings of schools. Existing law requires the Superintendent and the state board, as part of the alternative accountability system for schools, or any successor system, to allow no more than 10 dropout recovery high schools to report the results of an individual pupil growth model, as specified, instead of reporting other indicators, and requires the Superintendent to review the individual pupil growth model proposed by a dropout recovery high school and certify that model if it meets specified criteria. Existing law defines a dropout recovery high school as a school offering instruction in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in which 50% or more of its pupils are designated as dropouts, as specified, and the school provides specified instruction.

This bill would change the definition of a dropout recovery high school to mean a school offering instruction in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in which 50% or more of its pupils are either designated as dropouts, as specified, or left a school and were not otherwise enrolled in a school for a period of at least 180 days and the school provides specified instruction. The bill also would require a dropout recovery high school to submit to the Superintendent a certification that the high school meets the definition of a dropout recovery high school, as defined, and provide specified data in support of that designation.

Existing law prohibits graduation rates for pupils in dropout recovery high schools, as defined, from being included in the API.

This bill would revise the definition of dropout recovery high school for purposes of this provision to also include a high school in which 50% or more of its pupils left a school and were not otherwise enrolled in a school for a period of at least 180 days. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Sections 52052 and 52052.3 of the Education Code, Relating to School Accountability.
Author(s)
Wilmer Amina Carter
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • School accountability: academic performance: dropout recovery high schools
    Major Actions
    Introduced2/14/2012
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Assembly Committee on Education5/09/2012
    Passed Assembly5/21/2012
    Passed Senate Committee on Education6/27/2012
    Passed Senate8/09/2012
    Passed Assembly8/13/2012
    Presented to the governor (enrolled)8/20/2012
    Became law (chaptered).9/21/2012
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteAssembly Committee on EducationDo pass as amended.5/09/2012This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Education
    10 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssemblyAB 1668 CARTER Assembly Third Reading5/21/2012This bill PASSED the Assembly
    77 voted YES 0 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on EducationDo pass as amended. To Consent Calendar.6/27/2012This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Education
    8 voted YES 0 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenateConsent Calendar 2nd AB1668 Carter8/09/2012This bill PASSED the Senate
    36 voted YES 0 voted NO 4 voted present/not voting
    currently selectedAssemblyAB 1668 CARTER Concurrence in Senate Amendments8/13/2012This bill PASSED the Assembly
    79 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced2/14/2012
    2/14/2012Read first time. To print.
    2/15/2012From printer. May be heard in committee March 16.
    2/23/2012Referred to Com. on ED.
    3/20/2012From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended.
    3/21/2012Re-referred to Com. on ED.
    4/11/2012In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
    4/16/2012From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended.
    4/17/2012Re-referred to Com. on ED.
    select this voteVote5/09/2012Do pass as amended.
    5/15/2012From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (May 9).
    5/16/2012Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
    5/17/2012Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
    5/21/2012Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 4922.)
    5/21/2012In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
    select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage5/21/2012AB 1668 CARTER Assembly Third Reading
    5/31/2012Referred to Com. on ED.
    select this voteVote6/27/2012Do pass as amended. To Consent Calendar.
    7/03/2012From committee: Do pass as amended. To consent calendar. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (June 27).
    7/05/2012Read second time and amended. Ordered to consent calendar.
    7/06/2012Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.
    8/06/2012From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to consent calendar.
    8/07/2012Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.
    8/09/2012Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 4445.).
    8/09/2012In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 11 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
    select this voteSenate Vote on Passage8/09/2012Consent Calendar 2nd AB1668 Carter
    8/13/2012Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 5886.).
    currently selectedAssembly Vote on Passage8/13/2012AB 1668 CARTER Concurrence in Senate Amendments
    8/20/2012Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 5 p.m.
    9/21/2012Approved by the Governor.
    9/21/2012Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 424, Statutes of 2012.

    Total contributions given to Assemblymembers from interest groups that…

    4 Organizations Supported and 0 Opposed; See Which Ones

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Amend Sections 52052 and 52052.3 of the Education Code, Relating to School Accountability.: AB 1668 CARTER Concurrence in Senate Amendments

    4 organizations supported this bill

    American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, August 8). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Charter Schools Association Advocates
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, August 8). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, August 8). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    School for Integrated Academics and Technologies
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, August 8). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

    0 organizations opposed this bill

    Need proof?

    View citations of support and opposition

    Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Assemblymembers in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2012.
    Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

    Contributions by Legislator

    Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Katcho AchadjianRCA-33$3,000$0
    Luis AlejoDCA-28$21,400$0
    Michael AllenDCA-7$97,400$0
    Tom AmmianoDCA-13$13,400$0
    Toni AtkinsDCA-76$22,700$0
    Jim BeallDCA-24$84,400$0
    Bill BerryhillRCA-26$1,000$0
    Marty BlockDCA-78$84,250$0
    Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$35,650$0
    Susan BonillaDCA-11$20,800$0
    Steven BradfordDCA-51$25,850$0
    Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$0
    Joan BuchananDCA-15$32,750$0
    Betsy ButlerDCA-53$66,800$0
    Charles CalderonDCA-58$0$0
    Nora CamposDCA-23$19,300$0
    Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$0$0
    Gilbert CedilloDCA-45$0$0
    Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$15,800$0
    Connie ConwayRCA-34$7,900$0
    Paul CookRCA-65$0$0
    Mike DavisDCA-48$0$0
    Roger DickinsonDCA-9$39,400$0
    Tim DonnellyRCA-59$0$0
    Mike EngDCA-49$0$0
    Mike FeuerDCA-42$0$0
    Nathan FletcherRCA-75$0$0
    Paul FongDCA-22$29,200$0
    Felipe FuentesDCA-39$0$0
    Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$0
    Beth GainesRCA-4$1,000$0
    Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$86,880$0
    Martin GarrickRCA-74$0$0
    Mike GattoDCA-43$44,700$0
    Rich GordonDCA-21$13,850$0
    Jeff GorellRCA-37$0$0
    Shannon GroveRCA-32$0$0
    Curt HagmanRCA-60$750$0
    Linda HaldermanRCA-29$0$0
    Isadore HallDCA-52$11,800$0
    Diane HarkeyRCA-73$0$0
    Mary HayashiDCA-18$0$0
    Roger HernandezDCA-57$27,500$0
    Jerry HillDCA-19$36,500$0
    Alyson HuberDCA-10$0$0
    Ben HuesoDCA-79$30,400$0
    Jared HuffmanDCA-6$0$0
    Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$0$0
    Brian JonesRCA-77$7,800$0
    Steve KnightRCA-36$0$0
    Ricardo LaraDCA-50$38,400$0
    Dan LogueRCA-3$0$0
    Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$3,500$0
    Fiona MaDCA-12$0$0
    Allan MansoorRCA-68$0$0
    Tony MendozaDCA-56$0$0
    Jeff MillerRCA-71$1,000$0
    Holly MitchellDCA-47$21,750$0
    Bill MonningDCA-27$33,300$0
    Mike MorrellRCA-63$6,025$0
    Brian NestandeRCA-64$17,600$0
    Jim NielsenRCA-2$0$0
    Chris NorbyRCA-72$0$0
    Kristin OlsenRCA-25$3,250$0
    Richard PanDCA-5$71,021$0
    Henry PereaDCA-31$4,000$0
    John PerezDCA-46$103,100$0
    Manuel PerezDCA-80$4,500$0
    Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$0$0
    Jim SilvaRCA-67$0$0
    Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$21,200$0
    Cameron SmythRCA-38$0$0
    Jose SolorioDCA-69$0$0
    Sandre SwansonDCA-16$0$0
    Norma TorresDCA-61$12,300$0
    David ValadaoRCA-30$0$0
    Don WagnerRCA-70$500$0
    Bob WieckowskiDCA-20$29,850$0
    Das WilliamsDCA-35$61,187$0
    Mariko YamadaDCA-8$15,600$0

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Katcho AchadjianRCA-33$3,000$0
    Luis AlejoDCA-28$21,400$0
    Michael AllenDCA-7$97,400$0
    Tom AmmianoDCA-13$13,400$0
    Toni AtkinsDCA-76$22,700$0
    Jim BeallDCA-24$84,400$0
    Bill BerryhillRCA-26$1,000$0
    Marty BlockDCA-78$84,250$0
    Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$35,650$0
    Susan BonillaDCA-11$20,800$0
    Steven BradfordDCA-51$25,850$0
    Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$0
    Joan BuchananDCA-15$32,750$0
    Betsy ButlerDCA-53$66,800$0
    Charles CalderonDCA-58$0$0
    Nora CamposDCA-23$19,300$0
    Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$0$0
    Gilbert CedilloDCA-45$0$0
    Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$15,800$0
    Connie ConwayRCA-34$7,900$0
    Paul CookRCA-65$0$0
    Mike DavisDCA-48$0$0
    Roger DickinsonDCA-9$39,400$0
    Tim DonnellyRCA-59$0$0
    Mike EngDCA-49$0$0
    Mike FeuerDCA-42$0$0
    Nathan FletcherRCA-75$0$0
    Paul FongDCA-22$29,200$0
    Felipe FuentesDCA-39$0$0
    Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$0
    Beth GainesRCA-4$1,000$0
    Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$86,880$0
    Martin GarrickRCA-74$0$0
    Mike GattoDCA-43$44,700$0
    Rich GordonDCA-21$13,850$0
    Jeff GorellRCA-37$0$0
    Shannon GroveRCA-32$0$0
    Curt HagmanRCA-60$750$0
    Linda HaldermanRCA-29$0$0
    Isadore HallDCA-52$11,800$0
    Diane HarkeyRCA-73$0$0
    Mary HayashiDCA-18$0$0
    Roger HernandezDCA-57$27,500$0
    Jerry HillDCA-19$36,500$0
    Alyson HuberDCA-10$0$0
    Ben HuesoDCA-79$30,400$0
    Jared HuffmanDCA-6$0$0
    Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$0$0
    Brian JonesRCA-77$7,800$0
    Steve KnightRCA-36$0$0
    Ricardo LaraDCA-50$38,400$0
    Dan LogueRCA-3$0$0
    Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$3,500$0
    Fiona MaDCA-12$0$0
    Allan MansoorRCA-68$0$0
    Tony MendozaDCA-56$0$0
    Jeff MillerRCA-71$1,000$0
    Holly MitchellDCA-47$21,750$0
    Bill MonningDCA-27$33,300$0
    Mike MorrellRCA-63$6,025$0
    Brian NestandeRCA-64$17,600$0
    Jim NielsenRCA-2$0$0
    Chris NorbyRCA-72$0$0
    Kristin OlsenRCA-25$3,250$0
    Richard PanDCA-5$71,021$0
    Henry PereaDCA-31$4,000$0
    John PerezDCA-46$103,100$0
    Manuel PerezDCA-80$4,500$0
    Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$0$0
    Jim SilvaRCA-67$0$0
    Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$21,200$0
    Cameron SmythRCA-38$0$0
    Jose SolorioDCA-69$0$0
    Sandre SwansonDCA-16$0$0
    Norma TorresDCA-61$12,300$0
    David ValadaoRCA-30$0$0
    Don WagnerRCA-70$500$0
    Bob WieckowskiDCA-20$29,850$0
    Das WilliamsDCA-35$61,187$0
    Mariko YamadaDCA-8$15,600$0

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated
    State & local government employee unions$1,252,526
    Schools & colleges$37,887
    Public school teachers, administrators & officials$21,100
    School Choice Advocates$18,750

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

    $ Donated
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range