HOUSE BILL REPORT
2SHB 1424
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent. |
As Reported by House Committee On:
Education
Title: An act relating to enhancing the statewide K-12 dropout prevention, intervention, and reengagement system.
Brief Description: Enhancing the statewide K-12 dropout prevention, intervention, and reengagement system.
Sponsors: House Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Haigh, Santos, Sullivan, Maxwell, Ryu, Freeman, Stonier, Seaquist, McCoy, Fey, Roberts, Morrell, Kagi, Bergquist and Jinkins).
Brief History:
Committee Activity:
Education: 2/12/13, 2/21/13 [DPS], 1/16/14, 1/22/14 [DP3S].
Appropriations: 2/28/13, 3/1/13 [DP2S (w/o sub ED)].
Brief Summary of Third Substitute Bill |
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION |
Majority Report: The third substitute bill be substituted therefor and the third substitute bill do pass. Signed by 10 members: Representatives Santos, Chair; Stonier, Vice Chair; Bergquist, Fey, Haigh, S. Hunt, Lytton, Orwall, Pollet and Seaquist.
Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by 9 members: Representatives Dahlquist, Ranking Minority Member; Magendanz, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Hargrove, Hawkins, Hayes, Klippert, Muri, Parker and Warnick.
Staff: Barbara McLain (786-7383).
Background:
Building Bridges.
Legislation enacted in 2007 established the Building Bridges Program (Building Bridges) to award grants to local partnerships of schools, families, and community-based organizations to develop dropout prevention and intervention systems based on community needs and resources.
A state-level workgroup was established with representatives of multiple state and local agencies and organizations to advise the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) about the Building Bridges, and to coordinate services associated with dropout prevention. Subsequent legislation directed the workgroup to conduct several studies and make reports to the Legislature, which have been completed. The OSPI has recently renamed the workgroup as Graduation: A Team Effort (GATE).
Dropout Reengagement.
Legislation enacted in 2010 directed the OSPI to adopt rules and develop a model contract for school districts to use with community-based organizations, community or technical colleges, or Educational Service Districts (ESDs) to provide dropout reengagement services for students aged 16 to 21 who have dropped out of school or are so credit deficient that completion of high school before age 21 is not an expected outcome.
A dropout reengagement program must provide academic instruction, college and work readiness preparation, case management, and resource and referral services. The OSPI rules require dropout reengagement programs to be approved before beginning operation. School districts are not required to enter a contract and may also operate their own programs. Enrolled students are funded through the regular state funding formulas. As of January 2014, there are 22 approved programs enrolling approximately 1,650 full-time equivalent students.
Other Dropout Prevention Programs.
The Pay for Actual Student Success (PASS) Program was established in 2011 to provide awards to high schools based on improvement in their graduation rates. The PASS Program also provides for funding to be allocated to three other dropout prevention programs in addition to the Building Bridges: Jobs for America's Graduates, the Opportunity Internship Program, and community mentoring and leadership development offered through the College Success Foundation.
A graduation coach is defined as a staff person, working in consultation with counselors, who is assigned to identify and provide intervention services to students who have dropped out or are at risk of dropping out of school or of not graduating on time. In 2012 the OSPI convened a workgroup to develop a policy and guidelines for graduation coaches.
Family and Community Engagement.
State funding for the Instructional Program of Basic Education is allocated through a funding formula based in part on assumed class size and the administrative, instructional, and classified staff needed for a prototypical school of a particular size and grade band. One of the staff allocations is a Parent Involvement Coordinator. In the 2013-15 biennial budget, funding was provided to support 0.0825 full-time equivalent staff for this position in a prototypical elementary school of 400 students in kindergarten through grade 6. There is no definition or description of the duties of a Parent Involvement Coordinator. The funding formulas are for allocation purposes only; school districts make their own actual staffing decisions.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Summary of Third Substitute Bill:
Building Bridges.
The purpose of the Building Bridges is to award grants to local partnerships to design and implement a K-12 dropout prevention, intervention, and reengagement system (System). It is clarified that the Building Bridges is a grant program, not a System.
The statutory definition of a System is made consistent by removing duplicative language. Prevention activities within a System are expanded to include tiered intervention, social-emotional and behavioral skills development, and opportunities for students to develop relationships with caring adults. Wraparound services are defined as a team-based approach to delivering services using an array of community and regional resources to address academic, social, emotional, health, and economic issues. Designing and providing wraparound services for vulnerable students is included as one of the functions of a System.
The definition of a graduation coach is changed to be an individual (rather than a staff person) who conducts certain activities and works in consultation with counselors and other staff as provided in a model policy developed by the OSPI in 2012.
If funds are appropriated, the OSPI must develop a System assessment tool to support local partnerships in identifying community strengths and gaps in services, and evaluating the effectiveness of existing strategies to prevent and reengage dropouts. The OSPI must also continue development of a dropout prevention early warning and intervention system within available funds.
The state-level workgroup overseeing the Building Bridges is renamed the GATE, and assigned to establish a common vision and agenda for helping all students reach graduation. The GATE is further tasked with aligning the objectives and operation of various dropout prevention programs in support of a statewide System. The OSPI must submit a biennial report to the Legislature that includes activities undertaken and measurable indicators of progress toward achieving a System.
References to studies that have been completed are removed.
Dropout Reengagement.
The prototypical school funding formula is changed to allocate funding for students enrolled in an OSPI-approved dropout reengagement program at 1.22 times the statewide average allocation for a high school student.
Other Dropout Prevention Programs.
Subject to funding, the OSPI must establish a program to provide graduation coaches to high schools struggling to improve their graduation rates, and school success coaches to selected elementary and middle schools whose students attend those high schools. The OSPI must rank order all high schools based on a combination of factors, including teen pregnancy rates, with a significant priority on graduation rates as a ranking factor. Each year the OSPI allocates funds, starting with the lowest-ranking schools, to support one graduation coach per 500 students in grades 9 through 12, and one school success coach per 500 students in grades K through 8 in selected elementary and middle schools.
The funds must be used to assign individuals to conduct the activities of a graduation coach or school success coach in the schools that generated the funds. Schools may also create partnerships with community-based organizations to assign individuals from the community to be coaches. Schools are eligible to continue receiving funds for three years, or until they no longer qualify based on their ranking, whichever is longer.
A school success coach is defined as an individual, working in consultation with counselors and other school staff, who is assigned to identify and provide early intervention services targeted toward elementary and middle school students to facilitate their continued enrollment, engagement, and progress in school.
Family and Community Engagement.
A prototypical school funding formula staffing allocation is renamed from "Parent Involvement Coordinator" to "Family and Community Engagement Coordinator" (FCEC). The statutory funding formula is updated to reflect the allocation for this position in the 2013-15 biennial budget. School districts are encouraged to assign the FCECs to schools.
The following are listed as examples of activities that may be conducted by the FCECs:
developing partnerships to offer wraparound services for students;
encouraging family engagement in student learning;
creating opportunities for expanded communication with families;
engaging in culturally competent outreach with diverse families and communities;
serving as a liaison for community-based activities; and
coordinating services to assure they are focused on school-identified priorities for students.
Third Substitute Bill Compared to Second Substitute Bill:
A prototypical school funding formula staffing allocation is renamed to the FCEC. The statutory funding formula is updated to reflect the allocation for this position in the 2013-15 biennial budget. Examples of activities that may be conducted by the FCECs are listed. Provisions related to dropout prevention and reengagement services provided by the ESDs as a core service are removed. Teen pregnancy rates are added to a list of factors that the OSPI considers in a grant program to allocate graduation and school success coaches. Null and void clauses for the grant program, enriched allocation for dropout reengagement programs, and ESD intervention specialists are removed.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date of Third Substitute Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of the session in which the bill is passed, except for section 11, relating to an enriched allocation for dropout reengagement programs, which takes effect September 1, 2014.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
Note: Testimony is on the Proposed Third Substitute House Bill.
(In support) Dropout prevention serves the criminal justice system, the economy, and families. It is only logical that students who are not in school get into trouble. In Mason County, two programs have had great success: Readiness to Learn and Building Bridges. By working with at-risk students at the community level, they have seen success in providing students with more structure by aligning after school programs with what students are doing in school. This bill tries to create those structures in a coordinated effort, including by bringing in the ESDS, and by building systems within the community to provide services. This will cost money because more students will be served.
The ESD network supports services that are appropriate to the needs of students. Research studies reveal that graduation has a significant economic benefit for individuals and society. There is a need to address the academic and nonacademic needs of students. Advocates for extended learning opportunities also support this type of approach.
There is much support for using coaches as a strategy to work with at-risk students. Some organizations already have that model in place, with demonstrated success. Site coordinators make all the difference in reaching students. Dropout prevention is a process, not an event. In one school with many students below grade level and parents who did not speak English, the programs were able to provide onsite language instruction and civics classes. The result was a significant increase in academics for the students.
(In support with concerns) Teen pregnancy is the number one reason girls drop out of school. Graduation coaches play an important role in reaching those students. Teen pregnancy rates should be included in the list of factors for school district eligibility for grants for coaches.
(Opposed) None.
Persons Testifying: (In support) Representative Haigh, prime sponsor; Dana Anderson and Michael Dunn, Association of Educational Service Districts; Lynn Tucker, School's Out Washington; David Foster and Laurel Schultz, Communities in Schools; and Leah Livingston, Equity in Education Coalition.
(In support with concerns) Linda Mangel, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.
Persons Signed In To Testify But Not Testifying: None.