California Assembly Bill AB751

California 2019-2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/19/19
• Refer: 2/28/19
• Report Pass: 3/28/19
• Refer: 3/28/19
• Refer: 4/10/19
• Report Pass: 5/16/19
• Engrossed: 5/28/19
• Refer: 5/29/19
• Refer: 6/6/19
• Report Pass: 6/19/19
• Refer: 6/19/19
• Refer: 8/12/19
• Report Pass: 8/30/19
• Enrolled: 9/13/19
• Vetoed: 10/12/19

Caption

Pupil assessments: Pathways to College Act.

Impact

If implemented, AB 751 would lead to significant shifts in how student academic performance is evaluated at the state level. By permitting alternative assessments, the bill could provide a more tailored approach to student evaluations, allowing schools to choose assessments that align with their instructional goals. This decision aligns with provisions of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which emphasizes the need for assessments to be valid and reliable while reflecting the diverse needs of students across the state.

Summary

Assembly Bill 751, known as the Pathways to College Act, seeks to amend existing laws governing pupil assessments in California. The bill establishes regulations that allow local educational agencies to opt for a nationally recognized high school assessment as an alternative to the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) for grade 11 pupils. This bill introduces flexibility for educational agencies, empowering them to select assessments that may better fit their students' needs, while adhering to specific requirements as outlined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding AB 751 appears supportive, particularly among educational stakeholders who believe that offering alternative assessments can lead to improved student outcomes and better reflect student preparedness for college. However, there are concerns from opponents who worry that this flexibility might dilute standards and lead to inconsistencies in educational quality across California’s various school districts.

Contention

Notable points of contention involve the balance of maintaining rigorous academic standards while allowing local agencies the discretion to determine the assessments. Critics argue that without stringent oversight, the option for alternative assessments could result in varied testing standards, potentially undermining the comparability of educational outcomes. Proponents assert that the flexibility can accommodate diverse student populations, thus enhancing achievement and readiness for post-secondary education.