AB 1360 directs the California Department of Education (CDE), with State Board approval, to establish procedures for assessing English language development and for reclassifying English learners (ELs) as English proficient. The bill preserves annual assessment and initial-enrollment testing obligations for districts, county offices, and charter schools, and requires reclassification decisions to rely on multiple criteria including objective test results, teacher evaluation, parental consultation, and a basic-skills comparison.
Most substantively, the bill authorizes reclassification beginning July 1, 2026, when an English learner achieves an English Learner Progress Indicator (ELPI) score of 3H on the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC), provided the student also satisfies the department’s other multiple-measures criteria. AB 1360 also limits routine testing to no more than one administration per year for each assessment purpose while allowing local agencies to test more often if they choose.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires CDE to set procedures for administering English language development assessments and for reclassifying ELs. Establishes that an EL may be reclassified if they score 3H or above on the ELPAC ELPI and meet additional multiple-measure criteria.
Who It Affects
California school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools with English learners; CDE and the State Board; test administrators and vendors; teachers and parents involved in reclassification decisions.
Why It Matters
Sets a clear, test-linked trigger (ELPI 3H) for reclassification while preserving a multiple-measure process, which could change the pace and consistency of redesignation across districts and shift local assessment and staffing practices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill starts from the familiar requirement that local education agencies assess English language development for every pupil identified as an English learner. It tasks the California Department of Education, with State Board approval, to write the procedures that districts and charter schools must follow for those assessments and for redesignating pupils as English proficient.
AB 1360 keeps annual testing and initial-enrollment assessment requirements but frames several operational rules: the department and State Board determine the annual testing window, the assessment instrument is primarily the ELPAC or the ELD test the Superintendent identifies, and schools may conduct additional tests at their discretion but may not require more than one administration per school year for each federally specified assessment purpose. The bill also sets specific rules for initial identification: if a pupil enrolls outside the testing window, the district may use the prior year’s assessment; if enrolling within the window, the pupil is assessed as part of that year’s administration.For reclassification, the bill requires multiple evidence sources: an objective language-proficiency instrument, a teacher evaluation (including curriculum mastery), parental opinion and consultation, and a comparison of the pupil’s basic-skills performance to an empirically established range for same-age English proficient peers.
The critical change is that, commencing July 1, 2026, the department’s objective-assessment criterion must allow reclassification when a pupil attains an ELPI score of 3H or higher on the ELPAC, provided the pupil also meets the other multiple-measure criteria.The bill includes a clause that assessment and summative testing must comply with federal statutes and regulations and contains a conditional implementation provision tied to written documentation from the U.S. Department of Education. It also clarifies that “initial enrollment” for these rules excludes transitional kindergarten pupils.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Commencing July 1, 2026, the bill authorizes reclassification if a pupil achieves an ELPI score of 3H or above on the ELPAC and meets the department’s additional multiple-measure criteria.
The department’s reclassification criteria must include four elements: an objective assessment instrument, teacher evaluation (including curriculum mastery), parental opinion and consultation, and a basic-skills comparison to same-age English proficient peers.
The bill limits routine assessment frequency to no more than one administration per school year for each assessment purpose specified in Chapter 7 (Section 60810 et seq.), while allowing districts or county offices to test more often voluntarily.
Initial identification testing rules: if a pupil enrolls outside the designated testing window, use the prior year’s annual assessment for that grade; if enrollment falls within the testing window, assess the pupil as part of the annual administration.
The statute expressly excludes transitional kindergarten enrollment from the definition of “initial enrollment” for the purposes of these assessment and reclassification rules.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Who must assess English language development
This section restates the duty of school districts — and, where required by federal law, county offices and charter schools — to assess English language development for any pupil who is an English learner. Practically, it confirms local agencies’ primary responsibility for administering assessments used to determine proficiency and compliance with the chapter's mandates.
State-level procedure-making
The department, with State Board approval, must write the procedures for conducting assessments and for reclassification. That centralizes the standards-setting function at CDE and the State Board, meaning districts will implement standardized procedures rather than relying solely on local practice; it also puts the onus on CDE to define how the multiple-measure reclassification system will operate in practice.
Initial and annual assessment requirement
This subdivision requires assessment at initial enrollment and annually thereafter until redesignation, and directs primary use of the ELD/ELPAC instrument identified by the Superintendent. It frames assessment as an ongoing obligation tied to a state-determined testing period, so operational planning (testing calendars, staffing, data collection) must align with the State Superintendent’s schedule.
Summative testing window, federal-condition clause, and one-test limit
This part establishes details for the summative assessment: it will occur annually during a four-month period after January 1 as set by the Superintendent and State Board, subject to a written approval condition from the U.S. Department of Education (or a later-specified school year). It also contains rules for initial-identification timing and caps mandatory testing frequency at one administration per school year per assessment purpose. The federal-approval trigger and the one-test cap are the operational levers likely to produce the most local variation and implementation questions.
Multiple-measure reclassification criteria
The department’s reclassification procedures must draw on multiple criteria: an objective proficiency instrument, teacher evaluation including curriculum mastery, parental opinion and consultation, and a comparison of basic-skills performance against empirically derived ranges for English proficient peers. Reclassification therefore cannot rest on a single metric; the statute codifies a holistic decision model that mixes standardized testing with subjective professional judgment and parent input.
ELPI 3H threshold for reclassification
Beginning July 1, 2026, the procedures must permit a pupil to be reclassified if the pupil earns an ELPI score of 3H or higher on the ELPAC and also satisfies the other multiple-measure criteria. This creates a clear, test-based trigger within the broader multiple-measure framework while preserving the department’s role in defining how the other criteria are applied.
Local testing flexibility and TK exclusion
The statute explicitly does not prevent districts or county offices from conducting additional tests beyond the single required administration, giving local agencies discretion to accelerate or corroborate reclassification decisions. It also clarifies that initial enrollment rules do not apply to transitional kindergarten, removing TK pupils from the initial-identification calculus.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- English learners who reach ELPI 3H and satisfy other measures — gain a clear, test-linked pathway to reclassification that can accelerate access to mainstream instruction.
- Parents of ELs — obtain an explicit role in reclassification through required consultation and a statutory place for parental opinion in the decision-making mix.
- State education officials and assessment administrators — receive a standardized trigger (ELPI 3H) and a central procedural framework to promote consistency across districts.
- Assessment vendors and the ELPAC administration apparatus — benefit from statutory emphasis on the ELPAC (or the Superintendent-identified ELD instrument) as the primary assessment tool.
Who Bears the Cost
- School districts and county offices of education — must budget for statewide-aligned testing windows, data systems, and staff time to conduct annual assessments, teacher evaluations, and parental consultations.
- Teachers and site administrators — take on additional evaluative and documentation responsibilities for curriculum-mastery reviews tied to reclassification decisions.
- California Department of Education and the State Board — must draft procedures, benchmarks, and empirical comparisons, which requires technical, legal, and stakeholder work (and likely resources) to operationalize multiple measures.
- Students who are near but below the 3H threshold — may face renewed testing or slower redesignation if districts elect not to use discretionary additional testing, creating potential inequities based on local policy choices.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to reconcile two competing goals: standardizing reclassification with an objective ELPI cutoff to increase consistency, while preserving a holistic, multiple-measure approach intended to protect against false positives; implementing both raises trade-offs between clarity and administrative burden, and between statewide uniformity and local discretion.
The bill combines a bright-line, test-based trigger (ELPI 3H) with a required multiple-measure process; implementing both faithfully requires careful procedural design. CDE must specify how to weight and reconcile objective ELPI results with teacher evaluations, parental input, and basic-skills comparisons — a nontrivial exercise that will determine whether the statutory promise of consistency actually reduces variation across districts or simply adds procedural complexity.
The conditional-implementation language tied to written documentation from the U.S. Department of Education (and to a specific school year referenced in the text) introduces legal and operational uncertainty. Because the statute also limits mandatory testing to one administration per year per assessment purpose, students who make rapid progress may have to wait for the next testing window unless a district uses its discretionary testing authority, which could produce unequal outcomes between districts that opt to test more frequently and those that do not.
Finally, the bill imposes new evaluative duties on teachers and on CDE to develop empirically based basic-skills comparisons — tasks that require funding, technical guidance, and consistent training to avoid subjective or inconsistent application.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.