SB 670 amends Section 84901 of the California Education Code to add a detailed statutory definition of “immigrant integration” for the Adult Education Program. The definition describes integration as a two-way process and enumerates program characteristics — culturally relevant and linguistically accessible services that promote linguistic, economic, civic, and social integration, upward mobility, civic participation, and multigenerational outcomes.
On its face the change is definitional: it does not appropriate new funds or create standalone programmatic mandates. Practically, however, the definition will anchor how the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, adult education consortia, and the Statewide Director of Immigrant Integration interpret reporting duties, select common measures, design curricula and outreach, and prioritize services for immigrant and refugee adults seeking integration.
At a Glance
What It Does
Inserts a single statutory definition of “immigrant integration” into §84901 that frames integration as a two-way process and lists concrete program goals and delivery principles. It becomes the reference point for the Adult Education Program’s existing planning and reporting duties.
Who It Affects
The Chancellor’s Office, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, approved adult education consortia, adult education program providers (including community colleges and adult schools), and the Statewide Director of Immigrant Integration are the primary actors whose planning and reporting will be guided by the definition.
Why It Matters
By codifying program priorities — linguistic access, cultural relevance, economic and civic outcomes, and multigenerational integration — the statute will steer measurement choices, curriculum design, outreach strategies, and regional resource allocation without creating a new funding stream.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 670 is a narrow but consequential change: it adds a new definition of “immigrant integration” to the list of terms governing California’s Adult Education Program. The definition treats integration as a two-way process in which both immigrants and receiving communities participate, and it enumerates the program features that count as part of successful integration — for example, culturally relevant and linguistically accessible services, pathways to economic and social mobility, civic participation, and multigenerational integration.
Because the Adult Education Program already requires the Chancellor and the Superintendent to divide the state into regions, approve consortia, and report annually on the use of funds and outcomes, that statutory definition will operate as a touchstone. Administrators and providers will use it when they identify common measures for immigrant and refugee adults, when they set priorities for service delivery, and when they craft program descriptions and performance indicators that go into regional plans and annual reports.The amendment does not itself create new funding, eligibility rules, or enforcement mechanisms.
Its practical effect will arise through implementation decisions: which outcomes consortia choose to measure, how providers document cultural and linguistic accessibility, and whether evaluation frameworks include longer-term measures such as multigenerational integration or civic participation. That means the definition can expand what counts as success without changing statutory funding formulas.Finally, because the definition highlights both social and economic integration and asks providers to encourage immigrants' civic and economic contributions, it creates a cross-sectoral framing.
Workforce partners, local governments, and civic organizations are likely to be pulled into planning and reporting conversations, and consortia may revise curricula, outreach, and partnership strategies to align with the statutory language.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 670 amends Education Code §84901 by adding a new subsection defining “immigrant integration” for the Adult Education Program.
The definition presents integration as a two-way process and requires programs to be culturally relevant and linguistically accessible.
Integration outcomes named in the definition include linguistic, economic, civic, and social integration, plus upward social and economic mobility and multigenerational integration.
The text explicitly assigns a role to service providers to encourage immigrants to maximize contributions to local economic and civic life.
The amendment is definitional only: it does not appropriate funds or create separate statutory entitlements but will shape reporting, measurement, and program design.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Insertion of 'immigrant integration' into the program definitions
The bill changes the definitions section of the Adult Education Program by adding a new subsection that defines “immigrant integration.” Because §84901 contains terms used throughout the Adult Education Program statute, placing the definition here makes it the default interpretive lens for administrators and providers who design programs, report outcomes, and set common measures.
Substantive content of the new definition
The new subsection describes immigrant integration as a two-way process and lists program characteristics: being embraced and welcomed by the receiving society, offering culturally relevant and linguistically accessible programs and services, and facilitating linguistic, economic, civic, and social integration. It also calls out upward mobility, increased civic participation, and multigenerational integration as intended outcomes, and directs providers to encourage immigrants to maximize contributions to local economic and civic life. Those phrases give implementers specific concepts to operationalize when choosing metrics and designing services.
How the definition informs reporting, common measures, and regional planning
While the bill does not change the separate statutory duties that require annual reporting to the Director of Finance and the Statewide Director of Immigrant Integration, the new definition will inform what counts as relevant outcomes in those reports. Regional consortia and the chancellor’s office will rely on the definition when they identify common measures for immigrant and refugee adults, which may shift measurement from narrow skills attainment toward broader economic, civic, and multigenerational indicators.
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
- Immigrant and refugee adult learners — the definition elevates services that are linguistically accessible and culturally relevant, which can improve access to programs and recognition of broader outcomes (e.g., civic participation and family-level gains).
- Adult education providers that already prioritize integrated services — agencies and schools with existing bilingual staff, community partnerships, or integrated workforce-civic programming will find the statutory language validates their models and may help justify continued or expanded practice.
- Local workforce and civic partners — workforce boards, employers, and civic organizations that collaborate with adult education programs may gain a stronger role in planning and evaluation as consortia seek to demonstrate economic and civic outcomes.
- State-level administrators — the Chancellor’s Office and the Superintendent can use the definition to harmonize regional standards and to justify new common measures that capture integration outcomes beyond basic literacy or short-term credentials.
Who Bears the Cost
- Adult education consortia and providers — expected to align curricula, outreach, and documentation with the expanded definition, which may require staff training, translation services, new assessment tools, and partnership development.
- State education agencies — the Chancellor’s Office and Superintendent’s staff will absorb additional interpretation and coordination work as they translate the definition into common measures and guidance for regions.
- Data and evaluation systems — measuring broader outcomes like civic participation or multigenerational effects will likely require new data collection, longer follow-up periods, and potential investments in systems and evaluation expertise.
- Smaller providers and rural consortia — may face disproportionate compliance and capacity costs to meet culturally and linguistically accessible standards compared with larger urban providers that already have such infrastructure.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between broadening the program’s mission to promote cultural, civic, and multigenerational outcomes and the practical limits of a program structured around short-course adult education and constrained resources; the definition pushes toward ambitious, cross-sectoral goals but leaves the costly, politically sensitive work of turning those goals into measurable, fundable practice to administrators and local providers.
The statute is narrowly drafted as a definitional change, but that is precisely why implementation questions matter. The language lists desirable outcomes and delivery principles without specifying indicators, timelines, or minimum standards.
That creates room for locally tailored practice, but it also shifts the contentious and costly work of operationalization to administrators and providers: who decides which measures count, how to document cultural relevance, and what evidence satisfies claims of economic mobility or civic participation.
Another tension is measurement feasibility. Terms in the definition — “welcomed,” “multigenerational integration,” and “upward social and economic mobility” — are meaningful goals but are difficult to quantify within typical adult education performance frameworks.
Building valid metrics will require cross-agency data sharing, longitudinal follow-up, and consensus on proxies, all of which consume staff time and budget. Finally, because the bill does not allocate funds, resource-poor consortia risk being judged against standards they cannot afford to meet, producing uneven implementation across regions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.