Accountability in California Before and After NCLB Rachel Perry Policy and Evaluation Division California Department of Education AERA – San Diego April 2004

California’s Educational Landscape Over 6 million students Nearly 9,000 public schools Over 1,000 school districts Ethnically diverse: 44% Hispanic 35% White 11% Asian/Filipino/PI 8% African American

Accountability Before NCLB

Standards and Assessments Content standards for K-12 were established English-language arts in 1997 Mathematics in 1997 Science in 1998 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program established in 1997 Norm-referenced assessment (CAT/6) Criterion-referenced assessments (CSTs) Alternate assessment (CAPA)

Public Schools Accountability Act Signed into law in 1999 Required three components: Academic Performance Index or API Awards programs Intervention programs

Academic Performance Index (API) Composite based on assessment results across subject areas and grade levels Range: 200-1000, interim target = 800 Progressively weighted School and subgroup growth targets School target = 5% of distance to 800 Subgroup target = 80% of school target

Accountability Before NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) based on whether a school met its Academic Performance Index (API) growth targets AYP applied only to Title I schools AYP did not apply to districts Eligibility for statewide awards and interventions was based on growth

Accountability Before NCLB Schools were making progress In 2002 69% showed improvement in their API 53% met their API targets

Accountability After NCLB

Components of AYP Achievement of the Annual Measurable Objectives (percent proficient or above) in both English language arts (ELA) and math ELA: 13.6% for E,M; 11.2% for H in 2003 Math: 16.0% for E, M; 9.6% for H in 2003 Achievement of a 95% participation rate on all applicable assessments Achievement on the “additional” indicators API for all schools (560 in 2003) Graduation rate for high schools (82.8% in 2003)

AMO’s: English language arts

Projections – Single-Year Not Making AYP

Accountability After NCLB 2003 AYP Results: 55% of schools made AYP (52% projected) 41% of districts made AYP 2003 Program Improvement Results: 593 new schools were identified for PI 1,200 schools overall are participating in PI

2003 Results: AYP vs. API School Type Met AYP Criteria Made API Target Elementary 68% 82% Middle 35% 69% High 30% 67% All Schools 55% 78%

Were AYP Results For 2003 As Bad As Were Predicted?

Answer: Yes Multi-pronged definition of AYP hurt schools 46 potential ways to fail AYP Nearly 600 new schools entered PI; over 500 schools advanced Strain on available resources Disproportionate number of middle and high schools did not meet AYP Inconsistent with results of our statewide accountability system

More Bad News is Lurking Around the Corner In 2004-05 projections indicate that over 2/3 of schools will not make AYP Districts will enter PI for the first time in 2004-05 Additional strain on limited resources

Looking Ahead Submitted several amendments to the Accountability Workbook on 4/1/04 Looking to take advantage of all flexibility offered in NCLB Alignment of API and AYP 2004 AYP release will include all components Subgroups State API (ethnicity, socioeconomically disadvantaged) Federal AYP (ethnicity, socioeconomically disadvantaged, English learners, students with disabilities) Subgroup size formula State API (a minimum of 100 students or at least 30 students who constitute at least 15% of total) Federal AYP (a minimum of 100 students or at least 50 students who constitute at least 15% of total) School mobility criterion State: enrollment in district Federal: enrollment in school

For More Information No Child Left Behind: http://www.cde.ca.gov/pr/nclb/ Adequate Yearly Progress: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ayp/ Rachel Perry Policy and Evaluation Division California Department of Education Rperry@cde.ca.gov