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

2. 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

3. Accountability Before NCLB

4. 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)

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

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

7. 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

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

9. Accountability After NCLB

10. 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)

11. AMO’s: English language arts

12. Projections – Single-Year Not Making AYP

13. 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

14. 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%

15. Were AYP Results For 2003 As Bad As Were Predicted?

16. 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

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

18. 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

19. For More Information No Child Left Behind:
Adequate Yearly Progress:
Rachel Perry
Policy and Evaluation Division
California Department of Education