The 2007-08 California Accountability Progress Report points to a narrowing of the state’s persistent achievement gap.
The APR provides results from the state accountability system, the Academic Performance Index, as well as the federal accountability system that includes Adequate Yearly Progress and Program Improvement.
“The state and federal accountability reports provide educators, parents, and our communities with important data about student progress in their schools. The results show that our schools are making real progress and that more students in California are meeting the challenge of higher expectations,” said Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell.
“I’m particularly pleased that this year’s API results show some narrowing of the achievement gap between students who are white or Asian and their peers who are African American, Hispanic or learning the English language.
“Because the API gives schools more credit for improvement made by the lowest-achieving students, it encourages educators to focus on improving the achievement of students who struggle the most. As a result, the API indicates more clearly where the gaps are narrowing.”
O’Connell said the recent report on Standardized Testing and Reporting program 2008 test results focused on the number of students who are proficient and above, the bar set by the federal AYP system. Regardless of the accountability instrument used, he said, the achievement gap is still unacceptably wide.
“We have a long way to go to reach our ambitious goal of all students becoming proficient in all of the subject areas we assess,” O’Connell said.
Both the API and AYP are based upon statewide assessment results from the STAR program and from the California High School Exit Examination.
The API is a numeric index that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1,000 with a statewide target of 800. School and subgroup targets are set at 5 percent of the difference between the school or subgroup’s Base API score and the statewide target of 800, with a minimum target of 5 points. All numerically significant subgroups at a school must meet their growth targets for a school to meet its API growth target. These subgroups include ethnic subgroups, socio-economically disadvantaged students, English learners and students with disabilities.
Fifty-three percent of schools in California made their API growth targets based on 2008 data, an increase of 8 percentage points from 2007. Thirty-six percent of all California schools are now at or above the target of 800, up 5 percentage points from the year before.
“I am very pleased to see that more of our schools are meeting their API growth targets,” O’Connell said. “These gains are particularly impressive given that for the second year in a row, schools must make progress as well in closing the achievement gap in order to make their API targets.
“I applaud the hard work of our teachers, administrators, students and parents that has led to this improvement in student achievement. Now it is critical for the future of so many of our students, and for the future of our state that we maintain this focus on closing the gap and helping all students meet their full potential.”
The 2008 API report shows that African American students statewide increased their API this year by 14 points. Latino students increased by 17 points, while Caucasian students increased by 10 points and English learner students increased by 14 points.
The percentage of schools that met their subgroup growth targets also increased by 10 percent when compared to last year, increasing from 66 percent in 2007 to 76 percent in 2008. While African American, Latino and English learner students outpaced their white counterparts in terms of improvement on the 2008 API, Caucasian students and Asian students overall have a significantly higher API, a major indicator of the achievement gap that exists in California schools.
The state API and federal AYP results are based on different collections of assessments and report progress in different ways. The state API is an index model that measures year-to-year improvement and provides incentives to educators to focus on students at all performance levels. Schools receive more API points for moving students up from of the lowest performance levels. In contrast, the federal AYP system focuses solely on whether or not students are scoring at the proficient level or above on state assessments.
“Both systems offer important annual snapshots of progress at our schools,” O’Connell said. “The goal of universal proficiency is the same. However, I continue to believe that a model that measures growth is more reflective of what’s really going on in our schools, and enables us to more effectively target resources to those schools most in need of improvement. For example, 157 of our schools more than doubled their API growth targets for two years in a row, yet still missed AYP in both those years. Clearly these schools are on the right track, but are still labeled as failing under our federal system.”
ACSA and its NCLB Task Force have diligently worked to ensure the reauthorization of the NCLB parent document, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, includes fixes to the accountability system. ACSA remains skeptical of creating an “architecture of accountability” based on an inherently flawed federal law that does not recognize growth over time or improvements that currently are not measured under the federal status bar model.
In 2008, the AYP target for the percent of students expected to score at the proficient or above level on state assessments increased nearly 11 percentage points from 2007. The AYP targets will continue to rise each year to meet the current federal requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. Because of the increase in targets, fewer schools and LEAs made AYP in 2008.
Results show that 52 percent of schools made AYP in 2008, a 15 percent decrease from 2007. The percent of LEAs making AYP fell from 54 percent in 2007 to 39 percent in 2008.
Under NCLB, each state defines what it considers to be a proficient level of performance for students in English language arts and mathematics. California is widely recognized for having some of the most rigorous standards in the nation. LEAs, schools and subgroups must meet annual objectives in both content areas.
Schools, school districts and county offices of education that receive federal Title 1 funds and do not make AYP criteria for two consecutive years are subject to identification for Program Improvement. Schools in PI are subject to a five-year timeline of intervention activities. For example, schools in Year 2 of PI must offer supplemental education services such as tutoring to eligible students.
For the 2008-09 school year, 266 schools were newly identified for PI – just slightly more than were newly identified in 2007-08. One hundred and sixteen schools exited from PI after making AYP for two consecutive years.
NCLB also requires states to identify LEAs for PI. In California, LEAs include school districts and county offices of education. In 2008-09, 61 LEAs were newly identified for PI, one exited, leaving a total of 242 LEAs in PI. Fifty LEAs are new to Year 3 of PI and will face sanctions assigned by the State Board of Education.
Schools and LEAs have an opportunity to review their data and make corrections. API, AYP and PI reports will be updated in October 2008, and again in February 2009. All reports and data files are available through the APR Web page at www.cde.ca.gov.
Secretary of Education David Long called the 2007-08 Accountability Progress Report encouraging.
“It is encouraging to see positive, steady improvement and that year-after-year California schools continue to move forward,” Long said. “While the 2007-08 APR results show improvements, there is still much to be done. We must continue in our commitment to close the achievement gap throughout the state and work to ensure that all students are proficient in every area of instruction.”