Skip to main content
California Department of Education Logo

Program Improvement Status Determinations

Program Improvement (PI) status determinations for Title I schools and LEAs based on the 2015 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

The information below explains how Program Improvement (PI) determinations are made using two years of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) data for schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) that receive Title I funds. More information about accountability requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), including California's definition of AYP and identification for PI, can be found in the 2015 Adequate Yearly Progress Report Information Guide [http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/aypinfoguide15.pdf] (PDF).

Identification for Program Improvement

Prior to 2006, identifying schools for PI differed according to the type of Title I program the school was operating: targeted assistance (TAS) or schoolwide program (SWP). Beginning with the 2006 AYP, the U. S. Department of Education (ED) approved California's request to eliminate the distinction between TAS and SWP schools in PI "identification." All schools are identified for PI using the same Title I funding criteria. Identifying Title I schools for PI is different from identifying Title I LEAs for PI. An LEA is a school district or county office of education. In March 2004, the State Board of Education approved criteria for identifying Title I LEAs for PI. Title I LEAs were first identified for PI in 2004–05.

The rules applied in determining the PI status and placement year for 2015–16 differ from former years due to California’s transition from the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program to the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) assessment system, which includes the new Smarter Balanced Assessments in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. California Education Code (EC) Section 52052(e)(2)(F) prohibits the comparison of Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments results to STAR Program results. Therefore, safe harbor (a growth measure) cannot be used as an alternative method for meeting the Annual Measureable Objective (AMO) targets (100 percent proficiency targets). Without safe harbor, schools and LEAs will not have an opportunity to meet the AMO targets. Because of this consequence, the ED approved a one-year waiver allowing California to exclude ELA and mathematics percent proficient or AMOs from AYP determinations for 2015. Instead, PI determinations will be made using only the ELA and mathematics participation rates, attendance rate, and graduation rate for the 2015–16 school year. Although attendance rate is usually the additional AYP indicator for elementary and middle schools and non-high school LEAs for 2015, any school or LEA that enrolled students in Transitional Kindergarten through grade eight, and had 30 or more students enrolled on Fall Census Day, will have an attendance rate indicator included on their 2015 AYP report. Similarly, while high schools and high school LEAs normally have graduation rate as their additional AYP indicator, all schools and LEAs with grade twelve enrollment or at least one graduate in the 2013–14 graduation cohort will have graduation rate included as an indicator on their 2015 AYP report.

Because only high schools and high school districts received an AYP report in 2014, the years of AYP data that will be used for PI identification for schools and LEAs that were not in PI last year depends on the years of Title I funding received and the years the school or LEA had an AYP report. (For a more detailed explanation of the changes that affected AYP in 2014, refer to the 2014 Adequate Yearly Progress Report Information Guide [http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/aypinfoguide14.pdf] [PDF].) Title I-funded high schools and high school LEAs that have a 2014 AYP report must have received Title I funding in 2013–14 and 2014–15 in order to be first identified for PI. The two AYP reporting cycles used to make PI determinations for these Title I-funded high schools and high school LEAs will be 2014 and 2015. Title I schools and LEAs that do not have a 2014 AYP report must have had Title I funding in 2012–13, 2013–14, and 2014–15 in order to be first identified for PI. The two AYP reporting cycles used to make PI determinations for these other Title I-funded schools and LEAs will be 2013 and 2015. The information below has been revised to specifically apply to PI determinations for 2015–16.

Program Improvement Status

Entering PI

A Title I school that was not in PI during 2014–15 and does not make AYP in the same content area (ELA or mathematics) schoolwide or for any numerically significant student group, or on the same indicator (high school graduation rate) schoolwide for two reporting cycles will enter PI in 2015–16.

A Title I LEA that was not in PI during 2014–15 and does not make AYP in the same content area (ELA or mathematics) LEA-wide or for any numerically significant student group, and does not meet AYP criteria in the same content area in each grade span (elementary, middle, and high), or does not make AYP on the same indicator (graduation rate) LEA-wide for two reporting cycles will enter PI in 2015–16. (Note: Grade span data are only applicable for the 2013 and 2015 AYP as there was only one grade span [i.e., high school] for the 2014 AYP.)

Advancing in PI

Title I schools and LEAs that were in PI in 2014–15 and failed to make all AYP criteria in 2015 will advance in PI for 2015–16 and be required to immediately implement the applicable ESEA requirements.

Maintaining PI Status

A Title I school or an LEA that was in PI during 2014–15 and met all AYP criteria in 2015 but did not meet all AYP criteria during its prior reporting cycle (i.e., 2014 for high schools and high school LEAs; 2013 for all other schools and LEAs) will maintain the same PI status and placement that the entity held in 2014–15. This school or LEA will be required to continue implementing the applicable ESEA requirements.

A school or LEA that formerly was in PI but had a break in Title I funding prior to 2014–15 may regain its former PI status and placement year when it resumes taking Title I funding. For more information about the rules that apply to breaks in Title I funding, refer to page 69 of the 2015 Adequate Yearly Progress Report Information Guide [http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/aypinfoguide15.pdf] (PDF).                            

Exiting from PI

Only schools and LEAs that met all AYP criteria for two reporting cycles (i.e., 2014 and 2015 AYP for high schools and high school LEAs; 2013 and 2015 AYP for all other schools and LEAs) may exit PI at the end of 2014–15.

Program Improvement Requirements

Schools and LEAs identified for PI under ESEA are required to implement certain federal and state requirements for each year they are in PI. More information about PI requirements may be found on the CDE Program Improvement Web page [http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/programimprov.asp].

Questions: PI Accountability Team | PIaccountability@cde.ca.gov | 916-322-3245 
Last Reviewed: Monday, December 7, 2015

Share this Page

Recently Posted in Accountability


  • SARC Coordinator FAQs (added 29-Jan-2016)
    Frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) by SARC Coordinators.
  • 2014-15 SARC Data Layout (DOC) (added 16-Dec-2015)
    School Accountability Report Card (SARC) Data Layout used to map field names to descriptive labels for each table.
  • 2014 AYP Information (added 15-Dec-2015)
    Documentation relating to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for 2014.
  • 2015 Appeal Form (DOC) (added 15-Dec-2015)
    School and Local Educational Agency Appeal Form for the 2015 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) results.