February 25, 2004
Schools Chief Jack O'Connell Announces Proposed
Changes to California's NCLB Accountability Workbook
Changes Will Apply NCLB Rules More Fairly to California Schools
SACRAMENTO — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today announced the first in a series of proposed changes to California's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Accountability Workbook to make the law more workable and apply it more fairly to schools in California.
"I support the underlying purpose of NCLB, which is to ensure that all children benefit from high standards and accountability," O'Connell said. "High standards have guided our California system of accountability long before NCLB. But there are parts of NCLB that are overly inflexible, leading to inconsistent or unfair results for some of our schools. Today, I am proposing changes that would make NCLB fairer, more equitable and consistent."
The Workbook is a blueprint that NCLB requires of each state, outlining how the state will hold students, schools, and districts responsible for meeting high academic standards under the federal education law. Changes proposed today must be approved by the California State Board of Education, and then by the federal Department of Education.
The proposed changes will address inequities that can result from parent's rights to opt out of state testing, the special circumstances of small and rural schools, and the state's ability to obtain accurate data to meet NCLB's demands for using specific indicators to measure progress.
The proposed changes include:
Removing the Penalty to Schools That Have Parental Opt-Outs
"I want to remove the penalty against schools where parents do not want their children to participate in state testing," O'Connell said. "It concerns me that the Bush Administration apparently does not support the rights of parents in this regard, because NCLB unfairly penalizes those schools where parents exempt their children from testing."
In California, parents have the right under state law to exempt their children from participating in the statewide assessment system. These schools may not meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) because too many parents exercised their right to exempt their children from testing -- not because of failure to improve student achievement.
Under NCLB, a school where more than five percent of students don't participate in testing -- whether they are absent due to illness or another reason, or their parents opt them out — do not meet AYP. Nearly a quarter (24 percent) of all California schools, did not meet the federal government's participation rates.
O'Connell is proposing that when greater than five percent of students don't participate in testing, rather than the school automatically failing to met AYP, the school be allowed to consider those students who have opted out of participating with an assigned performance level of "not proficient."
"This will avoid unfairly penalizing a school, while still encouraging the maximum participation in the statewide assessment program." O'Connell said.
Establishing a New Participation Rate Rule for Small Subgroups, Schools, and Districts
O'Connell is also proposing to establish a new participation rate for small subgroups, schools, and districts, to avoid situations where a small school may fail to meet AYP because of a single absent student.
Under the revision, a subgroup or district with enrollment of fewer than 100 students would be considered to have met its participation rate criteria if fewer than five students in a content area are not tested. The students who were not tested would be assigned a performance level of "not proficient" in the calculation of the school's annual measurable objectives.
Defining a Minimum Subgroup Size for Districts That is Different Than That for Schools
O'Connell is proposing to address a third problem with NCLB that has resulted in several instances where a district did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress, but all of the schools in the district did. To correct this inconsistency, the California Department of Education proposes to increase the minimum subgroup size for districts so that the average number of subgroups per district would be consistent with the average number of subgroups per school.
Streamlining Statewide Reporting by Releasing Results on All AYP Components at Once: Participation Rate, Annual Measurable Objectives, API, and High School Graduation Rate
To avoid confusion about school progress, O'Connell is proposing to release all the indicators at the same time, in late August. This would streamline statewide reporting and is aimed at reducing confusion about a school or district's AYP status.
For a complete list of proposed changes to California's NCLB Workbook, please see the attached fact sheet.
# # # #
Attachment
Fact Sheet on Proposed Changes to California's No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Accountability Workbook
Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) each state was required to submit an Accountability Workbook to the United States Department of Education (USDE) that described how the state would hold students, schools and Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) responsible for meeting high academic standards. A key component of the Accountability Workbook was the definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). California's definition of AYP consists of four components: (1) participation rate, (2) annual measurable objectives in both English language arts and mathematics that measure the proportion of students at or above the proficient level on state assessments, (3) progress on the Academic Performance Index (API) for all schools, and (4) progress on the high school graduation rate for secondary schools. The State Board of Education (SBE) and the USDE approved California's Accountability Workbook in June 2003. Implementation of the Accountability Workbook began in August 2003 with the release of the 2003 AYP reports for all schools and districts in the state.
Throughout the development of the Accountability Workbook, the State Board of Education and the California Department of Education strived to design a system that would meet the requirements of the federal legislation, but also be as fair, equitable, and consistent for the diverse schools in California. Over the last year, as implementation of the new accountability system progressed, it became clear that some ideas presented in the Accountability Workbook were more challenging to implement than anticipated, while others led to inconsistent results. In response to these discoveries, the California Department of Education is proposing ten changes to our approved Accountability Workbook. These changes are not major policy changes, but represent our best attempt to increase the fairness, equality, and consistency of the accountability system allowed by the flexibility provided under the NCLB.
1 . Remove the penalty to schools that have parental opt-outs
California law gives parents the right to exempt their students from participating in the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) system. NCLB does not carry the same exemption, but does allow schools 5% leeway in the participation rate criterion. However, in many cases the school is held accountable for circumstances outside their control when greater than 5% of parents exempt their students from testing. This revision would consider students with parental exemptions as participating in the accountability system, and would evaluate whether or not these non-tested students would have made a difference in the school meeting its annual measurable objectives.
2. Establish a new participation rate rule for small subgroups, schools and districts
Currently, all subgroups, schools, and districts must have at least 95% of their students participate in the accountability system. The 95% participation rate criteria is quite ambitious for small subgroups, schools, and districts where one absent student may result in a participation rate lower than 95%. Under this revision, a subgroup, school, or district would be considered to have met its participation rate criteria if fewer than five students in a content area are not tested. The state would evaluate whether or not these non-tested students would have made a difference in the subgroup, school, or district meeting its annual measurable objectives.
3. Apply confidence intervals to student subgroups with fewer than 100 students
Currently confidence intervals are applied to districts and schools with fewer than 100 students. This revision simply extends the current rule to student subgroups with fewer than 100 students and increases the consistency of decision rules in the accountability system.
4. Remove the provision to aggregate data over multiple years for small schools
In the Accountability Workbook, we originally proposed that data for small schools be aggregated over a number of years to arrive at an AYP decision. In practice, aggregation of test results over time proved difficult without a student information system, and furthermore aggregation over multiple years does not provide an annual AYP decision for these schools. This revision would allow a confidence interval to be applied to these schools resulting in an annual AYP decision.
5. Refine the definition of "progress" for the high school graduation rate
Per NCLB, states are allowed to define what constitutes progress on the other indicators used to determine AYP (Academic Performance Index or API, high school graduation rate). In the Accountability Workbook, progress on the high school graduation rate indicator for AYP was originally defined as growth of .1% per year. To align progress on this indicator with how progress is defined for the API, a school will show progress on the high school graduation rate indicator if they: demonstrate growth of .1% over one year, demonstrate growth of .2% over two years, or meet an annual status target that begins at 82.8% and increases over time.
6. Define a minimum subgroup size for districts that is different than that for schools
The current minimum subgroup size that is the same for schools and districts has resulted in instances where a district did not meet AYP, but all its schools did. To reduce the probability of this occurrence, the CDE proposes to double the minimum subgroup size for districts with at least two schools from 100 students or 15% and 50 students to 200 students or 15% and 100 students. This new rule would create an average number of subgroups per district that is consistent with the average number of subgroups per school under the current rule.
7. Apply the graduation rate component of AYP only to high schools with a primary mission of graduating students
Including the graduation rate as a component of AYP for secondary schools is only fair if the primary mission of that school is to prepare students for graduation. Many schools in California, such as alternative, continuation, and juvenile court schools, aim to return their students to a regular high school environment. AYP decisions for these schools will be based on the participation rate, the annual measurable objectives in English language arts and mathematics, and the API, but not the graduation rate. 8. Use the Academic Performance Index (API) and the graduation rate, if appropriate, as the measure of AYP for secondary schools without a tenth grade.
AYP for secondary schools is based on the tenth grade census administration of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Secondary schools without a tenth grade have no assessment data on which to make an AYP decision. In these cases, the API (the additional indicator under NCLB) and the graduation rate will be used to judge whether these schools make AYP. 9. Streamline statewide reporting by releasing results on all AYP components (participation rate, annual measurable objectives, API, and high school graduation rate) at once.
In 2003, AYP reports were released in phases as data became available. The production of several reports over several months with different data elements caused great confusion about a school's AYP status. Schools that made AYP in early reports sometimes did not make AYP when information on additional indicators became available. For the 2004 reporting cycle, all elements of AYP (participation rate, annual measurable objectives, API and graduation rate) will be released in late August, prior to the start of the traditional school year. The consolidation of the phases will greatly reduce the confusion about a school or district's AYP status and facilitate the timely implementation of any Program Improvement activities. 10. Develop a policy regarding a Title I school's status as a Targeted Assistance School (TAS) or a School Wide Program (SWP).
California has taken advantage of the flexibility allowed under NCLB to use separate definitions for identifying schools for Program Improvement (PI) based on how the school spends their Title I funds (i.e. TAS or SWP). Schools selecting TAS status are judged only on the performance of their socioeconomically disadvantaged students, while schools selecting SWP status are responsible for all students and all significant subgroups. By law a district may change a school's status from SWP to TAS or vice versa. For accountability purposes, the CDE will consider a school that begins the year as SWP to be such for the entire school year. This will ensure that district decide on SWP or TAS status based on the best interest of the student population at the school rather than on the impact the school's status may have on AYP.
