Release: #06-96
August 31, 2006

Contact: Pam Slater
E-mail: communications@cde.ca.gov
Phone: 916-319-0818

State and Federal Measurements of Student Achievement and School Accountability

LOS ANGELES/FRESNO — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today released California's Accountability Progress Report (APR) that is comprised of the state Academic Performance Index (API), the federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), and the federal Program Improvement (PI).

"The state and federal accountability systems provide important information about public school performance," O'Connell said. "They show that California schools are making steady progress in raising student achievement, but that we must continue to focus on closing the achievement gap. This is precisely why we need our accountability systems – to ensure that schools continue to move in the right direction and to highlight weaknesses that our education system must overcome so we can prepare all students for success in the rapidly changing global economy."

The 2005-06 results show the state's average API score has grown to 720, an 11-point gain from the 2004-05 school year, moving closer to the state goal of 800. The median score for all schools also increased, growing from 714 in 2003 to 745 in 2006. However, only 52 percent of the schools met all of their API growth targets this year, a decline from last year's 68 percent.

The API is a numeric index that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. The 2005 results established the current baseline and academic growth targets for each school's academic performance. A school's annual growth target is set at 5 percent of the difference between the school's base API and the statewide performance target of 800. By law, numerically significant student subgroups within a school must also make improvement for a school to meet its API targets. These subgroups include ethnic subgroups, socio-economically disadvantaged students, and for the first time in 2006 English learners and students with disabilities.  As expected, introducing these two new student subgroups into the 2006 API results reduced the percentage of schools meeting their API growth targets, accounting for about one quarter of the decline between 2005 and 2006. In addition, the API scores were affected by a general across-the-board slowdown in rate of improvement on the California Standards Test.

"It is important that we look at the achievement progress all groups of students are making," O'Connell said. "While every one of the subgroups of students has made significant gains, I remain deeply troubled by the lagging achievement of both our English learners and African American students. We can't afford to allow this gap in achievement to continue. Improving the progress of these students who have fallen behind their peers will be a key focus for me in the years ahead."

Both API and AYP are based on statewide assessment results, which were released earlier this month. These assessments include the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program and California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE).

"API and AYP are simply different ways of looking at the same test results," O'Connell said. "API looks at how much schools and student subgroups improved from last year, while AYP focuses on whether or not a school and subgroups met minimum objectives in terms of the percentage of students who scored at or above the proficient level. Both systems have led to a much needed focus on improving the achievement of all students. Yet maintaining two distinct accountability systems is clearly confusing and often counterproductive, so I will continue my push toward moving to a single, seamless accountability system that holds all schools accountable for high standards and that also gives schools credit for improvement and moving all students toward proficiency."

O'Connell, State Education Secretary Alan Bersin, and leaders in the education community are working on a proposal to meld the two systems in an effort to reduce the confusion over school performance that the two simultaneous systems have generated for parents, educators, and the public. Such a melding will require approval by the U.S. Department of Education.

AYP results show that 65 percent of schools met AYP requirements, up from 62 percent last year.

Under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, each state defines what it considers a proficient level of performance for students in English-language arts and mathematics. Schools then must meet annual AYP objectives in the two content areas. These objectives increase over time, so that in 2013-14, 100 percent of students at all schools must score at the proficient level or above. California is recognized nationally for setting its standards very high in comparison with most other states.

Schools, school districts, and county offices that receive federal Title I funds and do not make AYP for two consecutive years are subject to identification for PI.

Schools in PI are subject to a range of requirements and local interventions. For instance, a district must offer students in a PI school the choice and paid transportation to attend non-PI schools in the same district. For the school year 2006 to 2007, 639 California schools were newly identified for PI, while 104 exited, for a total of 2,215 schools in PI.

NCLB also requires that states identify local educational agencies (LEAs) for PI. In California, this includes school districts and county offices of education. For the school year 2006-07, 39 California districts and county offices were newly identified for PI. In addition, 26 exited PI for a total number of 167 LEAs in PI. 

Schools and LEAs have an opportunity to review their data, identify errors, and make corrections. AYP, API, and PI reports will then be updated in early October and finalized in February 2007. All reports as well as downloadable data files are available through the APR Web site at Accountability Progress Reporting (APR).

# # # #

Attachment

2005-06 Accountability Progress Report
Statewide Accountability: Academic Performance Index (API)
2006 Growth Results

Table 1*
Percentage of Schools Meeting All API Growth Targets
2002-2006

Type of School	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05	2005-06
Elementary	60%	82%	46%	68%	57%
Middle	38%	69%	55%	67%	43%
High	29%	67%	50%	68%	36%
All Schools	52%	78%	48%	68%	52%

Table 2*
Percentage of Schools with an Increased Schoolwide API
2002-2006

Type of School	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05	2005-06
Elementary	74%	92%	59%	81%	70%
Middle	62%	88%	76%	85%	72%
High	58%	89%	74%	88%	65%
All Schools	69%	90%	64%	83%	70%

Table 3*
Percentage of Schools At or Above Performance Target of 800
on API Growth Scores
2002-2006

Type of School	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Elementary	23%	26%	27%	32%	35%
Middle	16%	14%	18%	21%	24%
High	6%	7%	8%	12%	14%
All Schools	20%	21%	23%	27%	30%

Table 4*
Median Scores on API
2002-2006

Type of School	2002 Base	2003 Base	2004 Base	2005 Base	2006 Growth
Elementary	699	728	730	751	759
Middle	667	685	697	715	725
High	643	668	660	692	700
All Schools	685	714	717	737	745

Table 5*
Percentage of Schools Meeting API Growth Targets by Subgroup
2005 and 2006

Schoolwide and Subgroups	2005 Number of Schools with Numerically Significant Subgroup	2006 Number of Schools with Numerically Significant Subgroup	2005 Number of Schools Meeting Subgroup Growth Targets	2006 Number of Schools Meeting Subgroup Growth Targets	2005 Percentage of Schools Meeting Subgroup Growth Targets	2006 Percentage of Schools Meeting Subgroup Growth Targets	2006 State API
Schoolwide	7,259	7,376	5,900	5321	81%	72%	720
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin)	1,125	1,111	767	632	68%	57%	637
American Indian or Alaska Native	17	15	14	11	82%	73%	690
Asian	1,275	1,270	1,202	1,147	94%	90%	845
Filipino	235	248	195	198	83%	80%	809
Hispanic or Latino	5,508	5,691	4,225	3,715	77%	65%	654
Pacific Islander	4	4	2	3	50%	75%	713
White (not of Hispanic origin)	4,635	4,580	4,081	3,806	88%	83%	801
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged	5,972	6,047	4,559	3,833	76%	63%	652
English Learners	n/a	4,015	n/a	2,533	n/a	63%	640
Students with Disabilities	n/a	917	n/a	511	n/a	56%	519

Note: The number of schools with numerically significant subgroups is used in these calculations. For example: 5,691 schools had a numerically significant number of Hispanic or Latino students in 2006. Of those schools 65% (3,715) met the Hispanic or Latino subgroup growth target.

Table 6*
Reasons Why Some Schools Did Not Receive 2006 API Growth Results

Reasons	Subtotal	Number of Schools
Schools Receiving 2006 API Growth and Target Information		7,971
Schools Receiving 2006 API Growth but No Target Information		837
Alternative Schools (ASAM)	571
No 2005 Base API (New School, No Valid API, or No STAR Program Results)	254
API Not Comparable (Reported by District) or ASAM in Base	12
Schools Not Receiving 2006 API Growth Report		621
Excessive Parent Waivers	11
Testing Irregularities Reported by School Districts in 2006	8
Very Small Schools (Fewer Than 11 Valid Scores)	551
Not a Significant Percentage of 2006 STAR Program scores in a Content Area	51
TOTAL: All Schools, Fall 2005		9,429

*Tables 1-5 exclude schools in the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM), special education schools, small schools, and other schools with missing API targets. A "small school" is a school with fewer than 100 valid test scores. Table 6 includes all schools.

Federal Accountability: 2006 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Table 7
Percentage of Schools Meeting
All 2006 Federal AYP Criteria (Making AYP)

Reasons	Subtotal	Number of Schools
Schools Receiving 2006 API Growth and Target Information		7,971
Schools Receiving 2006 API Growth but No Target Information		837
Alternative Schools (ASAM)	571
No 2005 Base API (New School, No Valid API, or No STAR Program Results)	254
API Not Comparable (Reported by District) or ASAM in Base	12
Schools Not Receiving 2006 API Growth Report		621
Excessive Parent Waivers	11
Testing Irregularities Reported by School Districts in 2006	8
Very Small Schools (Fewer Than 11 Valid Scores)	551
Not a Significant Percentage of 2006 STAR Program scores in a Content Area	51
TOTAL: All Schools, Fall 2005		9,429

Note: For 2006, the number of Title I schools statewide was taken from the 2006-07 Consolidated Application, Part 1, that each Local Educational Agency (LEA) is responsible for completing annually. As of August 8, 2006, 96 percent of the LEAs in California had completed the Consolidated Application.

Table 8
Percentage of Schools Meeting 2006 State
API Growth Targets and/or 2006 Federal AYP Criteria

School Type	Met ALL API Growth Targets AND AYP Criteria	Met ALL API Growth Targets ONLY	Met AYP Criteria ONLY	Did NOT Meet API Growth Targets OR AYP Criteria
Elementary Schools	46%	11%	26%	17%
Middle Schools	27%	16%	17%	40%
High Schools	29%	7%	37%	27%
All Schools	40%	12%	26%	22%
Total Number of Schools	2,986	849	1,913	1,628

Note: Schools in the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM) and small schools are excluded from this table. A "small school" is a school with fewer than 100 valid test scores. "ALL API Growth Targets" include schoolwide and numerically significant subgroup growth targets.

Table 9
Schools Meeting 2006 State API Growth Targets
with Schoolwide Growth at Least Double the 2006 Target, and
Not Meeting 2006 Federal AYP Criteria

School Type	Number
Elementary Schools	483
Middle Schools	170
High Schools	66
All Schools	719

Note: ASAM schools, small schools, and schools with a 2005 API of at least 800 are not included in this table.

Table 10
Percentage of Local Educational Agencies Meeting
2006 Federal AYP Criteria (Made AYP)

School Type	All LEAs 2005	All LEAs 2006
Elementary School Districts	71%	75%
Unified School Districts	47%	50%
High School Districts	71%	58%
County Offices of Education	22%	13%
All LEAs Making AYP	60%	62%
Total Number of LEAs	1,035	1,029

Note: LEA = Local Educational Agency. An LEA is a school district or county office of education.

2006-07 Program Improvement

Table 11
2006-07 Title I Program Improvement Status
Statewide Summary of Schools

Program Improvement Year	Advanced	Remain	Total	Exit**
Year 1	639*	73	712	48
Year 2	253	91	344	35
Year 3	396	73	469	11
Year 4	308	27	335	10
Year 5	114	241**	355	0
Total	1,710	505	2,215	104

Note: This table excludes 31 schools that received Title I funds in 2005-06 because they have incomplete or missing 2006 AYP data.
*These schools were newly identified for PI in 2006-07.
**The federal NCLB Act does not allow for a PI designation beyond Year 5. The 241 schools remaining in Year 5 have been identified for PI for at least six years.

Table 12
2006-07 Title I Program Improvement Status
Statewide Summary of Local Educational Agencies

Program Improvement Year	Advanced	Remain	Total	Exit**
Year 1	39*	22	61	26
Year 2	101	0	101	0
Total	140	22	162	26

*These LEAs were newly identified for PI in 2006-07.
**The federal NCLB Act does not allow for a PI designation beyond Year 5. The 241 schools remaining in Year 5 have been identified for PI for at least six years.

Table 13
New Local Educational Agencies
Identified for Program Improvement
in 2006-07

LEA	County
Adelanto Elementary	San Bernardino
Antioch Unified	Contra Costa
Barstow Unified	San Bernardino
Bellevue Union Elementary	Sonoma
Bishop Union Elementary	Inyo
Chowchilla Union High	Madera
Coalinga-Huron Joint Unified	Fresno
Corning Union Elementary	Tehama
Cutler-Orosi Joint Unified	Tulare
Dinuba Unified	Tulare
Edison Elementary	Kern
Fontana Unified	San Bernardino
Fort Bragg Unified	Mendocino
Fresno Co. Office of Education	Fresno
Hayward Unified	Alameda
Lamont Elementary	Kern
Los Banos Unified	Merced
Los Nietos Elementary	Los Angeles
Lynwood Unified	Los Angeles
Napa Valley Unified	Napa
Norwalk-La Mirada Unified	Los Angeles
Oceanside Unified	San Diego
Parlier Unified	Fresno
Perris Union High	Riverside
Petaluma City Schools	Sonoma
Porterville Unified	Tulare
Red Bluff Union Elementary	Tehama
Redwood City Elementary	San Mateo
Roseland Elementary	Sonoma
Roseville Joint Union High	Placer
San Francisco Co. Off. of Educ	San Francisco
San Francisco Unified	San Francisco
Santa Paula Union High	Ventura
Santa Rita Union Elementary	Monterey
South Whittier Elementary	Los Angeles
Strathmore Union Elementary	Tulare
Ventura Unified	Ventura
Vista Unified	San Diego
Washington Union High	Fresno