• Home »
• Newsroom »
• News Releases »
• Year 2007

State and Federal Measurements of Student Achievement, School Accountability

SAN JOSE — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today released California's 2007 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).

"In reporting our latest test scores two weeks ago, I noted that California experienced a general leveling off after steady gains in student achievement over the past five years," O'Connell said. "Today's APR, a compilation of schools and districts that are meeting academic performance targets, is consistent with student performance on the annual assessments.

"It is important that we not lose sight of the significant gains that our students and our schools have made, nor should we misinterpret these current data as a decline in overall student or school performance. In particular, these results reflect significant achievement gains by our lowest-performing students, and significant gains by African American, Hispanic, and English learner subgroups.

"However, it is clear that we will need to redouble our efforts if we are to attain our goal to prepare all students for success in the rapidly changing global economy. We should also use this data to bolster our efforts to address the achievement gap that exists between students who are African American or Latino and their peers who are white or Asian."

Some performance indicators in the APR indicate modest growth, while others show no change, or even a slight decrease. For example, the median API score grew from 745 last year to 751 in 2007, and the percentage of schools at or above the performance target of 800 grew by just 1 percentage point, from 30 percent to 31 percent. The percentage of schools meeting all API targets decreased from 53 percent in 2005-06 to 45 percent in 2006-07.

The slower progress on meeting state accountability targets was also anticipated due to an increase in accountability targets for all statistically significant subgroups that took effect for the first time this year. In addition to making the overall school growth target, all numerically significant subgroups in a school now must also make a 5 percent or 5-point gain, whichever is larger. The increase in student subgroup targets, a recommendation by O'Connell that was adopted by the State Board of Education in May 2006, allows schools to focus more intensely on narrowing achievement gaps.

"Holding all students to the same high standards ensures a culture of high expectations for everyone," O'Connell said. "Now we are holding our schools accountable for closing achievement gaps. As a state, we have a moral, ethical, and economic obligation to address the needs of every group of students. My administration is focused on finding gap-closing strategies. I know our schools share my deep concern about this problem and join me in facing this challenge."

The API is a numeric index that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. The 2006 results established the current baseline and academic growth targets for each school's academic performance. A school's school-wide annual growth target is set at 5 percent of the difference between the school's base API and the statewide performance target of 800 with a minimum target of 5 points. 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, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and since 2006, English learners, and students with disabilities. In the 2006-07 APR, every subgroup showed declines in the number and percentage of schools meeting API targets, but every subgroup did show growth in the API score when compared to the last year's base score.

Both the 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).

AYP results show that 66 percent of schools met AYP requirements, unchanged from last year. However, the percentage of local educational agencies (LEAs) making AYP fell from 64 percent in 2006 to 53 percent in 2007.

As AYP targets will rise steeply for the next six years to meet the current federal requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, it is anticipated that in 2008 and thereafter, districts and schools will find it increasingly difficult to meet AYP targets.

Under NCLB, 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 by 2013-14, 100 percent of students at all schools must score at the proficient level or above. California is recognized nationally for setting its proficiency standards very high in comparison with most other states.

Schools, districts, and county offices that receive federal Title I funds and do not make the AYP target 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 2007-08 school year, 232 California schools were newly identified for PI, while 161 exited, for a total of 2,208 schools in PI.

NCLB also requires states to identify LEAs for PI. In California, this includes school districts and county offices of education. For the 2007-08 school year, 36 California districts and county offices were newly identified for PI, while two exited, leaving a total of 192 LEAs in PI.

A District Assistance and Intervention Team (DAIT) may be brought in to assist a district that has failed in PI for two consecutive years and is subject to sanctions.

"Unfortunately, Governor Schwarzenegger recently vetoed the $7 million allocated in the state budget to support DAIT assistance," O'Connell said. "As a number of districts in Year Three of Program Improvement will soon have to implement sanctions, the work of such assistance is vitally important to systemically improve student achievement. I will continue to urge the Governor and the Legislature to restore this critical funding. "

Schools and LEAs have an opportunity to review their data and make corrections. AYP, API, and PI reports will be finalized in February 2008. All reports are available through the APR Web site at Accountability Progress Reporting (APR).

# # # #

Attachment

2006-07 Accountability Progress Report
Statewide Accountability: Academic Performance Index (API)
2007 Growth Results

Table 1*

Percentage of Schools Meeting All API Growth Targets 2002-2007

*Year 2006-07 reflects new, higher targets for schools and subgroups.

Table 2

Example of New, Higher Subgroup Targets (for a School with an API of 700)

*Dependent on school API

**Independent of school API

Table 3*

Percentage of Schools with an Increased Schoolwide API 2002-2007

Table 4*

Percentage of Schools At or Above Performance Target of 800 on API Growth Scores 2002-2007

Table 5*

Median Scores on API 2002-2007

Table 6*

Percentage of Schools Meeting API Growth Targets by Subgroup and Subgroup APIs 2006 and 2007

Note: The number of schools with numerically significant subgroups is used in these calculations. For example: 5,815 schools had a numerically significant number of Hispanic or Latino students in 2007. Of those schools 56% (3,270) met the Hispanic or Latino subgroup growth target.

Table 7*

Reasons Why Some Schools Did Not Receive 2007 API Growth Results

*Tables 1 and 3-6 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 7 includes all schools.

Federal Accountability: 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Table 8

Percentage of Schools Meeting All 2007 Federal AYP Criteria (Making AYP)

Note: For 2007, the number of Title I schools statewide was taken from the 2007-08 Consolidated Application, Part 1, that each local educational agency (LEA) is responsible for completing annually. As of August 3, 2007, 93 percent of the LEAs in California had completed the Consolidated Application.

Table 9

Percentage of Schools Meeting 2007 State API Growth Targets and/or 2007 Federal AYP Criteria

Note: Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM), special education schools, small schools, and other schools with missing API targets are excluded. 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 10

Schools Meeting 2007 State API Growth Targets with Schoolwide Growth at Least Double the 2007 Target, and Not Meeting 2007 Federal AYP Criteria

Note: ASAM schools, special education schools, small schools, schools with missing API targets, and schools with a 2007 Growth API of at least 800 are excluded.

Table 11

Percentage of Local Educational Agencies Meeting 2007 Federal AYP Criteria (Made AYP)

Note: LEA = Local Educational Agency such as a district or county office of education.

2007-08 Program Improvement (PI)

Table 12

2007-08 Title I Program Improvement Status Statewide Summary of Schools

Note: This table excludes 30 schools that received Title I funds in 2006-07 because they have incomplete or missing 2007 AYP data.

*These schools were newly identified for PI in 2007-08.

**The federal NCLB Act does not allow for a PI designation beyond Year 5. The 335 schools remaining in Year 5 have been identified for PI for at least six years.

Table 13

2007-08 Title I Program Improvement Status Statewide Summary of Local Educational Agencies

Note: *These LEAs were newly identified for PI in 2007-08.