Skip to content
California Department of Education News Release
Release: #12-96
October 11, 2012
Contact: Pam Slater
E-mail: communications@cde.ca.gov
Phone: 916-319-0818

Majority of California's Public Schools Reach Statewide Achievement
Target, State Schools Superintendent Tom Torlakson Announces

SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent Tom Torlakson announced today that for the first time a majority of California's public schools met or surpassed the statewide target for academic achievement on the 2012 Academic Performance Index (API).

Some 53 percent of schools scored at or above the state target of 800, an increase of 4 percentage points over last year, marking a decade of steady growth. Ten years ago, only 20 percent of schools met or surpassed the API target.

"We've set a high bar for schools and they have more than met the challenge, despite the enormous obstacles that years of budget cuts have put in their way," Torlakson said. "The incredible efforts of teachers, administrators, school employees, parents, and students should serve as an inspiration to us all. While there's still more work to do, California's schools have earned a vote of confidence."

Results released by Torlakson show that 59 percent of elementary schools, 49 percent of middle schools, and 30 percent of high schools are now meeting the state benchmark. (Table 1)

The API is a numeric index that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1,000. School and student group targets are set at 5 percent of the difference between the school or student group's Base API score and the statewide target of 800, with a minimum target of 5 points. All numerically significant student groups at a school must meet their growth targets for a school to meet its API growth target.

The school level results reflect the continued improvement of students statewide. The overall API score for all students increased by 10 points for 2012, to 788, with substantial gains among all student groups. 

African American students and students with disabilities realized the largest gains with an increase of 14 points for each student group, to 710 and 607, respectively. Latino students and English Learners also posted strong gains, with Latinos adding 11 points to 740 and English Learners adding 10 points to 716. Asian and white students made smaller gains of 7 and 8 points respectively, but still have the highest API totals among student groups of 905 and 853 respectively. (Table 2)

Statewide, elementary schools API score grew by 7 points to 815, middle schools by 14 points to 792, and high schools by 11 points to 752. (Tables 3, 4, and 5)

Along with the annual API scores, Torlakson also unveiled the California Department of Education's (CDE) new School Quality Snapshot, a free, online accountability tool that puts a wide variety of academic results and other information about a school's performance at the fingertips of parents and the public. These reports—visual representations of data schools already reported to CDE—represent a first step in how the Department and the State Board of Education plan to use data to better inform the public about the progress of California schools as they reshape the School Accountability Report Card and revise the Academic Performance Index as required by Senate Bill 1458 (Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento).

And as required by federal law, CDE also released the results for the federal school accountability measures created under No Child Left Behind: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Program Improvement (PI). (Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9)

"California's request for a waiver from the requirements of NCLB is still pending," Torlakson noted. "While we're waiting for the flexibility we need, we're not going to allow a flawed system to distract us from the work we're doing to help schools improve."

All results can be found on the CDE Accountability Progress Reporting Web page.

Back to top

2011–12 Accountability Progress Reporting System:
Summary of Results

Background
  • Since 2005, the California Department of Education (CDE) has reported accountability results under the Accountability Progress Reporting (APR) system umbrella. Through the CDE APR Web page at Accountability Progress Reporting, schools are able to easily view their results under both the state and federal accountability systems.
  • The 2011–12 APR system includes the:
  • 2011 Base Academic Performance Index (API);
  • 2012 Growth API;
  • 2012 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); and
  • 2012–13 Program Improvement (PI).
  • The 2011 Base API was released in June 2012.
  • The Base API represents a recalibration of the API system that occurs each spring. Also included with the 2011 Base API scores are API growth targets for the school and for every numerically significant student group at the school, the school's statewide rank, and its similar schools rank.
  • Data reported today are current as of October 11, 2012, and are subject to change as appeals of AYP determinations are processed and approved and as data corrections are made with the testing contractor and provided to the CDE. The API, AYP, and PI reports are scheduled to be updated in January 2013 and July 2013.
APR System Results
  • API and AYP results are reported for the school overall and for all student groups considered to be numerically significant. A numerically significant student group is 100 or more students or 50 to 99 students that make up at least 15 percent of the school's population. Information is reported for all major race and ethnicity student groups, socioeconomically disadvantaged students (SED), English learners (ELs), and students with disabilities (SWDs).
  • API scores range between 200 and 1000 with a state target of 800 points. In addition to the API score for the school overall and for all numerically significant student groups, the 2012 Growth API Report also tells whether the API targets were met for the school and for each numerically significant student group.
  • The federal AYP consists of four components: participation rate, percent proficient (also known as Annual Measurable Objectives or AMOs), the API, and the high school graduation rate.
  • The federal PI Report includes the Title I funding status for all schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) in the state as well as information on whether the school or LEA has been identified for PI. If the school or LEA is in PI, the year of interventions (Year 1–5 for schools and Year 1–3 for LEAs) is also noted.
Key Differences Between the State and Federal Accountability Systems
  • The state accountability system is an index model that measures improvement in student achievement from one year to the next. Under the API system, schools are given credit for improving the overall performance of their students. School growth targets are set using the Base API, which is the school's starting point, and are re-set each year depending on the level of growth each school site shows.
  • The federal AYP system is often referred to as a "status" model because it rewards schools for the percent of students scoring at the proficient or above level on state assessments. No matter where a school began, all schools are expected to meet the same target at the same time.

Summary of 2012 Growth API Results

  • The API is a composite score that combines information across grade levels and content areas to yield a single accountability metric for a school site.
  • The API includes assessment results from the California Standards Tests (CSTs) in English-language arts (ELA), mathematics, history/social science and science, and the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) in grades ten through twelve. All SWDs who take the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) and SWDs who take the California Modified Assessment (CMA) in grades three through eleven in ELA and mathematics and grades 5, 8, and 10 in science are also included in the API calculation.
  • One key feature of the API system is that schools are rewarded more for moving students from scoring at the lowest performance levels. For example, a student who moves from the far below basic level to the below basic level contributes 300 points toward the school's API score. A student who moves from the proficient level to the advanced level contributes 125 points toward the school's API score.
Schools At or Above the State Target of 800
  • The State Board of Education has established an API score of 800 points as the state target that all schools and student subgroups should achieve.
  • The percentage of schools meeting or exceeding this state target has increased each year over the past eleven years. In 2012, 53 percent of schools attained this target. See Table 1.
  • Based on 2012 data, 59 percent of elementary schools, 49 percent of middle schools, and 30 percent of high schools are now at or above the state target of 800. See Table 1.
The Achievement Gap
  • Results from the 2012 Growth API show that Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino students improved by 14 and 11 points respectively while white students improved by 8 points. See Table 2.
  • SED, EL, and SWD student groups also improved as much or more than the state as a whole: 11 points, 10 points, and 14 points compared to 10 points.
  • However, white and Asian students continued to have significantly higher API scores.
  • Tables 3, 4, and 5 show improvement from 2011 to 2012 for elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools respectively. Middle and high schools improved more than the statewide average at the statewide level and for most student groups.

Summary of 2012 AYP Results

  • Every LEA, school, and student group in California is expected to achieve a 95 percent participation rate on ELA and mathematics state assessments used to calculate AYP each year.
  • In addition, all LEAs, schools, and student groups are expected to meet state targets for the percentage of students scoring at or above the proficient level. These state targets will increase annually by about 11 percentage points until 2013–14 when 100 percent of students are expected to be performing at or above the proficient level on state assessments in both ELA and mathematics.
  • The participation rate and percent proficient calculations for elementary and middle schools are based on the CSTs, the CAPA, and the CMA, in ELA and mathematics. For high schools, the participation rate and percent proficient calculations are based on the CAHSEE and the CAPA for grade ten students in ELA and mathematics. The API is an additional AYP indicator for all schools.
  • The graduation rate is an additional indicator only applicable for schools with grade twelve data (i.e., enrollment, graduation, or dropout).
  • The percentage of schools making their AYP targets has dropped significantly due to the increase in targets for 2012. The percentage of schools making their AYP targets differs by school type with 27 percent of elementary schools, 18 percent of middle schools, and 28 percent of high schools making their AYP targets in 2012. See Table 7.
  • Schools receiving Title I funds met their AYP targets at a lower rate than schools that do not receive Title I funds. In 2012, 27% percent of all elementary schools made their AYP targets compared to 20% percent of Title I elementary schools. See Table 7.

Summary of 2012–13 PI Results

  • Schools that receive Title I funds are identified for PI if they miss AYP in the same content area (ELA or mathematics) or for the same indicator (API or graduation rate) for two consecutive years. Once identified for PI, a school advances to the next year each time it misses AYP. More information about how schools are identified for PI can be found on the CDE PI Status Determinations Web page at Program Improvement Status Determinations - Adequate Yearly Progress.
  • PI for schools is designed on a five-year timeline. Schools in Year 1 of PI must offer students an option to attend a non-PI school in the same LEA with paid transportation. Schools in Year 2 of PI must also offer supplemental educational services (SES) to eligible students. Additional information about the intervention activities associated with each year of PI can be found on the CDE Program Improvement Web page at Program Improvement - Title I, Part A-Accountability.
  • There were 6,209 schools with 2012 AYP data that received federal Title I funds in 2011–12.
  • Of the Title I funded schools, 4,402 or 71 percent are in PI in the following years:
  • Year 1 –  858.
  • Year 2 –  900.
  • Year 3 –  565.
  • Year 4 –  455.
  • Year 5 – 1,624.
  • Six hundred and ninety nine schools are being identified for PI for the first time in    2012–13 after missing AYP in 2011 and 2012. In addition, 211 schools advanced to Year 5 of PI. See Table 8 for a full summary.
  • Schools exit from PI after making AYP for two consecutive years. In 2012, 79 schools exited from PI after making AYP in 2011 and 2012.
  • An LEA (school district, county office of education, or statewide benefit charter) is identified for PI when, for each of two consecutive years, it misses 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 (grades two-five, grades six-eight, and grade ten), or does not make AYP on the same indicator (API or graduation rate) LEA-wide.
  • PI for LEAs is on a three-year timeline. Information about the requirements of each PI year can be found on the CDE PI Web page at Program Improvement LEA Requirements.
  • In 2011–12, 922 LEAs received federal Title I funds.
  • Of those LEAs, 485 or 53 percent were identified for PI for the 2012–13 school year in the following years:
  • Year 1 – 61.
  • Year 2 – 86 .
  • Year 3 – 338.
  • A database of all 2011–12 Title I schools and LEAs along with their PI status (in PI/not in PI) and their PI Year (1 through 5 for schools and 1 through 3 for LEAs) can be found on the CDE Title I PI Status Data Files Web page at Program Improvement Data Files - Adequate Yearly Progress.
  • In addition, a database of schools and LEAs at risk for being identified for PI in 2013–14 will be available soon on the CDE Title I PI Status Data Files Web page listed above. Schools and LEAs at risk for PI identification missed AYP in 2012.

Back to top

Statewide Accountability:

Academic Performance Index 2012 Growth Results

Table 1: Percentage of Schools At or Above
Target of 800 on Growth API Scores, 2002–2012

School Type

2001
–02

2002
–03

2003
–04

2004
–05

2005
–06

2006
–07

2007
–08

2008
–09

2009
–10

2010
–11

2011
–12

Elementary

23%

26%

27%

32%

35%

36%

41%

48%

51%

55%

59%

Middle

16%

14%

18%

21%

24%

25%

30%

36%

40%

43%

49%

High

6%

7%

8%

12%

14%

15%

17%

21%

25%

28%

30%

All Schools

20%

21%

23%

27%

30%

31%

36%

42%

46%

49%

53%

Note: Table excludes schools in the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM), special education schools, and schools with fewer than 100 valid scores.

Back to top

Table 2: API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2011–12

Type

2011 Base API

2012 Growth API

2011–12 API Point Growth

Statewide

778

788

10

Black or African American

696

710

14

American Indian or Alaska Native

733

742

9

Asian

898

905

7

Filipino

859

869

10

Hispanic or Latino

729

740

11

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

763

775

12

White

845

853

8

Two or More Races

836

849

13

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

726

737

11

English Learners

706

716

10

Students with Disabilities

593

607

14

Back to top

Table 3: Elementary School API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2011–12

Type

2011 Base API

2012 Growth API

2011–12 API Point Growth

Statewide

808

815

7

Black or African American

739

748

9

American Indian or Alaska Native

763

766

3

Asian

918

922

4

Filipino

887

893

6

Hispanic or Latino

763

770

7

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

800

809

9

White

873

879

6

Two or More Races

871

878

7

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

759

767

8

English Learners

756

764

8

Students with Disabilities

662

671

9

Back to top

Table 4: Middle School API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2011–12

Type

2011 Base API

2012 Growth API

2011–12 API Point Growth

Statewide

778

792

14

Black or African American

692

710

18

American Indian or Alaska Native

730

737

7

Asian

913

925

12

Filipino

871

884

13

Hispanic or Latino

724

740

16

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

768

778

10

White

851

862

11

Two or More Races

837

856

19

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

719

736

17

English Learners

680

692

12

Students with Disabilities

566

586

20

Back to top

Table 5: High School API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2011–12

Type

2011 Base API

2012 Growth API

2011–12 API Point Growth

Statewide

741

752

11

Black or African American

649

665

16

American Indian or Alaska Native

704

719

15

Asian

867

875

8

Filipino

824

834

10

Hispanic or Latino

688

701

13

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

720

732

12

White

809

817

8

Two or More Races

782

804

22

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

683

696

13

English Learners

639

650

11

Students with Disabilities

502

518

16

Back to top

Federal Accountability: 2012 Adequate Yearly Progress

Table 6: School Percent Proficient Targets for AYP, 2011 and 2012

School Type

2011 English-Language Arts

2012 English-Language Arts

2011 Mathematics

2012 Mathematics

Elementary and Middle

67.6%

78.4%

68.5%

79.0%

High

66.7%

77.8%

66.1%

77.4%

Table 7: Percentage of All Schools and of Title I
Schools Making AYP by Grade Span, 2011 and 2012

School Type

2011 All Schools

2012 All Schools

2011 Title I-Funded Schools Only

2012 Title I-Funded Schools Only

Elementary

36%

27%

28%

20%

Middle

18%

17%

13%

14%

High

42%

27%

37%

22%

Total Percent and Number of Schools

35% (9,875)

26%
(9,905)

28%
(6,174)

19%
(6,209)


Note: The number of Title I schools statewide for 2012 was taken from the 2011–12 Consolidated Application and Reporting System's winter submission. The number of Title I schools statewide for 2011 was updated using the 2011–12 Consolidated Application, Part 1. Each LEA is responsible for completing these submissions annually.

Back to top

Federal Accountability: 2012–13 Program Improvement

Table 8: 2012–13 Title I PI Status Statewide Summary of Schools

Year

New

Remain

Total

Exit

Year 1

699*

159

858

25

Year 2

819

81

900

12

Year 3

504

61

565

9

Year 4

433

22

455

8

Year 5

211

1,413**

1,624

25

Total

2,666

1,736

4,402

79

* These schools were newly identified for PI in 2012–13.

** The federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) does not allow for a school PI designation beyond Year 5. The 1,413 schools referenced above have been identified for PI for at six or more years.

Table 9: 2012–13 Title I PI Status Statewide Summary of LEAs

Year

New

Remain

Total

Exit

Year 1

57*

4

61

0

Year 2

85

1

86

0

Year 3

56

282**

338

0

Total

198

287

485

0

* These LEAs were newly identified for PI in 2012–13.

** ESEA does not allow for an LEA PI designation beyond Year 3. The 282 LEAs referenced above have been identified for PI for four or more years.

Back to top

# # # #

Tom Torlakson — State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Communications Division, Room 5206, 916-319-0818, Fax 916-319-0100

Download Free Readers