Skip to main content
California Department of Education Logo

APR Results

Accountability Progress Reporting Attachment to News Release #13-78.

Back to REL#13-78: CAHSEE and APR Results

2012–13 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, local educational agencies (LEAs) and parents are able to easily view their results under both the state and federal accountability systems.
  • The 2012–13 APR system includes the:
    • 2012 Base Academic Performance Index (API);
    • 2013 Growth API;
    • 2013 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); and
    • 2013–14 Program Improvement (PI).
  • The 2012 Base API was released in May 2013.
  • The Base API represents a recalibration of the API system that occurs each spring. Also included with the 2012 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. The 2013 Growth API is calculated using the same indicators and weights as the 2012 Base API which allows for comparisons.
  • Data reported today are current as of August 29, 2013, and are subject to change as appeals of AYP determinations are processed and approved and as data corrections are made. The API, AYP, and PI reports are scheduled to be updated in January 2014 after data corrections are complete.  
APR System Results
  • API and AYP results are reported for the school overall and for all student groups with 11 or more students. Information is reported for all 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 student groups, the 2013 Growth API Report also tells whether the API targets were met for the school and for each numerically significant student group. 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.
  • 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 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 and student group growth targets are set using the Base API, which is the starting point, and are re-set each year.
  • The federal AYP system is often referred to as a "status" model because all schools and student groups are expected to meet the same percent proficient target at the same time, regardless of where a school began.

Summary of 2013 Growth API Results

  • The API is a composite score that combines information across grade levels and content areas assessed 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 five, eight, and ten 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 an additional 300 points toward the school's API score. A student who moves from the proficient level to the advanced level contributes an additional 125 points toward the school's API score.
  • Consistent with the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program assessment results released on August 8, 2013, API scores across the state have declined slightly.
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 groups should achieve.
  • In 2013, 51 percent of schools attained this state target, a 2 percentage point decline from 2012. Over the last 11 years, the state has increased the percent of schools at or above 800 by 30 percentage points (Table 8).
  • Based on 2013 data, 56 percent of elementary schools, 50 percent of middle schools, and 31 percent of high schools are now at or above the state target of 800. This is an increase of 30 percentage points, 36 percentage points, and 24 percentage points, respectively, since 2003 (Table 8).
  • Nearly 30 percent of all schools in PI are at or above the state target of 800.
The Achievement Gap
  • Results from the 2013 Growth API show that the Black or African American student group declined by 2 points and the Hispanic or Latino student group had no change. While the white student group declined by 3 points, this student group, along with the Asian and Filipino student groups, continued to have high API scores (Table 9).
  • SED, EL, and SWD student groups improved more than the state as a whole: 5 points, 1 point, and 5 points, respectively, compared to a decline of 2 points for the state.

Summary of 2013 AYP Results

  • In order to meet AYP requirements, 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 2013, 99 percent of all students were assessed in ELA and mathematics.
  • 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 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 2013 AYP targets are provided in the table below:

School Type

English-Language Arts

Mathematics

Elementary and Middle

89.2%

89.5%

High

88.9%

88.7%

  • 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.
  • The percentage of schools making their AYP targets has declined due, in part, to the increase in proficiency targets for 2013. The percentage of schools making their AYP targets differs by school type with 10 percent of elementary schools, 6 percent of middle schools, and 27 percent of high schools making their AYP targets in 2013 (Table 10).
  • Title I schools met their respective targets at a lower rate than all schools statewide (Table 10).

Summary of 2013–14 PI Results

  • Schools that receive Title I funds are identified for PI if they miss percent proficient and/or participation rate 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.
  • There were 6,206 schools with 2013 AYP data that received federal Title I funds in 2012–13. Of these Title I funded schools, 741 are being identified for PI for the first time in 2013–14 after missing AYP in 2012 and 2013. In addition, 413 schools advanced to Year 5 of PI (Tables 10 and 11).
  • Schools exit from PI after making AYP for two consecutive years. In 2013, 28 schools exited from PI after making AYP in 2012 and 2013.
  • Of the 927 LEAs that receive Title I funds, 566 or 61 percent are in PI in the 2013–14 school year (Table 12).
  • A database of all 2013–14 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.

Back to top

Statewide Accountability:
Academic Performance Index 2013 Growth Results

Table 8: Percentage of Schools At or Above Target of 800 on Growth API Scores, 2002–2013

School Type

2002
–03

2003
–04

2004
–05

2005
–06

2006
–07

2007
–08

2008
–09

2009
–10

2010
–11

2011
–12

2012 –13

Change in Percentage Points 2003-13

Elementary

26%

27%

32%

35%

36%

41%

48%

51%

55%

59%

56%

30

Middle

14%

18%

21%

24%

25%

30%

36%

40%

43%

48%

50%

36

High

7%

8%

12%

14%

15%

17%

21%

25%

28%

30%

31%

24

All Schools

21%

23%

27%

30%

31%

36%

42%

46%

49%

53%

51%

30

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 9: API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2012–13

Program Participation

2012 Base API

2013 Growth API

2012–13 API Change

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

740

745

5

English Learners

719

720

1

Students with Disabilities

610

615

5

Statewide and Race/Ethnicity

2012 Base API

2013 Growth API

2012–13 API Change

Statewide

791

789

-2

Black or African American

709

707

-2

American Indian or Alaska Native

745

742

-3

Asian

906

906

0

Filipino

870

866

-4

Hispanic or Latino

743

743

0

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

777

773

-4

White

855

852

-3

Back to top

Federal Accountability: 2013 Adequate Yearly Progress

Table 10: Percentage of All Schools and of Title I Schools Making AYP by Grade Span, 2012 and 2013

School Type

2012 All Schools

2013 All Schools

2012 Title I-Funded Schools Only

2013 Title I-Funded Schools Only

Elementary

27%

10%

20%

8%

Middle

18%

6%

15%

4%

High

28%

27%

23%

24%

Total Percent and Number of Schools

26%
(9,905)

14%
(9,861)

20%
(6,206)

10%
(6,135)*

Note: The number of Title I schools statewide for 2013 was taken from the 2012–13 Consolidated Application and Reporting System's winter submission. The number of Title I schools statewide for 2012 was updated using the 2012–13 Consolidated Application, Part 1. Each LEA is responsible for completing these submissions annually.

* The 2013 AYP data are not yet available for 71 year-round schools. These schools are not included in the numbers and calculations reported for 2013 in Table 10.

Back to top

Federal Accountability: 2013–14 Program Improvement

Table 11: 2013–14 Title I PI Status Statewide Summary of Schools

Year

New

Remain

Total

Exit

Year 1

741*

85

826

12

Year 2

731

79

810

  5

Year 3

776

51

827

  1

Year 4

503

21

524

  2

Year 5

413

   1,596**  

2,009

  8

Total

3,164

1,832

4,996

28

* These schools were newly identified for PI in 2013–14.

** The federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) does not allow for a school PI designation beyond Year 5. The 1,596 schools referenced above have been identified for PI for six or more years.

Back to top

Table 12: 2013–14 Title I PI Status Statewide Summary of LEAs

Year

New

Remain

Total

Exit

Year 1

88*

2

90

1

Year 2

57

0

57

0

Year 3

84

   335**

419

0

Total

229

337

566

1

* These LEAs were newly identified for PI in 2013–14.

** ESEA does not allow for an LEA PI designation beyond Year 3. The 335 LEAs referenced above have been identified for PI for four or more years.

Back to top

Questions: Communications Division | communications@cde.ca.gov | 916-319-0818 
Last Reviewed: Thursday, September 10, 2015

Share this Page

Recently Posted in News Releases