Superintendent's Advisory Committee
Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999
Minutes
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
9:00 a.m.
Members Present:
Holly Jacobson, Chair, Assistant Executive Director, Policy Analysis and Research, California School Board Association
Maria Medina, Parent Advisory Council
Vicki Barber, Superintendent, El Dorado County Office of Education
Marilyn Buchi, School Board Member, Fullerton Joint Union High School District
Marc Ecker, Superintendent, Fountain Valley Unified School District
Pam Kinsley, Member, California Teachers Association, Harding School
Cecelia Mansfield, Vice President for Education, California State Parent-Teacher Association
Ting Sun, Senior Educational Advisor, California Charter Schools Association
Charles Weis, Superintendent, Ventura County Office of Education
Ronald Garcia, Superintendent, Delano Union Elementary School District
Nancy Carroll, Superintendent, Ocean View Elementary School District
Members Absent:
Rudy Castruita, Superintendent, San Diego County Office of Education
James S. Catterall, Professor, School of Education, University of California at Los Angeles
Edward Haertel, Professor, School of Education, Stanford University
Jerry Hayward, Consultant, Management, Analysis and Planning, Inc.
Kelvin Lee, Superintendent, Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District
Lynette Nyaggah, Teacher, Rio Hondo College
Bernice Stafford, Vice President, School Marketing and Evaluation, Lightspan, Inc.
Karen Yelverton-Zamarripa, Asst. Vice Chancellor, California State University
Principal Staff to the PSAA Advisory Committee:
William Padia, Deputy Superintendent for Assessment and Accountability
Pat McCabe, Director, Policy and Evaluation Division
Holly Jacobson called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.
Introductions of Committee Members, California Department of Education (CDE) staff, and audience members - Holly Jacobson
Changes in Target Structure for 2006 API Base - Pat McCabe
- Pat McCabe updated the committee members on changes to the Academic Performance Index (API). At the May 2006 State Board of Education (SBE) meeting the SBE voted to calculate each subgroup's growth target in the same manner in which the school target is calculated. Each significant subgroup will be required to meet 5 percent of the difference between the subgroup's API and 800, or grow a minimum 5 points, whichever is greater. Pat discussed the rationale for the more challenging targets for student subgroups and distributed the SBE May 2006 Agenda item handout. He also provided an example on the whiteboard to illustrate the discussion. Attendees discussed and Pat McCabe provided requested clarifications.
Similar School Rank Changes for the 2005 Base API - Robert Bernstein
- Robert Bernstein summarized the effect of the new variables added to the similar schools rank calculations adopted by the SBE at the committee's recommendation. He discussed how the rankings are calculated and explained the calculation error that necessitated the recalculation of similar schools ranks earlier in May. Attendees discussed the similar school rankings and obtained clarifications.
Oath of Office
William Padia conducted the Oath of Office; Oath documents were signed and collected.
2006 Base API
- Robert Bernstein and Pat McCabe introduced the issues to be resolved in order to calculate the 2006 API Base (anticipated for release in March 2007) including alternatives for incorporating the standards-based tests for science, grades 8 and 10, into the API and for revising the policy of the assignment of 200 for high school students who are not enrolled in a math or science course. The impact of the various alternatives in terms of test weights and assignment of a score of 200 for non-test takers were discussed.
- There was considerable discussion among the attendees regarding test weight alternatives. The group addressed weighting for the 2-8 grades first. After discussion and examination of the impact of three different alternatives (0.20, 0.30, 0.10), Chuck Weis made a motion to adopt Alternative 1 (a test weight of .20 for the California Standards Test [CST] in science, grade 8), which was seconded by Marilyn Buchi. Discussion followed. The Chair called for a vote and Alternative 1 was accepted by a 10:1 vote. The committee discussed its intent to consider increasing the weight for the science CST in grades 2-8 after the 2006 API Base is reported.
- The group then discussed alternative test weights for the science components of the high school API calculation. Again three alternative weighting schemes for adding the grade 10 CST life science test to the API calculation were presented. The group discussed and decided to first address the current practice of assigning a score of 200 to students not taking the end-of-course science and math exams. The initial rationale for adopting the assignment of 200 policy was discussed by Robert Bernstein and he noted the policy is now less statistically necessary, given the change in calculation methodology of the 2004 API Base. Attendees discussed the intended and unintended consequences of both keeping and eliminating the assignment of 200. Four alternatives were presented including: 1) current method; 2) grade level with the most non-tested would not be assigned 200; 3) lower test weight; and 4) eliminate 200 assignment. After extensive discussion, a motion was made by Pam Kinsley to accept Alternative 4, to eliminate the 200 assignment for both the math and science assessments, which was seconded by Mark Ecker. Additional discussion ensued. The Chair called for a vote and Alternative 4 was accepted unanimously.
- The group then turned to the discussion of test weights for the new grade 10 CST in life science and examined various impacts and weighting schemes in light of their previous decision to eliminate the 200 assignment. There was extensive discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. There was general agreement that it was desirable to take actions that would encourage, not discourage, schools to enroll larger proportions of their high school students in science courses. Vicki Barber made a motion to weight the grade 10 CST in life science at .10 which was seconded by Ting Sun. After additional discussion Vicki Barber amended her motion to include increasing the end-of-course CST in science (grades 9-11) weight from .15 to .17, which was seconded by Ting Sun and Charles Weis. More discussion followed and the group indicated their desire to weight the science tests so that they carry a weight roughly equivalent to that of history. The Chair then called for a vote and the motion to weight the grade 10 CST in life science at .10 and the end-of-course CST in science at .17 passed by 9:1 vote.
- The committee will discuss adjusting the weights for other high school tests at its the next meeting.
Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM) Update
- Vicki Barber presented an update of the activities of the subcommittee working on the ASAM and called for any committee members interested in being included in the subcommittee to indicate their interest to CDE staff.
Agenda Items for Next Meeting
- Holly Jacobson called for items to be included in the next meeting agenda
- There was a request for a "placeholder" for ASAM issues
- There was a request to address issues related to AB 2594 which addresses the state's role in identifying and assisting under-performing schools.
- High school test weights
Dates for Upcoming Meetings
All meetings will be held at 1430 N Street, Sacramento, CA.
- August 24, 2006 (Room 1801)
- Dec. 14, 2006 (Room 1101)
- Feb. 14, 2007 (Room 1801)
- May 16, 2007 (Room 1801)
- August 22, 2007 (Room 1801)
The group agreed to change the meeting time from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. to being at 9:30 a.m. and end at 1:30 p.m.
Holly Jacobson adjourned the meeting at 12:45 p.m.
