Skip to content
Printer-friendly version

PSAA Meeting Minutes - June 25, 2013

Minutes of the Advisory Committee for the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999.
PSAA Advisory Committee Members Present:

Co-Chair: Ting Sun, Educational Programs Director, Natomas Charter School
Co-Chair: Kenn Young, Superintendent, Riverside County Office of Education

Nancy Aaberg, Superintendent, Yuba City Unified School District
Vicki Barber, Superintendent, El Dorado County Office of Education
Dennis Cima, Senior Vice President, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Pat Crowder, Retired Principal, San Diego Unified School District
Edward Haertel, Emeritus Professor, School of Education, Stanford University
Julianne Hoefer, Director, Assessment and Accountability, Fountain Valley Unified School District
Clifford Kusaba, Teacher, California Teachers Association
Chet Madison, Sr., President, Board of Education, Elk Grove Unified School District
Jeff Patterson, English Teacher, SOAR Prep Academy

PSAA Advisory Committee Members Not Present:

Wendell Callahan, Director, Assessment, Research, and Pupil Services, San Diego County Office of Education
Sonia Ortiz-Mercado, Dean, Matriculation, Student Equity, Early Assessment, Student Leadership, and Division Administration, California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office
Charles Weis, Retired Superintendent, Santa Clara County Office of Education
Colleen A.R. You, President-elect, California State PTA

State Board of Education (SBE) and Legislative Representative:

SBE Liaison to the PSAA Advisory Committee: Ilene Straus
SBE Staff: Patricia de Cos, Deputy Executive Director
Instructional Quality Commission: Louis "Bill" Honig, Executive Committee Chair

Principal California Department of Education (CDE) Staff to the Advisory Committee:

Keric Ashley, Director, Analysis, Measurement, and Accountability Reporting Division (AMARD)
Jenny Singh, Administrator, Academic Accountability Unit
Matt Taylor, Administrator, Evaluation, Research, and Analysis Unit

Please note that the complete proceedings of the June 25, 2013, PSAA Advisory Committee meeting, including closed captioning, are available online on the CDE PSAA Meeting Webcast Archive Web page.

Public Session
June 25, 2013
Ting Sun called the meeting to order at approximately 10:10 a.m.

AGENDA ITEMS

Item 1

Subject: Welcome and introductions.

ACTION: No action taken.


Item 2

Subject: Summary of the regional meetings and Webcast.

A summary was presented and handout provided on the results of the regional public input meetings and Webcast on high school accountability held from April 17 to May 6, 2013 in Sacramento, Fresno, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside.

ACTION: No action taken.


Item 3

Subject: Review decisions made at the April 23, 2013 meeting.

The key decisions and requests of the Committee's prior meeting were reviewed. The Committee made the following decisions and requests at its April 23, 2013 meeting:

ACTION: No action taken.


Item 4

Subject: Review implementation timeline and proposed work plan.

The CDE presented two options for an implementation timeline, Option A (gradual) or Option B (all-at-once). The CDE also presented a work plan for the PSAA Advisory Committee to implement requirements of SB 1458. Of all the responses from the CDE's online "API Survey for Adding New Indicators to the API," approximately 65 percent favored gradual implementation, and approximately 35 percent favored all-at-once implementation.

ACTION: No action taken.


Item 5

Subject: Recommendations to the Superintendent on alternatives to the decile ranks as a method for determining eligibility, preference, or priority for statutory programs.

TDG Recommendation: At its April 23, 2013 meeting, the PSAA Advisory Committee agreed that six components (absolute performance, greatest challenges, improvement in current year, student group achievement, making targets over time, graduation data) may provide an appropriate basis for the design of an alternative decile rank model. Based upon those components, the TDG recommended at its June 10, 2013 meeting a proposed model for decile ranks that would include achievement gap comparisons for the Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) and English learner (EL) student groups.

ACTION: No action taken.


LUNCH BREAK

Item 6

Subject: Recommendations to the Superintendent on a methodology for incorporating graduation data in the API.

TDG Recommendation: At its March 7 and April 18, 2013 meetings, the TDG provided the point structure for adding graduation data in the API. Two-point structure options were provided for students who earn a special education certificate.

Point Structure

Point structure as described below.

*Four-year graduate with diploma (includes student who passes California High School Proficiency Examination [CHSPE])
**General Education Test

Example of Bonus Point Structure:

Example of bonus point structure as described below.

  1. 4-Year Graduate API points: 1000

Plus

  1. Bonus Points added for English Learners: 50 points
  2. Bonus Points added for Students with Disabilities: 50 points
  3. Bonus Points added for students receiving Special Education: 50 points

Equals

  1. Maximum number of API points a student can earn*: 1150 points

*Schoolwide API is capped at 1000 points.

Simulations by the CDE showed that assigning 1000 points versus 800 points would not have a significant impact on schools' APIs. Fred Balcom, Director of the Special Education Division, and Kristin Wright, Chair of the ACSE, provided feedback on the issue. Mr. Balcom discussed the issue with Special Education Administrators of County Offices (SEACO) and Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) administrators. Both groups expressed strong support for assigning 1000 points rather than 800 points. Mr. Balcom and Ms. Wright summarized that the weighting should be 1000 API points for a special education student who earns a certificate of completion. They said that assigning a weight of 1000 instead of 800 would set an important value statement that California equally values all students in a school. A final decision by the SBE's Advisory Commission on Special Education is forthcoming at its August 2013 meeting, and Ms. Wright suggested it is likely that the final decision will support the 1000 points weighting.

ACTION: Member Vicki Barber moved to approve that 1000 API points be assigned in the API calculation for a special education student who earns a certificate of completion.

Member Chet Madison seconded the motion.

Yes votes: Members Sun, Young, Aaberg, Barber, Cima, Crowder, Haertel, Hoefer, Kusaba, Madison, and Patterson

No votes: None.

Members absent: Callahan, Ortiz-Mercado, Weis, and You

Abstentions: None.

The motion passed with 11 votes.

ACTION: Member Edward Haertel moved to approve that (1) the entire methodology for including graduation data in the API would include the use of student level weighting; (2) the graduation rate data would be incorporated into the API in the same manner as other indicators are currently included the API; and (3) the assignment of API points for including graduation data in the API would be as follows:

Member Vicki Barber seconded the motion.

Yes votes: Sun, Young, Aaberg, Barber, Cima, Crowder, Haertel, Hoefer, Kusaba, Madison, and Patterson

Members absent: Callahan, Ortiz-Mercado, Weis, and You

Abstentions: None.

The motion passed with 11 votes.

ACTION: Member Vicki Barber moved that the CDE research and bring back to the Committee alternatives regarding the following provisions:

Member Ting Sun seconded the motion.

Yes votes: Sun, Young, Aaberg, Barber, Cima, Crowder, Haertel, Hoefer, Kusaba, Madison, and Patterson

Members absent: Callahan, Ortiz-Mercado, Weis, and You

Abstentions: None.

The motion passed with 11 votes.

ACTION: Member Edward Haertel moved to recommend Option A (gradual implementation, as described under Item 4) as the timeline for incorporating indicators into the API. Under this option, graduation data would be added to the API beginning with the 2013 Base API with the expectation that it would be added initially with a relatively low weight, such as 10 percent, to be considered for increase in the future.

Member Vicki Barber seconded the motion.

Yes votes: Sun, Young, Aaberg, Cima, Haertel, Hoefer, Kusaba, Madison, and Patterson.

No votes: None.

Members absent: Barber, Callahan, Crowder, Ortiz-Mercado, Weis, and You.1

Abstentions: None.

The motion passed with 9 votes.


***ADJOURMENT OF MEETING***
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:40 p.m.


 

1 Members Barber and Crowder were not in attendance for the voting of this action item.

Questions: Karen Heiner | KHeiner@cde.ca.gov | 916-319-0635 
Download Free Readers