This is an accessible alternate version of the Accountability Program Update (PPT; 721 KB; 50 slides). This document provides text translation to the Accountability Program Update PowerPoint presentation. The PowerPoint presentation was presented at the Assessment and Accountability Information Meetings in Ontario California on September 19, 2012, and in Sacramento California on October 1, 2012.
Accountability
Program Update
Ontario – September 19, 2012
Sacramento – October 1, 2012
California Department of Education
Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Overview
- School Accountability Report Card (SARC)
- Safe Harbor
- Changes to the definition of continuous enrollment and the impact on the Academic Performance Index (API) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reports
- The reassignment of test scores (Senate Bill 219)
- Five-Year Cohort Graduation Rate
- Title III Accountability
School Accountability Report Card (SARC)
SARCs for the 2011–12 School Year
- Prop. 98 requires that all public schools annually produce a SARC
- The State Board of Education (SBE) annually approves a template that identifies the data elements that are statutorily required, including:
- Information about the school (enrollment, grades offered, etc.)
- School Climate
- School Facilities
- Teacher and Support Staff Credentials and Assignments
- Curriculum and Instructional Materials
- School Finance
- Accountability and Assessment Results
- Postsecondary Preparation
SARC Template was approved by the State Board of Education in July 2012
- Visit the Schools Accountability Report Card Web page for the most current SARC information.
SARCs for the 2011–12 School Year (continued)
- Historically, the California Department of Education provided local educational agencies (LEAs) with access to a partially populated SARCs
- In 2010, due to budget cuts, the California Department of Education stopped providing partially populated SARCs
- In 2011, the California Department of Education leveraged the Ed-Data partnership to provide a partially populated SARC on the Ed-data Web site
- Ed-Data is an existing partnership between California School Information Services (CSIS), EdSource and the California Department of Education
- The Ed-Data partnership will continue to produce partially populated SARCs
- We anticipate that the SARCs will be available on the Ed-Data Web site in late October for LEA use
- SARC template with all data collected by the California Department of Education will be made available for download at the Ed-Data Web site
- The downloadable SARC templates are:
- Approved as meeting the legal reporting requirements specified by the State Board of Education once a school’s local data has been added
- Provided in multiple languages
- At the July State Board of Education meeting, the State Board of Education discussed the future of the SARC
- Short Term Improvements
- Revise optional executive summary
- Promulgation of SARC regulations
- Long Term Improvements
- Develop a web application to collect LEA data
- Revise/modernize SARC template
- Develop a data dashboard with rating information about schools
- Short Term Improvements
- Revise optional executive summary
- We do not anticipate any changes to the executive summary will be made this school year
- The California Department of Education will be electronically surveying accountability coordinators
- Putting together a workgroup of stakeholders to discuss necessary changes
- Promulgation of SARC regulations
- California Department of Education staff is working to determine the areas of focus for the regulations
- The California Department of Education anticipates bringing draft regulations to the January or March 2013 SBE meeting
- Opportunity for public comment
- Develop a web application to collect LEA data
- The California Department of Education is working with budget staff to determine cost to develop this web application to collect LEA data
- Will be an optional data collection where LEAs can complete the LEA portion of the SARC and the California Department of Education would prepare a final SARC with LEA and California Department of Education data
- Revise/modernize SARC template
- Longer term discussion
- Foundational question for the revisions
- How best to display the data that is meaningful to parents and policy makers?
- Develop a summary report with rating information about schools
- Currently doing a survey of how other states display school data
- As this process commences, the California Department of Education will seek public comment and stakeholder input
School Accountability Report Card
- The Analysis, Measurement, and Accountability Reporting Division will be bringing a board item to the State Board of Education in January 2013 to discuss our progress on these improvements
Local Educational Agency (LEA) Accountability Report Cards
- New stand-alone report card in response to federal monitoring visit findings
- The California Department of Education will provide all of the data for the LEA Accountability Report Card and will host all on the California Department of Education Web site
Safe Harbor
Percent Proficient Targets
| School Level | 2011 |
2012 ELA |
2011 Math |
2012 Math |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elementary and Middle | 67.6% | 78.4% | 68.5% | 79.0% |
| High | 66.7% | 77.8% | 66.1% | 77.4% |
Impact of Safe Harbor
Number of LEAs and schools that made their 2011 AY through safe harbor
| Type | Made AYP | Made AYP Through Safe Harbor |
|---|---|---|
| Schools | 3,398 | 1,511 (44.5%) |
| LEAs | 212 | 102 (48.0%) |
Continuous Enrollment
Title 5 Regulations
In January 2012, the State Board of Education adopted regulations that define continuous enrollment for accountability purposes. These regulations do not, in any way, mandate local policies about enrolling or exiting students in the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS).
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 5 Section 1039.2, specifies that a student is considered continuously enrolled if the student was enrolled in the same school or LEA from Fall Census Day to the first day of testing without a gap of enrollment of 30 or more consecutive calendar days. This definition was first applied with the 2011 Base API.
Continuous Enrollment
Continuous enrollment is determined by using enrollment and exit code data from CALPADS. For the October 2012 accountability release, data was extracted from CALPADS on August 15, 2012.
- The California Department of Education will extract CALPADS enrollment and exit code data on two more occasions. The tentative schedule is:
- December 20, 2012
- February 26, 2013
- The California Department of Education will use the extracted data, along with corrected demographic data, to update AYP and API Reports
Continuous Enrollment Data
Impact of CALPADS Continuous Enrollment Data Compared to Student Answer Document (SAD) Data on the 2011 Base API
| Type | No Change | 1 to 5 point change (plus and minus) |
More than 5 point change (plus and minus) |
|---|---|---|---|
| LEAs | 42% | 53% | 5% |
| Schools | 55% | 40% | 5% |
2012 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
Continuous Enrollment SAD Data Compared to CALPADS Data
(Total N = 4,785,444)
| Type | SAD | CALPADS | Difference In CALPADS |
|---|---|---|---|
| LEAs | 4,429,300 (92.5%) | 4,542,141 (94.9%) | 112,841 |
| Schools | 4,508,790 (94.2%) | 4,447,207 (92.3%) | -61,583 |
2012 California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE)
Continuous Enrollment SAD Data Compared to CALPADS Data
(Total N = 963,006)
| Type | SAD | CALPADS | Difference In CALPADS |
|---|---|---|---|
| LEAs | 824,792 (85.6%) | 812,882 (84.4%) | -11,910 |
| Schools | 782,818 (81.3%) | 758,786 (78.8%) | -24,032 |
Reassignment of Test Scores
- Senate Bill 219 requires assessment and other accountability results of some students enrolled in an Alternative Education Program (AEP) to be assigned back to a school or LEA of residence in the calculation of the API
- In January 2012, the State Board of Education adopted CCR, Title 5, Section 1039.3, which specifies how students’ STAR and CAHSEE test scores will be reassigned
Criteria for Reassignment of Test Scores
- STAR and CAHSEE results are assigned to a non-AEP school and/or a non-AEP LEA of residence if the student:
- Was referred after Fall Census Day to an AEP school (i.e., exited using student exit code T167 in the CALPADS) and
- Took the STAR and/or CAHSEE at the AEP school
Results of Test Score Reassignments
Number of 2012 Test Scores Reassigned from an AEP School to a Non-AEP School
| Test | Number of Scores Reassigned |
|---|---|
| STAR | 3,028 |
| CAHSEE | 1,989 |
Future Use of CALPADS for Accountability Reporting
- In coming years, the CDE will use additional CALPADS data for API and AYP reporting:
- Race and Ethnicity
- English Learner (EL) Status
- Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
- Special Education
- Gender
Benefits of Using CALPADS for Accountability Reporting
- Reduced workload for assessment Pre-ID
- No costs for correcting demographic data in CALPADS
Five-Year Cohort Graduation Rate
- In January 2012, the California Department of Education approved an amendment to California’s Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook to add the use of a five-year cohort graduation rate for 2013 AYP determinations
- In February 2012, the State Board of Education and the California Department of Education submitted the amendment to the U.S. Department of Education (ED) for approval
- The updated January 2013 AYP reports will include the 2012 five-year cohort graduation rates and growth targets for the 2013 AYP determinations
- Meeting the four-year or five-year cohort graduation rate will qualify as meeting the graduation rate criteria for AYP
- The five-year cohort graduation rate will be calculated using a similar formula as the four-year rate
- The five-year cohort graduation rate will be used as an alternative method for meeting the graduation rate criteria if the eligibility criterion is met
- The five-year cohort graduation rate criterion is:
- The number of new graduates in the fifth year cohort is equal to or greater than the number of students who transfer out, emigrate, or die during the fifth year
New Academic Performance Index (API) Indicators
- The California Department of Education will convene the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) Advisory Committee to discuss incorporating the following indicators into the API:
- High school graduation rates
- Middle school dropout rates (grade 8, and grade 9 for schools where grade 9 is the highest grade offered)
Senate Bill 1458
- Senate Bill 1458 was sent to the Governor’s desk on August 29, 2012. If signed, the bill would require:
- Assessments constitute 60% of a high school API beginning with the 2016 API calculations
- New variables be incorporated into the API one full academic year after the state board approves the addition of a new variable
Title III Accountability
- Three annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs):
- AMAO 1 – Making annual progress in learning English
- AMAO 2 – Attaining English proficiency
- AMAO 3 – Meeting AYP for EL subgroup
AMAO 1
| Previous CELDT Overall Level | Advancement | Annual Growth Target |
|---|---|---|
| Beggining | Advances to | Early Intermediate |
| Early Intermediate | Advances to | Intermediate |
| Intermediate | Advances to | Early Advanced |
| Early Advanced or Advanced, and not English Proficient | Advances to | English Proficient |
| English Proficient | Advances to | Maintain English Proficient Level |
AMAO 2
- Include all English learners
- Two cohorts with different targets:
- English learners who have been in language instruction educational programs for less than 5 years
- English learners who have been in language instruction educational programs for 5 years or more
- LEA must meet targets for both cohorts to meet AMAO 2
AMAOs 1 and 2 Results
Percent of LEAs/Consortia Meeting AMAOs
Bar chart: X-axis is labeled: Percent of LEAs and has a scale from 0 to 100 with tick marks every 10 percent. There are two groups of bars: one for “Met AMAO 1” and one for “Met AMAO 2.” Within each group that is a bar for 2006–07, 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12.
The percentages for “Met AMAO 1”:
- 2006-07 is 73 percent
- 2007-08 is 82 percent
- 2008-09 is 83 percent
- 2009-10 is 78 percent
- 2010-11 is 51 percent
- 2011-12 is 83 percent.
The percentages for "Met AMAO 2":
- 2006-07 is 74 percent
- 2007-08 is 77 percent
- 2008-09 is 81 percent
- 2009-10 is 63 percent
- 2010-11 is 45 percent
- 2011-12 is 59 percent.
Release of AMAOs 1 and 2 Results Analysis of AMAO 1 Results
Student level AMAO 1 performance improved over 7% from prior year
Line chart: X-axis scale is from 48 to 63 percent with tick marks every five percent. The y-axis categories are 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12. There are two lines on the chart: one for “Target” and one for “Met Target”.
The data points for the Target line are as follows:
- 2007-08 is 50.1 percent
- 2008-09 is 51.6 percent
- 2009-10 is 53.1 percent
- 2010-11 is 54.6 percent
- 2011-12 is 56 percent
The data points for the “Met Target” line are as follows:
- 2007-08 is 55.9 percent
- 2008-09 is 57.8 percent
- 2009-10 is 57.4 percent
- 2010-11 is 53.7 percent
- 2011-12 is 61.4 percent
Release of AMAOs 1 and 2 Results Analysis of AMAO 2 Results
Percent students meeting AMAO 2
Line chart: The X-axis scale is from 0 to 50 percent with tick marks every five percent. The y-axis categories are 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. There are four lines on the chart: one for “less than 5 years target”; one for “5 years plus target”; one for “met less than 5 years target”; and “met 5 years plus target”.
The data points for the “less than 5 years target” line are as follows:
- 2007-08 is 28.9 percent
- 2008-09 is 30.6 percent
- 2009-10 is 17.4 percent
- 2010-11 is 18.7 percent
The data points for the “5 years plus target” line are as follows:
- 2007-08 is 28.9 percent
- 2008-09 is 30.6 percent
- 2009-10 is 41.3 percent
- 2010-11 is 43.2 percent
The data points for the “met less than 5 years target” line are as follows:
- 2007-08 is 35.4 percent
- 2008-09 is 38.2 percent
- 2009-10 is 22.4 percent
- 2010-11 is 21.9 percent
The data points for the “met 5 years plus target” line are as follows:
- 2007-08 is 35.4 percent
- 2008-09 is 38.2 percent
- 2009-10 is 45.3 percent
- 2010-11 is 41.5 percent.
Source: March 7, 2012 update
AMAO 3
- Must meet AYP for English learner subgroup
- Measured by:
- California Standards Tests (CSTs)
- California Modified Assessment (CMA)
- California Alternate Performance Assessment
- CAHSEE
- English learner subgroup for AYP includes reclassified fluent English proficient students until they score Proficient or above three times on the CST-English-language arts (ELA) or CMA-ELA.
- AMAO 3 calculations require AYP data
- The California Department of Education anticipates providing the AMAO 3 data sometime in late October
Contact Information
Academic Accountability Unit
916-319-0863
aau@cde.ca.gov
- General API and AYP questions
- API calculations
- AYP calculations
- Data review process
Evaluation, Research, and Analysis Unit
916-319-0869
evaluation@cde.ca.gov
- AYP appeals
- Continuous Enrollment
- API test score rollbacks
- PI identification PIAccountability@cde.ca.gov
- SARC Sarc@cde.ca.gov
