STATE SCHOOLS CHIEF RELEASES 2008-09 ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRESS (API + AYP) REPORTS

Release: #09-130
September 15, 2009

Contact: Pam Slater
E-mail: communications@cde.ca.gov
Phone: 916-319-0818

State Schools Chief Jack O'Connell Releases
2008-09 Accountability Progress Report

SACRAMENTO — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today released California's 2008-09 Accountability Progress Report (APR), which provides results from the state accountability system: the Academic Performance Index (API), as well as the federal accountability system: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Program Improvement (PI). Both the API and AYP are based upon statewide assessment results from the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program and from the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE).

"Our accountability report confirms that most California schools are continuing to make solid gains in academic achievement," O'Connell said. "For the seventh year in a row schools at every level have made real progress toward the statewide API target of 800, and almost half of our elementary schools have met or exceeded this goal. The API results also show a slight narrowing of the achievement gap that historically has left Hispanic or Latino and African American students trailing behind their peers who are white or Asian. I am delighted to see this trend of progress continue."

Forty-two percent of all California schools are now at or above the overall statewide target API of 800, up six percentage points from the year before. This includes 48 percent of elementary schools, 36 percent of middle schools, and 21 percent of high schools. (See Table 1.)

The 2009 API report shows that all student subgroups statewide demonstrated improvement between 11 and 15 points. African American, Hispanic or Latino, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students increased their API this year by 15 points, while the API of white students increased by 14 percentage points and the statewide increase for all students was 14 points. Despite this slight narrowing between subgroups, white, and Asian students continue to have significantly higher API scores, a major indicator of the achievement gaps that persist in California schools. (See Table 2.) For API point growth by student groups statewide at the elementary school, middle school, and high school levels, see Tables 3, 4, and 5.)

The API is a numeric index that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000 with a statewide target of 800. School and subgroup targets are set at 5 percent of the difference between the school or subgroup's Base API score and the statewide target of 800, with a minimum target of 5 points. All numerically significant subgroups at a school must meet their growth targets for a school to meet its API growth target. These subgroups include racial/ethnic subgroups, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, English learners, and students with disabilities.

The state API and federal AYP results report progress in different ways. The state API is an index model that measures year-to-year improvement and provides incentives to educators to focus on students at all performance levels. Schools receive more API points for moving students up from of the lowest performance levels. In contrast, the federal AYP system focuses solely on whether or not students are scoring at the proficient level or above on state assessments.

"In contrast to the state's API system, which recognizes improvement across all performance levels, the federal accountability system reflects only the number of students that have reached proficiency on California's rigorous standards," O'Connell said. "Under the federal system, the percentage of students who must meet proficiency has increased significantly this year. Many schools, while still making real academic gains, have fallen short on the federal measure.

"We learn different things from the state and federal measures; however, the two systems of accountability can often send conflicting messages to educators and parents. While we can never abandon the goal of proficiency for all students, I continue to support efforts to create a single accountability system for California that combines the best of the state and federal systems in order to reduce confusion and still push schools to help all students improve. I am hopeful that the Obama administration will be a partner in this effort through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known currently as No Child Left Behind."

In 2009, the AYP targets for the percentage of students expected to score at the proficient level or above on state assessments increased about 11 percentage points across the board from 2008. The AYP targets will continue to rise each year to meet the current federal requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. (See Table 6 for schools and Table 9 for LEAs.)

Fewer schools and LEAs made AYP than in 2008. Fifty-one percent of schools made AYP in 2009, a slight decline of one percentage point from 2008. There was a similar decrease in the percentage of local educational agencies (LEAs) making AYP, which fell from 41 percent in 2008 to 38 percent in 2009. (See Table 7 for schools and Table 10 for LEAs.)

Twenty-nine percent of middle schools made AYP in 2009, as compared to 61 percent of elementary schools. The data also show a sharp decline in the percentage of high schools that made AYP from 2008 to 2009, falling from 49 percent in 2008 to 37 percent in 2009. The decline was even more precipitous for high schools that received Title I funds. Only 30 percent of these high schools met their AYP targets in 2009, a decline of 14 percentage points from 2008. There was also a parallel decline in the percentage of high school districts that made AYP, from 35 percent in 2008 to 25 percent in 2009. Altogether, nearly half of middle and high schools missed both their 2009 API and AYP targets. (See Tables 7 and 8 for schools and Table 10 for LEAs.)

"Some of the stagnation we are seeing at the high school level may be due to the fact that curriculum at the high school level becomes much more rigorous," O'Connell, said. "However, we can't afford not to adequately prepare students for success in life after high school. We must remain focused on finding ways to improve achievement at the high school level."

Under NCLB, each state defines what it considers to be a proficient level of performance for students in English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics. California is widely recognized for having some of the most rigorous content and achievement standards in the nation. LEAs, schools, and subgroups must meet annual measurable objectives in both content areas to make AYP. For elementary and middle schools, AYP is based on the California Standards Tests (CSTs), the California Modified Assessment (CMA) in grades three through five, and the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) in ELA and mathematics. At the high school level, AYP is based on the tenth grade census administration of the CAHSEE in ELA and mathematics.

Schools, school districts, and county offices of education that receive federal Title I funds and do not make AYP criteria for two consecutive years are subject to identification for Program Improvement (PI). For the 2009-10 school year, 675 schools were newly identified for PI — two and one-half times the number newly identified in 2008-09. Fifty-four schools exited from PI after making AYP for two consecutive years. (See Table 8.) Schools in PI are subject to a five-year timeline of intervention activities. For example, schools in Year 2 of PI must offer supplemental education services (e.g., tutoring) to eligible students.

NCLB also requires states to identify LEAs for PI. In California, LEAs include school districts, county offices of education, and statewide benefit charters. In 2009-10, 57 LEAs were newly identified for PI, one exited, leaving a total of 298 LEAs in PI. This represents 31.8 percent of the total number of LEAs receiving Title I funds. (See Table 12.)

Schools and LEAs have an opportunity to review their data and make corrections. API, AYP, and PI reports will be updated in November 2009, and again in February 2010. All reports and data files are available through the APR Web page at Accountability Progress Reporting (APR).

# # # #

Attachments

2008-09 Accountability Progress Report

These data are current as of September 15, 2009, and are subject to change as the California Department of Education processes appeals of Adequate Yearly Progress determinations and receives updates to the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program and California High School Exit Examination data files.

Statewide Accountability: Academic Performance Index (API)
2009 Growth Results

Table 1
Percentage of Schools At or Above Target of 800 on Growth API Scores, 2002-2009

School Type	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05	2005-06	2006-07	2007-08	2008-09
Elementary	23%	26%	27%	32%	35%	36%	41%	48%
Middle	16%	14%	18%	21%	24%	25%	30%	36%
High	6%	7%	8%	12%	14%	15%	17%	21%
All Schools	20%	21%	23%	27%	30%	31%	36%	42%

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

Table 2
API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2008-09

Type	2008 State Base API	2009 State Growth API	2008-09 API Point Growth
Statewide	741	755	14
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin)	659	674	15
American Indian or Alaska Native	708	719	11
Asian	865	878	13
Filipino	824	838	14
Hispanic or Latino	683	698	15
Pacific Islander	734	746	12
White (not of Hispanic origin)	814	828	14
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged	681	696	15
English Learners	663	677	14
Students with Disabilities	552	566	14

Table 3
Elementary School API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2008-09

Type	2008 State Base API	2009 State Growth API	2008-09 API Point Growth
Statewide	774	790	16
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin)	705	723	18
American Indian or Alaska Native	740	751	11
Asian	888	901	13
Filipino	856	870	14
Hispanic or Latino	721	738	17
Pacific Islander	775	787	12
White (not of Hispanic origin)	847	862	15
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged	716	734	18
English Learners	710	728	18
Students with Disabilities	608	631	23

Table 4
Middle School API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2008-09

Type	2008 State Base API	2009 State Growth API	2008-09 API Point Growth
Statewide	739	754	15
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin)	649	666	17
American Indian or Alaska Native	700	710	10
Asian	881	894	13
Filipino	835	848	13
Hispanic or Latino	674	690	16
Pacific Islander	729	750	21
White (not of Hispanic origin)	820	833	13
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged	670	686	16
English Learners	641	655	14
Students with Disabilities	516	520	4

Table 5
High School API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2008-09

Type	2008 State Base API	2009 State Growth API	2008-09 API Point Growth
Statewide	702	713	11
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin)	612	624	12
American Indian or Alaska Native	676	685	9
Asian	829	843	14
Filipino	780	794	14
Hispanic or Latino	638	651	13
Pacific Islander	689	696	7
White (not of Hispanic origin)	776	788	12
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged	634	648	14
English Learners	604	612	8
Students with Disabilities	486	495	9

Federal Accountability: 2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Table 6
School Percent Proficient Targets for AYP, 2008 and 2009

School Type	2008 English- Language Arts	2009 English- Language Arts	2008 Mathematics	2009 Mathematics
Elementary and Middle Schools	35.2%	46.0%	37.0%	47.5%
High Schools	33.4%	44.5%	32.2%	43.5%

Table 7
Percentage of All Schools and of Title I Schools Making AYP, 2008 and 2009

School Type	2008 All Schools	2009 All Schools	2008 Title I- Funded Schools Only	2009 Title I- Funded Schools Only
Elementary Schools	58%	61%	47%	53%
Middle Schools	33%	29%	24%	23%
High Schools	49%	37%	44%	30%
All Schools	52%	51%	43%	44%
Total Number of Schools	9,861	9,917	6,017	6,066

Note: In fall of 2008, the number of Title I schools statewide was taken from the 2007-08 Consolidated Application, Part 2, and was updated in spring of 2009 using the 2008-09 Consolidated Application, Part 1, that each local educational agency (LEA) is responsible for completing annually. In 2009, the number of Title I schools statewide was taken from the 2008-09 Consolidated Application, Part 2, that each LEA is responsible for completing annually.

Table 8
Percentage of Schools Meeting 2009 State
API Targets and/or 2009 Federal AYP Criteria

School Type	Met All API Growth Targets and Made AYP	Met All API Growth Targets Only	Made AYP Only	Did Not Meet API Growth Targets or AYP Criteria
Elementary Schools	51%	14%	8%	26%
Middle Schools	21%	26%	3%	49%
High Schools	19%	15%	17%	49%
All Schools	41%	16%	9%	33%

Note: "Made AYP" = Met all AYP criteria. Schools in the ASAM, special education schools, schools with fewer than 100 valid test scores, and other schools with missing API targets are excluded. "All API Growth Targets" include schoolwide and numerically significantly subgroup growth targets. Rows may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Table 9
Local Educational Agency (LEA) Percent Proficient Targets for AYP, 2008 and 2009

LEA Type	2008 English- Language Arts	2009 English- Language Arts	2008 Mathematics	2009 Mathematics
Elementary School Districts	35.2%	46.0%	37.0%	47.5%
High School Districts	33.4%	44.5%	32.2%	43.5%
Unified School Districts, High School Districts, and County Offices of Education	34.0%	45.0%	34.6%	45.5%

Note: LEA = local educational agency such as a school district, a county office of education, or a statewide benefit charter agency. High school districts included in the third row are only those with students in any of grades two through eight.

Table 10
Percentage of LEAs Making AYP, 2008 and 2009

LEA Type	2008 Percent Made AYP	2008 Number Made AYP	2009 Percent Made AYP	2009 Number Made AYP
Elementary School Districts	56%	310	54%	299
Unified School Districts	21%	71	19%	62
High School Districts	35%	30	25%	21
County Offices of Education	19%	11	7%	4
All LEAs	41%	422	38%	386
Total Number of LEAs		1,031		1,024

Note: "Made AYP" = Met all AYP criteria. The total number of LEAs does not include single school districts or direct funded charter schools.

Federal Accountability: 2009-10 Program Improvement (PI)

Table 11
2009-10 Title I PI Status Statewide Summary of Schools

Year	New	Remain	Total	Exit
Year 1	675*	69	744	18
Year 2	210	108	318	19
Year 3	223	100	323	6
Year 4	272	62	334	7
Year 5	178	899**	1,077	4
Total	1,558	1,238	2,796	54

* These schools were newly identified for PI in 2009-10.
** The federal No Child Left Behind Act does not allow for a school PI designation beyond Year 5. Of the 1,077 schools in Year 5 of PI, 899 schools have been identified for PI for at least six years.

Table 12
2009-10 Title I PI Status Statewide Summary of LEAs

Year	New	Remain	Total	Exit
Year 1	57*	7	64	0
Year 2	58	2	60	0
Year 3	30	144**	174	1
Total	145	153	298	1

* These LEAs were newly identified for PI in 2009-10.
** The federal No Child Left Behind Act does not allow for an LEA PI designation beyond Year 3. Of the 174 LEAs in Year 3 of PI, 144 LEAs have been identified for PI for at least four years.

2008-09 Accountability Progress Reporting (APR) 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 APR Web page at Accountability Progress Reporting (APR), schools are able to easily view their results under both the state and federal accountability systems.

The 2008-09 APR system includes the:

2008 Base Academic Performance Index (API);
2009 Growth API;
2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP);
2009-10 Program Improvement (PI).

The 2008 Base API was released in May 2009.

The Base API represents a recalibration of the API system that occurs each spring. Also included with the 2008 Base API score are API growth targets for the school and for every numerically significant subgroup at the school, the school's statewide rank and its similar schools rank.

Data reported today are current as of September 15, 2009 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 have regularly scheduled updates in November 2009, February 2010, and July 2010.

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 subgroup is 100 students or 50 students that make up 15% of the school's population. Information is reported for all major ethnic subgroups, socioeconomically disadvantaged students (SED), English learners (ELs), and students with disabilities (SWD).

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 subgroups, the 2008 Growth API report also tells whether the API targets were met for the school and for each numerically significant subgroup.

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 based upon the starting point of the school 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 the school has 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 2009 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 SWD who take the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) and SWD who take the California Modified Assessment (CMA) in grades three through five 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 overall meeting or exceeding this state target has increased each year over the past seven years. In 2009, over 40% of all schools attained this target.

Based on 2009 data, 48% of elementary schools, 36% of middle schools, and 21% of high schools are now at or above the state target of 800. See Table 1.

The Achievement Gap

Results from the 2009 Growth API show that African American, Hispanic, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students improved by 15 points while all students improved by 14 points. See Table 2.

However, White and Asian students continued to have significantly higher API scores.

Tables 3, 4, and 5 show improvement from 2008 to 2009 for elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools respectively.

Summary of 2009 AYP Results

Every LEA, school, and subgroup in California is expected to achieve a 95% participation rate on ELA and mathematics state assessments used to calculate AYP each year.

In addition, all LEAs, schools, and subgroups 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% 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 grades three through five, in ELA and mathematics. For high schools, the participation rate and percent proficient calculations are based on the CAHSEE and the CAPA for grade 10 students in ELA and mathematics. The API is an additional AYP indicator for all schools; the graduation rate is only applicable for schools with enrollment in grades nine through twelve.

In 2009, 51% of all schools made all their AYP targets, a decrease of 1 percentage point from 2008. See Table 7.

The percentage of schools making their AYP targets differs by school type with 61% of elementary schools making their AYP targets; 29% of middle schools; and 37% of high schools.

Schools receiving Title I funds meet their AYP targets at a lower rate than all schools, 44% versus 51%.

In 2009, 38% of all LEAs made all their AYP targets, a decrease of 3 percentage points from 2008. See Table 10.

Summary of 2009-10 PI Results

Schools 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 Title I 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 offer supplemental education services (SES) to eligible students. Additional information about the intervention activities associated with each year of PI can be found on the Program Improvement Web page at Program Improvement - Title I, Part A-Accountability.

There were 6,066 schools that received federal Title I funds in 2008-09.

Of those schools, 2,796 or 46.1% of those are in PI in the following years:

Year 1 – 744;
Year 2 – 318;
Year 3 – 323;
Year 4 – 334;
Year 5 – 1,077.

Six hundred and seventy five schools are being identified for PI for the first time in 2009-10 after missing AYP in 2008 and 2009. In addition, 178 schools advanced to Year 5 of PI. See Table 9 for a full summary. See Table 11. For lists of schools in each year of PI, see the 2009-10 Program Improvement Status Report, located in the Statewide Summary Reports section, on the Title I Program Improvement Status Reports Web page at Program Improvement Reports - Adequate Yearly Progress.

Schools exit from PI after making AYP for two consecutive years. In 2009, 54 schools exited from PI after making AYP in 2008 and 2009.

An LEA (school district or county office of education) 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 subgroup, 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 Program Improvement Web page at Program Improvement - Title I, Part A-Accountability.

In 2008-09, 936 LEAs received federal Title I funds.

Of those LEAs, 298 or 31.8% were identified for PI for the 2009-010 school year in the following years:

Year 1 – 64;
Year 2 – 60;
Year 3 – 174.

Of the 64 LEAs in Year 1 of PI, 57 of them were first identified for PI in 2009-10. See Table 12. For lists of LEAs in each year of PI, see the 2008-09 Program Improvement Status Report, located in the Statewide Summary Reports section, on the Title I Program Improvement Status Reports Web page at Program Improvement Reports - Adequate Yearly Progress.

One LEA exited from PI after making AYP in 2008 and 2009.

A database of all 2008-09 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 Title I Program Improvement 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 2010-11 will be available soon on the Title I Program Improvement Status Data Files Web page listed above. Schools and LEAs at risk for PI identification missed AYP in 2009 for the first time.

# # # #

Jack O'Connell — State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Communications Division, Room 5206, 916-319-0818, Fax 916-319-0100

Download Free Readers

4LAKids - some of the news that doesn't fit

Tuesday, September 15, 2009