BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 224 Page 1 Date of Hearing: March 30, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Julia Brownley, Chair AB 224 (Bonilla) - As Introduced: February 2, 2011 SUBJECT : School accountability: Academic Performance Index SUMMARY : Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), in consultation with the State Board of Education (SBE), to incorporate both previously specified and additional measures of performance into the Academic Performance Index (API), using the best available data and commencing in fiscal year (FY) 2012-13. Specifically, this bill : 1)Deletes the requirement that attendance rates be incorporated into the API. 2)Requires the SPI, in consultation with the SBE, to incorporate into the API by FY 2012-13, for schools with any of grades 8 through 12, each of the following indicators using the best available data; also requires the SPI to derive these measures as specified. a) High school graduation rates as defined in current law. b) The rates at which pupils complete a course of study that fulfills University of California and California State University admission requirements. c) The rates at which pupils complete a course of study that provides the skills and knowledge necessary to attain entry-level employment upon graduation from high school. 3)Requires that the weighting of components of the API shall be: a) Until July 1, 2013 - at least 60% on the results of the achievement tests specified. b) Between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2016 - at least 50% on the results of the achievement tests specified. c) On or before June 30, 2016 - 50% on the results of the achievement tests specified in current law, and 50% on the elements listed in 2) above; in addition, requires that AB 224 Page 2 each of the elements in 2) above receive equal weight, while the rate at which pupils meet both elements in 2) b) and 2) c) is required to be given additional weight. 4)Authorizes the SPI to convene an advisory committee to provide recommendations for the implementation of these provisions, and to develop recommendations for the inclusion of multiple measures in the API of middle and junior high schools. EXISTING LAW requires: 1)The SPI to develop the API to measure the performance of schools, and to include a variety of indicators in that measure, including, but not limited to, achievement test results, attendance rates, and graduation rates. 2)School districts to offer to all otherwise qualified pupils in seventh through twelfth grades both of the following: a) A course of study fulfilling the requirements and prerequisites for admission to California's public institutions of postsecondary education. b) A course of study that provides an opportunity to attain entry-level employment skills in business or industry upon graduation from high school. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis of a substantially similar bill in 2007: 1)Costs for the California Department of Education (CDE) related to developing new indicators, facilitating the advisory committee and subcommittee meetings, and providing for the attendance of appropriate experts at these meetings. 2)Additional costs related to the collection and incorporation of college preparation and career technical education coursework data. 3)Significant costs, unknown but potentially in the millions, for districts to compile this information and report it to the CDE, to the extent that local education agencies do not already collect this data. COMMENTS : The SPI established, pursuant to SB 1 X1 (Alpert), AB 224 Page 3 Chapter 3, Statutes of 1999-2000 First Extraordinary Session, an advisory committee to advise the SPI and the SBE on all appropriate matters relative to the creation of the API. SB 1 X1 also requires the SPI, with the approval of the SBE, to develop the API to measure the performance of schools, and to include a variety of indicators in that measure, including, but not limited to, achievement test results, attendance rates, and graduation rates. Currently only achievement test results are incorporated into the API, and the API is configured to produce scores measuring a school's static performance at each grade level, in each content area, in each year, at one point in time. Having an API that focuses solely on achievement test results may be too narrow in that it does not reflect information about other student outcomes (e.g., dropout and graduation rates, college readiness, preparation for the workplace) that are important as measures of the performance of districts, schools and subgroups. In addition, focusing solely on test scores may actually lead to conclusions that are incorrect; as a perverse example, a school that sees an increase in the number of students dropping out could easily see a resulting increase in test scores, and thus in the API for that school or district (if the students dropping out tended to have below average test scores), yet most would agree that this increase in test scores and API are not reflective of an improvement in performance or the quality of education in that school or district. The solution to this problem would be to broaden the set of measures that are composited to form the API. The Legislature foresaw this when it initially authorized the development of the API to be an index (i.e., a composite number reflecting a number of component measures) based on data from multiple measures, including achievement test results, attendance rates, and graduation rates. According to the author, "The purpose of this bill is to expand and incorporate multiple measures into the API to allow for accurate measuring of school district and student academic performance. We must move away from focusing exclusively on standardized test results and high school exit exams, which do not reveal information about student outcomes such as dropout/graduation rates or college/workforce readiness." Opponents of a substantially similar bill in 2007 argued that including data on dropouts and availability of course offerings that fulfill admission requirements to California's public AB 224 Page 4 universities would skew the emphasis of the API toward high schools, resulting in the focusing of more resources at that level to the detriment of elementary and middle schools. However, since the Legislature can target the use of resources by grade span as well as by API ranking, this effect, to the extent that it would exist, could be easily moderated. Though inclusion of graduation rates in the API is current law, authority was provided to the SPI to determine when data on graduation rates would be included in the API; at this point in time, test scores remain as the only data on which the API is based. Opponents of past proposals similar to this bill have argued that data on graduation rates are not robust enough for this type of use, and that it is unclear how the state would collect data on courses of study fulfilling university admission requirements or data showing how well schools and districts prepare students for the workplace. In fact, this bill, by requiring the inclusion of graduation rates by 2012-13, only makes the inclusion of a currently required component of the API time certain. In addition, information on student course-taking that fulfills university admission requirements is already measured and reported annually on the School Accountability Report Card that is constitutionally required of every school and district in the state. The bill also provides detailed direction on the measurement of the extent to which schools offer a course of study that provides the skills and knowledge necessary to attain entry-level employment. The author concludes that, "There is much more that we value from our public school system than simply test scores. Student outcomes are just as important as test scores and our accountability system must measure and reflect that." This bill also proposes to delete the current requirement that attendance rates for pupils in elementary schools, middle schools and secondary schools be included in the API. All other data elements currently included in the API, as well as those proposed by this bill, focus on student, school and district outcomes; attendance rates are not a measure of achievement or outcome, instead they are more a measure of input into the education process and thus are different from other measures included in the API. Deletion of attendance rates, as proposed, would clearly define the API to be a measure of educational outcomes. AB 224 Page 5 Committee amendments: Committee staff recommends the following amendments: 1)Clarify that only test scores of pupils counted as enrolled in the California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS), California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), or any successor data system be included in the API; CBEDS data collections have been transitioned to CALPADS, and additional data system upgrades could occur in the future. 2)Delete the requirement that the SPI determine the extent to which data are reported to the state and are accurate before including high school graduation rates in the API. This deletion is necessary to reconcile this current requirement with the proposal in the bill that requires graduation rates to be included in the API commencing with the 2012-13 fiscal year. 3)Clarify that the high school exit examination referred to is the examination developed pursuant to Section 60850 of the Education Code. 4)Reconcile a conflict in and clarify the implementation dates proposed in this bill. 5)Charge the existing advisory committee, established to advise the SPI and the SBE on all appropriate matters relative to the creation of the API, rather than a new advisory committee, with developing recommendations for the inclusion of multiple measures in the API of middle and Junior high schools as proposed in this bill. Previous legislation: AB 400, vetoed in 2007, was substantially similar to this bill. AB 519 (Mendoza), held in the Senate Appropriations Committee in 2007 but later amended to a different subject, would have required the incorporation into the API of data regarding the availability in high schools of a course of study that fulfills University of California and California State University admission requirements, and the submission of a plan for incorporating dropout data into the API. AB 2167 (Arambula), Chapter 743, Statutes of 2006, establishes a specific methodology for including graduation rates, as previously required, in the API; also requires the SPI to report annually to the Legislature on graduation and dropout AB 224 Page 6 rates in the state. SB 1284 (Scott), held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in 2006, would have updated and made technical amendments to statutes that establish the API. SB 257 (Alpert), Chapter 782, Statutes of 2003, requires the advisory committee established to advise the SPI on the API to make recommendations to the SPI on a methodology for generating a "gain" score measurement to provide more accurate measure of a school's growth over time. AB 1295 (Thomson), Chapter 887, Statutes of 2001, makes changes to the API to allow small school districts to receive an API score, receive growth targets, and performance awards. SB 1 X1 (Alpert), Chapter 3, Statutes of 1999-2000 First Extraordinary Session, known as the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA), authorizes the state's current accountability program, including establishment of the PSAA Advisory Committee and development of the API. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California Agricultural Teachers' Association California Association of Leaders for Career Preparation California Business Education Association California Manufacturers and Technology Association Opposition School for Integrated Academics and Technologies (SIATech) (Unless amended) Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087