BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1458
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1458 (Steinberg)
As Amended July 5, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :24-11
EDUCATION 8-0 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Gatto, Blumenfield, |
| |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, | |Bradford, |
| |Eng, Grove, Williams | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, |
| | | |Hill, Cedillo, Mitchell, |
| | | |Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes changes to the composition and use of the Academic
Performance Index (API). Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that achievement test results shall constitute no more
than 40% of the value of the API for secondary schools commencing
with the 2014-15 school year.
2)Provides that achievement test results shall constitute at least
40% of the value of the API for primary and middle schools
commencing with the 2014-15 school year.
3)Authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), with
the approval of the State Board of Education (SBE), to:
a) Incorporate the rates at which pupils successfully promote
from one grade to the next in middle school and high school and
successfully matriculate from middle school to high school into
the API;
b) Incorporate valid, reliable, and stable measures of pupil
preparedness for postsecondary education and careers into the
secondary school API; and,
SB 1458
Page 2
c) Develop and implement a program of school quality review
that features locally convened panels to visit schools, observe
teachers, interview students, and examine student work, if an
appropriation for this purpose is made in the annual Budget
Act.
4)Requires that, when additional elements are selected for the API
they not be incorporated into the API until at least one full year
after the SBE made the decision.
5)Requires the SPI to annually provide to local education agencies
and the public an understandable explanation of the individual
components of the API and their relative values within the API.
6)Repeals the requirement to use the API to select schools for
participation in the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming
Schools Program (II/USP) and to rank schools pursuant to the High
Achieving/Improving Schools Program (HA/ISP).
7)Requires the SPI, on or before October 1, 2013, and in
consultation with the Public School Accountability Act advisory
committee, to:
a) Report to the Legislature and recommend to the SBE for
adoption a method or methods to increase the emphasis on pupil
performance in science and social science in the API; and,
b) Report to the Legislature an alternative method or methods,
in place of decile rank, for determining eligibility,
preferences, or priorities for any statutory program that
currently uses decile rank as a determining factor.
8)Expresses the intent of the Legislature that the state's system of
public school accountability be more closely aligned with the
public's expectations for public education and the workforce needs
of the state's economy and that the state's accountability system
evolve beyond its narrow focus on pupil test scores to encompass
other valuable information about school performance, as specified.
9)Finds and declares that the overreliance of the API has been
limited by an overreliance on the Standardized Testing and
Reporting Program (STAR) test scores, that the API does not
indicate the degree to which a school has prepared its pupils for
SB 1458
Page 3
success in postsecondary education and career, and that the
transition to new common core academic content standards and
related assessments present an opportunity to reexamine the state
system of public school accountability.
EXISTING LAW establishes the API, which summarizes a school's or a
local educational agency's (LEA's) academic performance and progress
on statewide assessments. The API is a single number ranging from
200 to 1,000 and is required to include a variety of indicators,
including results of the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program
(STAR) tests, attendance rates, and high school graduation rates.
Existing law requires that achievement test scores constitute at
least 60% of the API. However, the only indicators used so far to
calculate the API have been test scores, so, in practice, test
scores constitute 100% of the API.
Among other things, the API is used to rank schools into deciles,
based on their API scores. Each school receives two ranks-one
relative to all other schools in the state and one relative to 100
other schools with similar pupil demographics. Decile ranks are
used for a variety of purposes, including:
1)Identifying schools for participation in the II/USP and HA/ISP
programs.
2)Compliance with the Williams settlement.
3)Charter school renewal.
4)Identifying schools for the Open Enrollment Act.
5)Identifying eligible schools for the Assumption Program of Loans
for Education.
6)Reporting on the School Accountability Report Card (SARC).
7)Determining allowable expenditures for the Professional
Development Block Grant.
8)Identifying eligible schools for the Quality Education Investment
Act.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1)General Fund (GF) administrative costs of approximately $250,000
SB 1458
Page 4
to the State Department of Education to meet the requirements of
this measure, including additional staff to research the
appropriate indicators to recommend for inclusion in the API.
2)This bill, commencing with the 2014-15 school year, requires no
more than 40% of the API at the secondary level to consist of
assessment results. As such, it is unclear if LEAs are currently
collecting appropriate data to incorporate additional indicators
into the API. If the state needs to collect additional data
beyond what is currently collected, there will be GF/98 costs,
likely in the hundreds of thousands to millions, to LEAs.
3)GF/98 cost pressure, likely in excess of $4.5 million, to
implement a program of school quality review that features locally
convened panels to visit schools, observe teachers, interview
pupils, and examine pupil work. This bill requires the enactment
of this provision to be contingent upon funding in the budget for
this purpose.
This measure does not specify parameters or elements of this
review; the state, however, currently is required under federal
law to assist LEAs that do not meet federal accountability
requirements. The state meets this requirement by funding School
District Intervention and Assistance Teams. This cost estimate is
based on this process.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "It is time for the API to
evolve into a less punitive, more constructive representation of
school performance, and to encompass a more comprehensive set of
expectations and aspirations for school performance, such as
graduation and/or dropout rates, and, as appropriate, measures of
pupil preparedness for college and career." A recent report from
Education Sector, "Ready by Design: A College and Career Agenda for
California" (June 2012) finds that there is no correlation between a
school's API score and its graduation or college enrollment rates
and concludes that the API is a flawed measure of college and career
readiness. The report suggests that other measures, which are based
on data that are already collected and that are better indicators of
college and career readiness, could be added to the API at the high
school level. These measures include:
1)High school graduation and/or dropout rates.
2)Data on pupils who pass the "a-g" requirements (coursework
SB 1458
Page 5
required for admission to the University of California).
3)Passage rates and test-taking rates on Advanced Placement and
Early Assessment Program exams.
4)Data on enrollment in postsecondary institutions.
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0005012