BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1458|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1458
Author: Steinberg (D), et al.
Amended: 8/29/12
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/18/12
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Simitian,
Vargas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Blakeslee, Huff, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/24/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Dutton
SENATE FLOOR : 24-11, 5/29/12
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Corbett, Correa, DeSaulnier,
Evans, Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe, Leno, Lieu, Liu,
Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio,
Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Dutton, Gaines,
Harman, Huff, La Malfa, Strickland, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cannella, De León, Emmerson, Fuller,
Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Academic Performance Index
SOURCE : Author
CONTINUED
SB 1458
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill makes changes to the composition and
use of the Academic Performance Index (API).
Assembly Amendments (1) provide that achievement test
results shall constitute no more than 60% of the value of
the API for secondary schools commencing with the baseline
calculation in 2016 (up from the 40% maximum previously in
the bill); (2) require that, when additional elements are
selected for the API they not be incorporated into the API
until at least one full year after the State Board of
Education (SBE) made the decision; (3) require the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (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; (4)
require the SPI, on or before October 1, 2013, and in
consultation with the Public School Accountability Act
(PSAA) advisory committee, to report to the Legislature as
specified (March 1, 2013 was in a previous version of the
bill); (5) express 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; (6) make clarifying and technical changes; (7)
add a coauthor; and (8) contain chaptering language to
avoid conflicts with AB 1668 (Carter).
ANALYSIS : California established the Public Schools
Accountability Act in 1999 to measure academic performance
and growth. The API is a single number, ranging from
200-1,000, that reflects a school's and it's subgroups'
performance on statewide tests. The API is an improvement
model (not a growth model that tracks an individual pupil's
performance over time) that compares school and subgroup
API scores from year to year. School ranking are produced
by comparing API scores across the state and with 100 other
schools with similar demographics.
The API is also used for purposes of calculating Adequate
Yearly Progress, as required by the federal No Child Left
Behind Act.
CONTINUED
SB 1458
Page
3
API Indicators
Existing law requires the API to consist of a variety of
indicators including the results of Standardized Testing
and Reporting program (STAR) tests, the California High
School Exit Exam, attendance rates, and high school
graduation rates. (Education Code (ED) Section
52052(a)(4))
The results of the STAR tests and the high school exit exam
constitute at least 60% of the value of API scores. (ED
Section 52052(a)(4)(C))
To date, the only indicators used to calculate the API have
been test scores. Therefore, test scores constitute 100%
of API scores.
API Rank
Two types of API ranks are reported, a statewide rank
(compares scores statewide) and a similar schools rank
(compare scores with 100 schools with similar
demographics). A school's Base API is used to determine
its rank, and is done separately for elementary, middle,
and high schools.
Reports about Future API
Existing law requires the SPI and SBE, in consultation with
the PSAA advisory committee to recommend to the Legislature
and Governor:
1. By January 1, 2011, methods and approaches for
incorporating into the calculation of the API:
A. An increased emphasis on math and science.
B. Measures of the degree to which pupils graduate
from high school with the skills and knowledge
necessary to attain entry-level employment in
business or industry.
C. Measures of the degree to which pupils graduate
CONTINUED
SB 1458
Page
4
from high school with the skills and knowledge
necessary to succeed in postsecondary education. (ED
Section 52052.5(c))
2. By July 1, 2013, on the establishment of a methodology
for generating a measurement of group and individual
academic performance growth by using individual pupil
results from a longitudinally valid achievement
assessment system. The recommendations should also
address any interactions between the API, or any
successor measure, and individual test scores from the
state's tests, as well as implications for the
reauthorization of the state's assessment system. (ED
Section 52052.5(d))
This bill:
1. Provides that achievement test results shall constitute
no more than 60% of the value of the API for secondary
schools commencing with the baseline calculation in
2016.
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 SPI, with the approval of the 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,
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
CONTINUED
SB 1458
Page
5
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 PSAA 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 STAR test scores,
that the API does not indicate the degree to which a
school has prepared its pupils for success in
postsecondary education and career, and that the
transition to new common core academic content standards
and related assessments present an opportunity to
CONTINUED
SB 1458
Page
6
reexamine the state system of public school
accountability.
Comments
Current API indicators . Existing law requires the API
indicators to include test scores, attendance rates and
graduation rates. To date, the only indicators used to
calculate the API have been test scores. The California
Department of Education (CDE) indicated that reliable data
for attendance and graduation rates were not available for
prior API reports. However, graduation and dropout rates
are now available through DataQuest (CDE web tool). It
appears that student-level attendance data is not currently
collected by the state. CDE indicates that reporting
promotion rates is possible with the data collected through
California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System but
those calculations may not have been made at this point.
Value of indicators . Existing law requires test score
results to constitute at least 60% of the value of the API.
However, test scores have constituted 100% of the value
because other indicators have not been used. This bill
reduces the value of test scores to no more than 40%. This
bill essentially reduces the value of test scores from 100%
to 40% and places a value of 60% on graduation and
attendance rates.
Rankings . Schools receive two rankings based on the
school's API score: a statewide rank and a similar schools
rank. Rankings are used to determine a school's
eligibility, preferences or priorities for certain
programs. This bill deletes the requirement that the API
be used for purposes of the II/USP Program, which is being
phased out as the state has been implementing federal
Program Improvement. The improvement of schools in II/USP
is measured by API growth targets.
Prior Legislation
SB 547 (Steinberg, 2011) would have replaced the API with
the Education Quality Index. SB 547 was vetoed by the
Governor, who did not believe that the bill would make our
state's accountability regime either more probing or more
CONTINUED
SB 1458
Page
7
fair.
AB 224 (Bonilla, 2011) would have modified the indicators
that contribute to the API and would have required the SPI,
beginning in the 2012-13 fiscal year, to create a new API
for grades 8-12. The bill was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1. General Fund (GF) administrative costs of approximately
$250,000 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 Local Education Agencies (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.
CONTINUED
SB 1458
Page
8
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/24/12)
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson
American Association of University Women, California
Assembly Select Committee on the Status of Boys and Men of
Color
California Association of Regional Occupation Centers and
Programs
California Association of School Counselors
California Building Industry Association
California Catholic Conference
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Council for the Social Studies
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California State PTA
Children Now
Fight Crime Invest in Kids California
Los Angeles Unified School District
Metropolitan Education District
North State Building Industry Association
Regional Economic Association Leaders Coalition:
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Bay Area Council
Orange County Business Council
North Bay Leadership Council
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp.
LosAngeles County Economic Development Corp.
Business Council of San Joaquin County
East Bay Economic Development Alliance
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
Southern California Leadership Council
Chambers of Commerce of Fresno, Long Beach, Los
Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San
Francisco, and San Jose/Silicon Valley
University of California
United Ways of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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
CONTINUED
SB 1458
Page
9
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 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.
PQ:k 8/30/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED