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