BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 512
AUTHOR: Price
INTRODUCED: February 17, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 6, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Academic Performance Index and numerically
significant subgroups.
SUMMARY
This bill deletes some of the current criteria for defining
a numerically significant subgroup for purposes of
calculating the Academic Performance Index (API), and
requires that a numerically significant subgroup instead
consist of at least 10 pupils with a valid test score.
BACKGROUND
Current law establishes the Public School Performance
Accountability Program under which the Superintendent of
Public Instruction (SPI), with approval of the State Board
of Education (SBE), is required to develop an Academic
Performance Index (API) to measure the performance of
schools. The API was proposed as a means of combining
multiple indicators of school performance into one
easy-to-compare index. The API is required to consist of a
variety of indicators including, but not limited to, the
results of the achievement test, attendance rates for
pupils in elementary schools, middle schools, and secondary
schools, and the graduation rates for pupils in secondary
schools.
Current law also requires that a school demonstrate
comparable improvement in academic achievement as measured
by the API by all "numerically significant
subgroups" at the school, including ethnic subgroups,
socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils, English language
learners, and pupils with disabilities.
Current law, for purposes of the API, defines a
SB 512
Page 2
"numerically significant
subgroup" as one that consists of at least 50 pupils with
valid test scores if these students constitute at least 15
percent of the total pupil population at a school or, a
subgroup with at least 100 pupils with valid test scores.
Current law also requires the SPI, with the approval of the
State Board, to define numerically significant subgroups
for any school with an API score that is based on no fewer
than 11 and no more than 99 pupils with valid test scores.
(Education Code �52052)
ANALYSIS
This bill modifies some of the existing criteria for
defining a numerically significant subgroup for purposes of
calculating the Academic Performance Index (API). It:
1) Deletes the current criteria that a subgroup that
consists of 50 pupils constituting at least 15% of the
total pupil population with valid test scores is a
numerically significant subgroup.
2) Deletes the current criteria that a subgroup of 100
pupils with valid test scores is a numerically
significant subgroup.
3) Establishes a numerically significant subgroup as one
that consists of at least 10 pupils with a valid test
score.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Intent of the bill . According to a January 2011
report by the African American Advisory Committee
(AAAC) to the State Board of Education, there were
roughly 14,500 African American students in California
public schools whose academic performance was
apparently not considered or monitored as a subgroup
under the current accountability and reporting system
because they were enrolled in schools where they
constituted less than 50 in number or less than 15
percent of the school population. African-American
student performance and that of other student
SB 512
Page 3
subgroups, are included in schoolwide API reports but
their specific performance is a non-factor for
purposes of accountability and improvement goals.
Among its recommendations the AAAC requested that the
SBE consider inclusion of California Standards Tests
(CST) and California High School Exit Examination
(CAHSEE) subgroup proficiency and accountability data
for all subgroups with more than 10 students on all
assessment and accountability reports. According to
the author, this bill is intended to change the
definition of sub-group for purposes of calculating
the API for reporting purposes only. It is not
intended to change the definition of subgroup for
purposes of federal or state accountability.
2) Effect of the bill. This bill deletes the current
criteria for establishing a numerically significant
subgroup and establishes new criteria for this
purpose. As a result, the bill's impact would be to
change the underlying subgroup definitions and
calculations for purposes of federal and state
accountability. As the author's stated intent is to
ensure that the new criteria established only be used
for reporting purposes and not for purposes of federal
and state accountability; staff recommends the bill be
amended to restore current law, and to instead create
a new subdivision(d) that:
Requires that reporting of subgroup
performance be conducted for any student group
that consists of 10 or more students with valid
test scores.
Clarifies that this reporting be done
consistent with the federal Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
(20 U.S.C. � 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99).
Declares the Legislature's intent that the
new criteria is to be used for reporting purposes
only and is not to be used for purposes of
federal and state accountability.
1) What is a subgroup ? This bill is intended to address
issues raised by an
advisory committee established to facilitate the work
SB 512
Page 4
needed to improve academic achievement of African
American students. However, this bill would affect all
subgroups, which currently include the following
categories:
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Filipino
Hispanic or Latino
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
White
Two or More Races
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
English Learners
Students with Disabilities
1) Consistent with current practice . In its 2010
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report Information
Guide, the California Department of Education notes
that California defines 11 as the minimum number of
students required to report subgroup results.
However, schools and LEAs are held accountable only
for "numerically significant subgroups." Regulations
prohibit the reporting of aggregate or group scores to
anyone other than the school or school district where
the pupils were tested, if the subgroup is composed of
ten or fewer individual pupil scores. This bill would
essentially codify the current practice of reporting
subgroup results for smaller groups of students than
that authorized for accountability purposes.
2) Uses of the API . The API is a numeric index that
ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1,000. The
statewide API performance target for all schools is
800. A school's growth is measured by how well the
school is moving toward or past that goal. Under state
requirements, if a school meets certain API
participation and growth criteria, it may be eligible
to become a California Distinguished School, National
Blue Ribbon School, or Title I Academic Achievement
Awards School. If a school does not meet or exceed its
growth targets and is ranked in the lower part of the
statewide distribution of the Base API, it may be
identified for participation in state intervention
programs, which are designed to help the school
SB 512
Page 5
improve its academic performance. Under federal
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
requirements, the API is one of the indicators for
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
3) Adequate Yearly Progress . The federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) establishes criteria
for meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
requirements. The ESEA requires that all local
educational agencies (LEAs) or schools of the same
type meet the same academic targets. AYP targets
increase annually until 2014, when all schools and
LEAs must have 100 percent of their students
performing at the proficient or above level on state
tests. Currently, only schools and LEAs that receive
Title I funds face Program Improvement (PI)
consequences for not meeting AYP requirements for two
consecutive years.
Schools and LEAs are required to annually meet or
exceed criteria annually in the following four areas
in order to make AYP:
1) Student participation rate on statewide
tests.
2) Percentage of students scoring at the
proficient level or above in English-language
arts and mathematics on statewide tests.
3) Growth API.
4) Graduation Rate.
"Numerically significant subgroups" at a school or LEA
also must meet participation rate and percent
proficient requirements.
A school or LEA could have high API growth and/or
performance, and yet fail to make AYP if it falls
short on participation rate, percent proficient, or
graduation rate.
This is because criteria for API and AYP are
different. Under state requirements, a school must
increase its API score by 5 percent of the difference
SB 512
Page 6
between the school API and 800 or maintain a score of
800 or above. Additionally, each numerically
significant subgroup must increase its API score by 5
percent of the difference between the subgroup API and
800 or maintain a score of 800 or above.
Under federal requirements in 2010, a school or LEA
must have a minimum API of 680 or have at least 1
point growth in the schoolwide API in addition to the
other federal AYP schoolwide and subgroup targets
(participation rate, percent proficient, and
graduation rate).
4) Other states . All states are required to define
subgroup size for purposes of meeting AYP as a
condition of receiving federal ESEA funds. A review
of self-reported information on state accountability
plans provided to the US Department of Education
indicates that at least 38 states have established a
minimum of 11 or less students for purposes of
reporting. Most states establish much higher minimums
(between 25 and 50) for purposes of accountability.
SUPPORT
Public Advocates
OPPOSITION
None received.