BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1322
AUTHOR: Wyland
INTRODUCED: February 23, 2012
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 25, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
SUBJECT : Pupil assessments: school board hearing.
SUMMARY
This bill expands the scope of the public hearing that school
district governing boards are required to hold regarding Academic
Performance Index rankings and removes the discretion of school
boards with schools scoring below the 50th percentile with regard to
conducting an assessment and adopting an improved performance plan.
BACKGROUND
California established the Public Schools Accountability Act in 1999
to measure academic performance and growth. The Academic
Performance Index (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.
Schools API scores are used to determine eligibility or priority for
intervention programs, such as the Quality Education Investment Act
and Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools. Prior assistance and
intervention programs have been phased out, such as the Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and the High Priority
Schools Grant Program. Schools API rankings determines eligibility,
priority, or preferences for other programs (see below). The API is
also used for purposes of calculating Adequate Yearly Progress, as
required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
API indicators
SB 1322
Page 2
Current 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 �
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. (EC �
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 rankings
The High Achieving/Improving School Act establishes the system
ranking schools based on API scores. 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). (EC � 52056) A school's Base API is used to
determine its rank, and is done separately for elementary, middle,
and high schools. Rankings are used to determine a school's
eligibility, preferences or priorities for several programs, such as
Open Enrollment, the Williams's settlement, and charter school
renewal, Assumption Program of Loans for Education, the Professional
Development Block Grant and the Quality Education Investment Act.
School board meeting
Current law requires school district governing boards to discuss the
results of the API ranking at the next regularly scheduled meeting
after the API rankings are released. School boards are strongly
encouraged to include in the discussion an examination of STAR test
scores by school, grade and subgroup.
School boards are authorized, if the average STAR test score of the
school is below the 50th percentile, or if the test scores of more
than 25% of the pupils of a school are below the 50th percentile, to
do both of the following:
1) Conduct an assessment of the reasons for the performance
results of the school, by grade.
SB 1322
Page 3
2) Adopt an improved performance plan that includes methods
determined by the district to have been used by schools with
similar pupil populations elsewhere in the district or state
and significantly higher pupil scores. School boards that
adopt an improved performance plan must reevaluate the plan at
each future annual meeting until STAR test scores reach a level
above the 50th percentile. (EC � 52056)
ANALYSIS
This bill expands the scope of the public hearing that school
district governing boards are required to hold regarding Academic
Performance Index rankings and removes the discretion of school
boards with schools scoring below the 50th percentile with regard to
conducting an assessment and adopting an improved performance plan.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Expands the requirement that the governing board of a school
district discuss the results of the annual Academic Performance
Index (API) rankings to also require school district boards to
analyze and compare the results.
2) Adds STAR tests results to the data that must be discussed,
analyzed and compared (in addition to API rankings).
3) Removes the discretion of school districts with an average STAR
test score of a school below the 50th percentile, or if the
test scores of more than 25% of the pupils of a school are
below the 50th percentile, and instead requires school boards
to do both of the following:
a) Conduct an assessment of the reasons for
the performance results of the school, by grade.
b) Adopt an improved performance plan that
includes methods determined by the district to have been
used by schools with similar pupil populations elsewhere
in the district or state and significantly higher pupil
scores. The plan must explain why an alternate approach
is preferable if it is deemed not feasible to adopt those
methods. If a school board adopts an improved performance
plan, it must reevaluate the plan at each future annual
SB 1322
Page 4
meeting until STAR test scores reach a level above those
specified above.
4) Requires a school district governing board that holds a public
hearing to discuss pupil achievement on the STAR tests and
pupil progress toward meeting the optimum performance levels on
those tests, to do so in the manner specified below:
a) The school board may not place this
discussion on the consent calendar.
b) The school board shall notify in writing
all of the following persons and entities of each public
hearing held:
i) Representative parent
organizations at the schoolsite, including the parent
teacher associations, clubs, or organizations, and
schoolsite councils. School districts are encouraged
to notify parents directly through appropriate means.
ii) All local major media outlets.
iii) The mayor of a city located in the
district.
iv) All members of a city council of a city
located in the district.
v) All members of the county board
of supervisors of a county located in the district.
vi) The county superintendent of schools.
vii) The county board of education.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, "In 2003, the
Legislature approved AB 36 by then-Assemblyman Wyland, which
created a process for school districts to identify how
performing schools and impose some type of intervention.
SB 1322
Page 5
Specifically, AB 36 stated that if the school board identifies
a school with an API score below the 50th percentile, or where
25% of students scored below the 50th percentile, the board may
implement some form of intervention to increase student
achievement. Currently, districts are not required to
implement any sort of intervention at schools identified as low
performing. Without a requirement in place mandating that
district perform either one of these interventions, there is no
sure way to ensure that districts are doing everything they can
to increase student achievement at identified low performing
schools."
2) School board discussion of API . Each school district governing
board is currently required to discuss the Academic Performance
Index (API) rankings of schools within the district during a
public meeting of the school board. API rankings, both
statewide and similar schools, are based on the Base API score
of each school. The API scores are calculated using the
results of the STAR tests and the California high school exit
exam. Test scores account for 100% of a school's API. This
bill requires school boards to also discuss (and analyze and
compare) STAR test scores. It is likely that school boards
currently discuss STAR test results when discussing API
rankings as those rankings are based on the results of the STAR
tests (solely STAR tests for elementary and middle schools, and
STAR and high school exit exam results for high schools).
This bill requires school boards to discuss, analyze and compare
STAR test results. The API scores for elementary and middle
schools are based on the results of STAR tests; API scores for
high schools include results for both STAR tests and the high
school exit exam. Should school boards serving high schools
also discuss, analyze and compare results of the high school
exit exam?
3) Performance plan . This bill requires the governing board of a
school district with an average STAR test score of a school
below the 50th percentile, or if the test scores of more than
25% of the pupils of a school are below the 50th percentile, to
adopt an improved performance plan that includes methods
determined by the district to have been used by schools with
similar pupil populations elsewhere in the district or state
SB 1322
Page 6
and significantly higher pupil scores. The plan must explain
why an alternate approach is preferable if it is deemed not
feasible to adopt those methods.
The author's statement indicates that school districts are not
required to implement any sort of intervention at schools
identified as low performing and that requiring districts to
adopt an improved performance plan will enhance pupil
achievement. Staff notes that numerous programs of
intervention or corrective action are in place for schools
identified as low performing, such as Program Improvement
pursuant to the federal No Child Left Behind, Persistently
Lowest-Achieving Schools, the Quality Education Investment Act.
Prior assistance and intervention programs have been phased
out, such as the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools
Program and the High Priority Schools Grant Program.
4) Comparison . This bill requires school districts to discuss,
analyze and compare the API rankings of schools within the
district. This bill does not specify to what or whom the API
rankings are to be compared.
5) Optimum performance levels . This bill requires school boards
that hold a public hearing (serve schools scoring below the
50th percentile) to discuss STAR tests results and pupil
progress toward meeting the optimum performance levels on those
tests. This bill does not define optimum performance, which
could include meeting the API growth target, and meeting
Adequate Yearly Progress pursuant to the federal No Child Left
Behind, or another measure.
6) Next regularly scheduled school board meeting . Current law
requires school boards to discuss API rankings at the next
regularly scheduled meeting after the rankings are released.
This bill requires school boards to also analyze and compare
API rankings, which will presumably require a level of
preparation that is greater than that for a mere discussion.
Will school boards have enough time to prepare an analysis and
comparison once the API rankings are released and the board's
next regularly scheduled meeting?
7) Notice of school board meeting . This bill requires the school
SB 1322
Page 7
board to give notice of the upcoming school board meeting to
representative parent organizations at the schoolsite, all
local major media outlets, the mayor of a city located in the
district, all members of a city council of a city located in
the district, all members of the county board of supervisors of
a county located in the district, the county superintendent of
schools, and the county board of education. Should teachers
and schoolsite administrators also be given notice?
8) Prior legislation . This bill is identical to SB 280 (Wyland),
which was introduced in February 2011, scheduled to be heard by
this Committee in March 2011, and pulled from the agenda at the
request of the author. The bill was subsequently returned to
the Secretary of the Senate.
SUPPORT
None on file.
OPPOSITION
None on file.