BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1458
AUTHOR: Steinberg
INTRODUCED: February 24, 2012
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April18, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
SUBJECT : Academic Performance Index.
SUMMARY
This bill reduces the value of test scores in the
constitution of a school's Academic Performance Index from at
least 60% to no more than 40%, authorizes the incorporation
of additional measures, and deletes the decile ranking and
authorizes a program of locally convened school quality
review panels.
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. 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.
API indicators
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))
SB 1458
Page 2
The results of the STAR tests and the high school exit exam
constitute at least 60% of the value of API scores.
(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
Current law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) and State Board of Education (SBE), in consultation
with the Public School Accountability Act (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 from high school with the skills and
knowledge necessary to succeed in postsecondary
education. (EC � 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
SB 1458
Page 3
successor measure, and individual test scores from the
state's tests, as well as implications for the
reauthorization of the state's assessment system. (EC �
52052.5(d))
ANALYSIS
This bill reduces the value of test scores in the
constitution of a school's Academic Performance Index from at
least 60% to no more than 40%, authorizes the incorporation
of additional measures, and deletes the decile ranking and
authorizes a program of locally convened school quality
review panels. Specifically, this bill:
API weight
1) Reduces the value of test scores (STAR tests and HSEE)
in the constitution of a school's Academic Performance
Index to no more than 40%
2) Requires results of the STAR tests to constitute at
least 40% of the value of the API for primary and middle
schools.
API indicators
3) Deletes the requirement that, before including
attendance and graduation rates in the API, the SPI
determine the extent to which graduation rates and
attendance data are already collected and if that data
is accurate.
4) Authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI), with the approval of the State Board of Education
(SBE), to incorporate into the API 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.
5) Authorizes the SPI, with approval of the SBE, to
incorporate into the API for secondary schools valid,
reliable, and stable measures of pupil preparedness for
postsecondary education and career.
6) Requires the SPI, in consultation with the Public School
Accountability Act (PSAA) advisory committee, by March
SB 1458
Page 4
1, 2013, to report to the Legislature and recommend to
the SBE for adoption a method for increasing the
emphasis on pupil performance in science and social
science in the API.
API rank
7) Deletes the requirement that schools be ranked into
deciles for purposes of:
a) Measuring the progress of schools
participating in the Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program.
b) The High Achieving/Improving Schools Program.
Report on reducing testing
8) Requires the SPI, in consultation with the PSAA advisory
committee, by March 1, 2013, to report to the
Legislature both of the following:
a) A plan to streamline and reduce
state-mandated middle and secondary school testing,
including eliminating redundant assessments and
assessments that lack tangible meaning for pupils,
and reducing or minimizing testing time for pupils,
teachers, and administrators in order to restore
instructional time.
b) An alternative method in place of
decile rank for determining eligibility,
preferences, or priorities for any statutory
program that currently uses decile rank as a
determining factor.
Local review panels
9) Authorizes the SPI, with the approval of the SBE, to
develop and implement a program of school quality review
that features locally convened panels to visit schools,
observe teachers, interview students and examine student
SB 1458
Page 5
work, if an appropriation for this purpose is made in
the annual Budget Act.
Miscellaneous
10) Delete the requirement that the SPI provide an annual
report on the graduation and dropout rates.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, "The API
has performed an important function, but has been
limited by its sole reliance on standardized test scores
in limited subjects as indicators of school performance.
In addition, the practice of ranking schools from top
to bottom, in 'deciles,' has fostered a sense that those
in the lower decile rankings are failing or otherwise
underperforming, even though a number of such schools
have improved significantly over time. The existing API
has encouraged schools/districts to focus so hard on
test scores in limited subject areas that other
important aspects of education have been deemphasized.
Career tech, science and history, arts and music, work
experience and other important learning has been
marginalized in favor of coursework that improves scores
in tested subjects. This doesn't reflect what business
and industry leaders say they need from their future
workforce."
2) Current API indicators . Current 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 CalPADS but
those calculations may not have been made at this point.
3) Value of indicators . Current 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
SB 1458
Page 6
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.
4) 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 Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming Schools (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.
This bill also deletes the requirement that the API be used
to rank all public schools in the state pursuant to the
High Achieving/Improving Schools program, which
establishes the statewide and similar school ranking
system. It appears that this bill would not change the
ranking system used for many other programs (see below)
but would remove the rankings from the API; scores would
no longer have an accompanying statewide or similar
school rank.
Is the API rank important for other purposes, such as
providing information to parents and the general public?
5) Other uses of API rank . API decile rankings also affect
eligibility or priority for, or inclusion in:
a) Williams settlement (EC � 1240).
b) Charter school renewal (EC � 47607 & 47612.5).
c) Open Enrollment Act (EC � 48352(a)(1) & 48356)
d) Assumption Program of Loans for Education
(69612)
e) School accountability report card (EC �
33126(b)(13)).
SB 1458
Page 7
f) Professional Development Block Grant (EC �
41530(b)(2)).
g) High Priority Schools Grant Program (52055.605
& 52055.650)
h) Quality Education Investment Act (52055.720)
6) Report about future API . This bill requires the SPI, in
consultation with the PSAA advisory committee, to report
to the Legislature and recommend to the SBE for adoption
a method for increasing the emphasis on pupil
performance in science and social science in the API.
Current law requires the SPI and PSAA advisory committee
to recommend, by January 1, 2011, ways to increase
emphasis on math and science in the API and include
measures of college and career readiness. It appears
that this report was not completed.
7) School review panels . This bill authorizes the SPI,
with the approval of the SBE, to 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. This would allow the state to establish a
process whereby locally controlled panels of unspecified
individuals gather and provide to the state information
about academic performance and accountability. Should
parents be interviewed as well?
8) Related legislation . AB 2001 (Bonilla) among other
things, requires the SPI in consultation with a number
of entities to develop and recommend a plan to reduce
the time devoted to administering state assessments,
eliminate redundant or overlapping assessments, and
eliminate assessments used solely for the purpose of
accountability that do not assess the content learned in
that school year. AB 2001 is scheduled to be heard by
the Assembly Education Committee on April 18, 2012.
9) Prior legislation . SB 547 (Steinberg, 2011) would have
replaced the Academic Performance Index with the
SB 1458
Page 8
Education Quality Index.
SB 547 was vetoed by the Governor, whose veto message
read:
This bill is yet another siren song of school
reform. It renames the Academic Performance
Index (API) and reduces its significance by
adding three other quantitative measures.
While I applaud the author's desire to improve
the API, I don't believe that this bill would
make our state's accountability regime either
more probing or more fair.
This bill requires a new collection of indices
called the "Education Quality Index" (EQI),
consisting of "multiple indicators," many of
which are ill-defined and some impossible to
design. These "multiple indicators" are expected
to change over time, causing measurement
instability and muddling the picture of how
schools perform.
SB 547 would also add significant costs and
confusion to the implementation of the
newly-adopted Common Core standards which must be
in place by 2014. This bill would require us to
introduce a whole new system of accountability at
the same time we are required to carry out
extensive revisions to school curriculum,
teaching materials and tests. That doesn't make
sense.
Finally, while SB 547 attempts to improve the
API, it relies on the same quantitative and
standardized paradigm at the heart of the current
system. The criticism of the API is that it has
led schools to focus too narrowly on tested
subjects and ignore other subjects and matters
that are vital to a well-rounded education. SB
547 certainly would add more things to measure,
but it is doubtful that it would actually improve
our schools. Adding more speedometers to a
broken car won't turn it into a high-performance
machine.
Over the last 50 years, academic "experts" have
SB 1458
Page 9
subjected California to unceasing pedagogical
change and experimentation. The current fashion
is to collect endless quantitative data to
populate ever-changing indicators of performance
to distinguish the educational "good" from the
educational "bad." Instead of recognizing that
perhaps we have reached testing nirvana,
editorialists and academics alike call for ever
more measurement "visions and revisions."
A sign hung in Albert Einstein's office read "Not
everything that counts can be counted, and not
everything that can be counted counts."
SB 547 nowhere mentions good character or love of
learning. It does allude to student excitement
and creativity, but does not take these qualities
seriously because they can't be placed in a data
stream. Lost in the bill's turgid mandates is
any recognition that quality is fundamentally
different from quantity.
There are other ways to improve our schools - to
indeed focus on quality. What about a system
that relies on locally convened panels to visit
schools, observe teachers, interview students,
and examine student work? Such a system wouldn't
produce an API number, but it could improve the
quality of our schools.
AB 224 (Bonilla, 2011) would have modified the
indicators that contribute to the Academic
Performance Index (API) and requires the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, beginning in
the 2012-13 fiscal year, to create a new API for
grades 8-12. AB 224 was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
American Association of University Women - California
California Association of Regional Occupational Centers and
Programs
California Association of School Counselors
California Catholic Conference
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Council for the Social Studies
SB 1458
Page 10
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
Children Now
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids
Metropolitan Education District
United Ways of California
OPPOSITION
None on file.