BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1458
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1458 (Steinberg)
As Amended August 24, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE : 24-11
EDUCATION 8-0 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Gatto, Blumenfield, |
| |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Eng, Grove, Williams | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Fuentes, Hall, Hill, |
| | | |Cedillo, Mitchell, |
| | | |Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes changes to the composition and use of the
Academic Performance Index (API). Specifically, 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 Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI),
with the approval of the State Board of Education (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,
SB 1458
Page 2
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 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 Public School Accountability Act
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 Standardized Testing and
SB 1458
Page 3
Reporting Program (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 reexamine
the state system of public school accountability.
EXISTING LAW establishes the API, which summarizes a school's or
a local educational agency's (LEA's) academic performance and
progress on statewide assessments. The API is a single number
ranging from 200 to 1,000 and is required to include a variety
of indicators, including results of the Standardized Testing and
Reporting Program (STAR) tests, attendance rates, and high
school graduation rates. Existing law requires that achievement
test scores constitute at least 60% of the API. However, the
only indicators used so far to calculate the API have been test
scores, so, in practice, test scores constitute 100% of the API.
Among other things, the API is used to rank schools into
deciles, based on their API scores. Each school receives two
ranks-one relative to all other schools in the state and one
relative to 100 other schools with similar pupil demographics.
Decile ranks are used for a variety of purposes, including:
1)Identifying schools for participation in the II/USP and HA/ISP
programs.
2)Compliance with the Williams settlement.
3)Charter school renewal.
4)Identifying schools for the Open Enrollment Act.
5)Identifying eligible schools for the Assumption Program of
Loans for Education.
6)Reporting on the School Accountability Report Card (SARC).
7)Determining allowable expenditures for the Professional
Development Block Grant.
8)Identifying eligible schools for the Quality Education
Investment Act.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
SB 1458
Page 4
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 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.
COMMENTS : 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 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.
SB 1458
Page 5
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN:
0005556