Officials voice support for state initiative to change
accountability requirements of act
Gilroy – District officials expect all three middle schools to be placed on the federal program improvement list released Sept. 20 – despite the fact that each school met its 2005 state performance goal. The sobering realization has left school officials voicing support for a state initiative to alter accountability requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
California is one of 42 states requesting some form of flexibility under NCLB. One state, Connecticut, filed a lawsuit last month against United States Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings over NCLB requirements, citing a lack of sufficient funding to comply with federal demands.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell is pushing for the use of the state’s accountability model, the Academic Performance Index, instead of the federal accountability model – Adequate Yearly Progress – to measure a school’s proficiency.
“It just makes sense,” said Gilroy Unified School District’s Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services Jackie Horejs. “I totally support what State Superintendent Jack O’Connell is pushing for, and what that is a federal model that measures growth.”
Under NCLB, all students are expected to be 100 percent proficient in both math and language arts by 2014. The act uses AYP to measure whether a school has met yearly benchmark standards.
The state uses API to determine progress by calculating a school’s growth from one year to the next. API scores are based on a scale of 200 to 1,000 with a state set goal of 800. To meet state API targets, a school must score either 800 or above, or meet a figure of at least 5 percent of the growth needed to reach a score of 800.
Both accountability systems use the results from the same state tests in their analysis.
The bar measuring AYP was raised this year – doubling the standards used last year – making it more difficult for some subgroups such as English Language Learners and Special Education students to meet the goals. Under NCLB, all subgroups are expected to match these proficiency targets and schools who fail to meet AYP two years in row can face sanctions such as being taken over by the state.
This year, 81 percent of California’s public school’s reached their state growth targets while only 56 percent met federal targets – a drop of nine points from the 2004.
Last year, South Valley Middle School was placed on year one of federal program improvement. This year, the middle school reached its API target goal, but failed to meet AYP.
Similarly, Ascension Solorsano Middle School jumped 61 API points over last year and its ELL subgroup improved its proficiency by 11 percent, yet the school failed to reach AYP standards.
According to GUSD Superintendent Edwin Diaz, all three middle schools will likely be placed on the federal improvement list – sending a conflicting message to the school district about its performance.
He is supportive of O’Connell’s push for change.
“I have expressed my support – but my whole interest is to coordinate these two accountability systems so that there’s a clearer, consistent message for our staff about what accountability is,” Diaz said. “It’s not going to be a good situation when 60 percent of schools in the state are in program improvement, but most of them are showing improvement.”
In recent weeks there has been increased debate over the use of the two models.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked Margaret Spellings to work with a task force to develop an accountability system that would help both the state and federal government reach its goals.
On Aug. 31, California Business for Education Excellence released a statement denouncing the API as a measurement of progress, and lauded the usage of AYP instead because it measures grade level proficiency of all students.
However, what is deemed ‘proficient’ various nationwide. States determine proficiency standards and California uses a higher marker than most states. The state has not lowered proficiency targets to meet NCLB standards.
“The problem that you get into with the federal system is you set a benchmark, but the benchmark and standards should be the same (nationwide),” Diaz said. “With a state like ours, we have some of the highest proficiency standards, but we have some of the neediest children (and it puts California) at a disadvantage … My preference would be if you have a bar at a benchmark, that that bar should be constant for everybody.”
California is home to about 1.6 million ELL students – most of whom are Spanish speaking. It is the largest demographic of ELL students nationwide.
Once ELL students meet proficiency standards, they are no longer considered ELL and do not count as part of the ELL subgroup. Therefore only the ELL students who are not proficient are counted towards AYP.
“It’s a Catch-22,” Horejs said. “The AYP labels us as unsuccessful when a certain subgroup of students (aren’t proficient), but in fact we are successful, because they have been moved out of that category.”
Critics of NCLB argue that it is a one size fits all model, and relies too heavily upon standardized testing. Some say NCLB and underfunded for its mandates. Connecticut is the first to file a lawsuit (Aug. 22) against Margaret Spellings over NCLB claiming that NCLB is not providing enough funding to the state to comply with its demands.
Fifteen states are considering legislation to opt out of NCLB. Some states are pursuing exemption waivers from various NCLB requirements. A number of school districts in Illinois have chosen not to accept Title I funds so that they will not be held to NCLB requirements.
“Although the public is appreciative of the NCLB Act, nobody wants to blame their local school for not making its AYP when it is (making progress with its API),” Horejs explained.
In April, Spellings announced that the department would work to provide flexibility in NCLB mandates. One way includes incorporating growth models into accountability systems. Another method involves making a case for waivers if states can show they complied with law and showing improvements.
The California Department of Education has submitted a proposal advocating the use of API instead of AYP and offering to modify the state system.
Some suggestions include raising the statewide performance target 75 points to 875 and doubling the annual API growth target from 5 percent to 10 percent, with a minimum gain of five points for schools and districts that has not reached the statewide goal.
“The argument is that (the federal accountability model) over-identifies the number of schools that should be intervened in,” explained Bill Padia, who serves as the CDE’s Director of Policy and Evaluation Division. “We’re not suggesting that we run away from accountability with English Language Learners. It’s just that we would like to use our API model (for program improvement) instead. We’re not trying to shirk away from accountability at all.”
AYP vs. API
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is the federal government’s accountability system. To make AYP schools must have a 95 percent participation rate in taking state tests such as the California High School Exit Exam and California Standards Tests, and a minimum percentage of students in all subgroups proficient in subject matter. Additionally, the school must experience a one point growth in the state’s accountability system, the Academic Performance Index, or score a minimum 2005 API score of 590.
Academic Performance Index (API) is the state’s accountability system. Schools are given a score from 200 to 1,000 with a state set goal of 800. To meet API targets, schools must experience growth of 5 percent of the distance from the school’s API to 800 or receive a score of 800 or above. Subgroups must score 80 percent of the schoolwide target.
