California's School Accountability System Under the Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
August 2007

Since 1999, with the passage of the Public School Accountability Act (PSAA), California has been holding schools accountable for the achievement of their students. In August 2003, the state modified its accountability system to meet the funding conditions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The purpose of NCLB, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush in January 2002, is to use federal funding as leverage to make sure that all the nation's children are able to read, to write, and to understand math well by the time they graduate from high school. Under NCLB, states develop their own ways of measuring whether schools, school districts, and the state as a whole have made "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) toward this goal, but their approach has to be approved by the federal government. To show that their schools are making AYP, states have to: Create "annual measurable objectives" (AMOs) for the percent of students that must show proficiency on tests aligned with state content standards (such as the California Standards Tests and the California High School Exit Exam); Select an additional way to measure student progress; Attain specified high school graduation rates or improvement in the graduation rate; and Test 95% of their students. If a school or district that receives funds from Title I of NCLB does not make AYP on the same indicator for two years in a row, it goes into "Program Improvement." In an attempt to keep the AYP system consistent with the Academic Performance Index (API) approach, which California has used since 1999, the state is relying on the API for its additional measurement of student progress. But the NCLB approach to accountability has driven significant changes in California's system. Schools and districts must test 95% of their students to make adequate yearly progress Under NCLB, the first hurdle all schools and districts must clear in their efforts to make AYP is testing 95% of their students, including 95% of each significant student subgroup. Under the API system, California held schools accountable for significant subgroups based on ethnicity and poverty. NCLB adds students with disabilities and English learners. This 95% testing requirement is a way for the federal government to make sure that all children are succeeding and that enough children are tested so that the statistics for the school as a whole are valid. If a school does not test 95% of students in the school as a whole and each significant subgroup, then the school automatically does not meet its AYP goal. To be considered "significant," a subgroup must include either 100 students or 50 students if they represent at least 15% of the overall school population. For example, if a school has 360 students and 54 of those students are English learners, then 51 of that school's English learners and 342 of all its students must be tested for that school to be able to meet its AYP goal. (54/360 = 15%; 95% of 54 = 51; 95% of 360 = 342.) Tests on content standards are used to determine annual measurable objectives for elementary and middle schools California developed one set of annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for schools serving grades 2–8 and another set for high schools. For grades 2–8, AMOs are statewide targets that are based on California Standards Tests (CSTs) in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. Because California's goal is for all students to score proficient or advanced on CSTs, a school's AMO is based on the percentage of its population that meets its goal in ELA and math. The state decided to start slowly, using a "stair step" approach. For the first two years, beginning in 2002–03, an elementary or middle school met its AMO if 13.6% of its students scored proficient or above in ELA and 16.0% scored proficient or above in math. In 2007–08, these schools will meet the AMOs if 35.2% of students score proficient in ELA and 37% score proficient in math. The targets rise steadily in subsequent years until they reach 100% in 2013-14. Students scoring proficient on the California Alternative Performance Assessment (CAPA), a test for students with severe cognitive disabilities, may make up only 1% of a district's total number of students counted as proficient. This helps ensure that the CAPA is administered only to the appropriate students. Beginning in Spring 2008, the state will use a modified CST for an additional 2% of students with milder disabilities. The test will be administered only to students in grades 3-5 in the first year, with grades added in subsequent years. Annual measurable objectives for secondary schools are based on exit exam results for 10th graders Because California tests high school students in math based on the level of the course they are enrolled in, it is difficult to use standards test results to determine AMOs. Because of that difficulty, the state decided to use the scores of 10th graders on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). For this purpose, the state set a "proficient score" that is higher than the score required to pass. To be labeled "proficient," a student must answer about 77% of the ELA and 69% of the math questions correctly. (To pass, a student need correctly answer only about 60% of the ELA and 55% of the math questions.) Beginning in 2002–03, 11.2% of a high school's students had to score proficient or above in English and 9.6% in math. In 2007-08, the percentages are, respectively, 33.4% and 32.2%. The targets grow steadily toward 100% in 2013-14. Schools need to show adequate yearly progress on additional factors If schools test 95% of all students and all significant subgroups of students and reach their ELA AMOs and their math AMOs for the whole school and all significant subgroups, the next hurdle is their API score. Beginning in 2002-03, all schools (elementary, middle, and high) and all districts had to grow by at least one point or have achieved a minimum of 560 for the school as a whole only (not significant subgroups). In 2007-08, the minimum acceptable API score is 620 or one point of growth. As with AMOs, the minimum API score increases over time, until it reaches 800 in 2013–14. If elementary and middle schools pass this last hurdle, they successfully achieve AYP. But high schools and districts with high schools have to show progress on one more factor, which is graduation rates. Graduation rates must reach a certain level (at least 83.0% for 2007-08), rise by 0.1 percentage points each year, or increase by 0.2 percentage points in the average two-year rate to make AYP. The graduation rate is defined as the number of students who graduate divided by the graduates from that year plus all dropouts over the previous four years. Title I schools can end up in Program Improvement if adequate yearly progress is not made for two consecutive years In August 2003, when California implemented its plan, more than 1,100 schools either entered or were in Program Improvement. As of July 2007, 2,240 schools were in PI. ("Title I schools" or schools that receive NCLB Title I funds for low-income students have been expected to make adequate yearly progress since the 1995–96 school year when the state used local assessments to determine progress. Beginning in 1999–2000, the yardstick for measuring progress was solely the API. More than half of California's approximately 9,000 schools receive these funds.) Simply stated, Title I schools go into Program Improvement if they miss their goals two consecutive years on the same AYP factor (English, math, API, or graduation rate). After a school enters Program Improvement, it must meet all its AYP targets for the school as a whole and all significant subgroups for two consecutive years to exit the program. NCLB offers a "safe harbor" Under California's plan, schools can avoid being placed into Program Improvement if they can improve their proficiency rates by at least 10% of the difference between their rate and 100% (the final goal). This is called offering a "safe harbor." For example, suppose white students are a significant subgroup of an elementary school and only 20% of that subgroup scored proficient or advanced in English language arts in 2006–07, leaving an 80 percentage point gap. If, in the next year, an additional 8% (10% of 80%) of white students scored proficient or above, the subgroup would be deemed to have made AYP even though only 28% of students met the proficiency target when 35.2% is the actual annual measurable objective in 2007-08. Then, the school would not go into Program Improvement under the safe harbor provision. Districts are held accountable under NCLB Districts are also measured and held accountable for student achievement in similar ways to their individual schools. Under NCLB, districts must also test 95% of their students, including 95% of significant subgroups. All elementary school districts (which can include grades K–8) and high school districts that serve grades 9–12 have AMOs that mirror those of the schools they serve. For unified districts (K–12) and the few high school districts that cover grades 7–12, 34.0% of their students must score proficient or above in ELA and 34.6% must do so in math in 2007–08. Each year thereafter, targets increase toward 100% proficient or above by 2013–14. Districts must also meet the API measure of achievement. Districts serving high schools will also be judged on the improvement in their graduation rate. Like schools, districts that receive Title I Basic Grants will go into Program Improvement if they miss their goals for two consecutive years on the same factor. As with Title I schools, the rules for entering Program Improvement are complex. To learn more, see pages 47-50 of the 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress Report, produced by the CDE. NCLB requires testing in science too States also need to have standards-based tests in science—one test each in elementary, middle, and high school. California administers cumulative standards tests for grades 5 and 8 and a life science exam for grade 10. Program Improvement requires offering students a chance to transfer to another school and can eventually lead to the restructuring of a school Only Title I schools can be identified as Program Improvement schools and must face consequences if they fail to make AYP for two consecutive years. In Year 1, a Program Improvement school must: Revise its school plan; Receive technical support from its district; Develop strategies to promote parent involvement; Use 10% of its Title I, Part A funds for staff professional development; and Use at least 5% of Part A funds to offer transportation to students to attend another public school in the district that is not in Program Improvement or persistently dangerous. (Part A funds are earmarked for improving basic programs.) One of the strongest elements of the new law is the requirement that a district provide free transportation to students who want to transfer from a Program Improvement school to a non-Program Improvement school in their own district. If available, the district must offer more than one school—including public charter schools—as an alternative and take parental preference into account when deciding where to transfer a student. The district must also notify parents in writing (if possible in a language they can understand) before the beginning of the school year that they have the option to transfer their child. This notification requirement presents a real challenge because schools don't learn their AYP results until late August and many begin the academic year around that time. If, after two years, the original school improves and is released from Program Improvement, students who have transferred may stay at the new school until they complete the highest grade at that school. But the district's obligation to provide free transportation ceases at the end of the school year in which the original school is released from Program Improvement. Federal regulations prohibit districts from using lack of space as a reason to deny students the transfer option, but that requirement may collide with reality. In any case, priority for transfer must be given to the students who are from low-income families and who are the lowest achieving. (To determine which families are low-income, districts must apply the same criteria that they used to secure Title I funding. One criterion used by many districts to define low-income is eligibility for free or reduced-priced meals under the National School Lunch Program.) If all the schools in a district are in Program Improvement, the district must, where possible, arrange a transfer agreement with one or more districts in the area. If that is not practical, the district may offer tutoring and/or other support, such as summer school, to students. Under Program Improvement, schools are not obligated to provide students with either free tuition or free transportation to private schools. Each successive year a school does not improve, the consequences become more serious. In Year 2 of Program Improvement, the district must—in addition to everything it was doing in Year 1—provide supplemental educational services, such as tutoring, to all low-income students. The district must establish an agreement with the services provider on each student's learning goals and a timeline for meeting them. Students with limited English proficiency are entitled to language assistance. The school must also notify the parents of low-income students that such services are available. It must spend an amount equal to 20% of its Title I, Part A funds to provide both transportation and supplemental services. The state must create a list of approved tutors and programs from which parents can choose and must also monitor their quality and effectiveness. These supplemental educational services providers can be within the district if the district is not in Program Improvement or from outside the district. The district is under no obligation to provide free transportation to the tutors or programs. If, after Years 1 and 2 of Program Improvement, the school has still not met its AYP goals, corrective action begins. In Year 3, the district must address the causes of failure to make AYP, including doing at least one of the following: Replace school staff; Implement new curriculum and train relevant staff on the new curriculum as necessary; Decrease management authority at the school level; Appoint an outside expert; Extend the school day or year; Restructure the school. The district must also inform the parents and public of the corrective action and allow them to comment on it. If the corrective action does not work by Year 4, the district and the local school must develop a plan for alternative school governance, notify parents and teachers of the plan, and allow them to comment on it. In Year 5, the district must implement the plan that was developed in Year 4, which must include one of the following: Reopen the school as a charter; Replace all or most of the school staff, which may include the principal, who are relevant to the school's poor performance; Contract with an outside entity to manage the school; Arrange for the state to take over the school; or Any other major restructuring that addresses the school's problems. After a school enters Program Improvement because it did not make AYP on one factor, it must make AYP on all factors for two consecutive years to exit the program. If, at any point in the process, a school makes its AYP goals, it stays in that part of the program (Year 1, 2, 3, or 4) until it makes AYP the next year. Then, it is released from Program Improvement. If a school does not make AYP the following year, it moves into the next phase (Year 2, 3, 4, or 5). For more information on NCLB: See our overview sections for NCLB, Assessment, and Accountability. Also see Frequently Asked Questions About the No Child Left Behind Act or NCLB.