The California and Federal Accountability Systems Differ

The California and Federal Accountability Systems Differ
May 2006
Since 2003, California schools have had to meet growth targets under the state's accountability system and ensure that every numerically significant student subgroup meets the participation and proficiency status targets required under NCLB. This chart, from School Accountability Under NCLB: Ambitious Goals and Competing Systems, summarizes the measures used in both systems.

California’s API System Federal AYP System

The Key Measure The Academic Performance Index (API):
a single number index or score (between 200 and 1000) given to each school based on the distribution of scores on the state’s tests across five performance levels and four core subject areas. The annual measurable objective (AMO):
The expected percentage of students in each subgroup scoring at proficient or above on tests in mathematics and reading/language arts.

The Basic Concept or Model for Improvement A growth model: Each year, schools get a Base API score and an improvement goal (“growth target”) based on how far their Base scores are from a statewide target (currently 800). Following the subsequent round of state tests, schools receive a Growth API that is compared to their growth target. A status model: Every school is expected to have a minimum percentage of students in every numerically significant subgroup scoring at or above the proficient level that the state has set for each test and grade span. The expected percentage of students scoring proficient escalates over time to 100% by 2013–14.

What Constitutes Success Comparison to past performance: Showing sufficient improvement in schoolwide and subgroup API scores from the Base year to the Growth year (“meeting growth targets”). Currently, the schoolwide growth targets are 5% of the difference between each of their Base scores and state goal of 800. The subgroup target is 80% of the schoolwide target. Beginning with the 2006 Base API (released in March 2007), all subgroups as well as the school as a whole will be expected to improve by at least 5% of the difference between each of their scores and 800 or a minimum of 5 points, whichever is greater. (See example below. *)
Comparisons to other schools: Statewide and “similar schools” rankings, both expressed in deciles from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best.
All student subgroups must meet the common targets (based on grade span of school): Failure of any subgroup in a school or district to meet 100% of the annual percent proficient target means that the school or district has not achieved AYP. (An exception is made for subgroups that show a specified level of improvement. This is known as “safe harbor.” Other exceptions are made in unusual circumstances. For details, see: www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/altmethod05.asp#G1) Subgroups, schools, and districts must also test at least 95% of their students.
Schools/districts must also satisfy minimum requirements on additional indicators: Each school and district must have an API of at least 590 or improve by one point, and those with high school students must also meet a minimum graduation rate or improvement in that rate.

To Whom the System Applies Schools, including significant student subgroups. In response to NCLB, the state began computing API scores for districts also. Schools, districts, and the state, including numerically significant student subgroups for each.

* Example: if English learners at a school scored 700 in the 2006 Base API, their growth target score in 2007 would be 705 (800-700=100; 100 x 5% = 5; 700 + 5=705). If the overall 2006 Base API for their school is 760, the schoolwide growth target would be 756 because of the 5-point minimum requirement.