Achievement gap narrows as all groups post gains—but U.S. standards also tighten

The academic performance of California’s public schools continues to grow, and the state has gained traction in its efforts to close the gap between student subgroups, but much remains to be done—and sanctions for falling short of federal targets are ramping up, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell said Thursday.

“We’re seeing signs of the achievement gap narrowing,” O’Connell said as he released the 2007-08 Accountability Progress Report, which combines the state Academic Performance Index with two metrics from the federal No Child Left Behind Act: adequate yearly progress and Program Improvement. (API and AYP, in turn, are both based upon statewide assessment results from the State Assessment And Reporting Program exams.

Statewide API data offer the clearest measure of progress in closing the achievement gap, and they show double-digit growth among all student subgroups: Hispanic students increased their API by 17 points this year over their 2007 base API, and students qualifying for free or reduced-price meals increased theirs by 16; African Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders and English learners’ scores rose 14 points; scores of students with disabilities rose by 13 and Filipinos’ by 12; American Indians’ scores rose by 11 points and whites’ by 10. Statewide, that amounts to a 14 percentage point gain over 2006-07.

Schools, too, are increasing their API as a whole: Statewide, 53 percent made their API growth targets this year, an increase of 8 percentage points from 2007. Thirty-six percent of all California schools are now at or above the state target of 800, up 5 percentage points from the year before.

“We’re seeing more and more of our schools meet that threshold,” O’Connell said, adding that the latest data mark six straight years of growth.

CSBA Executive Director Scott P. Plotkin welcomed the news.

“California pioneered the new era of education accountability with reforms that have now been in place for nearly a decade,” Plotkin said, referring to the introduction of the STAR program and API in 1999, two years before Congress passed NCLB. “Educators and governance teams working at the local level have embraced those measurements and the high expectations they represent. We must continue to adhere to those goals while we also work to ensure that we have realistic, reliable and effective measurements of our progress toward them.”

Federal requirements ratchet up

However, federal AYP measurements of are more problematic. AYP focuses on scores at the proficient level or above on state English language arts and math assessments, and the percentage of students required to meet California’s standards—among the highest in the nation—ratchets up from year to year.

The minimum proficiency requirements started in 2001-02 at between roughly 10 to 16 percent, depending on the subject and grade level, and remained flat for three years to allow local, state and federal administrators to familiarize themselves with the process and plan for future needs. The requirements essentially doubled in 2004-05, remaining there for three more years.

This year the minimum proficiency requirements rose to 33.4 percent for English and 32.2 percent for math for high schools and high school districts, and to 35.2 percent for English and 37 percent in math for elementary schools and districts; O’Connell said the requirements will continue to rise 11 percent or so every year until 2014, when every student in every subgroup is required to test proficient or above in English and math. With all the subgroups, as well as the minimum percentages of students required to participate in the tests and other requirements, O’Connell said there are 46 different ways to fall short of AYP—and into Program Improvement status, the third major metric of the APR data.

Schools, school districts and county offices of education that receive federal Title I funds and do not make each of those 46 AYP criteria for two consecutive years fall into PI. Once in PI, they are subject to a regime of interventions that grows increasingly severe over five years unless those schools and local education agencies manage to satisfy the ever-more-rigorous AYP standards for two consecutive years.

Because of the higher minimum proficiency requirements this year, schools and LEAs meeting AYP all fell 15 percentage points, to 52 percent for schools and 39 percent for LEAs.

In raw numbers, 266 schools entered PI and 342 advanced to year 5; 116 exited, yielding a total of 2,241 of the state’s roughly 9,500 public schools in PI. Sixty-one districts or LEAs entered PI and one exited, bringing the total to 1,242. Fifty LEAs entered their third year of PI, subjecting them to interventions by the State Board of Education. The SBE earlier this year authorized the first district-level interventions, which generally require them to work with authorized District Assistance and Intervention Teams on plans to improve their academic performance.

The future of federal education policy

O’Connell said the state and federal metrics each have their value, but the rigid and rising levels required under NCLB mean many schools and LEAs fall short of AYP even while they increase their API.

"For example, 157 of our schools more than doubled their API growth targets for two years in a row, yet still missed AYP in both those years. Clearly these schools are on the right track, but are still labeled as failing under our federal system,” O’Connell pointed out.

With the Bush administration about to be replaced in the November elections, changes in NCLB and federal education policy can be expected.

“I do hope for more flexibility from the next administration regardless of who wins,” O’Connell said. “The current system is overly restrictive. It’s one-size-fits-all.”

Still, he strongly supported efforts to measure and improve academic achievement overall and among those student subgroups whose performance has lagged behind.

“Closing the achievement gap remains a moral and economic imperative,” O’Connell said.

Related links:

Read the state Department of Education’s APR announcement and find links to local scores @ http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr08/yr08rel115.asp.

Find state, LEA and school-level API, AYP, PI scores and more @ http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.