memo-dsib-iad-feb12item01

Page 1 of 2

California Department of Education
Executive Office
SBE-002 (REV. 01/2011) / memo-dsib-iad-feb12item01
memorandum
Date: / January 31, 2012
TO: / MEMBERS, State Board of Education
FROM: / TOM TORLAKSON, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
SUBJECT: / Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Review of Academic Achievement Progress of the 50 Local Educational Agencies in Cohort 2 of Program Improvement Year 3.

Summary of Key Issues

The California Department of Education (CDE) provides this Information Memorandum to support the State Board of Education (SBE) in its three-year review of progress of each of the 50 local educational agencies (LEAs) in Cohort 2 of PI Year 3.

California Education Code (EC) Section 52055.57(e) states that an LEA in Program Improvement (PI) Corrective Action Year 3 shall appear before the SBE to review the progress of the LEA if it has not exited PI within three years. Upon hearing testimony and reviewing written data, the Superintendent shall recommend, and the state board may approve, an alternative sanction under subdivision (c), or may take any appropriate action. (See Attachment 1)

In March 2011, the CDE presented an item to the SBE describing a proposed set of academic criteria to evaluate the academic achievement progress of LEAs identified for PI Year 3 Corrective Action. (See Attachment 2) At its May 2011 meeting, the SBE adopted these criteria and reviewed tables and data displays illustrating the academic achievement progress of each of the 92 LEAs in Cohort 1 of PI Year 3.

This Memorandum includes a review of the 50 LEAs in Cohort 2 of PI Year 3, using the same criteria and displays to report student academic achievement progress. (See Attachments 3–7) In addition, an analysis of API growth of each significant subgroup within each LEA in Cohort 2 of PI Year 3 is provided. (See Attachment 8)

The next review of progress as stipulated by California Education Code (EC) Section 52055.57(e) is due in 2013 for each LEA in Cohort 3 of PI Year 3. (See Attachment 9)

Attachments

Attachment 1:California Education Code sections 52055.57(c) and 52055.57(e)
(1 Page)

Attachment 2:Explanation of Academic Criteria Used in Reviewing the Progress of the Local Educational Agencies in Cohort 2 (2008–09) of Program Improvement (5 Pages)

Attachments (Cont.)

Attachment 3:Results of the Application of the Academic Criteria to the 50 Local Educational Agencies in Cohort 2 of Program Improvement Year 3
(2 Pages)

Attachment 4:Four-Quadrant Graph of the 2008–11 Change in Percent Proficient for English Language Arts and Mathematics (1 Page)

Attachment 5:Four-Quadrant Graph of the 2011 Growth in Academic Performance Index and the Difference in 2011 Academic Performance Index from the State Target of 800 (1 Page)

Attachment 6:Four-Quadrant Graph of the Weighted Relative Adequate Yearly Progress Performance and the Difference in 2011 Academic Performance Index from the State Target of 800 (1 Page)

Attachment 7:Plotted Quadrants of the 50 Local Educational Agencies in Cohort 2 of Program Improvement Year 3 (2 Pages)

Attachment 8:Academic Performance Index Subgroup Analysis of the 50 Local Educational Agencies in Cohort 2 of Program Improvement Year 3
(10 Pages)

Attachment 9:Summary of Local Educational Agencies in Program Improvement Year 3 Subject to Sanctions in Cohorts 1–5 and Three-Year Review Schedule of Local Educational Agencies in Program Improvement Year 3 Subject to Sanctions in Cohorts 1–5 (2 Pages)

5/11/2019 2:58 PM

memo-dsib-iad-feb12item01

Attachment 1

Page 1 of 1

California Education Code sections 52055.57(c) and 52055.57(e)

California Education Code (EC) Section 52055.57(c) A local educational agency that has been identified for corrective action under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 shall be subject to one or more of the following sanctions as recommended by the Superintendent and approved by the state board:

  1. Replacing local educational agency personnel who are relevant to the failure to make adequate yearly progress.
  1. Removing schools from the jurisdiction of the local educational agency and establishing alternative arrangements for the governance and supervision of those schools.
  1. Appointing, by the state board, a receiver or trustee, to administer the affairs of the local educational agency in place of the county superintendent of schools and the governing board.
  1. Abolishing or restructuring the local educational agency.
  1. Authorizing pupils to transfer from a school operated by the local educational agency to a higher performing school operated by another local educational agency, and providing those pupils with transportation to those schools, in conjunction with carrying out not less than one additional action described under this paragraph.
  1. Instituting and fully implementing a new curriculum that is based on state academic content and achievement standards, including providing appropriate professional development based on scientifically based research for all relevant staff, that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for high-priority pupils.
  1. Deferring programmatic funds or reducing administrative funds.

California EC Section 52055.57(e) A local educational agency that has received a sanction under subdivision (c) and has not exited program improvement under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 shall appear before the state board within three years to review the progress of the local educational agency. Upon hearing testimony and reviewing written data from the local educational agency, the district assistance and intervention team, or county superintendent of schools, the Superintendent shall recommend, and the state board may approve, an alternative sanction under subdivision (c), or may take any appropriate action.

5/11/2019 2:58 PM

memo-dsib-iad-feb12item01

Attachment 2

Page 1 of 5

Explanation of Academic Criteria Used in Reviewing the Progress of the

Local Educational Agencies in Cohort 2 (2008–09) of Program Improvement

The purpose of this analysis is to review the progress of the 50 local educational agencies (LEAs) identified for Program Improvement (PI) Year 3 in 2008–09. California Education Code (EC) Section 52055.57(e) requires that any LEA in corrective action that has not exited PI shall appear before the State Board of Education (SBE) within three years of being identified for PI Corrective Action to review its progress. Five variables were used to determine progress and the values obtained in each variable were ranked in order based on growth achieved. The following identifies, describes, and provides samples of the calculations for the five variables.

Five Variables Used to Evaluate LEAs’ Progress

  1. 2011 Growth in Academic Performance Index (API)
  1. Difference in API from State Target
  1. 2008–2011 Change in Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Percent Proficient in English/language arts (ELA)
  1. 2008–2011 Change in AYP Percent Proficient in Mathematics
  1. Weighted Relative AYP Performance

Variable 1: 2011 Growth in API

The API, which measures the LEA’s academic growth and performance, is a numeric scale, ranging from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. This variable measures the amount of API change from 2010 to 2011 by calculating the difference between the 2011 Growth API and the 2010 Base API.

Figure 1: Calculation of 2011 Growth in API for SAMPLE LEA

Subtract the LEA’s 2010 Base API from the 2011 Growth API.

(2011 Growth API) – (2010 Base API)

SAMPLE LEA:

679 – 643 = 36 (API Growth Achieved)

Variable 2: Difference in API from State Target

This variable is a comparison to the statewide API target of 800.

Figure 2: Calculation of Difference in API from State Target for SAMPLE LEA

Subtract the LEA’s 2011 Growth API from the State Target of 800.

(State Target 800) – (2011 Growth API)

SAMPLE LEA:

800 – 679 = 121 (Difference from State Target)

Variable 3: 2008–2011 Change in AYP Percent Proficient in ELA

Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), LEAs are required to meet or exceed four performance targets. One of these targets is the percent of students proficient, expressed as Annual Measurable Objectives. For the purposes of the analysis, this variable compares the difference made in ELA over the past three years, 2008–2011.

Figure 3: Calculation of 2008–2011 Change in AYP Percent Proficient in ELA

for SAMPLE LEA

Subtract the LEA’s 2011 ELA AYP Percent Proficient from the LEA’s 2008 ELA AYP Percent Proficient

(2011 LEA-wide ELA percent proficient) - (2008 LEA-wide ELA percent proficient)

SAMPLE LEA:

22.5 – 17.9 = 4.6 (Change in ELA AYP Percent Proficient)

Variable 4: 2008–2011 Change in AYP Percent Proficient in Mathematics

This variable is the exact replica of the above variable with the exception that achievement in mathematics is examined.

Figure 4: Calculation of 2008–2011 Change in AYP Percent Proficient in Mathematics for SAMPLE LEA

Subtract the LEA’s 2011 Mathematics AYP Percent Proficient from the

LEA’s 2008 Mathematics AYP Percent Proficient

(2011 LEA-wide Mathematics percent proficient) - (2008 LEA-wide Mathematics percent proficient)

SAMPLE LEA:

33.9 – 26.0 = 7.9 (Change in Mathematics AYP Percent Proficient)

Variable 5: Weighted Relative AYP Performance

The fifth variable of the index evaluates AYP performance across all of the percent proficient targets for student subgroups that were missed in the LEA. This variable represents a measure of the difference between actual performance and the statewide target for each subgroup that missed the percent proficient target. That difference is then weighted by the proportion of students in the LEA that are part of that subgroup. Participation rate targets and the graduation rate are not included in this measure. This variable of the index evaluates both the pervasiveness and severity of an LEA’s performance issues.

For purposes of this analysis, a value is calculated for each subgroup that missed a percent proficient target. This value is determined by subtracting the subgroup’s actual performance (percent proficient or above) from the statewide target. A second value is calculated by dividing the number of valid scores in each subgroup that missed the percent proficient target and by the total number of valid scores in the LEA. This indicates the proportion of students in the LEA that are part of the subgroup that missed the percent proficient target. The two values are then multiplied together and summed. Divide that figure by the highest value of any LEA in the group (96.63) to find the AYP performance value. To create a scale score for each LEA, the AYP performance value is multiplied by 100 and that figure is subtracted from 100. As a result, the more students who do not meet the percent proficient targets, the lower the scale score an LEA receives for this component.

The table below shows SAMPLE LEA where percent proficient targets were missed for six subgroups: African American students in ELA and mathematics, English learners in ELA and mathematics, and students with disabilities in ELA and mathematics. Figure 5 shows the calculation of the ELA portion of this component.

Illustration of Variable: AYP Performance and Proportion of Students
for SAMPLE LEA

English-language Arts
(Target = 67.0%) / Mathematics
(Target = 67.3%)
Subgroup / No. of Students / Proportion of Total / Percent Proficient or Above / No. of Students / Proportion of Total / Percent Proficient or Above
LEA-wide / 875 / 1.00 / 51.7% / 877 / 1.00 / 49.9%
African American / 502 / .57 / 39.2% / 505 / .58 / 36.1%
Asian / 187 / .21 / 68.3% / 186 / .21 / 71.1%
White / 186 / .21 / 69.7% / 186 / .21 / 69.3%
English Learners / 123 / .14 / 40.1% / 126 / .14 / 45.4%
Students with Disabilities / 62 / .07 / 24.9% / 65 / .07 / 25.1%

Figure 5: Calculation of AYP Performance for SAMPLE LEA

(1) For each subgroup that failed to make AYP, apply the following steps:

(a) Subtract the subgroup’s percent proficient from the statewide AYP target.

(b) Take the results attained in (a) and multiply it by the proportion of students in that subgroup that missed the percent proficient target.

(2) Add all numbers attained in 1(b).

(3) Compare the LEA-wide percent proficient values across all LEAs in PI Year 3 and identify the LEA that has the highest value.

(4) Divide the sum attained in Step 2 by the highest value (Step 3).

(5) Multiply the quotient (Step 4) by 100.

(6) Subtract the product (Step 5) from 100.

SAMPLE LEA: (English-language arts example)

(1)[((67.0% - 39.2%) x .57) + ((67.0% - 40.1%) x .14) + ((67.0% - 24.9%) x .07)]

96.63

(2)15.846 + 3.766 + 2.947 = 22.559 = 0.2335 (AYP Performance Value)

96.6396.63

(3)0.2335 x 100 = 23.35

(4)Subtract the final score from 100

100 – 23.35 = 76.65

Final Calculation

The values obtained in each variable described above were ranked from 1 (least progress achieved) to 50 (highest progress achieved). The ranks were added for each of the 50 LEAs for a final rank.

Figure 6: Summed Ranks for SAMPLE LEA

9 + 14 + 3 + 9.5 + 4 = 39.5

5/11/2019 2:58 PM

memo-dsib-iad-feb12item01

Attachment 4

Page 1 of 1

Four-Quadrant Graph of the 2008–11 Change in Percent Proficient for English Language Arts and Mathematics

1Upper left quadrant represents an LEA with a change in percent proficient in ELA below the state-level change, but a change in percent proficient in mathematics above the state-level change.

2Upper right quadrant represents an LEA with a change in percent proficient in ELA and mathematics above the state-level change.

3Lower left quadrant represents an LEA with a change in percent proficient in ELA and mathematics below the state-level change.

4Lower right quadrant represents an LEA with a change in percent proficient in ELA above the state-level change, but a change in percent proficient in mathematics below the state-level change.

5/11/2019 2:58:35 PM

memo-dsib-iad-feb12item01

Attachment 5

Page 1 of 1

Four-Quadrant Graph of the 2011 Growth in Academic Performance Index and the
Difference in 2011 Academic Performance Index from the State Target of 800

1Upper left quadrant represents an LEA with a 2011 growth in API below the state-level growth, but above the state API target of 800.

2Upper right quadrant represents an LEA with a 2011 growth in API above the state-level growth and above the state API target of 800.

3Lower left quadrant represents an LEA with a 2011 growth in API below the state-level growth and below the state API target of 800.

4Lower right quadrant represents an LEA with a 2011 growth in API above the state-level growth, but below the state API target of 800.

5/11/2019 2:58:35 PM

memo-dsib-iad-feb12item01

Attachment 6

Page 1 of 1

Four-Quadrant Graph of the Weighted Relative Adequate Yearly Progress Performance and the
Difference in 2011 Academic Performance Index from the State Target of 800

1Upper left quadrant represents an LEA with a relative AYP performance below the Cohort 2 mean, but a 2011 API performance above the state target of 800.

2Upper right quadrant represents an LEA with a relative AYP performance above the Cohort 2 mean and a 2011 API performance above the state target of 800.

3Lower left quadrant represents an LEA with a relative AYP performance below the Cohort 2 mean and a 2011 API performance below the state target of 800.

4Lower right quadrant represents an LEA with a relative AYP performance above the Cohort 2 mean, but a 2011 API performance below the state target of 800.

5/11/2019 2:58:35 PM

memo-dsib-iad-feb12item01

Attachment 9

Page 1 of 2

Summary of Local Educational Agencies in

Program Improvement Year 3 Subject to Sanctions in Cohorts 1–5

Cohort / Assigned / Intensive / Moderate / Light / Other / Total / Quarterly Reporting
1 / March 2008 / 6 / 36 / 41 / 6 / 89[1] / 7
2 / November 2008 / 1 / 25 / 24 / 0 / 50[2] / 1
3 / January 2010
March 2010 / 1 / 4 / 24 / 0 / 29[3] / 29
4 / March 2011 / 0 / 55 / 5 / 0 / 60[4] / 0
5 / November 2011 / 38 / 16 / 54[5] / 0
Total / 282[6]

5/11/2019 2:58:35 PM

[1] Oxnard Elementary is being counted as part of Cohort 2, Nevada Joint Union High exited PI in 2009, Romoland Elementary exited PI in 2010, West Fresno Elementary closed and merged with Washington Unified on July 1, 2011, Santa Barbara Elementary closed and merged with Santa Barbara Unified on July 2, 2011, and Castaic Union Elementary no longer accepts Title I funds and is not subject to sanctions.

[2] Bishop Union Elementary closed and merged with Bishop Unified, Adelanto Elementary PI Year 3 status was rescinded at the May 2009 SBE meeting, and Santa Rita Union Elementary was assigned CA 6 at the May 2009 SBE meeting.

[3] Chowchilla Union High was removed from Cohort 3 because their AYP appeal was approved, but was assigned CA 6 as part of Cohort 4.

[4] Pleasant View Elementary became a single school district and is treated as a school for PI purposes and Liberty Union High no longer accepts Title I funds and is not subject to sanctions.

[5] Mountain View Whisman no longer accepts Title I funds and is not subject to sanctions.

[6] 286 LEAs in PI Year 3 per 2011–12 LEA Status Data File (Revised 16-Sept-2011) located on the CDE Program Improvement Data Files Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/tidatafiles.asp. Total of 282 LEAs reflect the merged LEAs, West Fresno Elementary and Santa Barbara Elementary, and LEAs no longer accepting Title I funds, Liberty Union High and Mountain View Whisman; which are not subject to sanctions.