| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Understanding the Academic Performance Index (September 2009) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Components of the API Exceptions Calculating the API Setting growth targets Scores of subgroups Ranking the schools Improvement grants 2008-09 Update | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Academic Performance Index (API) measures the performance and growth of schools and districts based on the test scores of students in grades 2 through 12. The California Department of Education (CDE) calculates the API and disseminates the results directly to schools and districts. They are also posted on the CDE website here.
The API is a single number on a scale of 200 to 1,000 that indicates how well students in a school or district performed on the previous spring’s tests. An API is calculated for the whole school plus its “numerically significant subgroups,” including socioeconomically disadvantaged students and, English learners and students with disabilities. The system is on a two-year cycle that gives a "base" score for the first year and a "growth" score in the second year. The Base API, which is usually released in the spring (for example, 2009), comes from the previous spring's test scores (2008). The Growth API, released in September (2009), comes from 2009 spring test scores. The system was originally developed for and applied to individual school sites only. School districts received their first API scores in 2003 to meet the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. Individual schools have growth targets, but districts do not. API scores for schools of the same type (elementary, middle, and high) are ranked into "deciles," with 1 as the lowest and 10 as the highest. Schools have two rankings: (1) a statewide ranking that compares each school to all other schools in the state of the same type, and (2) a Similar Schools ranking that compares each school with 100 others that have similar student populations and other characteristics. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Components of the API | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The API is calculated using results of the STAR (Standardized Testing and Reporting) program and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). The Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) stated that the Academic Performance Index should include multiple indicators. Criteria other than test scores—such as school staff attendance and graduation rates—were supposed to be added. So far the state has only used test score results.
In 2008-09, STAR consisted of five types of tests, but not all of them were used in the API. The five tests include the California Standards Tests (CSTs) which examine students' proficiency on academic content standards in a variety of subjects. STAR also includes the California Alternative Performance Assessment (CAPA) for students with severe cognitive disabilities, the California Modified Assessment (CMA) for students for whom the CAPA and CSTs are not appropriate, and two tests (Aprenda 3 and Standards-based Tests in Spanish) taken by certain Spanish-speaking English learner students. Neither of the two Spanish tests are part of the API calculation, but the rest are. The weight that each of these tests takes on in a school's API score varies depending on several factors, but the CSTs generally play the lead role. (See "Calculating the API," below.) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Exceptions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The test scores for students who were not continuously enrolled in a school since October of the school year are not counted in the school's API. Special Education students who are exempted and students whose parents requested that they not be tested are also not counted. Small schools with 11 to 99 students have an API score; however, a score calculated from such a low number of students is considered statistically less reliable.
Smaller schools with fewer than 11 valid test scores and those that serve mostly high-risk students, such as continuation schools, participate in the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM), which is a different way to measure student performance. ASAM schools receive an API but have no rankings, growth targets, or reported demographic characteristics. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Calculating the API | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Academic Performance Index assigns one number to a school on a scale of 200 to 1,000, with 800 as the goal. The first step in calculating the API is to divide a school's individual student scores into five performance bands. The performance bands for California Standards Test (CST) results are labeled advanced, proficient, basic, below basic and far below basic.
The next step is to apply weights to the percent of students with scores in each performance band (least weight for the lowest bands). These are summed to give a value for the subject. Then each subject area and test is given a weight within the index. The weights depend on which tests are given to each grade in each school. For example, a high school’s Base API includes CAHSEE results. (For a summary of the weighting, click here; full details are at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/infoguide09.pdf.) The Base API scores vary school by school, depending on students’ grade levels and the number of students tested. The calculation also depends on the number of valid test scores at the school. Finally, the resulting scores are added to become one number for each school—its API. A school district's API is the sum total of all the student (not school) scores. A caveat: Although the API is meant as a measure of academic growth, it is not intended to track the school’s growth over several years. The meaningful comparison is within each annual API cycle, between the Base API and the Growth API, because the computation of the API is kept as similar as possible within each cycle. The incorporation of new elements into the index at the beginning of an API base/growth cycle can lead to unintentional or confusing fluctuations in API scores compared to scores from the previous cycle. The state adjusts API scores to compensate for the effect of those new elements. The mechanism for that technical adjustment is called the scale calibration factor. Even so, the CDE warns against tracking the scores year to year. A better comparison is to look at whether a school or district consistently meets its growth targets or to consider the amount of growth year to year. Even within a cycle, the kids represented in each year are different. For example, in a K-6 school, you have a group of 2nd-6th graders present in year one, but in year two the 2nd graders are new and the 6th graders from year one are gone. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Setting growth targets | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The State Board of Education set the statewide API target at 800 out of a possible 1,000. The Public Schools Accountability Act calls for schools to improve their performance each year by 5% of the difference between their API and the statewide target of 800, with a minimum target of five points’ growth. For example, a school with an API of 340 would have a growth target of 23. A school with an API between 691 and 795 would need to gain five points. A school with an API between 796 and 799 would have a growth target of the difference between its API and 800. A school that is at or above 800 is expected to stay above that threshold. ASAM schools, special education centers, and schools without valid Base API scores have no growth targets.
A school's Base API score plus its growth target becomes that school's goal for its next Growth API. The process repeats each year. In 1998-99, the first year of the API program, 13% of elementary schools, 11% of middle schools, and 5% of high schools reached or exceeded 800 on the Growth API. In most years since then, the percentages have edged upwards. In 2009, 48% of elementary schools, 36% of middle schools, and 21% of high schools scored at least 800 points on the Growth API.
Note: Table excludes schools in the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM), special education schools, and schools with fewer than 100 valid scores. When the Growth API is calculated, a school gets more credit for improvements at the bottom of the performance range than the top, creating an incentive for schools to focus on their lowest performing students.School districts do not receive API scores under the Public Schools Accountability Act. However, to comply with the state's NCLB plan, API has been added as an additional criterion for school districts. The district Growth API, for 2008-09, must be at least 650 or one point above the Base API. For each subsequent year the required Growth API score for NCLB will increase by 30 points until it reaches 800 in 2013-2014. Under NCLB, API scores are also given to county offices of education when they operate schools directly. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Scores of subgroups | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Each school's "numerically significant" subgroups of ethnic, socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) students, English learners, and students with disabilities must show the same improvement in performance. (SED is defined as students on the free/reduced price lunch program or those whose parents did not receive a high school diploma. The seven ethnic subgroups are Black/African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Filipino, Hispanic or Latino, Pacific Islander, and White not Hispanic.) To be significant, a subgroup must have at least 100 students with valid test scores or be 15% of the school's tested enrollment with at least 50 students.
The API growth target for each significant subgroup used to be 80% of the school's growth target (or one point growth in each subgroup score if the school's API was 800 or more). Since these targets did not address the need to narrow the achievement gap between the traditionally higher and lower performing subgroups, beginning in 2006 all subgroups must meet the school’s growth target of 5% of the difference between its API and 800, or a minimum of 5 points. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ranking the schools | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Schools are ranked in two ways: (1) statewide according to type and (2) compared to 100 schools with similar characteristics. These rankings are contained in the Base API reports but not in the Growth API reports.
For the statewide ranking, the API scores are divided into 10 equal groups (deciles) for elementary, middle, and high schools. For each type of school, 10% of the schools are placed in each decile group; the groups are numbered from 1 (the lowest) to 10 (the highest). A school's statewide rank is the decile into which it falls. Schools with 1 to 99 test scores are grouped with the others according to grades served, but small schools' scores are not used to calculate rankings. School districts and ASAM schools are also not ranked. The PSAA also set up a mechanism for comparing a school to its peers based on the challenges they face because of student background and some school characteristics. To prepare the Similar Schools list, a school characteristics index (SCI) is computed for schools of each type (elementary, middle, and high). Initially, those components included student ethnicity, student mobility, average class size, free/reduced-price meals, parent education level, percent of English learners, percent of teachers who are fully credentialed or on emergency permits, and multi-track year-round calendar. In response to concerns that schools designated as similar really were very different demographically, in 2006 the State Board of Education added six additional variables to the Similar Schools calculation. These include grade span enrollments, percent of students in the gifted and talented education program (GATE), percent of students with disabilities, percent of reclassified fluent-English-proficient (RFEP) students, percent of migrant education students, and percent of students in reduced class sizes for a full day. Schools of the same type are listed in order of their SCIs. For a given school, 50 schools with an SCI immediately above and 50 immediately below the school are selected as the group for comparison. The 100 schools are then sorted by their API scores, divided into 10 groups (deciles), and marked from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest). The school's Similar School Rank is the decile in which it falls (which may be different from its statewide API decile ranking). ASAM and small schools with 11 to 99 valid scores do not get a Similar Schools Rank. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Improvement grants | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since California first enacted the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) in 1999, the state has experimented with various approaches to interventions. The original PSAA included a voluntary intervention program called Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP). It was designed for schools in the lower half of the API rankings that had not met their API growth targets.
In 2001, lawmakers established another intervention program—the High Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP)—which focused on schools in the bottom 10% of the API rankings. Similar to the II/USP in expecting improved performance, this new program was more specific about schools’ and districts’ responsibilities to provide basic inputs, such as textbooks and credentialed teachers. The research firm hired to evaluate the II/USP and HPSGP found that both programs had little effect on schools’ test scores. Although a few schools still technically participate in HPSGP, California has shifted its attention to yet another intervention program, “Program Improvement,” based on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), created by the enactment of NCLB in 2002. An intervention program based on the API still remains, however. In 2006, the state created a $2.7 billion, seven-year intervention program as part of a settlement of a lawsuit over funding for K–12 schools and community colleges. Fully implemented in 2008–09, the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) focuses on participating schools with API scores in the lowest two deciles. Participating schools must meet annual benchmarks for ratio of pupils to teachers and counselors, teacher qualifications and experience, and API growth targets. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2008-09 Update | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In May 2009 the CDE released the Base API results as part of the 2008 Accountability Progress Report (APR). The APR covers the state's API system and the federal accountability system, AYP with Program Improvement. The 2009 Growth API was released in September 2009.
This year, some aspects of the Base API calculation changed. In 2008, the state administered a new assessment, the California Modified Assessment (CMA), to some students with disabilities in grades three through five. This new assessment now counts toward their school's Base API score. The Base API was adjusted for schools that will administer the CMA in grades six through eight in spring 2009, because those results were not included in the 2009 Growth API released in September 2009. The adjustment allows for greater comparability between 2008 Base API and 2009 Growth API. Finally, in 2008 legislators chose to eliminate the norm-referenced test, the CAT/6, for the 2008-09 school year. The 2007-08 CAT/6 scores were removed from the 2008 Base API so it would be comparable with the 2009 Growth API. The testing program changes every year. As more indicators of student performance are developed or are determined to meet technical specifications, they may be added to the API. Other components may change to meet the accountability requirements under the federal NCLB law. The evolving criteria for the API may affect how schools analyze and adapt their efforts to improve student performance in the future. For further information, see:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Education Data Partnership
Comments to ed-data@cde.ca.gov.
Questions about the data files?
All contents copyright © 2010, Education Data Partnership.
All rights reserved. Revised February 09, 2010.
URL: http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us
