|
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -
August 31 2005
State API Results Show Gains, But Cannot Show Narrowing of the Achievement Gap for African-American, Latino and Low-Income Students
(Oakland, CA) – T oday, the California Department of Education released results showing the progress of California’s schools under both the state and federal accountability systems, the Academic Performance Index (API), and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). These two sets of results show very important, but different pictures of how California’s schools are faring.
First a brief analysis of today’s results:
The data released tell an important – and heartening – story, that overall API scores are improving. And more schools are meeting their schoolwide API growth targets, 81% this year up from 64% in 2004. What does that mean? That 81% of schools moved up 5% of the difference from where they were to the state’s goal of 800 on the API.
We also know that more schools improved in their median API scores, and that more schools are reaching 800. These data are encouraging. Eighty-one percent of the schools in California, for the most part, are improving.
The AYP data, on the other hand, reveal a more complete picture about California’s schools. The majority of schools (56%) met AYP. Yet, the percentages of schools making AYP have decreased from 65% in 2004, and we see this pattern at the elementary and middle grades:
-
40% of elementary schools didn’t make AYP, up from 25% in 2004;
-
61% of middle schools didn’t make AYP, up from 56% the year before.
More high schools are making AYP though, 56% made AYP in 2005, a slight increase from 53% last year.
The majority of schools in California serving large percentages of Latino and African American students also met their AYP targets for those groups of students:
Compared to:
-
99.6% of the schools with significant populations of White students (4,625 schools) made AYP for their White students.
-
92.9% of the schools with significant populations of Asian students (1,178 schools) made AYP for those kids.
Next, what does all this really mean?
More than anything, today’s data are incomplete. We don’t know whether any of the demographic groups in California’s schools are making their API growth targets. We won’t know that until October. And even then, we won’t know much about whether California schools are making progress toward closing the achievement gap. Why? Because of the inherent lower expectations for subgroups in the API system. API actually codifies low expectations into law. Rather than setting more ambitious targets for the groups that start the year behind, the API system does the opposite by expecting subgroups to reach just 80% of the improvement of the school’s overall goal. Besides that, so long as the API goal remains at 800 the goal isn’t proficiency. Proficient is equivalent to an API score of approximately 875. A goal of 800 is somewhere between Basic and Proficient.
Data showing that API scores are increasing is as important as it is informative. But remember that two weeks ago, the CDE released the STAR data which revealed that over half of all students in almost every grade level are performing at the basic or below basic levels in reading and math. Yet now, the API accountability system says just 19 percent of schools are not making their school-wide growth target. There is something dreadfully wrong with this picture.
What’s more, while CDE reported today that schools with large percentages of Latino, African-American, Asian and White students made AYP for selected groups. They do not tell us whether schools are making AYP for all groups of students as the law requires. We’ll have to a lot more digging to get that information.
Superintendent O’Connell pointed to the fact that there was a “dramatic escalation of AYP targets” when trying to explain the difference between API and AYP scores. What was the “dramatic escalation”? About 10%. And still, only 24.4% of subgroups have would have to be proficient in order to meet AYP in English, Language Arts and 26.5% of them would need to be proficient in mathematics to meet AYP. The targets are even lower for high schools, only 22.3% of students need to be proficient in English, Language Arts and 20.9% in math. In other words, the signaling device of AYP shines a spotlight on schools where more than approximately 75% of students in each subgroup aren’t meeting proficiency. We ought to know that critical information from our state accountability system, but API isn’t designed to reveal it.
Take for example, Joshua Hills Elementary School in Palmdale, California. Joshua Hills is 17% White, about 19% African-American and 57% Latino. About 55% of students at Joshua Hills are low-income. Joshua Hills successfully made progress under API; indeed it exceeded the schoolwide API growth target. But it did not make AYP. Why? Achievement gaps are growing -- looking at the percent proficient in fifth-grade reading in 2004 and sixth-grade results in 2005; we see that the gaps separating Latino students from their White peers grew by 5% points did not make AYP. Why? Achievement gaps are growing -- looking at the percent proficient in fifth-grade reading in 2004 and sixth-grade results in 2005; we see that the gaps separating Latino students from their White peers grew by 5% points.
Even though Latino students started out behind and even though Joshua Hills made less progress for these students, API credited the school with meeting its schoolwide goals. Despite the rewarded "growth" under API, White students are almost twice as likely to be proficient than Latino, African American and low-income students at Joshua Hills. Using API alone we wouldn't know this. Shouldn't we?
AYP reveals important truths about the performance of every California subgroup, and draws resources and public attention to groups that fly beneath API’s accountability radar. The truth is we needed an accountability system that gave the public a new lens to examine schools. Without the pressure of an accountability system that draws attention to achievement gaps and the groups of students trailing behind, the educational opportunities that research says matter most in education – and that poor students and students of color get the least of -- will continue to be implemented at a sluggish pace. This is an unfortunate characteristic of California education, surely -- but it is an undeniable characteristic nevertheless. That's why the nation's leading Democratic and Republican senators and congressman joined together to sign No Child Left Behind and AYP into law -- and why liberal stalwarts like Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and California's own Rep. George Miller still stand by the law to this day.
Today let us applaud improvement. But we must remember that some progress is not enough progress. And aggressive goals for all students are necessary if we're to see achievement gaps close in California for once and for all.
|
 |
Search this Site
|