dsib-amard-mar15item02
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 3

Recommendations from the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) Advisory
Committee for Using Multiple Measures and Release of the Next Accountability
Report
Overview
This update regarding the development of a new State Accountability System includes
two recommendations from the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) Advisory
Committee, which the State Board of Education (SBE) requested at the January 2015
SBE meeting. The Department is requesting that the SBE take action on both
recommendations.
Brief History
The Technical Design Group (TDG) and the PSAA Advisory Committee have been
working on implementing legislative changes which require, by 2016, that assessment
results comprise no more than 60 percent of a high school’s Academic Performance
Index (API). The remaining 40 percent must represent other areas of educational
importance, such as high school graduation data and college and career preparedness.
As a result, the TDG and PSAA Advisory Committee developed a methodology to
incorporate graduation data in the API, and have been working on developing a college
and career indicator (CCI). During this process, the Department held six regional
meetings and one Webcast, and conducted a statewide survey. These forums were
used to present and obtain feedback on the methodology for incorporating graduation
data in the API and to present and obtain feedback on a working model for the
development of the CCI. Approximately 500 people attended the regional meetings and
146 attendees provided public comment. The Department received 1,768 responses to
the statewide survey.
In July 2013, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was passed in the Budget Bill.
LCFF established state priorities for local educational agencies (LEAs) along with a
requirement for LEAs to develop local control accountability plans (LCAPs). These
plans are designed to inform parents/guardians and the community of the LEA’s
progress with implementing the state priorities. Because the LCAP requires the
reporting of multiple measures, it provides a more comprehensive picture of LEAs than
the current state and federal accountability systems.
With the establishment of state priorities and the LCAP, the SBE requested that the
TDG and the PSAA Advisory Committee provide recommendations for developing a
new state accountability system based on multiple measures rather than a single index.
In addition, the SBE requested a recommendation on the most appropriate timing for
the release of the next State accountability report.

 dsib-amard-mar15item02
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 3

Recommendation on Multiple Measures
At the February 3, 2015 PSAA Advisory Committee Meeting, the Committee approved
the TDG’s recommendation for developing a new state accountability system that
reports multiple measures in a way that allows comparability across schools and LEAs
for the following reasons:


Provides finer distinctions about student performance and progress across
various measures



Aligns with expectations that schools and LEAs are multi-dimensional



Aligns better with the LCAP requirements and the state priorities



Provides more focused information for parental, school and district decisionmaking



Groups “similar measures” together rather than combining items that are
conceptually different from each other



Provides more flexibility for designing an accountability system for alternative
schools



Provides more flexibility for allowing schools to show their contribution to student
achievement, especially given the types of schools throughout the state with
different missions



Enables a school to focus on individual student performance or achievement and
preparation for success rather than focusing on the collective student population

In the following months, the TDG and the PSAA Advisory Committee will finalize a
methodology for implementing a CCI as one component of a multiple measures
accountability system that aligns with the state priorities and the LCFF/LCAP. Once the
CCI has been developed, the TDG and PSAA Advisory Committee will explore the
development of an individual student-level growth model using the Smarter Balanced
assessments as another component of the multiple measures system.
The Department recommends that the SBE approve the PSAA Advisory Committee
recommendation to develop an accountability system using multiple measures in a way
that allows comparability across schools and LEAs, beginning with the development of a
CCI.
Because California Education Code Section 52052 requires the Department to produce
a single index, which includes a variety of indicators, legislation will be required to
implement an accountability system that reports multiple measures.

 dsib-amard-mar15item02
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 3

Recommendation on Release of the Next Accountability Report
Currently, there are a variety of new initiatives that must be considered in the
development of a new state accountability system, such as the: (1) recent revisions to
the LCAP template, (2) development of the LCFF evaluation rubrics, (3) establishment
of the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, and (4) administration of the
first operational Smarter Balanced assessments. In consideration of these initiatives,
the PSSA Advisory Committee members approved the TDG’s recommendation that the
earliest a new state accountability report could be released is fall of 2016 for the
following reasons:


Allows time for the development of a new State Accountability System in a
meaningful manner, including future results from the Smarter Balanced
assessments



Allows for the completion of LCFF evaluation rubrics, which can inform the new
accountability system



Allows for the use of two data points needed to incorporate a student-level
growth model into the new system



Allows time for the Department to perform data simulations using results from the
Smarter Balanced assessments and share the results and analyses with the
TDG
–

Similarly, this would also allow the TDG and the PSAA Advisory
Committee time to review, analyze, and make recommendations



Allows time to develop measures that are more appropriate for alternative
schools



Allows time to communicate and obtain feedback on the new State Accountability
System from LEAs, schools, parents/guardians, stakeholders, and the public

Assembly Bill (AB) 484 amended California Education Code (EC) sections 52052(e)(2)
(F) and 52052(e)(4) and authorizes the Superintendent, with the approval of the SBE, to
suspend the API for the 2013–14 and 2014–15 school years. Therefore, the Department
recommends that the SBE approve the suspension of the API for the 2014-15 school
year and the PSAA Advisory Committee’s recommendation that a new accountability
report be produced no earlier than the fall of 2016.
2-27-15 [California Department of Education]

 dsib-amard-mar15item02
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 1

Comparative Table of Current Versus Proposed New Accountability System
Current Accountability System
Reports/Scoring
Test scores:
Aggregated
Academic
 CST/CMA/CAPA in ELA, Grades 2-8
 CST/CMA/CAPA in Mathematics, Grades 2-8 Performance Index
 CST/CMA/CAPA in Science, Grades 5 and 8 (API)
 Base
 CST in History-Social Science, Grade 8
 Growth
 Assignment of 200, CST in Mathematics,
Grade 8
 CST/CAPA in ELA, Grades 9-11
 CST/CAPA in Mathematics, Grades 9-11
 CST in Science, Grades 9-11
 CST/CAPA in Life Science, Grade 10
 CST in History-Social Science, Grades 9-11
 CAHSEE ELA, Grades 10-12
 CAHSEE Mathematics, Grades 10-12
 Assignment of 200, CST in Mathematics,
Grades 9-11
 Assignment of 200, CST in Science, Grades
9-11
Components/Metrics

Proposed New Accountability System
Components/Metrics
Reports/Scoring
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) State
 Local Control and
priorities:
Accountability
Plans (LCAPs)
Conditions of Learning
 Evaluation
Basic (Priority 1)
Rubrics that
Implementation of State Standards (Priority 2)
reflect state and
Course Access (Priority 7)
local reference
points
Pupil Outcomes
 Data Dashboards
Pupil Achievement (Priority 4)
that are color
Other Pupil Outcomes (Priority 8)
coded to report
growth and
Engagement
progressive
Parental Involvement (Priority 3)
improvement on
Pupil Engagement (Priority 5)
multiple
School Climate (Priority 6)
measures
Other reports/scoring
Other components/metrics to be determined.
to be determined.


















Consequences for LEAs
Public Ranking/Comparisons
(suspended)
High Priority Schools Grant
Program (HPSG)
(suspended)
Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming
Schools Program (II/USP)
(suspended)
Replace principal, change
staff at schools, takeovers by
charters or other operators
Quality Education Investment
Act (QEIA) (final year 201415)
Williams Act
Open Enrollment List
Parent Empowerment
Charter Renewal and
Revocation
Consequences for LEAs
Technical Assistance by
County Office of Education
(COEs)
Referral to the California
Collaborative for Educational
Excellence (CCEE)
Peer to Peer Assistance
LEA self-selection of technical
assistance provider
Superintendent of Public
Instruction Intervention

Other consequences for LEAs to
be determined.

Note: California Standards Test = CST; California Modified Assessment = CMA; California Alternate
Performance Assessment = CAPA; California High School Exit Examination= CAHSEE. This table does
not provide an all-inclusive account of the current state accountability system and proposed new
accountability system and is intended for discussion purposes only.

2-27-15 [State Board of Education

 dsib-amard-marlSitemOZ
Attachment 4
Page 2 of 3