California Department of Education
Executive Office
SBE-003 (REV. 09/2011)
dsib-amard-sep16item01

ITEM #01

CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
SEPTEMBER 2016 AGENDA
SUBJECT
Developing an Integrated Local, State, and Federal
Accountability and Continuous Improvement System: Adoption of
the Local Control Funding Formula Evaluation Rubrics; and
Update on Local Control and Accountability Plan and Annual
Update Template Revisions and Progress on the Every Student
Succeeds Act State Plan.

Action
Information
Public Hearing

SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE(S)

California’s new accountability and continuous improvement system will build on the
foundations of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).
Passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in 2013, LCFF significantly
changed how California provides resources to public schools and holds local
educational agencies (LEAs) accountable for improving student performance. That law
includes eight priority areas for school districts and charter schools (ten priority areas for
county offices of education) that define a quality education more broadly than a single
test score and requires that the accountability system consider all LCFF priority areas.
Under LCFF, LEAs receive base funding for each student they serve with additional
funding provided for each high needs student – defined as low income students, English
learners, and foster youth. LCFF increases local control over spending decisions while
requiring LEAs to adopt and annually update local accountability plans, known as Local
Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs), developed with stakeholder input, that
address all LCFF priority areas.
Additionally, the State Board of Education (SBE) is required to develop an accountability
tool, known as evaluation rubrics, that includes state and local performance standards
for all LCFF priorities and that assists LEAs in identifying strengths, weaknesses, and
areas in need of improvement for LEAs and schools. The evaluation rubrics must also
identify a process for using the performance standards to identify LEAs in need of
additional assistance or intervention, which are defined in statute. By statute, the SBE
must adopt the evaluation rubrics by October 1, 2016.
By reporting performance on multiple measures that impact student performance across
the LCFF priorities, the new accountability system provides a more complete picture of
what contributes to a positive educational experience for students. It also promotes
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Page 2 of 7

equity by clearly identifying for school leaders, stakeholders, and the public any
indicators where there are disparities among student groups. For LEAs and schools in
need of additional assistance or intervention, the more complete picture of performance
also helps ensure that the additional resources and supports are focused on the areas
where they are most needed and most likely to improve student outcomes.
This item is the tenth in a series of regular updates on California’s progress towards
transitioning to an integrated local, state, and federal accountability and continuous
improvement system based on multiple measures, as defined by the LCFF. The
purpose of this item is to present the SBE with recommendations to adopt the LCFF
evaluation rubrics by the statutory deadline of October 1, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommend that the SBE take the following action:
1. Adopt the LCFF evaluation rubrics with the following components:
a. The concise set of state indicators and local performance indicators
approved at the May and July 2016 State Board of Education meetings.
b. Performance standards for the state indicators and local performance
indicators based on the methodologies approved at the May 2016 State
Board of Education meeting and July 2016 State Board of Education
meeting, respectively.
c. Criteria for determining local educational agency eligibility for technical
assistance and intervention under the LCFF statutes based on the
performance standards for the state indicators and local performance
indicators.
d. Statements of Model Practices, with the content to be finalized at a future
date.
e. Links to external resources, with the content to be finalized at a future
date.
2. Approve:
a. The proposed performance standards, based on the approved
methodology to establish cut-scores and performance categories, for the
following state indicators:
i. Progress of English learners toward English proficiency based on
the English learner indicator (Priority 4)
ii. High school graduation rate (Priority 5)
iii. College/Career Indicator, which combines Grade 11 test scores on
English Language Arts and Math and other measures of college
and career readiness (Priorities 7 and 8)
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Page 3 of 7

iv. Suspension rates by LEA type (elementary, high, and unified), and
by school type (elementary, middle, and high) (Priority 6)
b. The proposed standards for the local performance indicators:
i. Appropriately Assigned Teachers, Access to Curriculum-Aligned
Instructional Materials, and Safe, Clean and Functional School
Facilities (Priority 1),
ii. Implementation of State Academic Standards (Priority 2)
iii. Parent Engagement (Priority 3)
iv. Local Climate Surveys (Priority 6)
v. Coordination of Services for Expelled Students (Priority 9 – County
Office of Education Only)
vi. Coordination of Services for Foster Youth (Priority 10 – County
Office of Education Only)
c. The proposed criteria to determine local educational agency eligibility for
technical assistance and intervention under the LCFF statutes.
3. Direct CDE staff to develop a recommendation for the November 2016 SBE
meeting on proposed performance standards, based on the approved
methodology to establish cut-scores and performance categories, for the state
indicator for student test scores on English Language Arts and Math for grades
3–8, that includes results from the second year of Smarter Balanced tests.
4. Direct CDE staff to complete further development work on the College/Career
Indicator, including student course-taking information, and options to measure
access to a broad course of study (Priority 7) as a state indicator, for the next
phase of the evaluation rubrics.
5. Direct CDE staff to further develop the content for the statements of model
practices and links to external resources so those components can be
incorporated into the web-based user interface in the future.
6. Approve the proposed annual process for the SBE to review the evaluation
rubrics to determine whether newly available data and/or research support the
inclusion of a new state or local performance indicator or substituting such an
indicator for an existing indicator.
BRIEF HISTORY OF KEY ISSUES

Education Code Section 52064.5 identifies three statutory purposes for the LCFF
evaluation rubrics: to support LEAs in identifying strengths, weaknesses and areas for
improvement; to assist in determining whether LEAs are eligible for technical
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Page 4 of 7

assistance; and to assist the Superintendent of Public Instruction in determining
whether LEAs are eligible for more intensive state support/intervention.
Given the central role of the evaluation rubrics in the emerging local, state and federal
accountability and continuous improvement system, it is also important to ensure that
students, parents, and other stakeholders and the public can access information on
LEA- or school-level performance. Staff recommend that the SBE adopt the initial
phase of the LCFF evaluation rubrics at its September 2016 meeting and anticipate that
the initial phase of the rubrics will evolve through the first couple of years of
implementation.
Attachment 1 presents an overview of the LCFF evaluation rubrics design and the
system components, as well as the web-based user interface. This attachment expands
upon the initial design approved by the SBE at the May and July 2016 meetings.
Attachment 2 provides a summary of the performance standards for the state indicators
based on the approved methodology to establish cut points and performance
categories. This attachment provides the updated analyses for the Graduation Rate,
Suspension Rate, Academic Achievement, College/Career, and English Learner
Indicators, and an update on when state-level data for Chronic Absence Indicator will be
available.
Attachment 3 recommends performance standards for the local performance indicators
to reflect the state priorities not currently addressed by the state indicators (e.g.,
Implementation of State Academic Content Standards – Priority 2). The SBE approved
the methodology to establish these standards at the July 2016 meeting. This attachment
provides an overview of the final recommended standards and describes the next steps
in finalizing how LEAs will measure local performance relative to these standards.
Attachment 4 describes the proposal to determine LEA eligibility for technical assistance
and intervention under LCFF. This attachment expands upon an August 2016
information memorandum (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbeaug16item02.doc) that presents an overview of a proposed approach for providing
support to LEAs and schools.
Attachment 5 describes the timeline of developmental activities to support the Local
Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) template, LCFF evaluation rubrics, and ESSA
State Plan over the course of the upcoming calendar year. A draft version of the timeline
and process to review the local and state indicators is included in an August 2016
Information Memorandum (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbeaug16item01.doc). An updated version of the timeline is presented in Attachment 5 and
incorporates the recent changes in the schedule to revise the LCAP template
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-exec-lasso-aug16item01.doc). The
timeline now reflects the additional activities and clarifies the opportunities for robust
stakeholder input as the accountability and continuous improvement system evolves.
Attachment 6 contains Education Code (EC) sections referencing the LCFF.
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Page 5 of 7

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
In August 2016, the SBE received the following information memoranda:
 An update on developing the new accountability and continuous improvement
system draft timeline (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbeaug16item01.doc)
 A framework for supporting local educational agencies and schools
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-aug16item02.doc)
 An overview of the college/career indicator structure and proposed measures
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amardaug16item01.doc)
 Proposed percentile cut scores for state indicators
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amardaug16item02.doc)

In July 2016, the SBE approved a design for the LCFF evaluation rubrics that includes:
a measure of college/career readiness; a methodology for establishing standards for the
LCFF priorities that are not addressed by the state indicators; the inclusion of standard
for the use of school climate surveys to support a broader assessment on school
climate (Priority 6); the inclusion of an equity report; and directed staff to develop an
updated timeline (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/jul16item02.doc).
In June 2016, the SBE received the following information memoranda:
 A summary of the decisions on accountability and continuous improvement that
were approved at the May 2016 meeting
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-jun16item01.doc)
 Draft statements of model practices
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-jun16item02.doc)
 Process to identify options for school climate surveys and a composite measure
of English learner proficiency (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memodsib-amard-jun16item02.doc)
In May 2016, the SBE approved a design for the LCFF evaluation rubrics that includes:
a set of state indicators; a methodology for calculating performance as a combination of
status and change for the state indicators in order to differentiate performance at the
LEA and school levels, and for student groups; a component that supports the use of
local data; and concepts for a top-level display. The SBE also directed staff to prepare a
recommendation for the July 2016 Board meeting for establishing standards for the
LCFF priorities that are not addressed by the state indicators and options for
incorporating college and career readiness, local climate surveys, and an English
learner composite into the overall LCFF evaluation rubrics design
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/may16item02revised.doc).
In April 2016, the SBE received the following information memoranda:
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Page 6 of 7






A summary of the decisions on accountability and continuous improvement that
were approved at the March 2016 meeting
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-amard-apr16item01.doc)
Further analysis on potential key indicators
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amard-apr16item02.doc)
Additional analysis on the graduation rate to inform the methodology to set
standards for performance and expectations for improvement
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amard-apr16item04.doc)
LCAP template revisions (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memoexec-lasso-apr16item01.doc)

In March 2016, the SBE reviewed the proposed architecture of the single, coherent
accountability and continuous improvement system and options for developing a
concise set of state indicators for accountability and continuous improvement purposes.
The SBE took action to direct staff to proceed with further analysis and design work to
develop a complete draft of the LCFF evaluation rubrics prototype
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/mar16item23.doc).
In February 2016, the SBE received a series of information memoranda on the following
topics:
 Updated timeline that details the proposed transition to the new accountability
and continuous improvement system
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-feb16item01.doc).
 Common terminology and definition of terms used to describe the proposed
architecture for the new accountability and continuous improvement system
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-feb16item02.doc).
 Draft architecture that clarifies how the pieces of the emerging, integrated
accountability system will fit together
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-feb16item03.doc).
 Further analysis on the graduation rate indicator to illustrate potential standards
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-feb16item04.doc).
 Options for key indicators that satisfy the requirements of the LCFF and ESSA
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-feb16item05.doc).
 Overview of student-level growth models for Smarter Balanced summative
assessment results (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsibamard-feb16item01.doc).
 Review of college and career indicator (CCI) options
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amardfeb16item02.doc).
FISCAL ANALYSIS (AS APPROPRIATE)

The 2016-17 state budget includes $71.9 billion in the Proposition 98 Guarantee. This
includes an increase of more than $2.9 billion to support the continued implementation
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Page 7 of 7

of LCFF and builds upon the investment of more than $12.8 billion provided over the
last three years. This increase will bring the formula to 96 percent of full implementation.
ATTACHMENT(S)

Attachment 1: Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula Evaluation Rubrics and
Overview of Proposed Design Elements for the Web-Based User
Interface for the Initial Phase of Implementation (3 Pages)
Attachment 2: Proposed Standards for Graduation Rate, Scores on the California
Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, Suspension Rates,
Progress of English Learners Toward English Proficiency, and
College/Career Readiness (6 Pages)
Attachment 3: Proposed Standards for the Local Performance Indicators (6 Pages)
Attachment 4: Proposed Criteria for LEA Eligibility for Technical Assistance and
Intensive Intervention under LCFF (4 Pages)
Attachment 5: Draft Timeline for the Integrated, Local, State, and Federal Accountability
and Continuous Improvement System, Including Outreach with
Stakeholders (10 Pages)
Attachment 6: California Education Code Sections 52064.5, 47607.3, 52071, 52071.5,
52072, 52072.5, 52060, 52066, 52064, and 52052 (15 Pages)

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 3

Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula Evaluation Rubrics and Overview
of Proposed Design Elements for the Web-Based User Interface for the Initial
Phase of Implementation
Education Code Section 52064.5 identifies three statutory purposes for the Local
Control Funding Formula (LCFF) evaluation rubrics: to support local educational
agencies (LEAs) in identifying strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement; to
assist in determining whether LEAs are in need of technical assistance; and to assist
the Superintendent of Public Instruction in determining whether LEAs are eligible for
more intensive intervention.
The State Board of Education (SBE) took action at the May and July 2016 meetings to
approve initial design elements for the evaluation rubrics and to specify elements that
will be included in the web-based user interface for the evaluation rubrics.
Key Issues and Recommendation
Evaluation Rubrics Components. The evaluation rubrics include the following
components:
 A concise set of state indicators and local performance indicators that reflect
performance on the LCFF priorities;
 Performance standards for the state indicators and local performance indicators
based on the methodologies approved at the May 2016 SBE meeting and July
2016 SBE meeting, respectively. This information will assist LEAs and schools in
identifying their strengths, weaknesses, and areas in need of improvement.
 Criteria for determining LEA eligibility for technical assistance or intervention
under the LCFF statutes, based on performance on the state indicators and local
performance indicators.
 Statements of model practices, which are qualitative descriptions of researchsupported and evidence-based practices related to the indicators, and links to
external resources. These optional resources will allow LEAs to access
information about research-supported and evidence-based practices related to
the indicators that may be helpful to LEAs in their analysis of progress.
Attachments 2 and 3 provide more detail on the state indicators and local performance
indicators and recommended performance standards. The content for the statements of
model practices and links to external resources will be finalized at a later date.
Staff recommend that the SBE adopt the evaluation rubrics, with the components
identified above.
Staff also recommend that the SBE direct California Department of Education (CDE)
staff to further develop the content for the statements of model practices and links to
external resources so those components can be incorporated into the web-based user
interface in the future.
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 3

Web-Based User Interface. The web-based user interface will include a series of
displays and reports to present the information contained in the evaluation rubrics.
Specifically, the web-based user interface will include, at a minimum:
 A top-level summary data display for LEAs and schools that shows performance
in all LCFF priority areas and includes an equity report that further identifies the
instances where any student group is in the two lowest performance categories
for the state indicators (currently Red or Orange);
 A series of standard reports to display the relationship between state and local
indicators;
 A component that supports the analysis of local data, including the local
performance indicators;
 Statements of model practices, with the content to be finalized at a future date;
and
 Links to external resources, with the content to be finalized at a future date.
Additional details on these components of the web-based user interface are included in
the accompanying Appendix.
WestEd, on behalf of CDE and SBE staff, presented a webinar for stakeholders on
preliminary design features for the web-based user interface on August 26th. The
webinar introduced top-level display examples, design elements for the equity report,
and expanded report options to present the relationship between state and local
indicators. Participants provided feedback using a live poll-question option and
submitting written comments. The initial design features were reviewed with members
from the policy input stakeholder group and the User Acceptance Testing (UAT) group.
This feedback will inform the design of the web-based user interface and will be
summarized in a forthcoming information memorandum.
At the September SBE meeting, staff will walk through an example of a top-level display
for the web-based user interface and how this display could link to additional information
through the equity report. The example will also present design concepts for the
standard reports to be included in the evaluation rubrics. Following the SBE’s adoption
of the evaluation rubrics, staff will complete further development work on the user
interface, including consultation with stakeholders and user testing, so the web-based
tool will be available for users during the 2016-17 year.

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 3

Appendix. Components of the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics Web-Based User
Interface
Top-Level Summary Data Display: This display will provide a summary report for use
by LEAs, schools, and their stakeholders showing performance relative to the standards
established for all LCFF Priorities. It will prominently reflect equity by showing areas
where there are significant disparities in performance for any student groups on state
indicators. Within the web-based system, this will likely be a main “landing page” for
each LEA and school.
Data Analysis Tool: The user interface will allow users to access more detailed data
reports that include both state and local indicators.
 State collected data will be prepopulated, if available.
 The tool will also support the upload of local data using standardized file formats.
This will allow local upload of data for indicators with standard definitions, but
where the data is locally held, as well as inclusion of locally determined indicators
that an LEA may add to align with its LCAP goals.
 The local data upload will also support LEAs in measuring their progress on local
performance indicators, as explained in greater detail in Attachment 3.
Statements of Model Practices: The user interface will also include the content from
the statements of model practices.
 Statements of model practices are qualitative statements describing examples of
effective practices and processes for LEAs to consider and compare to existing
practices and processes in place. Use of the statements of model practices is
optional and may be helpful to LEAs in their analysis of progress.
 The statements of model practice will be organized to correspond to the
organization of the indicators in the data analysis tool.
Links to External Resources: The user interface will also include links to existing
resources and sources of expert assistance (e.g., CDE digital library, CDE LCFF
Resources webpage, Collaboration in Common, the website for the California
Collaborative for Educational Excellence, and research-based resources identified by
stakeholders).
 These links connect users to more detailed information about implementing
specific programs or services that align with the statements of model practices.
 The links would be organized by indicators as optional resources for use by LEAs
and will also be accessible to local stakeholders.
 This component of the evaluation rubrics could evolve over time, for example,
directing users to a centralized clearinghouse of successful local practices,
information about local or regional networks, etc.

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 6

Standards for Graduation Rate, Scores on the California Assessment of Student
Performance and Progress, Suspension Rates, Progress of English Learners
Toward English Proficiency, and College/Career Readiness
At the July 2016 State Board of Education (SBE) meeting, the Board reviewed proposed
performance standards for the state indicators based on the approved methodology.
That methodology uses equally weighted percentile cut scores for status and change to
determine a performance category for each state indicator. These determinations apply
to all local educational agencies (LEAs), including charter schools and county offices of
education, and to individual school sites and presents performance data disaggregated
by student groups.
This performance data will assist LEAs in local improvement efforts, in conjunction with
the annual Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Annual Update process,
by providing clear and transparent information for decision makers and stakeholders.
The performance categories will assist county superintendents, the Superintendent of
Public Instruction/California Department of Education (CDE) and/or the California
Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) in determining which LEAs and
schools are eligible for assistance, support, and more intensive state intervention as
provided under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and the federal Every
Student Succeeds Act.
Staff recommend that the SBE take the following action at the September 2016 Board
meeting:
 Adopt the performance standards recommended in this Attachment for the four
state indicators with data currently available;
 Direct staff to develop a recommendation for the November 2016 SBE meeting
on proposed performance standards, based on the approved methodology to
establish cut-scores and performance categories, for the academic indicator for
student test scores on English Language Arts and Math for grades 3–8, that
includes results from the second year of Smarter Balanced tests; and
 Direct CDE staff to complete further development work on the College/Career
Indicator, including student course-taking information, and options to measure
access to a broad course of study (Priority 7) as a state indicator, for the next
phase of the evaluation rubrics.
State Indicators
Based on the SBE’s actions at its May and July 2016 meeting, the evaluation rubrics
design currently includes the following state indicators, which apply at the LEA and
school level:
 an academic indicator based on student test scores on English Language Arts
(ELA) and Math for grades 3–8, including a measure of individual student growth,
when feasible, and results on the Next Generation Science Standards
assessment, when available;
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 6







a college and career indicator, which combines Grade 11 test scores on ELA and
Math and other measures of college and career readiness;
an English learner indicator that measures progress of English learners toward
English language proficiency and incorporates data on reclassification rates;
a high school graduation rate indicator;
a chronic absence indicator, when available; and
an indicator for suspension rates by grade span.

Based on data that is currently available, staff recommend that the SBE adopt
performance categories for the following state indicators to be included in the initial
phase of the LCFF evaluation rubrics:
 Progress of English learners toward English proficiency based on the English
learner indicator,
 High school graduation rate,
 College/Career Indicator (CCI), which combines Grade 11 test scores on ELA
and mathematics and other measures of college and career readiness.
 Suspension rates by LEA type (elementary, high, and unified), and by school type
(elementary, middle, and high).
Additionally, as explained below, staff intend to present a recommendation for the
November 2016 SBE meeting proposed performance standards for the academic
indicator, based on results from second year of Smarter Balanced Summative
Assessment scores.
Proposed Performance Categories for State Indicators
The CDE presented the recommended “Status” and “Change” cut scores for each state
indicator, based on currently available data, along with the designated performance
categories, to the California Practitioners Advisory Group (CPAG) in June 2016. The
CPAG was supportive of the recommended cut scores and the approach to calculating
“Status” and “Change.”
As indicated in the August Information Memoranda on the proposed cut scores
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amard-aug16item02.doc),
additions or adjustments to the indicators and cut scores occurred after the June 2016
CPAG meeting. As a result, the CPAG did not have an opportunity to provide feedback
to the additions/changes for three indicators: (1) LEA Suspension Rate, (2) LEA
Academic, and (3) College/Career. Changes to these indicators since the June 2016
CPAG meeting are addressed in the summaries below.
Academic Indicator for ELA and Mathematics
At the July 2016 SBE meeting, the SBE approved using the College/Career Indicator
(CCI), which includes the grade-eleven assessment results, as a state indicator, and
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 2
Page 3 of 6

modifying the academic indicator to remove grade-eleven assessment results. CDE
staff removed the grade-eleven assessment results from the LEA Academic Indicator
distributions and proposed new cut scores for “Status” and “Change”. (ELA and
mathematics cut scores are in Attachment 3 of the August Information Memorandum for
Proposed Cut Scores.)
As noted in the August Memorandum, only one year of Smarter Balanced Summative
Assessment results were available when the CDE completed the Academic Indicator
analyses for grades 3–8. As a result, it was not possible to establish cut points for
“Change,” so the CDE set the recommended performance levels based only on the
“Status” levels for the 2015 assessment results.
The CDE is currently analyzing the new assessment results, for the second year of
Smarter Balanced results released earlier this month. The analysis incorporates the
new information and the proposed performance levels based on “Status” for the 2016
assessment results and “Change” from the 2015 assessment results. The CDE will
present this updated analysis and proposed performance categories at the November
2016 SBE meeting.
Rather than approving the performance standards for this state indicator based on
incomplete data (i.e., without being able to calculate “Change”), staff recommend that
the SBE direct the CDE to develop updated performance categories, based on the
second year of assessment results for the SBE to consider at the November 2016 SBE
meeting.
English Learner Indicator
There are no changes to the ELI “Status” or “Change” cut scores. The CPAG was
supportive of the proposed cut scores at their June 2016 meeting. (The ELI cut scores
are in Attachment 5 of the August Information Memoranda for Proposed Cut Scores.)
High School Graduation Rate Indicator
There are no changes to the graduation rate “Status” or “Change” cut scores. The
CPAG was supportive of the proposed cut scores at their June 2016 meeting. (The
graduation rate cut scores are in Attachment 1 of the August Information Memoranda for
Proposed Cut Scores.)
College/Career Indicator
At the July 2016 SBE meeting, the SBE directed the CDE to prepare a recommendation
for the September 2016 SBE meeting on the technical specifications of the CCI.
To help inform those technical recommendations, CDE staff conducted two statewide
Webinars to obtain additional feedback from educational stakeholders on the CCI. The
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 6

300 plus participants represented a variety of educational stakeholders and provided
feedback on the placement of each measure across the CCI performance levels
through a series of polling questions. The CDE reviewed the polling results with the
TDG at the August 3, 2016 meeting. Based on TDG’s input, the CDE updated the
placement of each measure in the CCI. (The results of the polling questions are in
Attachment 2 of the August Information Memoranda on the Overview of the CCI.)
Following the August 3, 2016 TDG meeting, the CDE further modified the proposed CCI
performance levels. Due to the absence of robust career data, valid and reliable career
criteria for the “Well Prepared” performance level could not be determined. Proceeding
with a “Well Prepared” category at this time would result in an over-emphasis on the
college measures. The CDE recommends establishing criteria only for three levels
within the CCI, with the criteria for the “Well Prepared” performance level to be
developed when additional data on career readiness becomes available. The proposed
criteria for the CCI is attached as an appendix to this Attachment.
The CDE also recommends changes to some criteria in the CCI to reflect that the
Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments for grade 11 are more rigorous than the
former enhanced Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program assessments.
The simulations used to develop the CCI used the Early Assessment Program (EAP)
results were based on the voluntary enhanced Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) program through the 2013-14 academic year. Under the former STAR program,
students in grade 11 had the option of taking the EAP when they took the grade 11
STAR assessments for ELA and mathematics. Beginning in the spring of 2015, the EAP
was determined entirely from the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment results,
which all grade eleven students must take. The proposed changes to the criteria
required new distributions and new proposed cut scores. (The CCI cut scores are in
Attachment 4 of the August Information Memorandum for Proposed Cut Scores.)
The updated distributions and cut scores were included in the August information
memorandum for informational purposes only. As noted in that memorandum, the most
current graduation cohort data file available for the data simulations was the 2013-14
cohort. Those students had the option of taking the EAP based on the former STAR
program in spring 2013. The data file for the 2014-15 graduating cohort is now
available, but those students also had the option of taking the EAP based on the former
STAR program in spring 2014. The first graduating cohort to take the Smarter Balanced
assessment in grade 11 is the 2015-16 cohort, and that data file will not be available
until the 2017 calendar year.
Due to the differences between the former EAP and the Smarter Balanced
assessments, both in terms of rigor and because all grade 11 students take the Smarter
Balanced assessments, the simulations used to establish the updated distributions and
cut scores in the August memorandum do not reflect fully the criteria that will be used to
measure performance on the CCI in the future. Those simulations nonetheless provide

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 2
Page 5 of 6

the most accurate baseline from which to establish performance standards, based on
currently available information.
Staff therefore recommend that the SBE approve performance categories for the CCI
based on “Status” only using the 2013-14 cohort data file and reconsider the approved
performance categories in September 2017 based on the first year of results on the CCI
that includes Smarter Balanced assessment results. Staff recommend using “Status”
only to establish the performance categories because there will be only one year of CCI
data available in fall 2017 that is based on the Smarter Balanced assessments.
The proposed performance category based on “Status” only is summarized in Tables 1
and 2 in Attachment 4 of the August Information Memorandum for Proposed Cut
Scores. The status level “very low” corresponds with the Red performance category and
the “very high” status level corresponds with the Blue performance category.
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amard-aug16item02.doc)
Even though they are not based on the exact criteria in the proposed CCI, these
standards will provide a reasonable baseline for LEAs to use as they become familiar
with the new measure. Over the next year, LEAs will be able to review local practices,
supplemented by local data, and assess how they are likely to perform when the initial
state data on the CCI become available in fall 2017. Nonetheless, it will be important to
communicate clearly to LEAs, stakeholders and the public the limitations of the currently
available data and provide guidance on how the information can be used to inform local
planning during the transition to CCI results based on Smarter Balanced results.
Data for the initial cohort of graduates who took the grade 11 Smarter Balanced
assessments (the 2015-16 cohort) will be available next year. Staff will be able to
analyze that data by fall 2017 to calculate performance as “Status” only with this initial
year of data. Based on that data, the SBE can determine next fall whether adjustments
to the performance categories are warranted.
Suspension Rate Indicator for Local Educational Agency
The SBE specified that the suspension rate indicator should address differences in
suspension rates by grade span (e.g., elementary, middle, and high). The CDE
presented the school-level cut scores to the CPAG, but at the time of the June 2016
CPAG meeting, LEA-level cut scores were still being developed.
The CDE presented data simulations based on several methodologies for the LEA
suspension rate to the Technical Design Group (TDG) following the July 2016 SBE
meeting. Based on input from the TDG, CDE recommends setting suspension cut
scores based on separate distributions by LEA type (elementary, high, and unified).
Therefore, the suspension rate indicator has six different sets of cut points for “Status”
and “Change”: (1) three sets based on LEA type and (2) three sets based on school
type, which are unchanged from the June 2016 CPAG meeting. (Suspension rate cut
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 2
Page 6 of 6

scores are in Attachment 2 of the August Information Memorandum for Proposed Cut
Scores.)

Appendix. Proposed College/Career Indicator Model
All students in the four-year graduation cohort minus students who take the California Alternate Assessment.

WELL PREPARED – To Be Determined
The College/Career Indicator (CCI) measures for “Well Prepared” will be determined following further review of
potential state and local CCI measures as statewide data becomes available. 1 California Department of
Education staff, with input from education researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders, will evaluate the CCI
model through the first phase of the Local Control Funding Formula evaluation rubrics and will propose a revised
CCI model for implementation in 2017–18.

PREPARED
Does the graduate meet at least 1 measure below?
High School Diploma and any one of the following:
A. Career Technical Education (CTE) Pathway Completion plus one of the following criteria:
- Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments: At least a Level 3 “Standard Met” on English language
arts/literacy (ELA) or Mathematics and at least a Level 2 “Standard Nearly Met” in the other subject area
- One semester/two quarters of Dual Enrollment with passing grade (Academic/CTE subjects)
B. At least a Level 3 “Standard Met” on both ELA and Mathematics on Smarter Balanced Summative
Assessments
C. Completion of two semesters/three quarters of Dual Enrollment with a passing grade (Academic and/or CTE
subjects)
D. Passing Score on two Advanced Placement (AP) Exams or two International Baccalaureate (IB) Exams
E. Completion of courses that meet the University of California (UC) a-g criteria plus one of the following
criteria:
- CTE Pathway completion
- Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments: At least a Level 3 “Standard Met” on ELA or Mathematics
and at least a Level 2 “Standard Nearly Met” in the other subject area
- One semester/two quarters of Dual Enrollment with passing grade (Academic/CTE subjects)
- Passing score on one AP Exam OR on one IB Exam

APPROACHING PREPARED
Does the graduate meet at least 1 measure below?
High School Diploma and any one of the following:
A. CTE Pathway completion
B. Scored at least Level 2 “Standard Nearly Met” on one or both ELA and Mathematics Smarter Balanced
Summative Assessments
C. Completion of one semester/two quarters of Dual Enrollment with passing grade (Academic/CTE subjects)
D. Completion of courses that meet the UC a-g criteria

NOT PREPARED
Student did not meet any measures above, so considered NOT PREPARED
1
Future Local and State CCI Measures
Further Exploration on the following:
Note: The following measures will be explored as

Course Information
statewide data becomes available:

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 2
Page 7 of 6







Articulated CTE Pathway
Work Experience/Career Internship
AP/IB Career Program
State Seal of Biliteracy
Golden State Seal Merit Diploma





Industry Certificate
Additional career related data elements (e.g., Career Pathways
Trust and CTE Incentive Grant)
Pilot career ready assessments (i.e., National Occupational
Competency Testing Institute)

8-29-16 [California Department of Education and State Board of Education]

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 6

Proposed Standards for the Local Performance Indicators
This Attachment proposes standards for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)
priorities that are not addressed by the state indicators (referred to as “local
performance indicators” throughout the rest of this Attachment). Staff recommend that
the State Board of Education (SBE) approve the proposed local performance indicators
as part of its action to adopt the initial phase of the LCFF evaluation rubrics.
Background
As a result of SBE action at its May and July 2016 meetings, the evaluation rubrics
design includes: (1) a concise set of state indicators and (2) a methodology for
establishing local performance indicators.
Under the approved approach, local performance indicators are based on collecting and
reporting locally held information, which is likely to enhance local decision making for
the relevant LCFF priority. Local educational agencies (LEAs) will assess their progress
on these indicators on a [Met / Not Met / Not Met for Two or More Years] scale.
Based on the SBE’s action at its July 2016 meeting, there will be local performance
indicators in the initial phase of the evaluation rubrics for the following LCFF priorities:
 Appropriately Assigned Teachers, Access to Curriculum-Aligned Instructional
Materials, and Safe, Clean and Functional School Facilities (Priority 1)
 Implementation of State Academic Standards (Priority 2)
 Parent Engagement (Priority 3)
 School Climate – Local Climate Surveys (Priority 6)
 Coordination of Services for Expelled Students – County Offices of Education
(COEs) Only (Priority 9)
 Coordination of Services for Foster Youth – COEs Only (Priority 10)
In addition to the state indicators and local performance indicators, the evaluation
rubrics will include other local indicators. As discussed in prior SBE materials, the
evaluation rubrics web-based system will include a feature that allows LEA users to
upload local data to provide a more complete picture of student performance. The
proposed local performance indicators are intended to compliment the other local
indicators.
Proposed Local Performance Indicators
This Attachment identifies the proposed standard for each local performance indicator.
Staff recommend that the SBE approve the proposed standard for the local
performance indicators as part of adopting the initial phase of the evaluation rubrics at
its September 2016 meeting.

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 3
Page 2 of 6

This Attachment also provides information about how LEAs would use self-assessments
and/or local measures to evaluate their progress on the local performance indicators
and report that information through the web-based evaluation rubrics system.
The rest of this Attachment is organized by LCFF priority. It identifies, for each LCFF
priority with a local performance indicator:
 The proposed standard;
 Information about the evidence that LEAs would use to demonstrate progress in
meeting the standard; and
 The criteria for assessing progress based on that evidence.
The Attachment also provides prompts that could be included in a self-assessment
instrument and/or local measures that LEAs could use to demonstrate progress on the
local performance indicator. Use of the web-based system will support LEAs in
demonstrating their progress on these local performance indicators. The web-based
setting makes it possible for some functions to be automated, which will reduce the time
needed to input the information that LEA users have collected to determine progress on
the local performance indicators.
For example, where a self-assessment is included as a way to demonstrate progress on
the local performance indicator, the web-based system could include a web form that
allows LEA users to complete prompts included in the assessment, with the summary
results automatically generated from the web form. Similarly, where LEAs track and
report their progress on local measures, the web-based system could include a dropdown menu of possible options from which LEA users could select and then input the
relevant data, which would be incorporated into a standard report automatically.
If the SBE approves the proposed standards at its September 2016 meeting, staff will
consult with stakeholders to develop specific approaches for supporting LEAs in
determining progress on the local performance indicators by including self-assessments
and/or a menu of local measures and provide an update at the November 2016 SBE
meeting.

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 3
Page 3 of 6

Appropriately Assigned Teachers, Access to Curriculum-Aligned Instructional
Materials, and Safe, Clean and Functional School Facilities (Priority 1)
 Standard: LEA annually measures its progress in meeting the Williams
settlement requirements at 100% at all of its school sites, as applicable, and
promptly addresses any complaints or other deficiencies identified throughout the
academic year, as applicable; and provides information annually on progress
meeting this standard to its local governing board and to stakeholders and the
public through the evaluation rubrics.
 Evidence: LEA would use locally available information, including data currently
reported through the School Accountability Report Card (SARC), and determine
whether it reported the results to its local governing board and through the local
data selection option in the evaluation rubrics.
 Criteria: LEA would assess its performance on a [Met / Not Met / Not Met for Two
or More Years] scale.
Examples of measures that could be included within the local data selection option in
the evaluation rubrics to support LEAs in reporting progress are:
 Number/percentage of misassignments of teachers of English learners, total
teacher misassignments, and vacant teacher positions.
 Number/percentage of students without access to their own copies of standardsaligned instructional materials for use at school and at home.
 Number of identified instances where facilities do not meet the “good repair”
standard (including deficiencies and extreme deficiencies).
The examples above are all data elements that are currently required as part of the
SARC. The web-based user interface system for the evaluation rubrics is being
developed based on the same data system that supports the California Department of
Education’s SARC template. Accordingly, the evaluation rubrics system could autopopulate this data for LEAs that use the SARC template by aggregating the information
from all schools within the LEA.
Implementation of State Academic Standards (Priority 2)
 Standard: LEA annually measures its progress implementing state academic
standards and reports the results to its local governing board and to stakeholders
and the public through the evaluation rubrics.
 Evidence: LEA would determine whether it annually measured its progress,
which may include use of a self-assessment tool or selection from a menu of
local measures that will be included in the evaluation rubrics web-based user
interface, and reported the results to its local governing board and through the
local data selection option in the evaluation rubrics.
 Criteria: LEA would assess its performance on a [Met / Not Met / Not Met for Two
or More Years] scale.
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 3
Page 4 of 6

Examples of prompts that could be included in a self-assessment instrument for this
LCFF priority are included below:
 How would you rate the strength of your district’s progress in implementing
California’s new standards in the following areas?
 How would you rate the preparedness of the following district and school staff to
implement California’s English Language Arts, English language development,
mathematics, and science standards?
Parent Engagement (Priority 3)
 Standard: LEA annually measures its progress in (1) seeking input from parents
in decision making and (2) promoting parental participation in programs, and
reports the results to its local governing board and to stakeholders and the public
through the evaluation rubrics.
 Evidence: LEA would determine whether it annually measured its progress,
which may include use of a self-assessment tool or selection from a menu of
local measures that will be included in the evaluation rubrics web-based user
interface, and reported the results to its local governing board and through the
local data selection option in the evaluation rubrics.
 Criteria: LEA would assess its performance on a [Met / Not Met / Not Met for Two
or More Years] scale.
Examples of measures that could be included in a self-assessment tool or tracked and
reported through the local data selection option of the evaluation rubrics include:
 Schools and districts have systems and structures in place to provide
parents/caregivers with the interpretation and translation services they need to
be full partners and participants.
 Percent of teachers and administrators who have participated in one or more
professional development opportunities related to engaging parents/caregivers in
decision making.
 Percent of parents/caregivers serving on school/district committees who report
feeling that their input is respected and valued and reflected in school/district
plans.
School Climate – Local Climate Surveys (Priority 6)
 Standard: LEA administers a local climate survey at least every other year that
provides a valid measure of perceptions of school safety and connectedness,
such as the California Healthy Kids Survey, to students in at least one grade
within the grade span(s) that the LEA serves (e.g., K-5, 6-8, 9-12), and reports
the results to its local governing board and to stakeholders and the public
through the evaluation rubrics.
 Evidence: LEA would determine whether it administered a survey as specified
and reported the results to its local governing board and through the local data
selection option in the evaluation rubrics.
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 3
Page 5 of 6



Criteria: LEA would assess its performance on a [Met / Not Met / Not Met for Two
or More Years] scale.

Examples of the type of information that LEAs could provide through the local data
selection option in the evaluation rubrics include:
 Brief narrative description of key findings, including differences in results among
student groups.
 For surveys that provide an overall score, such as the School Climate Index for
the California Healthy Kids Survey, report of overall score for all student and
student groups.
 Analysis of a subset of specific items on survey that are particularly relevant to
student safety and connectedness.
Coordination of Services for Expelled Students – COE Only (Priority 9)
 Standard: COE annually measures its progress in coordinating instruction as
required by Education Code Section 48926 and reports the results to its local
governing board and to stakeholders and the public through the evaluation
rubrics.
 Evidence: COE would determine whether it annually measured its progress,
which may include use of a self-assessment tool or selection from a menu of
local measures that will be included in the evaluation rubrics web-based user
interface, and reported the results to its local governing board and through the
local data selection option in the evaluation rubrics.
 Criteria: COE would assess its performance on a [Met / Not Met / Not Met for
Two or More Years] scale.
Examples of prompts that could be included in a self-assessment instrument for this
LCFF priority are included below:
 Assess the status of required plan for providing education services to all expelled
pupils in that county, including most recent triennial update and required outcome
data.
 Assess extent of coordination on plan development and implementation with
each school district within the county.
 Assess progress in identifying: existing educational alternatives for expelled
pupils, gaps in educational services to expelled pupils, and strategies for filling
those service gaps.
Coordination of Services for Foster Youth – COE Only (Priority 10)
 Standard: COE annually measures its progress in coordinating services for foster
youth and reports the results to its local governing board and to stakeholders and
the public through the evaluation rubrics.
 Evidence: COE would determine whether it annually measures its progress,
which may include use of a self-assessment tool or selection from a menu of
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 3
Page 6 of 6



local measures that will be included in the evaluation rubrics web-based user
interface, and reported the results to its local governing board and through the
local data selection option in the evaluation rubrics.
Criteria: COE would assess its performance on a [Met / Not Met / Not Met for
Two or More Years] scale.

Examples of prompts that could be included in a self-assessment instrument for this
LCFF priority are included below. The COE would be able to rate its progress on the
prompts using a rating scale, e.g., 1 to 5 scale corresponding to different levels of
progress or implementation.
Assess the degree of implementation of a coordinated service program components for
foster youth in your county?
 Establishing ongoing collaboration and policy development, including
establishing formalized information sharing agreements with child welfare,
probation, LEAs, the courts, and other organizations to determine the proper
educational placement of foster youth.
 Building capacity with LEA, probation, child welfare, and other organizations for
purposes of implementing school-based support infrastructure for foster youth
intended to improve educational outcomes.
 Providing information and assistance to LEAs regarding the educational needs of
foster youth in order to improve educational outcomes.
8-29-16 [California Department of Education and State Board of Education]

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 4
Page 1 of 4

Proposed Criteria for LEA Eligibility for Technical Assistance and Intensive
Intervention under LCFF
The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) is the foundation for California’s integrated
accountability and continuous improvement system. LCFF requires the State Board of
Education (SBE) to adopt, by October 1, 2016, evaluation rubrics that include standards
for local educational agency (LEA) and school performance and improvement for all of
the LCFF priorities and specify a process for identifying LEAs in need of assistance.
An August 2016 information memorandum provided a proposal for how the proposed
performance levels on state indicators and local performance indicators will assist in
identifying LEAs eligible for differentiated assistance and intensive intervention
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-aug16item02.doc). That
proposal is summarized below.
Staff recommend that the SBE approve the proposed approach when it adopts the
evaluation rubrics at the September 2016 SBE meeting.
Proposed Approach for Identifying LEAs in Need of Assistance or Intervention
under LCFF
Under the LCFF statutes, LEA eligibility for differentiated assistance and intensive
intervention is based on student group performance in each LCFF priority area.
Consistent with the LCFF statutes:
 An LEA would be eligible for differentiated assistance if any student group met
the performance criteria listed below for two or more LCFF priorities. Education
Code (EC) 52071(b) & 52071.5(b).
 An LEA would be eligible for intensive intervention if three or more student
groups met the performance criteria listed below for two or more LCFF priorities
in three out of four consecutive years. EC 52072 & 52072.5.
As discussed in the August 2016 memorandum, Red is the lowest of the five
performance categories for state indicators, and Not Met for or More Two Years is the
lowest rating for local performance indicators.

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 4
Page 2 of 4

Proposed Criteria for Determining LEA Eligibility for Differentiated
Assistance and Intensive Intervention
Basics (Priority 1)
 Not Met for Two or More Years on Local Performance Indicator
Implementation of State Academic Standards (Priority 2)
 Not Met for Two or More Years on Local Performance Indicator
Parent Engagement (Priority 3)
 Not Met for Two or More Years on Local Performance Indicator
Pupil Achievement (Priority 4)
 Red on both English Language Arts and Math tests OR
 Red on English Language Arts or Math test AND Orange on the other test
OR
 Red on the English Learner Indicator (English learner student group only)
Pupil Engagement (Priority 5)
 Red on Graduation Rate Indicator OR
 Red on Chronic Absence Indicator
School Climate (Priority 6)
 Red on Suspension Rate Indicator OR
 Not Met for Two or More Years on Local Performance Indicator
Access to and Outcomes in a Broad Course of Study (Priorities 7 & 8)
 Red on College/Career Indicator
Coordination of Services for Expelled Pupils – COEs Only (Priority 9)
 Not Met for Two or More Years on Local Performance Indicator
Coordination of Services for Foster Youth – COEs Only (Priority 10)
 Not Met for Two or More Years on Local Performance Indicator
The rest of this Attachment provides additional details on the proposed criteria for each
LCFF priority.
Basics (Priority 1), Implementation of State Academic Standards (Priority 2),
Parent Engagement (Priority 3), Coordination of Services for Expelled Pupils –
COEs Only (Priority 9), and Coordination of Services for Foster Youth – COEs
Only (Priority 10). There is a single local performance indicator for each of these
LCFF priorities.
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 4
Page 3 of 4

Staff recommend that an LEA with the [Not Met for Two or More Years] rating on a local
performance indicator would be eligible for technical assistance or intervention based
on the relevant LCFF priority for any student group that has a valid n-size (e.g., has a
valid n-size at the LEA level, as specified in EC 52052) at the LEA level.
Pupil Achievement (Priority 4). The indicator for the English Language Arts/Literacy
(ELA) and Math assessments and the English Learner Indicator (ELI) address this
LCFF priority.
Staff propose analyzing performance on the ELA and Math assessments together.
Specifically, staff propose that an LEA would be eligible based on this LCFF priority
whenever a student group that is in the Red category on one assessment is in the
Orange or Red performance categories on the other assessment.
The English learner student group, however, presents a special case. The English
Learner Indicator (ELI), which also addresses Priority 4, applies to English learners, in
addition to the indicator for assessments. Staff propose that an LEA would be eligible
for technical assistance or intervention based on this LCFF priority for the English
learner student group in two situations: (1) the condition described above for
performance on ELA and Math assessments and/or (2) being in the Red performance
category on the ELI.
Pupil Engagement (Priority 5). Graduation rate and chronic absenteeism address this
LCFF priority.
Staff propose that an LEA would be eligible for technical assistance or intervention
based on this LCFF priority whenever a student group is in the Red performance
category on either graduation rate or chronic absenteeism. Staff propose, however,
revisiting this decision when the SBE establishes performance categories after chronic
absence data become available in fall 2017. This will ensure that the final determination
is informed by data analysis.
School Climate (Priority 6). Suspension rate and the local climate survey standard
address this LCFF priority.
Staff propose that an LEA would be eligible for technical assistance or intervention
based on this LCFF priority whenever a student group is in the Red performance
category based on the LEA-level distribution.
Additionally, staff propose that LEAs that report a [Not Met for Two or More Years] rating
on the local climate survey local performance indicator would also be eligible for
technical assistance or intervention based on this LCFF priority.
Access to a Broad Course of Study (Priority 7) and Outcomes in a Broad Course
of Study (Priority 8). The College/Career Indicator (CCI) addresses these LCFF
priorities for the initial phase of the evaluation rubrics.
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 4
Page 4 of 4

Staff propose that an LEA would be eligible for technical assistance or intervention
based on these LCFF priorities if a student group is in the Red performance category on
the CCI. This indicator applies to two LCFF priorities, but staff propose that, for the initial
phase of the evaluation rubrics, the CCI would be considered only once for assistance
and intervention purposes.
Application of Criteria Based on Current Performance Levels
By statute, the SBE must approve changes to the evaluation rubrics or the template for
the Local Control and Accountability Plan and Annual Update by January 31 before the
fiscal year during which the template or evaluation rubrics are to be used by a school
district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school. Based on this statutory
provision, the earliest that technical assistance for LEAs could commence, based on
use of the evaluation rubrics, is 2017-18, which is the fiscal year following the SBE’s
September 2016 adoption of the evaluation rubrics.
As noted in Attachment 2, staff recommend that the SBE approve the performance
categories for the academic indicator at the November 2016 SBE meeting. This will
allow staff to incorporate the second year of Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment
results and recommend proposed performance categories based on a combination of
“Status” and “Change,” rather relying only on “Status” based on the first year of
assessment results.
Staff will present simulations at the November 2016 SBE meeting, reflecting the
updated proposed performance categories for the academic indicator, that estimate how
many LEAs would be eligible for technical assistance under the proposed criteria (i.e.,
have one or more student group meet the criteria for two or more LCFF priorities),
based on the most current performance data available.
Finally, as noted in the August information memorandum, staff propose that the criteria
approved by the SBE specify that, in the initial year that an LEA becomes eligible for
technical assistance, technical assistance will involve identification in writing of the
LEA’s strengths and weaknesses. This would establish a presumption that the more
intensive forms of technical assistance authorized by statute (assignment of an outside
expert to assist the LEA, including requesting that another LEA within the county partner
to support the LEA’s improvement, or referral to the California Collaborative for
Educational Excellence) would not occur unless an LEA is eligible for technical
assistance based on performance of the same student group(s) across the same LCFF
priorities in two consecutive years. This approach is consistent with a tiered approach to
assistance.
8-29-16 [California Department of Education and State Board of Education]

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 memo-sbe-aug16item01
Attachment 5
Page 1 of 10

Draft Timeline for the Integrated, Local, State, and Federal
Accountability and Continuous Improvement System, Including Outreach with
Stakeholders
At the July 2016 meeting, the Board directed staff to develop a proposed timeline
through the end of the 2017 calendar year that addresses the further developmental
work after approval of the initial phase of the evaluation rubrics, including, but not
limited to: (1) the state and local indicators, (2) standards for the state indicators and/or
LCFF priorities, (3) the statements of model practices, and (4) the alignment of
elements included in the ESSA state plan with the LCFF evaluation rubrics.
An August Information Memorandum presented a timeline of development and transition
activities for state and local indicators with a proposed process for annually reviewing
state indicators and introduced a draft timeline that defines the anticipated SBE review
and action, in addition to the ongoing developmental work over the next calendar year
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-aug16item01.doc).
At the July 2016 meeting, staff also sought feedback from SBE members on a draft
revised Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Annual Update template and
accompanying instructions
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/jul16item03.doc). Among the
feedback that SBE members provided was an expectation to see a clear linkage
between the revised LCAP template and the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)
evaluation rubrics. SBE members also expressed support for requiring a plan summary
in the revised template that maximizes accessibility of the LCAP’s content for
stakeholders and the public.
In response to this feedback, staff prepared an updated draft, including explicit linkages
between the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics and the LCAP and Annual Update Template and
a robust plan summary, and sought additional stakeholder feedback after the July 2016
SBE meeting. However, opportunities to provide feedback to subsequent revisions of
the LCAP template following the July 2016 SBE meeting were limited prior to the
deadline for posting the September 2016 SBE meeting agenda. Understanding the
importance of making the revised LCAP template as strong as possible, staff concluded
that additional time was needed before finalizing a proposed revised LCAP template for
the SBE’s consideration. Consequently, on August 26, 2016, the SBE was provided with
an Information Memorandum (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-execlasso-aug16item01.doc) that provided an updated timeline for the revised LCAP
template to ensure that stakeholders and the public are aware of the opportunities for
further input, including when an updated draft with fully developed instructions, will be
available for review. The CDE will present a proposed LCAP and Annual Update
Template for SBE adoption at the November 2016 SBE meeting.
The draft timeline clarifies the opportunities for stakeholder input on the initial
implementation of the LCFF evaluation rubrics, the process to revise the LCAP, and the

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 memo-sbe-aug16item01
Attachment 5
Page 2 of 10

proposed schedule for work groups to provide recommendations on school conditions
and climate and the English Learner Indicator.


California Practitioners Advisory Group (CPAG): The CPAG is an advisory committee
to the SBE (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/cc/cp/). The CPAG will review and advise the
SBE through the implementation of the initial phase of the LCFF evaluation rubrics
and the revised LCAP template. The CPAG will also inform the development of the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan. The next meeting is scheduled for
September 29, 2016.



User Acceptance Testing (UAT) Group: In August, the UAT reviewed examples of the
draft cut-points and performance categories that informed the technical assistance
and support standards. The UAT also provided input on draft top-level data displays
and standard reports that will be used to prepopulate the initial phase of the web
based version of the LCFF evaluation rubrics. The UAT will review and test the
online prototype of the LCFF evaluation rubrics before the system goes live in
January 2017.



Equity and Policy Stakeholder Input Working Group: On August 19, 2016, WestEd,
on behalf of the SBE and CDE, convened representatives from statewide and
community-based organizations to review the design options for the evaluation
rubric and approaches to revise the LCAP template to promote interaction with the
LCFF evaluation rubrics. WestEd also hosted a webinar for stakeholders to review
draft top-level data displays and standard reports that will be used to prepopulate the
initial phase of the web based version of the LCFF evaluation rubrics. A session in
October 2016 will focus on the proposal to support the measurement of local
performance on the state priorities that are not currently addressed in the state
indicators (e.g., priorities 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10).



School Conditions and Climate Work Group: The CDE established a work group in
August 2016 to review the existing school climate measurement approaches, tools,
resources, and surveys that measure broader aspects of school conditions and
climate (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amardjun16item02.doc). This work group consists of approximately eight to ten members
with expertise in education measurement and school conditions/climate. One of the
objectives of this work group is to provide extensive stakeholder engagement on
topics related to school conditions and climate. The School Conditions and Climate
work group will present preliminary recommendations to the CDE in January 2017
that will inform the accountability and continuous improvement components that are
relevant to the school climate LCFF priority, in addition to the priorities that address
the basic conditions of learning, the implementation of state academic standards, the
access to broad course of study, course completion, and coordination activities.



English Learner Indicator Work Group: As outlined in a Memorandum to the SBE on
June 27, 2016 (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amard9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 memo-sbe-aug16item01
Attachment 5
Page 3 of 10

jun16item02.doc), the CDE is developing a work group of experts to create a
composite measure for the English Learner Indicator (ELI) that includes English
acquisition, reclassification rates, and long-term English learner (LTEL) rates. During
the 2016-17 school year, the CDE plans to convene the ELI work group four times
beginning in October 2016. The CDE will provide a progress update to the SBE
through an information memorandum in December and/or February and provide a
presentation of the work at the May 2017 SBE meeting. The ELI work group will be
comprised of individuals with English learner (EL) program expertise and EL data
expertise. The EL work group will have county and district representatives along with
representatives of stakeholder groups. The members will be charged with
determining if LTEL data can be incorporated into the current ELI. In addition, the
members will make recommendations on the methodology and timeline for
incorporating the LTEL data in the new accountability system.
The feedback received from the stakeholder input sessions and work groups will inform
the state and local indicators that will be made available in the LCFF evaluation rubrics.
The proposed prototype is flexible to support the inclusion of additional indicators or the
replacement of indicators over time as additional data become available. The rubrics
also support the use of local data, including the indicators that are not included as state
indicators at this time. As the definition of what is collected locally and reported to the
state becomes more standardized and/or as research emerges to support the use of an
indicator that has state level data available, staff will analyze these data to make
recommendations for including new indicators within the accountability and continuous
improvement system (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbeaug16item01.doc).
In recognition that data availability may change over time, and feedback from
stakeholders will inform the ongoing development of indicators, the SBE will have an
opportunity to review the LCFF evaluation rubrics annually, if necessary, to determine
whether to add a state indicator to the existing state indicators and/or to replace an
existing state indicator.
As noted in the timeline below, if the SBE determines a review is necessary, staff could
present a preliminary analysis of any indicator that may now be a candidate for inclusion
as a state indicator at the March SBE meeting. If appropriate, SBE may direct staff to
complete a full analysis of the potential indicator and present this analysis for SBE
review at the September SBE meeting. The SBE may then determine whether the state
indicators need to be revised based on the staff analyses and recommendations.
Staff recommend that the SBE approve the proposed annual process for the SBE to
review the evaluation rubrics as reflected in the timeline below, to determine whether
newly available data and/or research support the inclusion of a new state or local
performance indicator or substituting such an indicator for an existing indicator.

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 5
Page 4 of 10

Timeframe

SBE Review and Decision Points
SBE received a series of Information Memorandum on the following topics:





August 2016

draft timeline and proposed annual review of the LCFF indicators,
a framework for technical assistance,
an update on the college/career indicator and proposed cut-point and performance
categories for the state indicators, and
an updated timeline to revise the LCAP template.

Ongoing Development and Tasks
Early August-Continue receiving
feedback on accountability and
continuous improvement:




Conference Calls
Standing Meetings
Policy Input Sessions

Work Groups:
 CDE convenes the school
conditions and climate work
group
September 2016

LCFF Evaluation Rubrics:
Initial Phase of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Evaluation Rubrics for
SBE Adoption.


Performance categories for CAASPP, English Learner Proficiency, Graduation Rate,
Suspension Rate, and College/Career Readiness.

California Practitioners Advisory
Group (CPAG) Meeting:


CPAG provides feedback on
draft ESSA State Plan



CPAG reviews plan for future
work on state and local
indicators (e.g., college /career
readiness)
CPAG reviews the plan to
revise the LCAP template



Criteria to determine eligibility for technical assistance based on performance on all
LCFF priorities.



Design dimensions for the evaluation rubrics web application that includes, but is not
limited to, the top-level data display, equity report, and standard reports.





CDE provides an update on the working groups to explore school conditions and
climate and English learner proficiency indicator.

Work Groups:

ESSA State Plan:


Overview of the law and plan requirements, review of stakeholder feedback



CDE convenes the school
conditions and climate work
group

Proposed Information
Memorandum on updated draft for
revised LCAP template and
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 5
Page 5 of 10

Timeframe

SBE Review and Decision Points

Ongoing Development and Tasks
instructions
California Practitioners Advisory
Group (CPAG) Meeting:


CPAG provides feedback on
draft ESSA State Plan



CPAG reviews draft standards
for the LCFF local performance
measures

Early October-Continue receiving
feedback on accountability and
continuous improvement:




October 2016

Conference Calls
Standing Meetings
Policy Input Sessions

Work Groups:


School conditions and
climate work group will
provide opportunities for
stakeholder input



CDE convenes the English
Learner Indicator work
group

Proposed Information
Memorandum on local indicators
LCFF Evaluation Rubrics:
November 2016

Update on local indicators to measure state priorities not addressed by the state indicators
(e.g., priorities 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10) and implications for state performance standards based on
stakeholder input gathered in October 2016

LCFF Evaluation Rubrics:
 California Collaborative for
Educational Excellence (CCEE)
workshop trainings
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 5
Page 6 of 10

Timeframe

SBE Review and Decision Points

CDE provides an update on the School Conditions and Climate work group and the
English Learner Indicator work group. CDE also provides an update on the Statements of
Model Practices.

Ongoing Development and Tasks

ESSA State Plan:


ESSA State Plan extended
public comment period begins
November 18



ESSA State Plan Stakeholder
Outreach Phase 2 begins

LCAP Template:
Final changes to the LCAP template for SBE adoption.
ESSA State Plan:
CDE presents first draft of ESSA State Plan based on stakeholder input, including CPAG
comments, for SBE review.
December 2016

 Webinars
 Regional meetings
 Survey
 Stakeholder engagement toolkit
California Practitioners Advisory
Group (CPAG) Meeting:
 Provides feedback on ESSA
State Plan Update
 Update on the proposal to
review the LCFF evaluation
rubrics state and local
indicators and statements of
model practices
Work Groups:
 CDE convenes the school
conditions and climate work
group
 School conditions and climate
work group will provide
opportunities for stakeholder
input
 CDE convenes the English
Learner Indicator work group

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 5
Page 7 of 10

Timeframe

SBE Review and Decision Points

Ongoing Development and Tasks

ESSA State Plan:
LCFF Evaluation Rubrics:


January 2017

CDE presents preliminary recommendations to the SBE for transition plan to support
the use of school conditions and climate measures in the accountability and
continuous improvement system.

ESSA State Plan:
Second Draft ESSA State Plan for SBE Review.


February 2017

CDE revises ESSA State Plan based on stakeholder feedback, including the input
provided by the CPAG, and presents revised draft to SBE for provisional approval.

30 day public comment period
closes January 20
Stakeholder Outreach Phase 2
ends
Work Groups:
 CDE convenes the English
Learner Indicator work group

Early February-Continue receiving
feedback on accountability and
continuous improvement:




Conference Calls
Standing Meetings
Policy Input Sessions

California Practitioners Advisory
Group (CPAG) Meeting
 Reviews public comments
on ESSA state plan and
makes recommendations
 Advise SBE on annual
review of evaluation rubrics
state and local indicators
Proposed Information
Memorandum on the English
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 5
Page 8 of 10

Timeframe

SBE Review and Decision Points

Ongoing Development and Tasks
Learner Indicator

LCFF Evaluation Rubrics:

March 2017

Annual review of evaluation rubrics, including but not limited to the following:
 CAASPP performance categories
 English Learner Indicator
 Suspension Rate and School Climate
 Academic Engagement
 College/Career Indicator

Work Groups:


CDE convenes the English
Learner Indicator working
group

Proposed Submission of ESSA State Plan:
Following SBE approval, submit ESSA State Plan to ED
March 6th is the first deadline to submit the ESSA State Plan to ED; ED has up to 120 days
to review ESSA State Plan. Note: July 3rd is the second deadline to submit the ESSA State
Plan to ED.
April 2017

Early April-Continue receiving
feedback on accountability and
continuous improvement:




Conference Calls
Standing Meetings
Policy Input Sessions

California Practitioners Advisory
Group (CPAG) Meeting
 Reviews progress on pilot
of state and local indicators,
feedback from SBE on
annual review
 Reviews alignment of ESSA
state plan to LCFF
evaluation rubrics (e.g.,
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 5
Page 9 of 10

Timeframe

SBE Review and Decision Points

Ongoing Development and Tasks
plan alignment activities)

LCFF Evaluation Rubrics:
May 2017

CDE presents recommendations to the SBE for transition plan to support the use of the
English Learner Indicator in the accountability and continuous improvement system.
Early June-Continue receiving
feedback on accountability and
continuous improvement:




June 2017

Conference Calls
Standing Meetings
Policy Input Sessions

California Practitioners Advisory
Group (CPAG) Meeting
 Update on state and local
indicator pilots and
implications for standards
and technical assistance
ESSA State Plan:
Accepted ESSA State Plan is published. (Note: this is a tentative date based on the
submission of the plan in March).
July 2017
New Accountability System begins July 2017.
The ESSA State Plan takes effect 2017-18 and implements process to identify schools for
assistance.
Early August-Continue receiving
feedback on accountability and
continuous improvement:
August 2017



Conference Calls
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 5
Page 10 of 10

Timeframe

SBE Review and Decision Points

Ongoing Development and Tasks



Standing Meetings
Policy Input Sessions

California Practitioners Advisory
Group (CPAG) Meeting
 Review proposal to revise
evaluation rubrics based on
the state and local indicator
pilots and SBE annual
review at the March SBE
meeting
September 2017

2018-19

LCFF Evaluation Rubrics:
Possible action to revise the evaluation rubrics based on the annual review completed in
March 2017, any updated data elements and indicators based on stakeholder input.
The new technical assistance, support, and interventions under LCFF and ESSA are
implemented.

Note: Dates and proposed development activities are subject to change. The table will be updated and presented at future SBE meetings.

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 1 of 15

California Education Code Sections 52064.5, 47607.3, 52071, 52071.5, 52072,
52072.5, 52060, 52066, 52064, and 52052
Please note: the California Education Code sections referenced below do not reflect the
changes included in the 2016-2017 budget adoption and the enacted revisions to
legislation through the recently passed budget bills.
Education Code Section 52064.5.
(a) On or before October 1, 2016, the state board shall adopt evaluation rubrics for all of
the following purposes:
(1) To assist a school district, county office of education, or charter school in evaluating
its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement.
(2) To assist a county superintendent of schools in identifying school districts and
charter schools in need of technical assistance pursuant to Section 52071 or 47607.3,
as applicable, and the specific priorities upon which the technical assistance should be
focused.
(3) To assist the Superintendent in identifying school districts for which intervention
pursuant to Section 52072 is warranted.
(b) The evaluation rubrics shall reflect a holistic, multidimensional assessment of school
district and individual schoolsite performance and shall include all of the state priorities
described in subdivision (d) of Section 52060.
(c) As part of the evaluation rubrics, the state board shall adopt standards for school
district and individual schoolsite performance and expectations for improvement in
regard to each of the state priorities described in subdivision (d) of Section 52060.
Education Code Section 47607.3.
(a) If a charter school fails to improve outcomes for three or more pupil subgroups
identified pursuant to Section 52052, or, if the charter school has less than three pupil
subgroups, all of the charter school’s pupil subgroups, in regard to one or more state or
school priority identified in the charter pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5) of
subdivision (b) of Section 47605 or subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b)
of Section 47605.6, in three out of four consecutive school years, all of the following
shall apply:
(1) Using an evaluation rubric adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5,
the chartering authority shall provide technical assistance to the charter school.
(2) The Superintendent may assign, at the request of the chartering authority and with
the approval of the state board, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence
to provide advice and assistance to the charter school pursuant to Section 52074.
(b) A chartering authority shall consider for revocation any charter school to which the
California Collaborative for Educational Excellence has provided advice and assistance
pursuant to subdivision (a) and about which it has made either of the following findings,
which shall be submitted to the chartering authority:
(1) That the charter school has failed, or is unable, to implement the recommendations
of the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence.
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 2 of 15

(2) That the inadequate performance of the charter school, based upon an evaluation
rubric adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5, is either so persistent or so acute as to
require revocation of the charter.
(c) The chartering authority shall consider increases in pupil academic achievement for
all pupil subgroups served by the charter school as the most important factor in
determining whether to revoke the charter.
(d) A chartering authority shall comply with the hearing process described in subdivision
(e) of Section 47607 in revoking a charter. A charter school may not appeal a revocation
of a charter made pursuant to this section.
Education Code Section 52071.
(a) If a county superintendent of schools does not approve a local control and
accountability plan or annual update to the local control and accountability plan
approved by a governing board of a school district, or if the governing board of a school
district requests technical assistance, the county superintendent of schools shall provide
technical assistance, including, among other things, any of the following:
(1) Identification of the school district’s strengths and weaknesses in regard to the state
priorities described in subdivision (d) of Section 52060, communicated in writing to the
school district. This identification shall include a review of effective, evidence-based
programs that apply to the school district’s goals.
(2) Assignment of an academic expert or team of academic experts to assist the school
district in identifying and implementing effective programs that are designed to improve
the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052. The county
superintendent of schools may also solicit another school district within the county to act
as a partner to the school district in need of technical assistance.
(3) Request that the Superintendent assign the California Collaborative for Educational
Excellence to provide advice and assistance to the school district.
(b) Using an evaluation rubric adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5,
the county superintendent of schools shall provide the technical assistance described in
subdivision (a) to any school district that fails to improve pupil achievement across more
than one state priority described in subdivision (d) of Section 52060 for one or more
pupil subgroup identified pursuant to Section 52052.
(c) Technical assistance provided pursuant to this section at the request of a school
district shall be paid for by the school district requesting the assistance.
Education Code Section 52071.5.
(a) If the Superintendent does not approve a local control and accountability plan or
annual update to the local control and accountability plan approved by a county board of
education, or if the county board of education requests technical assistance, the
Superintendent shall provide technical assistance, including, among other things, any of
the following:
(1) Identification of the county board of education’s strengths and weaknesses in regard
to the state priorities described in subdivision (d) of Section 52066, communicated in
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 3 of 15

writing to the county board of education. This identification shall include a review of
effective, evidence-based programs that apply to the board’s goals.
(2) Assignment of an academic expert or team of academic experts, or the California
Collaborative for Educational Excellence established pursuant to Section 52074, to
assist the county board of education in identifying and implementing effective programs
that are designed to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to
Section 52052. The Superintendent may also solicit another county office of education
to act as a partner to the county office of education in need of technical assistance.
(b) Using an evaluation rubric adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5,
the Superintendent shall provide the technical assistance described in subdivision (a) to
any county office of education that fails to improve pupil achievement in regard to more
than one state priority described in subdivision (d) of Section 52066 for one or more
pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052.
(c) Technical assistance provided pursuant to this section at the request of a county
board of education shall be paid for by the county board of education receiving
assistance.
Education Code Section 52072.
(a) The Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, identify school
districts in need of intervention.
(b) The Superintendent shall only intervene in a school district that meets both of the
following criteria:
(1) The school district did not improve the outcomes for three or more pupil subgroups
identified pursuant to Section 52052 or, if the school district has less than three pupil
subgroups, all of the school district’s pupil subgroups, in regard to more than one state
or local priority in three out of four consecutive school years.
(2) The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence has provided advice and
assistance to the school district pursuant to Section 52071 and submits either of the
following findings to the Superintendent:
(A) That the school district has failed, or is unable, to implement the recommendations
of the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence.
(B) That the inadequate performance of the school district, based upon an evaluation
rubric adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5, is either so persistent or acute as to require
intervention by the Superintendent.
(c) For school districts identified pursuant to subdivision (a), the Superintendent may,
with the approval of the state board, do one or more of the following:
(1) Make changes to a local control and accountability plan adopted by the governing
board of the school district.
(2) Develop and impose a budget revision, in conjunction with revisions to the local
control and accountability plan, that the Superintendent determines would allow the
school district to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to
Section 52052 in regard to state and local priorities.
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 4 of 15

(3) Stay or rescind an action, if that action is not required by a local collective bargaining
agreement, that would prevent the school district from improving outcomes for all pupil
subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state or local priorities.
(4) Appoint an academic trustee to exercise the powers and authority specified in this
section on his or her behalf.
(d) The Superintendent shall notify the county superintendent of schools, the county
board of education, the superintendent of the school district, and the governing board of
the school district of any action by the state board to direct him or her to exercise any of
the powers and authorities specified in this section.
Education Code Section 52072.5.
(a) The Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, identify county offices
of education in need of intervention.
(b) The Superintendent shall only intervene in a county office of education that meets
both of the following criteria:
(1) The county office of education did not improve the outcomes for three or more pupil
subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 or, if the county office of education has
less than three pupil subgroups, all of the county office of education’s pupil subgroups,
in regard to more than one state or local priority in three out of four consecutive school
years.
(2) The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence has provided advice and
assistance to the county office of education pursuant to Section 52071.5 and submits
either of the following findings to the Superintendent:
(A) That the county office of education has failed, or is unable, to implement the
recommendations of the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence.
(B) That the inadequate performance of the county office of education, based upon an
evaluation rubric adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5, is either so persistent or acute
as to require intervention by the Superintendent.
(c) For county offices of education identified pursuant to subdivision (a), the
Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, do one or more of the
following:
(1) Make changes to a local control and accountability plan adopted by the county board
of education.
(2) Develop and impose a budget revision, in conjunction with revisions to the local
control and accountability plan, that the Superintendent determines would allow the
county office of education to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified
pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state and local priorities.
(3) Stay or rescind an action, if that action is not required by a local collective bargaining
agreement, that would prevent the county office of education from improving outcomes
for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state or local
priorities.
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 5 of 15

(4) Appoint an academic trustee to exercise the powers and authority specified in this
section on his or her behalf.
(d) The Superintendent shall notify the county board of education and the county
superintendent of schools, in writing, of any action by the state board to direct him or
her to exercise any of the powers and authorities specified in this section.
Education Code Section 52060.
(a) On or before July 1, 2014, the governing board of each school district shall adopt a
local control and accountability plan using a template adopted by the state board.
(b) A local control and accountability plan adopted by the governing board of a school
district shall be effective for a period of three years, and shall be updated on or before
July 1 of each year.
(c) A local control and accountability plan adopted by the governing board of a school
district shall include, for the school district and each school within the school district,
both of the following:
(1) A description of the annual goals, for all pupils and each subgroup of pupils identified
pursuant to Section 52052, to be achieved for each of the state priorities identified in
subdivision (d) and for any additional local priorities identified by the governing board of
the school district. For purposes of this article, a subgroup of pupils identified pursuant
to Section 52052 shall be a numerically significant pupil subgroup as specified in
paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 52052.
(2) A description of the specific actions the school district will take during each year of
the local control and accountability plan to achieve the goals identified in paragraph (1),
including the enumeration of any specific actions necessary for that year to correct any
deficiencies in regard to the state priorities listed in paragraph (1) of subdivision (d). The
specific actions shall not supersede the provisions of existing local collective bargaining
agreements within the jurisdiction of the school district.
(d) All of the following are state priorities:
(1) The degree to which the teachers of the school district are appropriately assigned in
accordance with Section 44258.9, and fully credentialed in the subject areas, and, for
the pupils they are teaching, every pupil in the school district has sufficient access to the
standards-aligned instructional materials as determined pursuant to Section 60119, and
school facilities are maintained in good repair, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section
17002.
(2) Implementation of the academic content and performance standards adopted by the
state board, including how the programs and services will enable English learners to
access the common core academic content standards adopted pursuant to Section
60605.8 and the English language development standards adopted pursuant to former
Section 60811.3, as that section read on June 30, 2013, or Section 60811.4, for
purposes of gaining academic content knowledge and English language proficiency.
(3) Parental involvement, including efforts the school district makes to seek parent input
in making decisions for the school district and each individual schoolsite, and including
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 6 of 15

how the school district will promote parental participation in programs for unduplicated
pupils and individuals with exceptional needs.
(4) Pupil achievement, as measured by all of the following, as applicable:
(A) Statewide assessments administered pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with
Section 60640) of Chapter 5 of Part 33 or any subsequent assessment, as certified by
the state board.
(B) The Academic Performance Index, as described in Section 52052.
(C) The percentage of pupils who have successfully completed courses that satisfy the
requirements for entrance to the University of California and the California State
University, or career technical education sequences or programs of study that align with
state board-approved career technical education standards and frameworks, including,
but not limited to, those described in subdivision (a) of Section 52302, subdivision (a) of
Section 52372.5, or paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 54692.
(D) The percentage of English learner pupils who make progress toward English
proficiency as measured by the California English Language Development Test or any
subsequent assessment of English proficiency, as certified by the state board.
(E) The English learner reclassification rate.
(F) The percentage of pupils who have passed an advanced placement examination
with a score of 3 or higher.
(G) The percentage of pupils who participate in, and demonstrate college preparedness
pursuant to, the Early Assessment Program, as described in Chapter 6 (commencing
with Section 99300) of Part 65 of Division 14 of Title 3, or any subsequent assessment
of college preparedness.
(5) Pupil engagement, as measured by all of the following, as applicable:
(A) School attendance rates.
(B) Chronic absenteeism rates.
(C) Middle school dropout rates, as described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of
Section 52052.1.
(D) High school dropout rates.
(E) High school graduation rates.
(6) School climate, as measured by all of the following, as applicable:
(A) Pupil suspension rates.
(B) Pupil expulsion rates.
(C) Other local measures, including surveys of pupils, parents, and teachers on the
sense of safety and school connectedness.
(7) The extent to which pupils have access to, and are enrolled in, a broad course of
study that includes all of the subject areas described in Section 51210 and subdivisions
(a) to (i), inclusive, of Section 51220, as applicable, including the programs and services
developed and provided to unduplicated pupils and individuals with exceptional needs,
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 7 of 15

and the programs and services that are provided to benefit these pupils as a result of
the funding received pursuant to Section 42238.02, as implemented by Section
42238.03.
(8) Pupil outcomes, if available, in the subject areas described in Section 51210 and
subdivisions (a) to (i), inclusive, of Section 51220, as applicable.
(e) For purposes of the descriptions required by subdivision (c), the governing board of
a school district may consider qualitative information, including, but not limited to,
findings that result from school quality reviews conducted pursuant to subparagraph (J)
of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 52052 or any other reviews.
(f) To the extent practicable, data reported in a local control and accountability plan shall
be reported in a manner consistent with how information is reported on a school
accountability report card.
(g) The governing board of a school district shall consult with teachers, principals,
administrators, other school personnel, local bargaining units of the school district,
parents, and pupils in developing a local control and accountability plan.
(h) A school district may identify local priorities, goals in regard to the local priorities,
and the method for measuring the school district’s progress toward achieving those
goals.
Education Code Section 52066.
(a) On or before July 1, 2014, each county superintendent of schools shall develop, and
present to the county board of education for adoption, a local control and accountability
plan using a template adopted by the state board.
(b) A local control and accountability plan adopted by a county board of education shall
be effective for a period of three years, and shall be updated on or before July 1 of each
year.
(c) A local control and accountability plan adopted by a county board of education shall
include, for each school or program operated by the county superintendent of schools,
both of the following:
(1) A description of the annual goals, for all pupils and each subgroup of pupils identified
pursuant to Section 52052, to be achieved for each of the state priorities identified in
subdivision (d), as applicable to the pupils served, and for any additional local priorities
identified by the county board of education.
(2) A description of the specific actions the county superintendent of schools will take
during each year of the local control and accountability plan to achieve the goals
identified in paragraph (1), including the enumeration of any specific actions necessary
for that year to correct any deficiencies in regard to the state priorities listed in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (d). The specific actions shall not supersede the provisions
of existing local collective bargaining agreements within the jurisdiction of the county
superintendent of schools.
(d) All of the following are state priorities:

9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 8 of 15

(1) The degree to which the teachers in the schools or programs operated by the county
superintendent of schools are appropriately assigned in accordance with Section
44258.9 and fully credentialed in the subject areas, and, for the pupils they are
teaching, every pupil in the schools or programs operated by the county superintendent
of schools has sufficient access to the standards-aligned instructional materials as
determined pursuant to Section 60119, and school facilities are maintained in good
repair as specified in subdivision (d) of Section 17002.
(2) Implementation of the academic content and performance standards adopted by the
state board, including how the programs and services will enable English learners to
access the common core academic content standards adopted pursuant to Section
60605.8 and the English language development standards adopted pursuant to Section
60811.3 for purposes of gaining academic content knowledge and English language
proficiency.
(3) Parental involvement, including efforts the county superintendent of schools makes
to seek parent input in making decisions for each individual schoolsite and program
operated by a county superintendent of schools, and including how the county
superintendent of schools will promote parental participation in programs for
unduplicated pupils and individuals with exceptional needs.
(4) Pupil achievement, as measured by all of the following, as applicable:
(A) Statewide assessments administered pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with
Section 60640) of Chapter 5 of Part 33 or any subsequent assessment, as certified by
the state board.
(B) The Academic Performance Index, as described in Section 52052.
(C) The percentage of pupils who have successfully completed courses that satisfy the
requirements for entrance to the University of California and the California State
University, or career technical education sequences or programs of study that align with
state board-approved career technical education standards and frameworks, including,
but not limited to, those described in subdivision (a) of Section 52302, subdivision (a) of
Section 52372.5, or paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 54692.
(D) The percentage of English learner pupils who make progress toward English
proficiency as measured by the California English Language Development Test or any
subsequent assessment of English proficiency, as certified by the state board.
(E) The English learner reclassification rate.
(F) The percentage of pupils who have passed an advanced placement examination
with a score of 3 or higher.
(G) The percentage of pupils who participate in, and demonstrate college preparedness
pursuant to, the Early Assessment Program, as described in Chapter 6 (commencing
with Section 99300) of Part 65 of Division 14 of Title 3, or any subsequent assessment
of college preparedness.
(5) Pupil engagement, as measured by all of the following, as applicable:
(A) School attendance rates.
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 9 of 15

(B) Chronic absenteeism rates.
(C) Middle school dropout rates, as described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of
Section 52052.1.
(D) High school dropout rates.
(E) High school graduation rates.
(6) School climate, as measured by all of the following, as applicable:
(A) Pupil suspension rates.
(B) Pupil expulsion rates.
(C) Other local measures, including surveys of pupils, parents, and teachers on the
sense of safety and school connectedness.
(7) The extent to which pupils have access to, and are enrolled in, a broad course of
study that includes all of the subject areas described in Section 51210 and subdivisions
(a) to (i), inclusive, of Section 51220, as applicable, including the programs and services
developed and provided to unduplicated pupils and individuals with exceptional needs,
and the program and services that are provided to benefit these pupils as a result of the
funding received pursuant to Section 42238.02, as implemented by Section 42238.03.
(8) Pupil outcomes, if available, in the subject areas described in Section 51210 and
subdivisions (a) to (i), inclusive, of Section 51220, as applicable.
(9) How the county superintendent of schools will coordinate instruction of expelled
pupils pursuant to Section 48926.
(10) How the county superintendent of schools will coordinate services for foster
children, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A) Working with the county child welfare agency to minimize changes in school
placement.
(B) Providing education-related information to the county child welfare agency to assist
the county child welfare agency in the delivery of services to foster children, including,
but not limited to, educational status and progress information that is required to be
included in court reports.
(C) Responding to requests from the juvenile court for information and working with the
juvenile court to ensure the delivery and coordination of necessary educational services.
(D) Establishing a mechanism for the efficient expeditious transfer of health and
education records and the health and education passport.
(e) For purposes of the descriptions required by subdivision (c), a county board of
education may consider qualitative information, including, but not limited to, findings that
result from school quality reviews conducted pursuant to subparagraph (J) of paragraph
(4) of subdivision (a) of Section 52052 or any other reviews.
(f) To the extent practicable, data reported in a local control and accountability plan shall
be reported in a manner consistent with how information is reported on a school
accountability report card.
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 10 of 15

(g) The county superintendent of schools shall consult with teachers, principals,
administrators, other school personnel, local bargaining units of the county office of
education, parents, and pupils in developing a local control and accountability plan.
(h) A county board of education may identify local priorities, goals in regard to the local
priorities, and the method for measuring the county office of education’s progress
toward achieving those goals.
Education Code Section 52064.
(a) On or before March 31, 2014, the state board shall adopt templates for the following
purposes:
(1) For use by school districts to meet the requirements of Sections 52060 to 52063,
inclusive.
(2) For use by county superintendents of schools to meet the requirements of Sections
52066 to 52069, inclusive.
(3) For use by charter schools to meet the requirements of Section 47606.5.
(b) The templates developed by the state board shall allow a school district, county
superintendent of schools, or charter school to complete a single local control and
accountability plan to meet the requirements of this article and the requirements of the
federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 related to local educational agency plans
pursuant to Section 1112 of Subpart 1 of Part A of Title I of Public Law 107-110. The
state board shall also take steps to minimize duplication of effort at the local level to the
greatest extent possible. The template shall include guidance for school districts, county
superintendents of schools, and charter schools to report both of the following:
(1) A listing and description of expenditures for the 2014–15 fiscal year, and each fiscal
year thereafter, implementing the specific actions included in the local control and
accountability plan.
(2) A listing and description of expenditures for the 2014–15 fiscal year, and each fiscal
year thereafter, that will serve the pupils to whom one or more of the definitions in
Section 42238.01 apply and pupils redesignated as fluent English proficient.
(c) If possible, the templates identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) for use by
county superintendents of schools shall allow a county superintendent of schools to
develop a single local control and accountability plan that would also satisfy the
requirements of Section 48926.
(d) The state board shall adopt the template pursuant to the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1
of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). The state board may adopt emergency
regulations for purposes of implementing this section. The adoption of emergency
regulations shall be deemed an emergency and necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare.
(e) Notwithstanding subdivision (d), the state board may adopt the template in
accordance with the requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9
(commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the
Government Code). When adopting the template pursuant to the requirements of the
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 11 of 15

Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, the state board shall present the template at a regular
meeting and may only take action to adopt the template at a subsequent regular
meeting. This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 31, 2018.
(f) Revisions to a template or evaluation rubric shall be approved by the state board by
January 31 before the fiscal year during which the template or evaluation rubric is to be
used by a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school.
(g) The adoption of a template or evaluation rubric by the state board shall not create a
requirement for a governing board of a school district, a county board of education, or a
governing body of a charter school to submit a local control and accountability plan to
the state board, unless otherwise required by federal law. The Superintendent shall not
require a local control and accountability plan to be submitted by a governing board of a
school district or the governing body of a charter school to the state board. The state
board may adopt a template or evaluation rubric that would authorize a school district or
a charter school to submit to the state board only the sections of the local control and
accountability plan required by federal law.
Education Code Section 52052.
(a) (1) The Superintendent, with the approval of the state board, shall develop an
Academic Performance Index (API), to measure the performance of schools and school
districts, especially the academic performance of pupils.
(2) A school or school district shall demonstrate comparable improvement in academic
achievement as measured by the API by all numerically significant pupil subgroups at
the school or school district, including:
(A) Ethnic subgroups.
(B) Socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils.
(C) English learners.
(D) Pupils with disabilities.
(E) Foster youth.
(F) Homeless youth.
(3) (A) For purposes of this section, a numerically significant pupil subgroup is one that
consists of at least 30 pupils, each of whom has a valid test score.
(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for a subgroup of pupils who are foster youth or
homeless youth, a numerically significant pupil subgroup is one that consists of at least
15 pupils.
(C) For a school or school district with an API score that is based on no fewer than 11
and no more than 99 pupils with valid test scores, numerically significant pupil
subgroups shall be defined by the Superintendent, with approval by the state board.
(4) (A) The API shall consist of a variety of indicators currently reported to the
department, including, but not limited to, the results of the achievement test
administered pursuant to Section 60640, attendance rates for pupils in elementary
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 12 of 15

schools, middle schools, and secondary schools, and the graduation rates for pupils in
secondary schools.
(B) The Superintendent, with the approval of the state board, may also incorporate into
the API the rates at which pupils successfully promote from one grade to the next in
middle school and high school, and successfully matriculate from middle school to high
school.
(C) Graduation rates for pupils in secondary schools shall be calculated for the API as
follows:
(i) Four-year graduation rates shall be calculated by taking the number of pupils who
graduated on time for the current school year, which is considered to be three school
years after the pupils entered grade 9 for the first time, and dividing that number by the
total calculated in clause (ii).
(ii) The number of pupils entering grade 9 for the first time in the school year three
school years before the current school year, plus the number of pupils who transferred
into the class graduating at the end of the current school year between the school year
that was three school years before the current school year and the date of graduation,
less the number of pupils who transferred out of the school between the school year
that was three school years before the current school year and the date of graduation
who were members of the class that is graduating at the end of the current school year.
(iii) Five-year graduation rates shall be calculated by taking the number of pupils who
graduated on time for the current school year, which is considered to be four school
years after the pupils entered grade 9 for the first time, and dividing that number by the
total calculated in clause (iv).
(iv) The number of pupils entering grade 9 for the first time in the school year four years
before the current school year, plus the number of pupils who transferred into the class
graduating at the end of the current school year between the school year that was four
school years before the current school year and the date of graduation, less the number
of pupils who transferred out of the school between the school year that was four years
before the current school year and the date of graduation who were members of the
class that is graduating at the end of the current school year.
(v) Six-year graduation rates shall be calculated by taking the number of pupils who
graduated on time for the current school year, which is considered to be five school
years after the pupils entered grade 9 for the first time, and dividing that number by the
total calculated in clause (vi).
(vi) The number of pupils entering grade 9 for the first time in the school year five years
before the current school year, plus the number of pupils who transferred into the class
graduating at the end of the current school year between the school year that was five
school years before the current school year and the date of graduation, less the number
of pupils who transferred out of the school between the school year that was five years
before the current school year and the date of graduation who were members of the
class that is graduating at the end of the current school year.
(D) The inclusion of five- and six-year graduation rates for pupils in secondary schools
shall meet the following requirements:
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 13 of 15

(i) Schools and school districts shall be granted one-half the credit in their API scores for
graduating pupils in five years that they are granted for graduating pupils in four years.
(ii) Schools and school districts shall be granted one-quarter the credit in their API
scores for graduating pupils in six years that they are granted for graduating pupils in
four years.
(iii) Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii), schools and school districts shall be granted full
credit in their API scores for graduating in five or six years a pupil with disabilities who
graduates in accordance with his or her individualized education program.
(E) The pupil data collected for the API that comes from the achievement test
administered pursuant to Section 60640 and the high school exit examination
administered pursuant to Section 60851, when fully implemented, shall be
disaggregated by special education status, English learners, socioeconomic status,
gender, and ethnic group. Only the test scores of pupils who were counted as part of the
enrollment in the annual data collection of the California Basic Educational Data System
for the current fiscal year and who were continuously enrolled during that year may be
included in the test result reports in the API score of the school.
(F) (i) Commencing with the baseline API calculation in 2016, and for each year
thereafter, results of the achievement test and other tests specified in subdivision (b)
shall constitute no more than 60 percent of the value of the index for secondary schools.
(ii) In addition to the elements required by this paragraph, the Superintendent, with the
approval of the state board, may incorporate into the index for secondary schools valid,
reliable, and stable measures of pupil preparedness for postsecondary education and
career.
(G) Results of the achievement test and other tests specified in subdivision (b) shall
constitute at least 60 percent of the value of the index for primary schools and middle
schools.
(H) It is the intent of the Legislature that the state’s system of public school
accountability be more closely aligned with both the public’s expectations for public
education and the workforce needs of the state’s economy. It is therefore necessary that
the accountability system evolve beyond its narrow focus on pupil test scores to
encompass other valuable information about school performance, including, but not
limited to, pupil preparedness for college and career, as well as the high school
graduation rates already required by law.
(I) The Superintendent shall annually determine the accuracy of the graduation rate
data. Notwithstanding any other law, graduation rates for pupils in dropout recovery high
schools shall not be included in the API. For purposes of this subparagraph, “dropout
recovery high school” means a high school in which 50 percent or more of its pupils
have been designated as dropouts pursuant to the exit/withdrawal codes developed by
the department or left a school and were not otherwise enrolled in a school for a period
of at least 180 days.
(J) To complement the API, the Superintendent, with the approval of the state board,
may develop and implement a program of school quality review that features locally
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 14 of 15

convened panels to visit schools, observe teachers, interview pupils, and examine pupil
work, if an appropriation for this purpose is made in the annual Budget Act.
(K) The Superintendent shall annually provide to local educational agencies and the
public a transparent and understandable explanation of the individual components of
the API and their relative values within the API.
(L) An additional element chosen by the Superintendent and the state board for
inclusion in the API pursuant to this paragraph shall not be incorporated into the API
until at least one full school year after the state board’s decision to include the element
into the API.
(b) Pupil scores from the following tests, when available and when found to be valid and
reliable for this purpose, shall be incorporated into the API:
(1) The standards-based achievement tests provided for in Section 60642.5.
(2) The high school exit examination.
(c) Based on the API, the Superintendent shall develop, and the state board shall adopt,
expected annual percentage growth targets for all schools based on their API baseline
score from the previous year. Schools are expected to meet these growth targets
through effective allocation of available resources. For schools below the statewide API
performance target adopted by the state board pursuant to subdivision (d), the minimum
annual percentage growth target shall be 5 percent of the difference between the actual
API score of a school and the statewide API performance target, or one API point,
whichever is greater. Schools at or above the statewide API performance target shall
have, as their growth target, maintenance of their API score above the statewide API
performance target. However, the state board may set differential growth targets based
on grade level of instruction and may set higher growth targets for the lowest performing
schools because they have the greatest room for improvement. To meet its growth
target, a school shall demonstrate that the annual growth in its API is equal to or more
than its schoolwide annual percentage growth target and that all numerically significant
pupil subgroups, as defined in subdivision (a), are making comparable improvement.
(d) Upon adoption of state performance standards by the state board, the
Superintendent shall recommend, and the state board shall adopt, a statewide API
performance target that includes consideration of performance standards and
represents the proficiency level required to meet the state performance target.
(e) (1) A school or school district with 11 to 99 pupils with valid test scores shall receive
an API score with an asterisk that indicates less statistical certainty than API scores
based on 100 or more test scores.
(2) A school or school district annually shall receive an API score, unless the
Superintendent determines that an API score would be an invalid measure of the
performance of the school or school district for one or more of the following reasons:
(A) Irregularities in testing procedures occurred.
(B) The data used to calculate the API score of the school or school district are not
representative of the pupil population at the school or school district.
9/2/2016 3:25 PM

 dsib-amard-sep16item01
Attachment 6
Page 15 of 15

(C) Significant demographic changes in the pupil population render year-to-year
comparisons of pupil performance invalid.
(D) The department discovers or receives information indicating that the integrity of the
API score has been compromised.
(E) Insufficient pupil participation in the assessments included in the API.
(F) A transition to new standards-based assessments compromises comparability of
results across schools or school districts. The Superintendent may use the authority in
this subparagraph in the 2013–14, 2014–15, and 2015-16 school years only, with the
approval of the state board.
(3) If a school or school district has fewer than 100 pupils with valid test scores, the
calculation of the API or adequate yearly progress pursuant to the federal No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.) and federal regulations may be
calculated over more than one annual administration of the tests administered pursuant
to Section 60640 and the high school exit examination administered pursuant to Section
60851, consistent with regulations adopted by the state board.
(4) Any school or school district that does not receive an API calculated pursuant to
subparagraph (F) of paragraph (2) shall not receive an API growth target pursuant to
subdivision (c). Schools and school districts that do not have an API calculated pursuant
to subparagraph (F) of paragraph (2) shall use one of the following:
(A) The most recent API calculation.
(B) An average of the three most recent annual API calculations.
(C) Alternative measures that show increases in pupil academic achievement for all
groups of pupils schoolwide and among significant subgroups.
(f) Only schools with 100 or more test scores contributing to the API may be included in
the API rankings.
(g) The Superintendent, with the approval of the state board, shall develop an
alternative accountability system for schools under the jurisdiction of a county board of
education or a county superintendent of schools, community day schools, nonpublic,
nonsectarian schools pursuant to Section 56366, and alternative schools serving highrisk pupils, including continuation high schools and opportunity schools. Schools in the
alternative accountability system may receive an API score, but shall not be included in
the API rankings.
(h) For purposes of this section, county offices of education shall be considered school
districts.
(i) For purposes of this section, “homeless youth” has the same meaning as in Section
11434a(2) of Title 42 of the United States Code.

9/2/2016 3:25 PM