Showing posts with label API. Show all posts
Showing posts with label API. Show all posts

Saturday, July 29, 2017

California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) Score Report


The California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) System is California's new statewide student academic assessment system.

On January 1, 2014, California Education Code Section 60640 established the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) System of assessments to replace the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program, which became inoperative on July 1, 2013.

One good way to get a better feel for how to interpret the test results is to look at a couple examples of actual test results.

The areas for English Language Arts/Literacy (ELA) include:  
  • Reading: How well does your child understand stories and information that he or she reads?
  • Writing: How well does your child communicate in writing? 
  • Listening: How well does your child understand spoken information? 
  • Research/Inquiry: How well can your child find and present information about a topic? 
The areas for mathematics include: 
  • Concepts & Procedures: How well does your child use mathematical rules and ideas? 
  • Problem Solving and Modeling & Data Analysis: How well can your child show and apply problem-solving skills? 
  • Communicating Reasoning: How well can your child think logically and express thoughts in order to solve a problem?
These areas are based on the standards, which describe what your child should know and be able to do relative to the overall Standard Met achievement level for his or her grade. These results by area are most useful to identify skills where your child is performing particularly well (Above Standard) or where your child is struggling and needs help to improve (Below Standard). If your child received a “No score,” it means he or she did not complete enough questions to receive a score in that area.

There are four levels of scores for ELA and mathematics for each grade. Achievement levels “Standard Met” and “Standard Exceeded” are the state targets for all students.

Score ranges for each achievement level are different for each grade, and the standards for the next grade are higher than for the previous grade. As a result, students may need a higher score to stay in the same achievement level as the previous year.

Go to http://testscoreguide.org/ca/ for more information, including the Parent Guide to the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments with sample test items.

For complete results for schools, districts, or across the state, visit the CDE CAASPP Results Web site at http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/

Monday, July 3, 2017

What are some areas in Silicon Valley that have a good public high school (850+) but not so good elementary and middle? We plan on using private schools for educating our kids early on and then use public high schools.

Here is my answer on Quora. <-- click="" hyperlink="" p="" this="">
If the HyperLink above doesn't work, you can copy paste the URL below into your browser:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-areas-in-Silicon-Valley-that-have-a-good-public-high-school-850%2B-but-not-so-good-elementary-and-middle/answer/Robert-Lei?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=1227459419

Question on Quora:

What are some areas in Silicon Valley that have a good public high school (850+) but not so good elementary and middle? We plan on using private schools for educating our kids early on and then use public high schools.

Robert Lei, REALTOR, E-PRO at Century 21 M&M and Associates

Hi, Yes, I know the perfect spot within Silicon Valley for you if you want excellent high school but do not need excellent elementary. One part of Sunnyvale has just this scenario. To see what region I’m talking about, go to this link: Silicon Valley School Districts . Scroll down and click on “Sunnyvale Elementary”. Look for the light-blue region along the western edge of Sunnyvale bordering Mountain View that says “Vargas Elementary”. This is the part of Sunnyvale that has an excellent public high school (Homestead High School API=873) but not as good elementary (Vargas Elementary API=776). Usually, elementary schools have higher API and the API gets worse as you move from elementary to middle to high school. However, this pocket of Sunnyvale is an exception because Vargas Elementary is joined by the two star elementary schools Cherry Chase Elementary (API = 952) and Cumberland Elementary (API = 947) when they reach high school at Homestead High.

Note: The API scores I’ve reported above are the 3-year average of the last 3 recorded years of the Academic Performance Index (API) from the California Department of Education website.

I’m guessing you are asking for “not so good” elementary because you are hoping to get the good high school without paying such a high price for the house as you would be forced to pay if you bid on houses that had all 3 schools — elementary, middle, and high school — all highly ranked. If so, you are correct that the prices of these homes aren’t quite as high as the homes that are in the Cherry Chase Elementary and Cumberland Elementary attendance areas.

Monday, October 24, 2016

State Board of Education Approves New School Accountability System to Replace the Old API System


State Board of Education Approves New School Accountability System to Replace the Old API System

September 8, 2016  


SACRAMENTO—As required by state law, the State Board of Education on September 8, 2016  approved key elements of a new accountability system that evaluates schools and districts in 10 areas critical to student performance, including graduation rates, readiness for college and careers, test scores, and progress of English learners.

The system reinforces California’s national leadership in developing an accountability system designed to help all schools continuously improve.

“Today the State Board has taken a big step toward improving our accountability system, as required under the new school funding formula approved by the Governor and the Legislature. This accountability design is unique and has never been used before in the United States,” said California State Board of Education President Michael Kirst. “Parents, educators, and the public will soon be able to look at a variety of areas to tell how their school is doing, where it may be strong, where it may be weak, and where it may need help.”

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson called this a “new system for a new era.” The changes, which put California on the cutting edge of innovations that enhance student learning, are happening in a state with the most diverse student population and with the most students—more than 6.2 million—at more than 10,000 schools.

“Once again, California leads the way. No longer will our parents and our communities be asked to evaluate a school or a district based on a single number,” said Torlakson. “The new accountability system provides parents, educators, and community members with a wealth of information, allowing them to dig deep into a variety of areas that affect student performance and more effectively hold their districts accountable. It will also help educators more easily identify and assist schools and districts in need of help.”

The system gives parents, educators, and the community more tools to understand what is happening at their schools, promotes equity by helping to identify disparities among student groups, and more effectively identifies the schools that need extra help and where they need it.

“Today’s action will help all students succeed in 21st century careers,” said Torlakson.

The innovative new system replaces the outdated Academic Performance Index (API), which relied almost exclusively on test scores to measure progress, and is a key element of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which provides more local control over revenues and more resources for students with the greatest needs.

The board approved actions that make up an “evaluation rubric,” which provides a tool for holding schools and districts accountable for the eight state priorities identified in the Local Control Funding Formula, approved by the Legislature in 2013. Among the priorities are student achievement, student engagement, school climate, and parent engagement.

The September 8, 2016 Board actions included:

*       Adopting four state indicators of school success with performance standards: readiness for college and careers, graduation rates, progress of English learners, and suspension rates.

*       Adopting two state indicators of school success, with performance standards to be finalized in the coming months: scores on state standardized tests and chronic absenteeism.

*       Adopting four local indicators with performance standards: basic conditions at a school, progress in implementing standards, parent engagement, and school climate.

*       Establishing a system by which schools that do not meet performance standards can become eligible for technical assistance and intervention.

*       Providing information on model practices of schools performing well and providing resources for schools.

The performance standards will be based on status, how each school or district fared last year, and change, how much they have improved or declined in the past three years. Schools will be rated based on a combination of these measures and assigned one of five performance levels. From highest to lowest, the categories are: Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, and Red.

The status and change thresholds were developed by analyzing current data so they would broadly reflect where districts and schools are now. Using high school graduation rates as an example, five status levels were set, with a low of a graduation rate of less than 67 percent (considered very poor) to a high of a 95 percent graduation rate (considered very high). In addition, five rates of change were set, from a low of a decline of 5 percent or more to a high of an increase of 5 percent or more.

The new system provides multiple ongoing measures of school performance instead of the single, one-item snapshot from the prior system.

The specific display of the performance system is not final. Staff will work with parents, teachers, and members of the public to ensure it is easy to understand, similar to a report card. The Web-based system will be available in early 2017.

During today’s meeting, both Kirst and Torlakson thanked employees of the California Department of Education and educators throughout the state for their hard work in developing this ground-breaking system and for their future work in implementing it.

For more information, please check California State Board Agenda Item 1.

Below is a copy of the motion approved unanimously on Thursday, September 8, 2016, by the State Board of Education:

1.    Adopt the LCFF evaluation rubrics with the following components:

o    The concise set of state indicators and local performance indicators approved at the May and July 2016 State Board of Education meetings.

o    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.

o    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.

o    Statements of Model Practices, with the content to be finalized at a future date.

o    Links to external resources, with the content to be finalized at a future date.

2.    Approve:

o    The proposed performance standards, based on the approved methodology to establish cut-scores and performance categories, for the following state indicators:

§  Progress of English learners toward English proficiency based on the English learner indicator (Priority 4)

§  High school graduation rate (Priority 5)

§  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)

§  Suspension rates by LEA type (elementary, high, and unified), and by school type (elementary, middle, and high) (Priority 6)

o    The proposed standards for the local performance indicators:

§  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)

§  Local Climate Surveys (Priority 6)

§  Coordination of Services for Expelled Students (Priority 9—County Office of Education only)

§  Coordination of Services for Foster Youth (Priority 10—County Office of Education only)

o    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.

# # # #

Tom Torlakson — State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Communications Division, Room 5206, 916-319-0818, Fax 916-319-0100

Last Reviewed: Thursday, September 8, 2016

 

Release: #16-59
September 8, 2016

Contact: Bill Ainsworth
E-mail: communications@cde.ca.gov
Phone: 916-319-0818

 

Friday, December 13, 2013

All Milpitas Unified Schools Dropped API in 2013 except for John Sinnott Elementary and Milpitas High.

In 2013, all the schools in the Milpitas Unified School District dropped in Academic Performance Index (API) except for John Sinnott Elementary and Milpitas High. 
John Sinnott Elementary rose from a 2012 Base API of 915 to a 2013 Base API of 928. 
Milpitas High rose from a 2012 Base API of 825 to a 2013 Base API of 830.
Aside from these two bright spots, the rest of the schools in the Milpitas Unified School District dropped in API.  The biggest drops in API were from Calaveras Hills Continuation High School (dropped a whopping 121 points from API=626 in 2012 to API=505 in 2013), Robert Randall Elementary (dropped 42 points from API=795 in 2012 to API=753 in 2013), and  William Burnett Elementary (dropped 39 points from API=894 in 2012 to API=855 in 2013).  The next biggest drops were the two middle schools.  Rancho Milpitas Middle dropped 24 points from API=881 to API=857.  Thomas Russell Middle dropped 18pts from API=889 to API=871.  It's hard to say why 10 of the 12 schools dropped in API. 

The drop in API scores might be due to the district diverting more resources toward implementation of the Common Core State Standards for the 2014-15 school year.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) Warren Hyde Middle School Surges in API Results

Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) Warren Hyde Middle School Surges in API Results

Examining the newly released 2012 Growth Academic Performance Index (API) scores for the Cupertino Union School District, the one result that glaringly sticks out is the sudden, huge improvement in API for Warren E. Hyde Middle School.  While the four other middle schools in the district barely budged, Hyde Middle School's API jumped a whopping +39 points to almost break the 900 barrier.

Sunnyvale Elementary School Gap Appears to be Closing

Sunnyvale Elementary School Gap Appears to be Closing

Posted Under: Home Buying in Sunnyvale, Home Selling in Sunnyvale, In My Neighborhood in Sunnyvale | October 17, 2012 11:56 AM | 13 views | No comments

The gap in performance between schools in the Sunnyvale Elementary school district appears to be closing, based on the recently released latest API results. For many years, we had Cherry Chase #1 and Cumberland #2 both FAR ahead of the rest of Sunnyvale schools in Academic Performance Index (API). Ellis Elementary then emerged as a clear #3 with the remaining schools still far behind.

However, the latest results show a strong improvement in Bishop Elementary (+25) and good improvement in San Miguel Elementary (+7) while a couple of the top schools Cherry Chase (-11) and Ellis Elementary (-4) dropped slightly. If Bishop Elementary and San Miguel Elementary continue their climb, they will break the 800 API barrier next year. From an investment point of view, you might be wise to buy houses in those two neighborhoods while they are still below the psychological 800 barrier.

By the same token, now may be the smart time to buy in the Cumberland Elementary neighborhood. Cumberland Elementary looks poised to overtake Cherry Chase as the #1 ranked school in the Sunnyvale School District. If/when that happens, it will be a huge psychological stimulus for Cumberland home prices.

Robert Lei, REALTOR, ePRO
Century 21 M&M and Associates
474 E. El Camino Real
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
(408) 893-2410

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Prepare your kids for the STAR test to boost your school's API

If you want to boost your home value, boost your school's API.  To boost your school's API, you should start preparing your kids for the California STAR tests.  Actually, the 2011-2012 school year testing has already been completed in Cupertino Union School District, so it may already be too late for this academic year.  You can always prepare your kids for next year.

What kind of questions are in the STAR test?  The questions in the STAR test are actually very good questions to test kids' intuition and underlying understanding of the subject matter.  A student with a deeper understanding of the underlying concept will score better than a student who relies on rote memory.  For example, for 2nd graders, a sample question is:

3 + 2 + 4 = 3 + 4 + [  ]

A student who relies on rote memory and doesn't understand the underlying concept might spend the time to add up the numbers on the left hand side then subtract the numbers on the right hand side.  However, a student who understand the concept better will see right away that the numbers are the same, except for the order, and will quickly know the correct answer.

The reading comprehension section might ask the child to read two separate stories and ask questions that test whether the child really understands the similarities and differences between the two stories.

Overall, the questions seem to have been chosen wisely by the state to test childrens' mental sharpness.  On a humorous note, some of the questions are obviously old because they are outdated.  For example:

If you want to find out where New York is, you should look in
a) a dictionary
b) a thesaurus
c) an atlas
d) a storybook

The correct answer is missing.  Even little 2nd graders know these days that the correct answer should be:
e) Go to Google or Yahoo maps and type in "New York"

STAR testing for Cupertino Union School District's Eisenhower Elementary 2nd graders

If  you are wondering why a bunch of 7 year old kids in Santa Clara near the Cupertino border look to have a sense of relief, it's because Cupertino Union School District's Eisenhower Elementary 2nd graders just completed their STAR tests this past week.


Each spring, all students in California from grades two through eleven take the state's Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) exams, a battery of standardized tests.

The California STAR Program looks at how well schools and students are performing. Based on STAR tests and the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE), California assigns an Academic Performance Index (API) rating and growth target to each school and district. Ratings range from 200 to 1000, with a goal of 800 API for all schools statewide.


The STAR Program includes four tests: the California Standards Tests, the California Modified Assessment, the California Alternate Performance Assessment, and the Standards-based Tests in Spanish.

The STAR program used to include the California Achievement Test, Sixth Edition Survey (CAT/6), but this test was eliminated in the 2008-2009 school year.


The test taken by the majority of students is the California Standards Tests (CST).

In 2nd grade through 11th grade, the CST covers English-language arts. In 2nd grade through 7th grade, the test also covers math.

Additional tests are added at various grade levels. The CST adds a history-social science test for 8th grade, 10th grade and 11th grade. The CST adds a science test for 5th grade, 8th grade, and 10th grade. The CST also adds a math and science test for students in 9th, 10th, and 11th grade. The test they take depends on which math and science course they are enrolled in that school year, such as algebra, geometry, physics, or chemistry.

The STAR - CalEdFacts page provides a more detailed overview of the program.
For more information, you can also visit California Department of Education Testing and Accountability.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Many of the Santa Clara Unified schools showing strong API improvements

Many of the Santa Clara Unified schools are showing strong API improvements. Most notably, Don Callejon Elementary, Bowers Elementary, Sutter Elementary, Buscher Middle, Kathryn Hughes Elementary, Bracher Elementary, and Montague Elementary all increased by a strong 30 API points or more. For comparison, in Sunnyvale school district, only Cumberland Elementary and Vargas Elementary improved by that much. Fairwood Elementary was close though.


SANTA CLARA UNIFIED 799 781 D 18

Elementary Schools
Bowers Elementary 830 789 5 41 Yes Yes Yes

Bracher Elementary 894 862 A 32 Yes Yes Yes

Braly Elementary 842 834 A 8 Yes No No

Briarwood Elementary 794 797 3 -3 No No No

C. W. Haman Elementary 798 797 3 1 No No No

Don Callejon 842 798 2 44 Yes Yes Yes

George Mayne Elementary 811 816 A -5 Yes No No

Kathryn Hughes Elementary 813 779 5 34 Yes Yes Yes

Laurelwood Elementary 921 902 A 19 Yes Yes Yes

Millikin Elementary 999 989 A 10 Yes Yes Yes

Montague Elementary 791 761 5 30 Yes Yes Yes

Pomeroy Elementary 781 797 3 -16 No No No

Ponderosa Elementary 855 849 A 6 Yes No No

Scott Lane Elementary 739 742 5 -3 No No No

Sutter Elementary 890 854 A 36 Yes Yes Yes

Washington Elementary 880 891 A -11 Yes Yes Yes

Westwood Elementary 785 790 5 -5 No No No

Middle Schools
Buchser Middle 785 750 5 35 Yes Yes Yes

Downtown College Prep Alviso 659 603* 10 56 Yes Yes Yes

Juan Cabrillo Middle 757 748 5 9 Yes Yes Yes

Marian A. Peterson Middle 853 850 A 3 Yes Yes Yes

High Schools
Adrian Wilcox High 770 731 5 39 Yes Yes Yes

Santa Clara High 760 734 5 26 Yes Yes Yes



**

Cumberland, Vargas, and Fairwood Elementary are the elementary schools in Sunnyvale school district with the fastest rate of improvement.

SUNNYVALE 796 785 D 11

Elementary Schools
Bishop Elementary 737 736 5 1 No No No

Cherry Chase Elementary 942 943 A -1 Yes Yes Yes

Cumberland Elementary 928 879 A 49 Yes Yes Yes

Ellis Elementary 811 823 A -12 Yes No No

Fairwood Elementary 787 766 5 21 Yes Yes Yes

Lakewood Elementary 802 797 3 5 Yes No No

San Miguel Elementary 762 763 5 -1 No Yes No

Vargas Elementary 769 729 5 40 Yes Yes Yes

Middle Schools
Columbia Middle 712 687 6 25 Yes Yes Yes

Sunnyvale Middle 805 822 A -17 Yes No No

Robert Lei
REALTOR®, e-PRO®
Century 21 M&M and Associates
761 E. El Camino Real
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Direct: (408) 350-4726
Cell: (408) 893-2410
I'm never too busy for your Silicon Valley real estate referrals
DRE # 01716389
http://www.siliconvalleyhouses.blogspot.com/

How API Growth Targets are Set

The State Board of Education set the statewide API target at 800 out of a possible 1,000. The Public Schools Accountability Act calls for most schools to improve their performance each year by 5% of the difference between their API and the statewide target of 800, with a minimum target of five points’ growth.

For example, a school with an API of 340 would have a growth target of 23.
A school with an API between 691 and 795 would need to gain five points.
A school with an API between 796 and 799 would have a growth target of the difference between its API and 800.
A school that is at or above 800 is expected to stay above that threshold.
ASAM schools, special education centers, and schools without valid Base API scores have no growth targets.

A school's Base API score plus its growth target becomes that school's goal for its next Growth API. The process repeats each year.

In 1998–99, the first year of the API program, 13% of elementary schools, 11% of middle schools, and 5% of high schools reached or exceeded 800 on the Growth API. In most years since then, the percentages have edged upwards. In 2010, 51% of elementary schools, 40% of middle schools, and 25% of high schools scored at least 800 points on the Growth API.

When the Growth API is calculated, a school gets more credit for improvements at the bottom of the performance range than the top, creating an incentive for schools to focus on their lowest-performing students.

School districts do not receive API scores under the Public Schools Accountability Act. However, to comply with the state's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) plan, API has been added as an additional criterion for school districts. The district Growth API, for 2010–11, must be at least 710 or one point above the Base API. For each subsequent year the required Growth API score for NCLB will increase by 30 points until it reaches 800 in 2013–14. Under NCLB, API scores are also given to county offices of education when they operate schools directly.

Academic Performance Index (API) Reports for California Public Schools

The Academic Performance Index (API) is a measurement of academic performance and progress of individual schools in California. The API is calculated using results of the STAR (Standardized Testing and Reporting) program and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). In 2009–10, STAR consisted of four types of tests, but not all of them were used in the API. The four tests included the California Standards Tests (CSTs) which examine students' proficiency on academic content standards in a variety of subjects. STAR also included the California Alternative Performance Assessment (CAPA) for students with severe cognitive disabilities, the California Modified Assessment (CMA) for students for whom the CAPA and CSTs are not appropriate, and one test (Standards-based Tests in Spanish) taken by certain Spanish-speaking English learner students. The Spanish tests are not part of the API calculation, but the rest are. The weight of each of these tests in a school's API score varies depending on several factors, but the CSTs generally play the lead role.

The test scores for students not continuously enrolled in a school since October of the school year are not counted in the school's API. Special Education students who are exempted and students whose parents requested that they not be tested are also not counted.

API scores ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. The first step in calculating the API is to divide a school's individual student scores in each subject into five performance bands. The performance bands for California Standards Test (CST) results are labeled advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, and far below basic.

The next step is to apply weights to the percent of students with scores in each performance band (least weight for the lowest bands). These are summed to give a value for the subject.

Then each subject area and test is given a weight within the index. The weights depend on which tests are given to each grade in each school. For example, a high school’s Base API includes CAHSEE results.

The Base API scores vary school by school, depending on students’ grade levels and the number of students tested. The calculation also depends on the number of valid test scores at the school.

Finally, the resulting scores are added to become one number for each school—its API. A school district's API is the sum total of all the student (not school) scores.

A caveat: Although the API is meant as a measure of academic growth, it is not intended to track the school’s growth over several years. The meaningful comparison is within each annual API cycle, between the Base API and the Growth API, because the computation of the API is kept as similar as possible within each cycle.

The incorporation of new elements into the index at the beginning of an API base/growth cycle can lead to unintentional or confusing fluctuations in API scores compared with scores from the previous cycle. The state adjusts API scores to compensate for the effect of those new elements. The mechanism for that technical adjustment is called the scale calibration factor. Even so, the CDE warns against tracking the scores year to year. A better comparison is to look at whether a school or district consistently meets its growth targets or to consider the amount of growth year to year. Even within a cycle, the students represented in each year are different. For example, in a K–6 school, you have a group of 2nd–6th graders present in year one, but in year two the 2nd graders are new and the 6th graders from year one are gone.

API County List of Schools
Select County using the Drop-down box.

Select SANTA CLARA COUNTY