Statewide rankings already put California schools in the hot seat twice a year, and the system is about to get more complicated.

The state now tells parents if their schools have made progress on a battery of standardized tests each fall. And in the winter the state ranks 8,000 campuses on a scale of 1 to 10.

Beginning in mid-August, officials will tell whether schools have made "adequate yearly progress" under the federal government's No Child Left Behind law.

The added layer of scrutiny is sure to frustrate teachers who already are skeptical about putting so much emphasis on test scores.

"They're really upset that they're constantly teaching toward the test," said Barney Hale, executive director of the Modesto Teachers Association.

State officials are reluctant to endorse the new way of doing business, though they have no choice but to comply.

"This is the federal government's way of judging, not the state's," said Robert Bernstein, an administrator in the California Department of Education's policy and evaluation division.

If a base line that will act as the starting point is a predictor, the results could be dismal.

Benchmark numbers released in late July, which are based on 2002 test scores, show that 68 percent of California's schools are lagging even before the race gets started.

Schools in the Northern San Joaquin Valley have a long way to go if they are to make adequate yearly progress. About 77 percent of schools in Stanislaus County, 89 percent in Merced County and 79 percent in San Joaquin County fell below the base line.

Passage rates were higher in the foothills, where fewer students are learning English or come from ethnic minority groups, but still, 72 percent of schools in Calaveras County, 63 percent in Tuolumne County and 50 percent in Mariposa County fell below the base line.

The federal law, signed by President Bush in January 2002, says schools must show that all students are proficient in English and math by 2013-14.

To show adequate yearly progress in 2003, 13.6 percent of students at elementary and middle schools must be proficient in English and 16 percent must be proficient in math.

For high schools, 11.2 percent of students must be proficient in English and 9.6 percent must be proficient in math.

Also, all subgroups of students -- such as those who are learning English, are disabled or are ethnic minorities -- must make progress toward separate proficiency targets.

And schools must test at least 95 percent of students.

The federal law imposes sanctions for schools that do not make adequate progress each year.

But it lets each state set the benchmarks that determine if student performance on standardized tests -- including California Standards Tests and the High School Exit Exam -- is "proficient."

In California, officials have bragged about having some of the toughest standards in the nation. That means students are being challenged, but it also means that many schools may be deemed failures in future years.

When the state Board of Education approved the standards in January, Department of Education officials predicted that 98 percent of schools would fail to meet the 2014 deadline.

The targets will rise in 2004-05, remain flat until 2006-07, and increase each year until 2013-14, when 100 percent of students are expected to be proficient.

State standards upheld

Bernstein said the state board kept its high standards because it already had its own accountability system in place, and did not want to derail progress already being made on the Academic Performance Index.

The API, which is based on standardized tests, gives every school a score between 200 and 1,000 and expects annual improvements. Schools below 800 are supposed to improve 5 percent toward the target, while those above must improve 1 point.

"In six or seven years, when almost every school is failing on the AYP (adequate yearly progress), it won't be very meaningful, and people will look to the API," Bernstein said.

The federal law has teeth for 4,528 California schools that receive extra federal funding to serve low-income students under Title I. Those schools can face sanctions if they fail to make adequate yearly progress for two years in a row. Here is how it works:

If a school fails to meet growth targets for two years, parents may transfer their children to schools that are not on the low-performing list.

If a school fails for three consecutive years, parents may get extra tutoring for their children, paid for by the district.

If a school fails for four consecutive years, it must begin restructuring its staff, implement new curriculum, or get more oversight from the district.

And if a school fails for five consecutive years, the state may take over or turn management over to a for-profit company.
Schools exit the program if they make the required progress two years in a row.

In June 2002, 75 schools in the Northern San Joaquin Valley and foothills were placed on the low-performing list because they failed to meet state Academic Performance Index targets for two or more years.

Fifteen of the schools improved enough on 2002 test scores to exit the program and escape the sanctions.

But a host of new schools are expected to be identified based on 2003 test scores under the adequate yearly progress model on Aug. 15.

Lynn Jamison, director of state and federal programs for Modesto City Schools, said few parents have transferred their children out of their neighborhood schools under the new rules.

No parents in his district took advantage of the school choice option when it first was offered in 2002, he said, and only eight parents asked to move their children to other schools this spring.

He said the district will have to act quickly if more schools are identified later this month, because traditional campuses begin school in September and year-round campuses started in July.

"We're going to jump right on it," Jamison said.