State sets same test goal for all kids
Sacramento Bee 3/28/07
Since the state initiated the Academic Performance Index in 1999, there have been differences in test scores between students from various backgrounds: poor and affluent, black and white, Latino and Asian. And each spring, when the state determines how much students' scores should improve, it has set the bar lower for ethnic groups than for a school as a whole.
Not anymore.
Tuesday, when the state spelled out how much kids should improve their scores, it said the same will be expected of everyone.
"It's going to be more challenging for schools to meet their growth targets," said state superintendent Jack O'Connell.
"But it's designed with the intention of maximizing every opportunity to close the achievement gap."
During a phone call with reporters, he lauded the new method for setting test score goals as "aggressive and ambitious."
But others said it won't make a shred of difference because the new system, like the old one, lacks teeth. Under the state's system, consequences are minimal for schools and students that don't meet improvement goals.
The state Department of Education has long set different API targets for each ethnic group. For years, ethnic groups were expected to make 80 percent of the progress that was expected of the school as a whole: If a school's target was to raise its API 10 points, for example, the African American students had to raise theirs 8 points.
That system drew criticism and was seen as racist. It set lower expectations for some groups than for others, critics said. State education leaders responded by changing the way they set growth targets. Now lower-scoring groups have to grow at the same rate as the whole school -- so those students have to gain more points to catch up to the state's goal of 800.
"What it means is having equal expectations for all kids," said Greg Purcell, principal of Sutter Middle School in Sacramento.
The new system will not prompt big changes on his campus because teachers judge students by their performance, not by their ethnicity, Purcell said.
"It's not hard to figure out which kids need the support, looking at them individually, regardless of subgroup."
Purcell's school is so high-performing that it doesn't have a growth target: the student body scored 856, above the state's goal. But performance varied hugely among racial groups. To encourage African American and Latino students to catch up, the state set their target at 5 points, but said white and Asian students don't have to increase their scores at all.
How does the state calculate the new targets? All schools and student groups who have not made the 800 goal must increase their scores by the same rate -- 5 percent of the difference between their score and 800.
Throughout the region, the growth targets the state released Tuesday highlight the new challenge schools face in trying to even out achievement:
• At Encina High School in the San Juan Unified School District, African American and Latino students must increase their scores 10 points while white students' scores have to grow by 5.
• At Grant Union High School in the Del Paso Heights neighborhood, African American and Latino students must boost their scores 12 points, while white and Asian students' scores are supposed to improve 9 and 10 points, respectively.
• At Valley High School in the Elk Grove Unified School District, African American students must up their score 10 points, Latino students 7 points and Asian students 5 points.
Valley High School principal Chris Evans applauded the state's new focus. "This is one measure to tell us that one group may have more work than another," he said. "It's a measure to help us assess our progress."
But Jim Lanich, a longtime critic of the state's API system, said the new method for setting targets won't make a difference because there aren't enough consequences for schools that don't meet their goals.
"We applaud a focus on minority kids and their achievement levels," said Lanich, president of California Business for Education Excellence. "But zero accountability at a lower target is the same as zero accountability at a higher target."
Schools see consequences for not meeting their targets only if they opt in to a state improvement program. Fewer than 17 percent of schools participate in such programs, according to state education officials.
O'Connell countered that the state holds schools responsible by publicly reporting their test scores and goals.
"A lot of the accountability and the consequences are from peer pressure in the community and the fact that you want your schools to do well," he said.
"It's peer pressure, it's community pride we're talking about here. That's a key component."