More Schools Confused by the API
In yet another installment of my diatribe against the Academic Performance Index (API) (see also here, here and here), here is a Sacramento Bee article about administrators in Elk Grove Unified, near Sacramento, who are confused by dramatic changes in their API Similar Schools ranking.
The API gives four different numbers to a school year year. They include:
- The Base API is given for the upcoming school year in the spring. The Base API number is a number between 200 and 1000. The state wants all schools to get to 800 or higher. Earlier this month, they released the 2005 Base API. The numbers are based on the spring 2005 testing results and will be used as the base for the 2005-2006 school year cycle.
- The Statewide Ranking, which is a number between 1 and 10, which is supposed to reflect which decile (10% band) that the school’s API score places them in among all schools statewide. This number is released in the spring along with the API Base.
- The Similar Schools Ranking, which is also a number between 1 and 10, which is supposed to reflect which decile (10% band) that the school’s API scores places them in among schools which CDE considers similar. CDE has developed this complex set of criteria for determining which schools are similar. This School Characteristics Index (SCI) is used to determine which schools are similar. The SCI includes items such as pupil mobility, pupil ethnicity, socioeconomic status, percent of teachers with full and emergency credentials, English learner percentage, average class size per grade level and year round calendar status. This year, they added several new criteria, including the percentage of enrollment is several grade levels, GATE enrollment, special education enrollment, RFEP students, migrant education and the percentage of students in class size reduction classrooms for the full day. CDE determines how these various scores are weighted and what their impact is on the SCI.
- The Growth API, a number between 200 and 1000, is supposed to reflect the “growth” or lack thereof that a schools experiences during the school year. The numbers are issued in August and reflect the testing results from the spring of that year. In August, CDE will release the 2006 Growth API, which will be the result of the Spring 2006 testing.
These changes in the SCI appear to have caused some dramatic impact on Similar Schools Rankings. From the article:
But this year, the school saw its first decline, falling 25 points from last year’s 880. Despite this, Dillard’s score is still among the top 20 percent of schools statewide.
But a different number released by the state Tuesday – its annual “similar-schools rank” – kicked Dillard into the basement. This ranking, on a scale from 1 to 10, looks at how a school’s test scores compare to 100 other schools statewide with similar characteristics.
For four straight years, Dillard received a 10 in the similar-schools ranking. Its ranking under the new scoring system this year is a 2, which means its test scores were in the bottom 20 percent among its peers. Out of more than 9,000 schools statewide, only about a dozen schools fell so dramatically in the ranking. Linda Meyerson, Dillard’s principal since 2000, was aghast when she learned of her school’s new ranking.
“What skewed this number? Where did this number change?” she asked.
Well, the school’s API did drop 25 points, but at 865, they’re still in the top 20% of schools in the state, thus they’re getting an 8 on Statewide Ranking. However, their Similar Schools ranking was 2, after four straight years of 10 scores. Is that 25 point drop, really enough to drop them 8 deciles?
The article also mentions another school in the district that gained 12 API points, but dropped from a 9 to a 4 on the Similar Schools Ranking. The article quotes a CDE staff member who indicates the inclusion of GATE student percentage in the SCI might be the cause of the dramatic drop in rankings.
In my mind this is just another example of why the API is not a good measure of school performance. CDE’s “adjustments” to the index every year make it impossible to use it to actually track a school’s progress. Let’s stick to the percentage of students at grade level and take all these resources we’re using to adjust the API on helping schools and students succeed.
Comments are currently closed.