California State PTA members across the state who dedicate themselves to grass-roots efforts, PTA commissioners who study the issues, and PTA advocates who walk the halls of the State Capitol have several reasons to be proud of their work today. Despite a rancorous legislative session, numerous PTA-supported bills were signed into law that will make a real difference in the lives of children and families.
Here is a brief summary of the key bills we advocated for that were signed into law this week:
Assistance for Foster Youth: California State PTA has had a strong commitment to provide support to young people transitioning out of the foster care system. These three PTA-supported bills will ensure that assistance is provided to young people who have no family support.
AB 167 (Adams) - Requires school districts to exempt foster youth who transfer into a school district in grade 11 or 12 from any coursework requirements imposed by the district that exceed the minimum state graduation requirements if the foster youth cannot complete the additional requirements in time to graduate from high school while still eligible for foster care benefits.
AB 719 (Lowenthal) - Requires the Department of Social Services to create a 12-month transitional food stamp program that youth enter automatically as they leave foster care at the age of 18.
AB 1393 (Skinner) - Requires California public colleges and universities to give priority for campus housing to current and former foster youth to ensure stable housing.The first priority would provide housing for uninterrupted year-round occupation, and the next priority would provide housing for occupation most days during the calendar year.
Children's Health: These PTA-supported bills are important to the health of children and youth.
SB 124 (Oropeza) - Increases the fines and penalties for school buses and other vehicles idling near schools, to protect children from air pollution.
SB 249 (Cox) - Requires the California Department of Public Health to develop information about meningococcal disease (which can cause meningitis), including information pertaining to children between 11 and 18 years of age, and to authorize schools to add this information to any health education material sent home to parents.
Community Concerns: These PTA-supported bills improve the safety of children and youth.
AB 870 (Huber) would make it a misdemeanor to bring or possess a razor blade or box cutter on school grounds, with certain exceptions.
AB 1015 (Torlakson) would make it a misdemeanor to see or give away a device, canister, tank or receptacle containing nitrous oxide or a chemical compound with nitrous oxide to anyone under 19 years of age. (This does not apply to food products which use nitrous oxide as a propellant, or use by a medical or dental practitioner.)
Education Issues: This has been a terribly difficult year for schools due to the state budget deficit and legislative gridlock that have prevented finding solutions to protect education funding and make needed educational reforms.
On the bright side, the PTA-supported bill SB 19 (Simitian) was passed. The legislation enables California to clear one critically important hurdle to eligibility for the "Race to the Top" federal education reform funds, by allowing student data to be used as one input for evaluating teachers. The bill also makes changes needed to support continued development of the state's K-12 education data system, the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS).
Of course, there is much work still to do on children's issues, including the following:
preventing childhood obesity;
protecting of personal information on the Internet;
restructuring California's school finance system;
improving ways of measuring academic achievement; and
improving funding for education and services for children and families.
Many bills that we had supported in these areas were vetoed by the Governor. We will continue our efforts on these critical issues into the next legislative session.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
PTA-supported bills signed into law
CA PTA Legislative Information Alert October 15, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
State Schools Chief Jack O'Connell Releases 2008-09 Accountability Progress Report
SACRAMENTO – State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today released California's 2008-09 Accountability Progress Report (APR), which provides results from the state accountability system: the Academic Performance Index (API), as well as the federal accountability system: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Program Improvement (PI). Both the API and AYP are based upon statewide assessment results from the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program and from the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE).
“Our accountability report confirms that most California schools are continuing to make solid gains in academic achievement,” O’Connell said. “For the seventh year in a row schools at every level have made real progress toward the statewide API target of 800, and almost half of our elementary schools have met or exceeded this goal. The API results also show a slight narrowing of the achievement gap that historically has left Hispanic or Latino and African American students trailing behind their peers who are white or Asian. I am delighted to see this trend of progress continue.”
Forty-two percent of all California schools are now at or above the overall statewide target API of 800, up six percentage points from the year before. This includes 48 percent of elementary schools, 36 percent of middle schools, and 21 percent of high schools. (See Table 1.)
The 2009 API report shows that all student subgroups statewide demonstrated improvement between 11 and 15 points. African American, Hispanic or Latino, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students increased their API this year by 15 points, while the API of white students increased by 14 percentage points and the statewide increase for all students was 14 points. Despite this slight narrowing between subgroups, white, and Asian students continue to have significantly higher API scores, a major indicator of the achievement gaps that persist in California schools. (See Table 2.) For API point growth by student groups statewide at the elementary school, middle school, and high school levels, see Tables 3, 4, and 5.)
The API is a numeric index that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000 with a statewide target of 800. School and subgroup targets are set at 5 percent of the difference between the school or subgroup's Base API score and the statewide target of 800, with a minimum target of 5 points. All numerically significant subgroups at a school must meet their growth targets for a school to meet its API growth target. These subgroups include racial/ethnic subgroups, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, English learners, and students with disabilities.
The state API and federal AYP results report progress in different ways. The state API is an index model that measures year-to-year improvement and provides incentives to educators to focus on students at all performance levels. Schools receive more API points for moving students up from of the lowest performance levels. In contrast, the federal AYP system focuses solely on whether or not students are scoring at the proficient level or above on state assessments.
“In contrast to the state’s API system, which recognizes improvement across all performance levels, the federal accountability system reflects only the number of students that have reached proficiency on California’s rigorous standards,” O’Connell said. “Under the federal system, the percentage of students who must meet proficiency has increased significantly this year. Many schools, while still making real academic gains, have fallen short on the federal measure.
“We learn different things from the state and federal measures; however, the two systems of accountability can often send conflicting messages to educators and parents. While we can never abandon the goal of proficiency for all students, I continue to support efforts to create a single accountability system for California that combines the best of the state and federal systems in order to reduce confusion and still push schools to help all students improve. I am hopeful that the Obama administration will be a partner in this effort through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known currently as No Child Left Behind.”
In 2009, the AYP targets for the percentage of students expected to score at the proficient level or above on state assessments increased about 11 percentage points across the board from 2008. The AYP targets will continue to rise each year to meet the current federal requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. (See Table 6 for schools and Table 9 for LEAs.)
Fewer schools and LEAs made AYP than in 2008. Fifty-one percent of schools made AYP in 2009, a slight decline of one percentage point from 2008. There was a similar decrease in the percentage of local educational agencies (LEAs) making AYP, which fell from 41 percent in 2008 to 38 percent in 2009. (See Table 7 for schools and Table 10 for LEAs.)
Twenty-nine percent of middle schools made AYP in 2009, as compared to 61 percent of elementary schools. The data also show a sharp decline in the percentage of high schools that made AYP from 2008 to 2009, falling from 49 percent in 2008 to 37 percent in 2009. The decline was even more precipitous for high schools that received Title I funds. Only 30 percent of these high schools met their AYP targets in 2009, a decline of 14 percentage points from 2008. There was also a parallel decline in the percentage of high school districts that made AYP, from 35 percent in 2008 to 25 percent in 2009. Altogether, nearly half of middle and high schools missed both their 2009 API and AYP targets. (See Tables 7 and 8 for schools and Table 10 for LEAs.)
“Some of the stagnation we are seeing at the high school level may be due to the fact that curriculum at the high school level becomes much more rigorous,” O’Connell, said. “However, we can’t afford not to adequately prepare students for success in life after high school. We must remain focused on finding ways to improve achievement at the high school level.”
Under NCLB, each state defines what it considers to be a proficient level of performance for students in English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics. California is widely recognized for having some of the most rigorous content and achievement standards in the nation. LEAs, schools, and subgroups must meet annual measurable objectives in both content areas to make AYP. For elementary and middle schools, AYP is based on the California Standards Tests (CSTs), the California Modified Assessment (CMA) in grades three through five, and the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) in ELA and mathematics. At the high school level, AYP is based on the tenth grade census administration of the CAHSEE in ELA and mathematics.
Schools, school districts, and county offices of education that receive federal Title I funds and do not make AYP criteria for two consecutive years are subject to identification for Program Improvement (PI). For the 2009-10 school year, 675 schools were newly identified for PI — two and one-half times the number newly identified in 2008-09. Fifty-four schools exited from PI after making AYP for two consecutive years. (See Table 8.) Schools in PI are subject to a five-year timeline of intervention activities. For example, schools in Year 2 of PI must offer supplemental education services (e.g., tutoring) to eligible students.
NCLB also requires states to identify LEAs for PI. In California, LEAs include school districts, county offices of education, and statewide benefit charters. In 2009-10, 57 LEAs were newly identified for PI, one exited, leaving a total of 298 LEAs in PI. This represents 31.8 percent of the total number of LEAs receiving Title I funds. (See Table 12.)
Schools and LEAs have an opportunity to review their data and make corrections. API, AYP, and PI reports will be updated in November 2009, and again in February 2010. All reports and data files are available through the APR Web page at
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar/index.asp
“Our accountability report confirms that most California schools are continuing to make solid gains in academic achievement,” O’Connell said. “For the seventh year in a row schools at every level have made real progress toward the statewide API target of 800, and almost half of our elementary schools have met or exceeded this goal. The API results also show a slight narrowing of the achievement gap that historically has left Hispanic or Latino and African American students trailing behind their peers who are white or Asian. I am delighted to see this trend of progress continue.”
Forty-two percent of all California schools are now at or above the overall statewide target API of 800, up six percentage points from the year before. This includes 48 percent of elementary schools, 36 percent of middle schools, and 21 percent of high schools. (See Table 1.)
The 2009 API report shows that all student subgroups statewide demonstrated improvement between 11 and 15 points. African American, Hispanic or Latino, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students increased their API this year by 15 points, while the API of white students increased by 14 percentage points and the statewide increase for all students was 14 points. Despite this slight narrowing between subgroups, white, and Asian students continue to have significantly higher API scores, a major indicator of the achievement gaps that persist in California schools. (See Table 2.) For API point growth by student groups statewide at the elementary school, middle school, and high school levels, see Tables 3, 4, and 5.)
The API is a numeric index that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000 with a statewide target of 800. School and subgroup targets are set at 5 percent of the difference between the school or subgroup's Base API score and the statewide target of 800, with a minimum target of 5 points. All numerically significant subgroups at a school must meet their growth targets for a school to meet its API growth target. These subgroups include racial/ethnic subgroups, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, English learners, and students with disabilities.
The state API and federal AYP results report progress in different ways. The state API is an index model that measures year-to-year improvement and provides incentives to educators to focus on students at all performance levels. Schools receive more API points for moving students up from of the lowest performance levels. In contrast, the federal AYP system focuses solely on whether or not students are scoring at the proficient level or above on state assessments.
“In contrast to the state’s API system, which recognizes improvement across all performance levels, the federal accountability system reflects only the number of students that have reached proficiency on California’s rigorous standards,” O’Connell said. “Under the federal system, the percentage of students who must meet proficiency has increased significantly this year. Many schools, while still making real academic gains, have fallen short on the federal measure.
“We learn different things from the state and federal measures; however, the two systems of accountability can often send conflicting messages to educators and parents. While we can never abandon the goal of proficiency for all students, I continue to support efforts to create a single accountability system for California that combines the best of the state and federal systems in order to reduce confusion and still push schools to help all students improve. I am hopeful that the Obama administration will be a partner in this effort through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known currently as No Child Left Behind.”
In 2009, the AYP targets for the percentage of students expected to score at the proficient level or above on state assessments increased about 11 percentage points across the board from 2008. The AYP targets will continue to rise each year to meet the current federal requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. (See Table 6 for schools and Table 9 for LEAs.)
Fewer schools and LEAs made AYP than in 2008. Fifty-one percent of schools made AYP in 2009, a slight decline of one percentage point from 2008. There was a similar decrease in the percentage of local educational agencies (LEAs) making AYP, which fell from 41 percent in 2008 to 38 percent in 2009. (See Table 7 for schools and Table 10 for LEAs.)
Twenty-nine percent of middle schools made AYP in 2009, as compared to 61 percent of elementary schools. The data also show a sharp decline in the percentage of high schools that made AYP from 2008 to 2009, falling from 49 percent in 2008 to 37 percent in 2009. The decline was even more precipitous for high schools that received Title I funds. Only 30 percent of these high schools met their AYP targets in 2009, a decline of 14 percentage points from 2008. There was also a parallel decline in the percentage of high school districts that made AYP, from 35 percent in 2008 to 25 percent in 2009. Altogether, nearly half of middle and high schools missed both their 2009 API and AYP targets. (See Tables 7 and 8 for schools and Table 10 for LEAs.)
“Some of the stagnation we are seeing at the high school level may be due to the fact that curriculum at the high school level becomes much more rigorous,” O’Connell, said. “However, we can’t afford not to adequately prepare students for success in life after high school. We must remain focused on finding ways to improve achievement at the high school level.”
Under NCLB, each state defines what it considers to be a proficient level of performance for students in English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics. California is widely recognized for having some of the most rigorous content and achievement standards in the nation. LEAs, schools, and subgroups must meet annual measurable objectives in both content areas to make AYP. For elementary and middle schools, AYP is based on the California Standards Tests (CSTs), the California Modified Assessment (CMA) in grades three through five, and the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) in ELA and mathematics. At the high school level, AYP is based on the tenth grade census administration of the CAHSEE in ELA and mathematics.
Schools, school districts, and county offices of education that receive federal Title I funds and do not make AYP criteria for two consecutive years are subject to identification for Program Improvement (PI). For the 2009-10 school year, 675 schools were newly identified for PI — two and one-half times the number newly identified in 2008-09. Fifty-four schools exited from PI after making AYP for two consecutive years. (See Table 8.) Schools in PI are subject to a five-year timeline of intervention activities. For example, schools in Year 2 of PI must offer supplemental education services (e.g., tutoring) to eligible students.
NCLB also requires states to identify LEAs for PI. In California, LEAs include school districts, county offices of education, and statewide benefit charters. In 2009-10, 57 LEAs were newly identified for PI, one exited, leaving a total of 298 LEAs in PI. This represents 31.8 percent of the total number of LEAs receiving Title I funds. (See Table 12.)
Schools and LEAs have an opportunity to review their data and make corrections. API, AYP, and PI reports will be updated in November 2009, and again in February 2010. All reports and data files are available through the APR Web page at
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar/index.asp
Friday, September 4, 2009
Join the PTA PSA campaign
New videos get to the heart of family involvement.
Just in time for the new school year, the California State PTA has launched a public service announcement (PSA) campaign to engage families and promote PTA.
These video announcements feature real PTA members speaking straight from the heart about the benefits and rewards of getting involved in their children's public schools. (They were made possible through the generous support of the Pearson Foundation.)
You can help to spread the PSAs' message and passion for involvement. Post them on your local PTA website. Encourage schools and school districts to post them. E-mail them to friends, supporters and prospective PTA members - in other words - everyone!
It's easy: Just click here to watch the initial set of PSAs and to find out more about how to share them. (You can also watch them on the California State PTA website, http://www.capta.org/.)
Now more than ever, the children of California need adults to step up and to speak out on their behalf. We hope you'll agree and lend your voice to the effort.
Just in time for the new school year, the California State PTA has launched a public service announcement (PSA) campaign to engage families and promote PTA.
These video announcements feature real PTA members speaking straight from the heart about the benefits and rewards of getting involved in their children's public schools. (They were made possible through the generous support of the Pearson Foundation.)
You can help to spread the PSAs' message and passion for involvement. Post them on your local PTA website. Encourage schools and school districts to post them. E-mail them to friends, supporters and prospective PTA members - in other words - everyone!
It's easy: Just click here to watch the initial set of PSAs and to find out more about how to share them. (You can also watch them on the California State PTA website, http://www.capta.org/.)
Now more than ever, the children of California need adults to step up and to speak out on their behalf. We hope you'll agree and lend your voice to the effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
