Brown skeptical of key ed bill
Steinberg's tough sell on alternative to API
Gov. Jerry Brown has warned lawmakers that his veto pen will flow freely over the next three weeks. Among bills on the threatened list is potentially the most far-reaching K-12 education legislation before him – a bill that would significantly shift the state’s accountability system away from its concentration on standardized tests. SB 547 is also a priority of its author, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg.
Acknowledging that the bill may be in trouble, Steinberg said Friday that Brown “has expressed some doubts” about it, while not precluding the possibility that he might sign the bill, in several discussions they have had.
Brown, too, has expressed a dislike of the reliance on standardized tests by the state and particularly the federal government with the No Child Left Behind law to measure the success of students and teachers. So one would think that he would be simpatico with Steinberg on SB 547, which would create an Education Quality Index, or EQI, to replace the Academic Performance Index, or API, with new indices to downplay standardized tests.
Brown’s apparent objection isn’t about the bill’s cost but instead about uncertainties over a possible demand for new data. Brown has a visceral distrust of statewide data systems and use of data in general. He killed money for a statewide database on teachers – CALTIDES – and wanted to delete additional federal funding for the state’s database on students, CALPADS, though the Legislature reinserted it into the budget.
SB 547 would create new indices measuring a broader range of student achievement, such as career and college readiness, accomplishment in areas outside of core subjects, and high school graduation and dropout rates. For high schools, standardized tests would be a maximum of 40 percent of the new EQI; for middle and elementary schools, standardized tests would comprise a minimum of 40 percent of the EQI.
“This bill is consistent with his (Brown’s) philosophy of getting away from test scores,” Steinberg said. And with Congress deadlocked over the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the formal name for No Child Left Behind, California should set its own priorities and “lead by example,” Steinberg said.
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson and an advisory committee would develop the EQI, but the State Board of Education, whose members are Brown appointees, would have to approve it. That would give Brown control over the indices, Steinberg said. Rather than veto the bill, Brown could sign it with a message signaling the changes he would want to the bill next year, he said. (He also credited Brown for spending a lot of time and thought on the bill.)
Meanwhile, Steinberg has been campaigning to raise visibility for the bill; last week, he and Torlakson held a press conference in Los Angeles with Torlakson, U.C. Regent George Kieffer, and representatives from business and civil rights groups, the state PTA, and early childhood education advocates to call on Brown to sign it.
The bill has substantial support from diverse groups (see list at the end of Steinberg’s fact sheet), representing business and manufacturing, career technical education, gifted students, charter schools, school administrators, and school boards. The California Teachers Association hasn’t taken a position on SB 547; the California Association of School Counselors and the California Business Educators Association are backing it. Steinberg is hoping other groups will speak up between now and Oct. 9, the last day for Brown to sign or veto bills.
John can be reached at john@svefoundation.org.
The fact sheet states that the purpose of this bill is better information. The one truly new measure introduced is the CRI (career readiness index). I guess we’ll have to wait and see if the to be determined measure for elementary schools provides any new information. Combining all of the measures into a single index seems to be more about managing public opinion than conveying actual information. I think that could be achieved with changing the format of the existing reports. And since I don’t have a problem with nudging people into a more involved look at school data, I would do that instead. I think Governor Brown has good reason to be skeptical of this bill, he should send it back to the drawing board.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Quick correction to this paragraph:
He killed money for a statewide database on teachers – CALTIDES – and wanted to delete additional federal funding for the state’s database on students, CALTIDES, though the Legislature reinserted it into the budget.
That second reference should be CALPADS, no?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Yes. you’re right. Thanks for the catch.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
It would be a shame if the Governor vetoes this bill. If the Administration has technical problems, the new EQI is not to take effect for a few years from now (plenty of time for a legislative fix), and as the Pro Tem pointed out, his State Board will be part of the implementation/approval process.
For anyone concerned about the narrowing of curriculum (especially among middle and secondary-level students), the EQI promises a broader measurement system that will provide the public a much clearer and robust picture of a school’s performance … beyond simply multiple-choice test scores largely based on only a narrow version of only two subject-matter disciplines (ELA/Math).
Governor Brown: SIGN THIS BILL!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
SB 547 is more game-changing gobbledygook designed to obscure the limited accountability provided by California’s existing Academic Performance Index. The API is NOT analagous to the narrow and devastating requirements of No Child Left Behind and offers educators and the public some reasonable measures by which to judge public school academic performance. The API should be retained and Governor Brown should veto SB 547.
S.B. 547 author Steinberg represents the interests of the California Teachers Association which opposes all forms of serious test-based accountability. CTA stands to gain from yet another shift in the ground rules if this bill passes – measuring such unmeasurable things as “career and college readiness,” whatever that is.
We need to keep the Academic Performance Index because the public understands its meaning and because that’s what schools are for — academic performance — not an amorphous and watered-down “Education Quality Index.”
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Frances: CTA is not pushing his bill, as the post said. Steinberg, a strong advocate of applied learning and incorporating it into A-G courses (see SB 611 and 612) has his own views on this issue. Agree with him or not, it’s inaccurate to imply this is CTA- inspired.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
How exactly is “career and college readiness” less measurable than the ability to read and understand a complex passage?
I could agree that it suffers from some of the same skews that are already in the API, which is that students from families without money or previous education will attend college in lower numbers than students who come from families that plan for college.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Ms. Zimmerman,
I’m very interested on the reasons behind your statement that “the API [...] offers educators and the public some reasonable measures by which to judge public school performance.” As I understand it, the API is a weighted average of the number of respondents in each “achievement band” of the CSTs with provisions for different weights for special education students and, for high schools, inclusion of CAHSEE passing numbers. From what I have read (there is a fairly complex explanation of the API calculation in the CDE’s web site) and tested (there is a spreadsheet provided by CDE and anyone can download it and use it to calculate the API provided they have the input data), the API is not a simple yardstick and when I explain it to fellow parents their eyes glaze over and literally tune me out.
There are also two problems with it that I’m aware of: 1) the main ingredient is CST scores and, after examining the actual score distributions as well as their distribution as function of classroom grades at LAUSD (for a single year, mind you, but that is good enough), those scores do not constitute proof of academic achievement, and 2) the definition of the “failing score < 800″ was pulled out of thin air without any basis on educational research as far as I can determine from examination of the State Board of Education minutes going back to when it was established.
Thus, I don’t see how your statement can be true. As that old Wendy’s ad refrain went: “Where is the beef?” Thank you in advance for any references.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I didn’t mean that CTA is “pushing” this particular bill, just that generally there is little air or light between CTA and Senator Steinberg. You would have to acknowledge that passage of SB 547 would not upset anyone at CTA: they don’t have to push a bill to benefit from it.
If Steinberg likes a richer K-12 curriculum that includes art and music and wants more courses that embrace or emphasize applied learning, he ought to fashion legislation that ensures it happens — not the dismantling of the only framework we have that tells us, sort of, who’s on first. I too value applied learning in our schools and believe that testing should be contained, but the API helps us make sense of what is otherwise beyond our ken.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
With any index, “the devil is in the details.”
There are at least three key decisions, none of which can be made using neutral, value-free analysis. First, what variables will be included in the index? Second, how will they be measured? Third, what weights will be assigned to each? All of these are normative decisions that only policymakers can make.
SB 567 specifies the variables that are to be included in the Education Quality Index. So far so good.
The problems begin with measuring the variables. What is a “college readiness index”? Is it based on the percentage of students who meet UC admission requirements, such as completing A-G courses? Does GPA count? More than 60 percent of students who enter CSU aren’t prepared to do college-level work in English or math or both, so should college readiness be based on students’ scores on CSU’s Early Assessment Program administered in 11th grade? But not everyone takes the EAP — it’s voluntary. So should the average score be weighted by the percentage of students who take it? (The greater the percentage of students who take the test, the lower the average score.) And this is just one of the multiple measures to be included in the EQI.
Assuming the measurement problems can be solved, the third decision is the amount of weight assigned to the value of each variable. The only guidance the bill gives is that, for high schools, a new State Assessment Index will constitute NO MORE than 40% of the EQI but for elementary and middle schools, the SAI will constitute NO LESS than 40% of the EQI. Huh? In any event, aside from these constraints, what percent of the Index will each variable — SAI, graduation/ promotion rate, GRI, and CPI — contribute and why?
Here’s an analogy: Suppose you want to measure cans of fruit salad using the FSI (Fruit Salad Index). The variables you want to include are cherries, pears, pineapples, and grapes. There is no single measure that can be used for all. Cherries’ “redness” is measured using a spectrometer. Pears are measured by weight. Pineapple pieces are measured by number. And grapes are measured by circumference. You carefully measure each piece of fruit, using its respective index, and compute an average for each.
Now you’re stuck. You have to decide how much of each fruit to put in each can. Maybe you decide to equate them using percentages: beginning at infra-red, what percentage of the color spectrum is the average cherry? What percentage of the number of pieces in a standard pineapple are the pieces in the can? etc. Finally, you give a weight to each percentage and put a weighted average percentage in a can. The problem is, all you see are the component pieces of the can’s FSI when you want a single number. What do you do? You throw everything in a blender. What does it mean? Who knows? But at least you have a single Index.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I’m sure “edfundwonk” is neither Education Secretary John Deasey nor State Supe of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, but I hope they are all friends so the pols can get the help they sorely need. I really appreciated your Fruit Salad Index. It works, even if it is what the French call a “melange.”
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
“Education Secretary John Deasey”? John Deasy is the superintendent at LAUSD. And there is no California education secretary right now. Brown eliminated that position to much applause.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Keeping track of who’s on first is not limited to discussions of API versus EQI. Mea culpa.
Arne Duncan, John Deasy — they’re interchangeable in my mind, but thank you for correcting the record. Arne Duncan from Chicago is Obama’s Race to the Top Secretary of Education. John Deasy is the Supe in LAUSD. There is no phony appointed “Secretary of Education” in California anymore, only the elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction and that is Tom Torlakson, a termed-out State legislator.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Like others who have commented here, my colleagues and I at Public Advocates — as well as many parents and students — believe that Governor Brown should sign SB 547. That’s why we joined with PICO California, Californians Together, and Children Now to ask the Governor to sign the bill so we can get the ball rolling for a more comprehensive accountability system.
Just to clarify: Some folks here seem to think there would be a single index. That’s not the case. The Education Quality Index is really four indices for high schools, and two for middle and elementary schools. Those indices will measure key aspects of overall education quality like college readiness, career readiness, academic achievement and graduation/dropout rates. Each individual index would combine various measures of the same identified outcome precisely in order to avoid comparing apples to oranges, as some of the previous comments mistakenly suggest SB 547 would do. For more on how these indices will be developed, read the fact sheet that John provided with his post.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
“EQI is really four indices for high schools, and two for middle and elementary schools….Each individual index would combine various measures of the same identified outcome…. For more on how these indices would be developed, read the fact sheet….”
I rest my case. What is being proposed in SB 547 is unintelligible nonsense that ordinary parents and citizens cannot possibly understand. But this proposal is very effective in obscuring the limited accountability that is provided by the API.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Liz,
With all due respect, I commend to your attention the actual language from the bill on the Governor’s desk. Contrary to your description, the enrolled bill requires the creation of a single EQI, comprised of a weighted average of the individual components you note. I respect your integrity and know that you would never deliberately misrepresent the bill’s provisions. I can only conclude that you must have been describing an earlier version of the bill and were unaware of this dramatic change.
In light of your new knowedge of the bill’s actual requirements, and the impossibility of creating a single meaningful, understandable Index comprised of cherries/pears/pineapples, and grapes, may I assume that Public Advocates will now withdraw its support of SB 547 and instead recommend a veto?
Here are the relevant of provisions of the bill to which I refer:
52052.8. (a) (1) The Superintendent, in consultation with the advisory committee established pursuant to Section 52052.5, shall develop an Education Quality Index (EQI) for schools and school districts, to be comprised of multiple valid and reliable indicators, to reflect the overall performance of California’s public schools, school districts, and pupils, for adoption by the state board.
o
o
(d) The Superintendent, in consultation with the advisory committee established pursuant to Section 52052.5, shall develop and recommend to the state board for adoption all of the following:
o
o
(2) The relative weights of the component indices that comprise a school and school district EQI and a total value for a school and school district EQI.
(i) For schools and school districts maintaining kindergarten
and any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, the SAI shall comprise no less
than 40 percent of the value of the EQI.
(ii) For schools and school districts maintaining any of grades
9 to 12, inclusive, the SAI shall comprise no more than 40 percent
of the value of the EQI.
(iii) Within the EQI, the weights assigned to the CPI and CRI
shall be equal.
o
o
(f) The Superintendent annually shall release the indices described in this section, including all of the following:
(1) A composite EQI score, made up of any required component indices.
(2) An EQI score, and a score for each component index, at the school and school district level, for each numerically significant pupil subgroup as defined pursuant to subdivision (l).
(3) A transparent and understandable explanation of the score and relative weights for each individual index.
(4) The relative weights of each individual indicator included in each index.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I’ve read the fact sheet a handful of times and it sure seems reasonable to think that there will actually be a single index called the EQI. This index is a weighted average of other indicies, which will also be reported. So why bother to have an EQI? Why not just report the sub-indicies as the fact sheet says will happen? I think this type of skepticism is justified.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I repeat, SB 547 will not contain only a single EQI index, but a set of useful indices with important information about different aspects of school and district quality.
The section of the bill that edfundwonk cited omits subsection (c):
52052.8.
(c) An EQI shall be developed for each school type and school district as follows:
(1) For schools and school districts maintaining any of grades
9 to 12, inclusive, the EQI shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following component indices:
(A) The State Assessment Index (SAI), as described in Section 52052.81.
(B) The Graduation Rate Index (GRI), as described in Section 52052.82.
(C) The College Preparedness Index (CPI), as described in Section 52052.83.
(D) The Career Readiness Index (CRI), as described in Section 52052.84.
Thus, there are, in fact, 4 different indices in the high school EQI. The language in this section of the bill goes on to describe the two indices in the elementary and middle schools’ EQI.
It seems we’re not in fact differing in how we’re reading the bill language but on the utility of having an overall summative Education Quality Index. Personally, I find the most usefulness in seeing how schools might compare on the different indices, but I’m a policy wonk. I also think it’s useful to report out a composite index that will give parents and the public a summative picture of the quality of their school or district and that will be roughly comparable across the State. After all, just because your fruit salad is made up of a number of different components doesn’t preclude reasonable people from being able to make an overall quality assessment of it and compare it to others along similar parameters.
I repeat: Governor Brown should sign SB 547!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
“I also think it’s useful to report out a composite index that will give parents and the public a summative picture of the quality of their school or district and that will be roughly comparable across the State”.
I disagree. One school that is outstanding in the CRI and another school that is outstanding in the SAI may have the same EQI. But these schools are very different schools. No reasonable comparison can be made. Get rid of the EQI and this law may be useful.
Governor Brown should veto it.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity