research spotlight
25 years of California’s accountability system
Over a decade after implementing the LCFF and LCAP, discussions continue on how to improve the state’s accountability system to better support student outcomes, especially addressing persistent achievement gaps. Although California’s accountability systems can be viewed from different angles, this article examines two distinct eras of the past 25 years before exploring where the state might head next.
The highlight of the act was the creation of the API. This indicator was designed to provide a quick, single-number score for parents, policymakers and community members to easily understand. The simplicity of a single number allowed for ranking schools, identifying “low performing” districts and setting annual growth targets for improvement. The API was calculated using data from the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Initially, discussions included other indicators, such as school attendance or graduation rates, but no additional measures were implemented.
Each school received an API on a scale of 200 to 1,000. The California State Board of Education set a statewide goal of 800. Once a school received their API, they were ranked statewide according to type (e.g. elementary, middle, high.) and compared with 100 schools with similar characteristics (percent of certain student groups, class size, student mobility and others). Rankings of school districts were then used to identify those in need of intervention, encompassing various methods throughout the API’s life.
The statewide use of a single score intended to help an LEA set a growth target aligned with the 2001 U.S. federal re-enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB relied heavily on the idea of adequate yearly progress (AYP), which was “the amount of annual achievement growth to be expected by students in a particular school, district, or state in the U.S. federal accountability system, NCLB.” The failure to make AYP for multiple years led to increasingly punitive actions, including the complete replacement of school staff and the restructuring of an entire school.
Over time, API scores increased, but this improvement coincided with concerns that more teachers were focusing primarily on test preparation. This approach narrowed the curriculum and de-emphasized subjects not tested. Additionally, the index’s simplicity failed to reveal disparities among different student groups and tended to favor districts with higher socioeconomic status. Proponents of NCLB also saw it as an attempt to address achievement gaps by requiring schools to disaggregate and report data for multiple student groups, and though schools received APIs for subgroups, the focus became mainly on the single indicator used for public accountability.
In 2013, Assembly Bill 484 suspended the state’s STAR program to give LEAs time to transition to the new Smarter Balanced assessments (aligned with the Common Core State Standards) and to a new system of accountability, the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP).
This pause also came on the heels of a significant change in how LEAs were funded; LCFF was enacted in 2013. The new funding system gave substantially more flexibility to LEAs in determining how to spend education dollars, which was a fundamental departure from the past use of revenue limits and categorical programs. LEAs would then be held accountable for their spending using LCAPs.
The LCFF included a set of state priorities that would be monitored through California’s new accountability system and in LCAPs. These priorities are assessed using indicators from the California School Dashboard. The Dashboard, which evaluates where students stand on a metric (status) and how that changes year over year (change), represented a major shift away from the single-digit metric of the API. It aimed to offer a more comprehensive view of student outcomes by including metrics on graduation rates, chronic absenteeism and other factors.
Further, the state established a Statewide System of Support and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) to support struggling districts and student groups. CCEE was placed in charge of coordinating assistance efforts through county offices of education around the state.
Yet, despite these advancements, the achievement gaps among student groups remain wide, highlighting that meaningful change remains out of reach in the current system. As the accountability system evolved post-LCFF enactment, its increasing complexity — with new systems, programs, reporting requirements and policies layered onto LEAs — poses significant challenges. To truly improve educational equity and lift all students, California may consider returning to the LCFF’s original principle of letting local leaders lead.
After a quarter-century of focusing on accountability and closing achievement gaps through schools and LEAs, it might be time for state policymakers to look inward and consider a new approach. Of particular importance to LEAs is the need for the state to simplify the system and clarify its goals. If that is done, it could reduce burdens on LEAs and empower them to address achievement gaps locally.