On Wednesday, the California Department of Education released the 2007 Base (Academic Performance Index) API numbers for California public schools. Many people don't realize that these Base scores are simply a recalculation of the test scores from last Spring. Also, as usual, they violated their own guidelines and compared API scores from one year to the next.

The 2007 Base API, which is calculated using the results from spring 2007 testing, shows the percentage of elementary schools at or above the statewide performance target of 800 is 36.7 percent, up from 34.6 percent in 2006; middle schools is 24.6 percent, up from 23.9 percent; and high schools is 14.5 percent, up from 13.6 percent. (See Table A.)

"I'm pleased that California schools continue to rise to the challenge of high expectations," O'Connell said. "Our Academic Performance Index pushes schools to make improvements each year. Since the inception of the API, the median score for each decile ranking has increased each year. This reflects significant gains in student achievement in our schools.

Jack's comment is just a pile of crap. This API result does nothing to show that "schools continue to rise to the challenge of high expectations", but instead just reflects a recalculation of last year's test results. You can't compare the percentage of schools reaching 800 in one year to the next and call that improvement. The scale isn't the same each year because CDE changes test weights and changes which tests are included.

They readily admit this in their own documents.

In the Information Guide which accompanied this release, on page 51, it states "Although the SCF maintains the consistency in the statewide average API, it does not preserve comparability across reporting cycles. As a result, the SCF does not allow for comparisons of school, LEA, or subgroup APIs across reporting cycles." To me, that would tend to make Jack's comparison on percentages of schools reaching 800 "across reporting cycles" completely invalid.

Page 12 of the same document outlines valid and invalid comparisons of the API. One of the invalid comparisons outlined is:

2003 Base API and 2004 Base API
In this example, the 2003 Base API is in the 2003-04 reporting cycle, and the 2004 Base API is in the 2004-05 reporting cycle. The comparison is not valid because different indicators were used in each cycle (i.e., the CST in science, grade five, and CST in history-social science, grade eight, were not in the 2003-04 cycle but were in the 2004-05 cycle).

Again, how can Jack brag about the percentage of schools scoring 800 this year vs. last year, when his own documents make it clear that is not a valid comparison? I think clearly this is a case of "do what I say, not what I do." It doesn't work for parents and it obviously shouldn't work for the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

As I've said many, many times and will continue to say. The API is a terrible measure of school academic performance and I believe its primary purpose is to allow the California Department of Education to manipulate the data to show improvement where none exists, to hide persistent achievement gaps, and to remove real accountability from our state's accountability system. If Jack is serious about improving achievement and closing achievement gaps, he needs to abandon the API and stick with the percentage of students at grade-level (proficiency) as a simple and consistent measure, which can be easily understood by everyone, including parents.