School Wise Press SARC Services

SARC BITE 12 | APRIL 17, 2003

SB 575 and New SARC Policies Promise Even More Complex Reporting

Only last week, the State Board of Education approved recommendations by the CDE for melding federal and state requirements into next year's accountability reports (SARCs). In addition, Sen. Poochigian (Rep., Fresno) has introduced a bill, SB 575, to bring California's SARC laws up to the federal standard defined in No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This bill and the CDE's policies will have far reaching consequences for those of you shaping your district's accountability reports. Here is a summary of the differences between state and federal law that are now being reconciled.

DISSEMINATION

NCLB is not quite explicit about printing and distributing accountability reports. Without using the word "printing," NCLB calls for disseminating copies far and wide. SB 575, in turn, also requires districts to disseminate copies of SARCs - in summary or in full. The bill also requires districts to distribute reports to parents, staff, city government, and libraries. Sen. Poochigian's staff awaits clarification from the federal folks on this matter.

Note that our current California SARC law allows districts to simply notify parents of the availability of a full report, and then to provide that report upon request. The law does require posting SARCs online if districts have a website. But educators are not required to distribute SARCs outside the school community (staff and parents). To meet the federal distribution requirement will require more effort, care and planning.

HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

Under NCLB, states must define a highly qualified teacher and then report how many of their teachers fit that definition. NCLB also requires that districts summarize in a district SARC (yes, a new report) how those teachers are distributed among the schools in their district.

California's current SARC law allows educators to report a rather imprecise factor: the percentage of teachers holding full credentials and emergency credentials. The State Board, having tried once without success to define highly qualified teachers, has returned to the drawing boards to try again. (Out-of-field teaching, however, is required to be disclosed under our Education Code. But the CDE currently does not calculate this factor, even for high schools where it is most relevant, because they believe the results are inexact.)

GRADUATION RATES

Federal law doesn't hedge when it comes to reporting graduation rates. NCLB not only requires high schools to report graduation rates, but it specifies the formula for calculating them. In fact, that formula points toward the National Center for Education Statistics, and measures the attrition of students over four years from one graduating class. To read more about that method of calculation, go to the NCES website.

Although our state law requires districts to report graduation rates in SARCs, the State Board of Education has chosen not to define the method of calculating this rate. Their reason: the absence of a student tracking system that would enable precise analysis of graduation events, student by student This decision has led Bill Padia, head of the CDE's Office of Policy Evaluation, to allow districts to opt out of reporting graduation rates or their proxies (four-year completion rate or attrition rate) altogether. To read more on this debate, you can browse the abstracts in our Virtual Library online.

DISTRICT ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

California currently does not require districts to publish a district SARC (now dubbed a DARC by those with a sense of humor). Federal law does. The report is defined in detail, and it will require districts to report additional factors that are currently not required in their state accountability reports. Read a background essay on this topic.

The new SARC guidelines approved on April 9 by the State Board of Education incorporate some of the district reporting requirements into the school-level SARC. This is the CDE's proposed way of satisfying federal requirements, while avoiding the burden of creating an additional report. It awaits the federal folks thumbs-up (or thumbs-down).

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is indeed a thorny subject. Few educators agree how to measure student progress. And the leading methodology, value-added assessment as developed by Bill Sanders at SAS in Cary, North Carolina, is the preference so far of only one state: Tennessee. For further information on this topic, you can review these abstracts about value-added assessment online.

California relies on its Academic Performance Index to measure student achievement from year to year. It has been the prevailing method since 1999, and while it is not yet beyond question and occasional controversy, it is California's yardstick. (For background on some of those debates, you can read this feature story from the Orange County Register last August.)

NCLB has a different view of progress, and it is stricter than our own. School-wide year-to-year progress is expected. All student subgroups are also expected to show progress. This makes it almost a sure bet that most schools will fail to show AYP in some years. To reconcile the state and federal views of progress, the State Board of Education ruled some months ago to incorporate both federal and state ways of viewing progress.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND FURTHER READING

Must reading: the new data definitions and reporting elements for SARCs for next year are included in this 52-page memo from the CDE, dated March 27.

Keep an eye on this legislation. It is SB 575, and you can read about it here.

You can also subscribe to notifications of the bill's change of status by registering your interest.

On the more general subject of NCLB, you can read coverage on School Wise Press's site.

Or you can go to the NCLB site itself, and explore further.