<strong>Sorry, this isn't formatting well, but here is a comparison of the "best" schools in the area:</strong>
http://sites.google.com/site/newportelfoundation/2007-08-foundation-thoughts---archive
<blockquote>
A brief history of the API at Newport El Posted Oct 04 2007, 08:46 PM by eric with
I am a data fiend, I must admit. But it is useful to look at data, to see where we've come from, and to set goals for the future. Today, we?ll look at the past 9 years of history of the Academic Performance Index (API) for Newport El and our 11 (+1) school peer group in Newport/CDM/Turtle Rock. After looking at all the test scores and performance data, I like the API because it encapsulates all the standardized test results across grades for a school, so it is a decent (albeit simple) proxy for how a school is doing as a whole, and it is neatly rolled into one number.
As with all simple solutions, there are limitations. Yes there may be differences between grade levels, but it is a good indicator of overall school performance. Yes, standards have changed over the years, but they have changed for all schools. And yes, demographics may have shifted, so we cannot look at absolute scores in a vacuum?but the decile rankings for the 100 similar schools peer group sort of controls for that. Furthermore, the API alone will not tell one exactly where a school's relative strengths and weaknesses are, you must look at the underlying Norms Referenced Test (NRT--this is often referred to as the "CAT/6" test as well) and California Standards Test (CST) results to delve into grade level and subject matters.
If you work your way around the California Department of Education (CDE) website, they actually have the spreadsheet calculator for the API available (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/calc06bg.xls). Currently, an elementary school's API is calulated by using the CST results for 2nd through 6th grades, and the NRT data for the 3rd grade. Although the calculator uses the test results in the form they are given for the CST, it does not do so for the NRT results (the calculator requires quintile data, but they only report quartile data). However, the NRT results account for less than 4% of a school's total API score, and the CST results comprise just over 96% of the weighting, so you can get a pretty good read just using the CST results in most cases. In fact, this is what I have done to calculate Newport El's 2007 API, because due to "an adult irregularity in testing procedure", Newport El does not have a valid API for 2007. I am told that this "irregularity" was in one classroom and it was only on one section of one test. It did not stop our CST scores from being released however, so using the calculator provided, we can back out an API.
For the CST (which has tests in English-Language Arts, Mathematics, and for 5th grade, Science), scores are bucketed into five categories: "Advanced", "Proficient" (Proficiency is the State target of achievement), "Basic", "Below Basic", and "Far Below Basic". Using the NRT data, they similarly bucket results into five quintiles. The API just tallies up all the valid scores by these buckets and weights them according to a CDE prescribed formula and spits out a score between 200 and 1000. Your API is penalized by scores in lower buckets and rewarded by scores in higher buckets on a geometric basis. For instance, if all your kids were "Far Below Basic", your API would be 200. You pick up 300 points by moving them all up a category (500 for "Below Basic"), another 200 for the next category (API=700 for "Basic"), another 175 for the next ("Proficient"=875), and for the last move up, 125 ("Advanced"=1000). This is meant to encourage schools to focus on bringing up those in the lowest categories--it also shows that having kids drop a level is more damaging to a school's score than it is helpful if they rise a level. This is why high achieving schools are so impressive; there are no "easy" points in the API once you get to a certain level.
Every Spring, the tests are administered and on August 15th their results are released. At the end of August, these are rolled into what is called a "growth" API (used to measure progress under NCLB). Throughout the Fall and Winter, all of these API numbers are used to rank schools Statewide, and every school is assigned a 100 similar schools peer group based on twenty or more demographic factors that they are ranked against. By March, the official "base" API is released along with decile rankings for the State and Similar Schools peer group.
OK--with all that said, let's look at some data and history. To start, here is Newport El?s 9 year API history:
Year API State Decile 100 Similar Schools Decile
2007
883*
2006
885 9
6
2005
854 9
3
2004
851 9
2
2003
821 8
1
2002
824 9
4
2001
826 9
2
2000
809 9
2
1999
779 9
3
So we have seen good progress over that time in our absolute API, although the similar schools rank bottomed out five years ago it is now at its best level ever vs. the broad, State calculated peer group.
Here are the historical APIs from the eleven Newport/CDM/Turtle Rock schools:
Year Andersen Eastbluff Harbor View Kaiser Lincoln Mariners Newport Coast Newport El Newport Heights Bonita Canyon Turtle Rock
2007 922 911 907 836 884 923 919 883 857 966 958
2006 926 909 922 821 880 909 901 885 853 960 961
2005 926 890 916 805 899 894 890 854 828 957 963
2004 890 855 880 791 887 871 878 851 813 945 948
2003 920 861 901 748 860 890 882 821 825 945 940
2002 900 868 899 768 874 869 868 824 823 917 917
2001 914 872 922 765 878 874 868 826 832 917 910
2000 931 902 934 790 892 877 none 809 800 916 912
1999 933 none 922 757 882 868 none 779 809 902 900
And here is the same group?s historical decile ranks (State, 100 Similar Schools Pool):
Year Andersen Eastbluff Harbor View Kaiser Lincoln Mariners Newport Coast Newport El Newport Heights Bonita Canyon Turtle Rock
2007 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
2006 10,5 10,8 10,10 8,8 9,3 10,10 10,2 9,6 9,8 10,9 10,9
2005 10,7 10,8 10,7 8,7 10,7 10,10 10,2 9,3 8,4 10,10 10,10
2004 10,2 9,1 10,4 8,5 10,4 10,6 10,2 9,2 8,4 10,10 10,10
2003 10,5 9,2 10,7 6,2 9,2 10,7 10,4 8,1 9,4 10,10 10,10
2002 10,4 10,3 10,8 8,5 10,8 10,8 10,2 9,4 9,4 10,10 10,10
2001 10,7 10,4 10,9 8,3 10,4 10,9 10,4 9,2 9,6 10,10 10,10
2000 10,8 10,10 10,10 8,7 10,5 10,9 none 9,2 9,5 10,10 10,10
1999 10,10 none 10,10 8,7 10,9 10,10 none 9,3 9,8 10,10 10,10
It looks like most of the NMUSD schools bottomed out around the same time with regards to the similar schools rankings, so it could very well have been a curriculum issue with our District (particularly compared with the two IUSD schools) that caused our schools to slip; there is a very similar ?V? shape for most of the NMUSD schools in their peer group deciles.
I realize this is just a snapshot, but let?s just take a quick look at how we have progressed over the last 9 years, relative to everyone else (and I have thrown in Victoria for good measure, since they were just named a NCLB Blue Ribbon School). Here is a summary of the absolute results from 1999:
School API County Rank (of 365) State Rank (of 4816) State Decile 100 School Peer Group Decile
Andersen
933
1
14
10
10
Harbor View
922
2
24
10
10
Bonita Canyon
902
4
56
10
10
Turtle Rock
900
5
60
10
10
Lincoln
882
9
109
10
9
Mariners
868
20
182
10
10
Newport Heights
809
78
544
9
8
Newport El
779
128
807
9
3
Kaiser
757
146
1018
8
7
Victoria
691
183
1693
7
9
NOTE: no data for Newport Coast or Eastbluff
For sake of comparison, here are the same schools and their 2006 and 2007 API scores, ranked in order of 2007 API score (sorry, I don?t have deciles, county or state ranks yet?but included are the 2006 deciles for the 2006 API):
School API (2007) API (2006) State Decile (2006) 100 Similar Schools Decile (2006)
Bonita Canyon
966
960
10
9
Turtle Rock
958
961
10
9
Mariners
923
909
10
10
Andersen
922
926
10
5
Newport Coast
919
901
10
2
Eastbluff
911
909
10
8
Harbor View
907
922
10
10
Lincoln
884
880
9
3
Newport El
883*
885
9
6
Victoria
865
826
8
10
Newport Heights
857
853
9
8
Kaiser
836
821
8
8
*my guesstimate using our CST data
OK?so even though the API?s may not be directly comparable due to changing standards, and even though the demographics may have shifted, here is what we have in our immediate peer group:
--The two Irvine schools and Mariners (the top three last year) all improved by 55-60 points, and leapfrogged Andersen and Harbor View
--The next three (with Newport Coast and Eastbluff wedged in between), basically stayed even
--Newport El is up over 100 points
--Newport Heights is up about 50, and Kaiser is up about 80
--Victoria (the school with 60% Disadvantaged, 40% English Learners, and 20% Learning Disabled kids?I have to leave them out of the regression because they are such an outlier with the API they achieve) is up 174 points and this year became a Blue Ribbon school
</blockquote>
