Fewer Schools Earn Cash From State Test Scores

Education: A quarter of the campuses lost ground in Stanford 9 results over last year. Davis praises overall showing.

October 16, 2001

The percentage of California schools qualifying for performance-based cash rewards shrank by 21 points this year compared with last, the state reported Monday.

Just under half of the schools qualified for rewards, compared with 69% last year, according to an index based on standardized testing. And a quarter of nearly 7,000 schools in California included in the program actually lost ground.

The second annual release of the state's Academic Performance Index, based on Stanford 9 test scores, revealed some wild fluctuations in the state's accountability program. Policy researchers said the score swings raise questions about the wisdom of attaching high-stakes rewards to the results of a single test. The performance index, though now based solely on schools' performance on the Stanford 9, will take into account other factors, such as graduation rates, in coming years.

"There's a lot of volatility in these test scores," said Thomas J. Kane, a professor of policy studies and economics at UCLA. "Very often, improvement one year is followed by declines the next."

One stark example: One-third of the low-ranking schools where individual staff members qualified in 2000 for hefty cash bonuses because of stellar test-score gains failed to meet their improvement targets this year.

That made these 94 schools, the academic stars of 2000, eligible for state aid designed to help flagging schools in 2001.

Still, Gov. Gray Davis praised the overall showing of schools this year. He noted that 57% met their target goals this year, even if some did not qualify for reward money because, for example, they failed to test enough students.

"Schools are rallying to the challenge of helping all students improve academically," he said.

By the time this year's $257 million in rewards is doled out, the state will have spent about $1 billion in two years on rewards for schools, teachers, principals, custodians, nurses and others. Some of that was in the form of $25,000, $10,000 or $5,000 checks to individual professionals at low-ranking schools that exceeded expectations last year.

The state schools superintendent acknowledged that California probably got ahead of itself in parceling out such big bonuses based on potentially fleeting improvements.

"In the long run, it's a good idea," Delaine Eastin said of the reward program. " [But] I thought we moved a little quickly on it. I don't think that much money should have been given based on a single standardized test."

But Kerry Mazzoni, Davis' education secretary, defended the reward programs, saying they have "helped to focus schools and teachers and provided financial support for teachers, something that's very important."

The Academic Performance Index, launched in January 2000 as a way to measure academic progress and rank schools, is the cornerstone of Davis' school-accountability program.

This year, two reward programs will be linked to the index. One is the Governor's Performance Award, a $157-million pot to be given out to schools, with a cap of $150 per tested pupil, to be used on campus as parent and teacher groups decide. This fund will be divided among all schools that qualify for rewards.

As was the case in 2000, an additional $100 million is earmarked for professional staff members at schools that rank in the state's bottom half but show the greatest gains above targets set by the state.

A thousand teachers, principals and others whose students show the biggest improvements will receive $25,000 each; an additional 3,750 will get $10,000 each, and 7,500 will receive $5,000 each.

The state will not be able to determine who is eligible for those rewards until flawed data provided by about 370 schools statewide are corrected, probably in December.

Although the big-money rewards are touted by Davis as an incentive for teachers to serve in low-ranking schools, Mazzoni acknowledged that the souring economy could force legislators to reconsider how the state spends its education dollars in the future.

A one-time bonus program from 2000 worth $350 million was dropped. Under that program, all staff members at qualifying schools got checks for several hundred dollars, with the school itself receiving an equivalent total.

California Department of Education data showed that:

* Schools in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties each qualified for rewards at a higher rate than the statewide average of 48%. In Los Angeles County, 56% were eligible for rewards; 54% of Orange County schools and half of Ventura County schools qualified.

* The proportion of schools performing at or above the statewide target score of 800 (on a scale of 200 to 1,000) has also increased slightly, to 20% this year from 17% in 2000.

* As in the past, elementary schools showed the biggest improvements, followed by middle schools. High schools showed the least progress.

* Although their gains were less significant than last year's, Latinos, blacks and economically disadvantaged children continued to improve at a greater rate than whites and Asian Americans.

In the Los Angeles Unified School District, 66% of schools met their targets, and 60% qualified for financial rewards. Supt. Roy Romer said the results reflected the district's strengths and weaknesses.

"We focused on elementary schools. It worked," Romer said. "We didn't do the work in secondary. Our work is cut out for us. . . . This is the hard nut to crack."

State education officials said they were not surprised that the percentage of schools reaching their growth targets shrank significantly, to 48%.

"You cannot pump [big gains] out year by year," said William L. Padia, director of the California Department of Education's office of policy and evaluation. He added that schools tend to show the most improvement in the first couple of years of a testing program. Though the performance index itself is just 2 years old, the Stanford 9 test has been given for four years.

Moreover, once schools make significant gains, it is hard to keep up that pace.

"The higher you go, the more difficult it is to show growth," said Peggy Anatol, head of testing and assessment in the Newport Mesa Unified School District in Orange County.

Principals at Los Angeles County schools awaiting huge cash bonuses for their schools' performance in 2000 said they felt awkward accepting the money knowing that their campuses did not measure up in 2001. They cited common challenges, including teacher turnover and increased numbers of students new to English.

For Principal Ronald Jones and his teachers at Mountain View Elementary in Tujunga, the scores were a sobering reminder that success in urban schools requires constant attention.

Mountain View, where teachers and others qualified for $10,000 bonuses for their 2000 performance, grew 98 points that year, more than eight times the school's target. This year, the school fell three points short of its seven-point goal.

"We're at a point where we're saying, 'Where are we? What happened?' " Jones said. "We were not pleased with not meeting our target."

In fact, Mountain View is among the 94 schools statewide that qualified for huge rewards in 2000 and, based on this year's performance, are eligible for state aid for low performance.

Some high-performing schools were singing the blues. In the Conejo Valley Unified School District in Ventura County, three campuses failed to qualify for rewards this year.

Last year, schools with an index score of 800 or above needed to lift their scores by just one point to qualify for rewards. The rule was changed to ensure that top schools did not get more than their share of the reward money.

But, officials said, that change could prove dispiriting.

"I think all schools need an incentive to be better each year," said Charles Weis, Ventura County schools superintendent.