Accountability Essentials for California 2008

New Coordinator Training on Accountability Accountability Essentials for California 2008 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction California and Federal Accountability Systems JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Two systems that convert test results into different measures of academic performance – California measure: the Academic Performance Index (API) looks at growth in school performance – Federal measure: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) looks at the percentage of students proficient or above 2 Accountability Progress Reporting System JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Integrated system of reporting results for state and federal accountability requirements • Includes – – – – Base API Report Growth API Report AYP Report Program Improvement (PI) Status 3 Accountability Progress Reporting System JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Provides data for – State – Local educational agencies (LEAs are school districts and county offices of education) – Schools (including charter schools) – Numerically significant subgroups 4 Numerically Significant Subgroups JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Defined in the same manner for both the state and federal accountability systems • Definition – 100 students or more OR – 50 students that make up at least 15 percent of the total number of students tested 5 Numerically Significant Subgroups JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Participation rate – Based on enrollment on the first day of testing • Percent proficient – Based on the number of valid test scores • Schools or LEAs with fewer than 100 students will not have any numerically significant subgroups 6 Numerically Significant Subgroups JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • All major racial/ethnic groups • Socioeconomically disadvantaged – Defined as participating in the Free or Reduced Price Lunch Program or neither parent has a high school diploma • English Learners (ELs) • Students with Disabilities (SWDs) 7 English Learners JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • A student who is marked as EL on the Student Answer Document OR • A reclassified fluent-English-proficient (RFEP) student who has not scored proficient or above on the California Standards Test (CST) in English language arts (ELA) for three years after being reclassified 8 Students With Disabilities JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • A student who receives special education services and has a valid disability code OR • A student who was previously identified as special education, but who is no longer receiving special education services for up to two years after exiting – These students will not count in determining whether or not the group is numerically significant 9 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Academic Performance Index (API) 10 What Is the API? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Created by the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999 • Single number ranges from 200 - 1000 • Based on student performance on statewide assessments across multiple subject areas 11 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction The API is a good measure of individual student growth from year to year. False 12 What Is the API? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Cross-sectional look at student achievement - does not track individual student progress • Based on the performance of the students at the school who were enrolled for a “full academic year” • The API from one year is compared to the API from the prior year to measure growth 13 API Reporting Cycle JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Each year’s testing results in a – Base API – Growth API • 2008 test results will be used to calculate – 2008 Growth (compared to 2007 Base) – 2008 Base (compared to 2009 Growth) 14 API Reporting Cycles 2005 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2006 2006 Growth API 2007 2008 2005 Base API 2006 Base API 2007 Growth API 2007 Base API 2008 Growth API 15 API Reporting Cycle JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • New tests are added or new weights are given to the tests with the Base API • Within one reporting cycle, the Base and Growth APIs must have the same tests with the same weights – only valid way to compare results 16 API Reporting Cycle JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2007 Base API Schoolwide/Subgroup APIs STAR Indicators • CAT/6 NRT (gr. 3 & 7) • CSTs: ELA, math, science (5, 8-11), historysocial science (8-11) • CAPA • CAHSEE (10-12) Statewide Rank Similar Schools Rank 2008 Growth API Schoolwide/Subgroup APIs STAR Indicators • CAT/6 NRT (gr. 3 & 7) • CSTs: ELA, math, science (5, 8-11), history-social science (8-11) • CAPA • CAHSEE (10-12) Same indicators for base and growth 17 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction The only valid API comparison is between one year’s Growth API and the prior year’s Base API. True 18 API Comparisons JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Inappropriate Comparisons – 2005 Base API and 2006 Base API – 2006 Base API and 2006 Growth API – 2003 Base API and 2008 Growth API • Appropriate Comparisons – 2007 Base API and 2008 Growth API – Actual API growth from 2006-07 and actual API growth from 2007-08 19 What Assessments Are Used in the API? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • California Standards Tests (CSTs) – – – – English-language arts (grades 2-11) Mathematics (grades 2-11) Science (grades 5, 8-11) History/Social Science (grades 8-11) • California Achievement Test (CAT/6) – Nationally normed test (grades 3 and 7) – Reading, language, spelling, mathematics 20 What Assessments Are Used in the API? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) – English-language arts and mathematics – Grades 10-12 • California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) – – – – Alternate assessment for the CSTs For the most cognitively disabled English-language arts and mathematics Grades 2-11 21 How to Calculate the API: The Simple Version JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 1. Convert each test result into a score on the API scale (200 to 1000) Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far below Basic = 1000 points = 875 points = 700 points = 500 points = 200 points 2. Calculate a weighted average of the scores 22 API Calculation Spreadsheet Elementary School Part I – School Test Data JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Elementary School Part II – API Calculation 23 API Calculation Spreadsheet Seven Basic Steps JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction The user completes the following two steps in Part I: 1. Apply inclusion/exclusion rules to student test results 2. Enter total number of valid scores into Part I by content area and performance level The remaining five steps are calculated automatically in Part II 24 API Spreadsheets JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • The API Calculation Spreadsheets can be accessed on the API Web page at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/index.asp • The API Detail Data File can be accessed on the API Web page at: http://preview.cde.ca.gov/api/basecalc.asp 25 Statewide API Performance Target JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Maximum 1000 800 800 adopted by State Board as statewide target Minimum 200 0 26 Annual API Growth Targets JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • 5 percent of the distance to 800 for the school overall and all numerically significant subgroups • Minimum of 5 points until the API target of 800 is reached (schoolwide and for significant subgroups) • A school or subgroup at or above 800 needs to stay at or above 800 to make their target 27 5% Distance to Statewide Performance Target JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Maximum 1000 800 Example School 700 800-700 = 100 5% x 100 = 5 Minimum 200 0 Growth Target 28 School API Growth Targets JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Schoolwide Base API 680 790 616 Growth Target 6 5 9 Asian Hispanic White SED ELs 691 614 578 5 9 11 29 API Ranks JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Required by PSAA (1999) • Statewide Rank – Establishes a ranking of schools from highest to lowest by school type • Similar School Rank – Compares a school to 100 other schools that are similar on key variables 30 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction The best way to improve my API rank is to plant flowers on campus. False 31 Statewide Rank JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Ranks are established by deciles • Range from 1 to 10 – 1 is low – 10 is high • Ranks improve when the API score increases • Dependent upon API increases of other schools statewide 32 Statewide Rank JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 1. Rank API scores from highest to lowest separately by school type 2. Divide the distribution into 10 equal ranks (i.e., deciles) 33 Similar Schools Rank JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Compares a school to 100 similar schools • Rank 1 means the school performed below at least 90 of its 100 similar schools • Rank 10 means the school performed above at least 90 of its 100 similar schools 34 Similar Schools Ranks JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 1. Calculate a School Characteristics Index (SCI) for each school based on more than 20 variables such as: • • • • • • • • Mobility Ethnicity Percent of teachers who are fully credentialed Percent of teachers that hold emergency credentials Percent of English learners Average class size per grade level Percent of GATE students Percent of migrant students 35 Similar Schools Ranks (continued) JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2. Rank SCIs from high to low separately by school type 3. Identify 50 schools with SCIs just above and 50 schools with SCIs just below the “target” school 4. Order the 100 schools by their actual Base API 5. Divide the schools into ten decile ranks and determine the target school’s rank 36 Selecting and Ranking the 100 Similar Schools API JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction SCI API SCI 182 179 175 183 177 173 176 181 174 180 178 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 973 956 945 899 944 973 870 820 956 789 931 892 945 860 920 863 789 987 851 800 50 50 944 931 920 892 870 50 50 860 820 789 786 896 895 167 166 165 37 Similar Schools Ranks JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Schools often do not “look” like my school – Based on similar challenges • Useful communication tool for low and high-performing schools 38 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Use, Interpretation, and Presentation of API Data 39 What Does Our API Score Tell Us? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • The students we had this year improved over our students last year • Certain subgroups grew or didn’t • Certain subgroups met or didn’t meet their growth targets • The school is at or above the statewide target of 800 40 What Does Our API Score Tell Us? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Where our school ranks compared to others of our same school type • Where our school ranks compared to others with similar challenges • Whether the gap between subgroups is narrowing 41 Displaying API Results 25 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 22 20 15 12 8 3 API Change 10 5 0 -5 -6 -10 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 42 Growth API For Student Groups in 2007 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Two Rivers Elementary - 2007 Growth API Results 850 API Score 800 750 700 650 Schoolwide Afican American Hispanic Low Income White 2006 Base API 2007 Growth API 600 43 What Doesn’t Our API Score Tell Us? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Which content areas showed improvement • How many students are scoring at each performance level in each content area • What percent of students are proficient or above, by content area 44 What Doesn’t Our API Score Tell Us? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • How the school has been improving over time – Remember base to growth cycle – Comparisons across base-growth cycles are not valid • Where to focus instructional resources • Whether specific instructional intervention programs are effective 45 API Reports JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Reports and data files from 1999 to present are on the Internet http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/ 46 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 47 What Is AYP? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Federal accountability requirement enacted by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) of 2001 • Methodology must be annually approved by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) 48 AYP Requirements JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Must meet annual targets that increase over time • Goal is 100 percent of students proficient in ELA and mathematics by 2013-14 • Annual determination for schools and LEAs 49 AYP Components JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 1. Participation rate – ELA and math 2. Percent proficient – ELA and math 3. API 4. Graduation rate – High schools only 50 Participation Rate JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Must be 95 percent or greater – In ELA and math – For the school or LEA and all numerically significant subgroups – Students tested with modification are not counted as participating (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/documents/ matrix1007.doc) – Numerically significant subgroups based on enrollment on the first day of testing 51 Percent Proficient JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Each state can set their own definition of “proficient” • Also called Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) • Annual target by school type – ELA and math 52 Percent Proficient JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Targets are the same for – LEAs – Schools – Subgroups • Numerically significant subgroups are based on the number of valid test scores 53 Percent Proficient Targets JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction ELA 20052007 Elementary and Middle 24.4% Schools 2008 Math 20052007 26.5% 2008 35.2% 37.0% High Schools 22.3% 33.4% 20.9% 32.2% 54 Percent Proficient Targets High Schools and High School Districts JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction English-Language Arts 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 100.0% 88.9% 77.8% 66.7% 55.6% 44.5% Percent Proficient 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 33.4% 22.3% 11.2% 20 02 02 20 03 03 20 04 04 20 05 05 20 06 06 20 07 07 20 08 08 20 09 09 20 10 10 20 11 11 20 12 12 20 13 13 -1 4 20 01 - 55 Other AYP Indicators JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • API – Schools must grow by at least one point or have an API score at or above the annual target • Graduation Rate – For high schools only – Must show growth or be above the annual target 56 Unified School Districts, High School Districts, and County Offices of Education JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Additional Indicator 800 750 700 800 770 740 710 680 650 API 650 600 620 590 550 500 560 02 03 04 05 06 07 06 20 20 08 08 -0 20 9 09 -1 20 0 10 -1 20 1 11 -1 20 2 12 -1 20 3 13 -1 4 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 20 20 20 20 20 20 07 - 57 Unified School Districts, High School Districts, and County Offices of Education JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Minimum Graduation Rate 83.7% 83.6% 83.5% 83.6% 83.5% 83.4% 83.3% 83.2% 83.1% Graduation Rate 83.4% 83.3% 83.2% 83.1% 83.0% 82.9% 82.8% 82.7% 83.0% 82.9% 82.8% 20 02 02 20 03 03 20 04 04 20 05 05 20 06 06 20 07 07 20 08 08 20 09 09 20 10 10 20 11 11 20 12 12 20 13 13 -1 4 20 01 - 58 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction A school may potentially have 46 different ways to miss AYP. True 59 AYP Components JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Participation rate – Up to 11 different student subgroups – 2 content areas – 22 ways – Up to 11 different student subgroups – 2 content areas – 22 ways • Percent proficient • API • High school graduation rate 60 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program and AYP results for high schools are identical. False 61 Which Assessments Are Used for AYP? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Participation rate and percent proficient calculations based on: • Elementary and Middle Schools – CSTs – CAPA • High Schools (grade 10 only) – CAHSEE – CAPA 62 Which Assessments Are Used for AYP? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • High schools – Based only on Grade 10 CAHSEE results – Student enrollment and performance will differ if you compare STAR, API, and AYP results 63 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction A school, LEA, or subgroup can make AYP even if performance is below the target. True 64 Alternative Methods to Make AYP JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • More than 10 other ways to make AYP • Common Methods – – – – Two or three-year average County and district average graduation rate Adjustment for students with disabilities Safe harbor 65 Adjustment for Students with Disabilities JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction For 2007 • If a school or LEA missed AYP solely because the SWD group missed the AMO in mathematics, the school or LEA had 20 percent added to the AMO in mathematics. The 20 percent adjustment did not apply to ELA in the August 2007 release of AYP. 66 Adjustment for SWD JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction New for 2008 • The CDE does not have an approved assessment system. As a result, the 20 percent adjustment rule cannot be applied to mathematics or ELA in the 2008 release of AYP. 67 SWD Future Issues JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • The California Modified Assessment (CMA) was available to students in grades 3-5 (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/participcriteria.asp) • Grades 6-8 ELA, grades 6-7 math, and grade 8 science will be field tested in fall 2008 and operational in spring 2009 68 Safe Harbor What Is It? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Alternate method of making the AMOs without meeting the established statewide targets if an LEA, school, or subgroup shows significant growth over the prior year 69 Safe Harbor Goal JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction An LEA, school, or subgroup must show a decrease in the percentage of students below proficient by 10 percent over the prior year to qualify for safe harbor Please note: Safe harbor includes a confidence interval that is calculated and applied by CDE which is based on the number of valid test scores 70 Safe Harbor Simple Example JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Step 1 Determine percentage of students scoring below proficient in 2007 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Calculate safe harbor goal Determine percentage of students scoring below proficient in 2008 Compare results of Step 3 to results of Step 2 71 Safe Harbor Simple Example JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Step 1: 2007 Proficient = 12% Below Proficient = 88% Step 2: Safe Harbor Goal 10% of 88% = 8.8 12% + 8.8% = 20.8% Step 3: 2008 Proficient = 21.4% Below Proficient = 78.6% School makes AYP via safe harbor because 21.4% is greater than 20.8% 72 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Use, Interpretation, and Presentation of AYP Data 73 What Do Our AYP Results Tell Us? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • What percent of students participated in the STAR/CAHSEE assessments • What percent of students are proficient or advanced in ELA and math – Meeting or exceeding grade level standards • How many more students are proficient or advanced this year compared to last – Good longitudinal comparison of data – Measure is consistent 74 What Do Our AYP Results Tell Us? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Whether our school is perforning at or above the state target • Whether our subgroups are performing at or above the state target • Whether the gap between subgroups is narrowing 75 Percent Proficient in ELA and Math JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Four-year Comparison 35 30 Percent Proficient 25 20 15 10 5 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 76 ELA Math Percent Proficient in ELA by Student Group JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Most Recent Year 60 50 Percent Proficient 40 30 20 10 0 2008 Schoolwide White Hispanic SED African Am. Els 77 Graphing the Achievement Gap JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 78 What Don’t the AYP Results Tell Us? JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Provide no information about student performance in content areas other than ELA and math • Only provide information about students scoring at the proficient or advanced levels – No credit is given to schools for moving students out of the lowest three performance levels 79 AYP Reports JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Reports and data files from 2003 to present are on the Internet • http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/ 80 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Program Improvement (PI) 81 Identifying Schools for PI JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Only schools receiving Title I funding • Schools are identified after missing AYP for two consecutive years – In the same content area (ELA or math) or – On the same indicator (API or graduation rate) 82 Schools in PI JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • About 37 percent of Title I schools are in PI – Approximately 6,063 Title I schools – Approximately 2,240 in PI • Required to carry out a variety of interventions and reforms • Five-year timeline 83 Identifying Schools for PI Example JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2007 Met all criteria except participation for Hispanic in ELA 2008 Met all criteria except percent proficient for English Learners in ELA Identified for PI: The school missed the same content area for two consecutive years 84 Identifying Schools for PI Example JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2007 Met all criteria except percent proficient for African Americans in ELA 2008 Met all criteria except percent proficient for African Americans in math Not Identified for PI: The school did not miss in the same content area for two consecutive years 85 Identifying Schools for PI Example JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2007 Met all criteria except the API Additional Indicator 2008 Met all criteria except the API Additional Indicator Identified for PI: The school missed the same indicator for two consecutive years 86 Exiting PI Status JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • In order to exit PI status a school must make AYP for two consecutive years 87 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction A PI school makes AYP in 2008 for the first time since entering PI. As a result, the school does not have to implement PI requirements. False 88 Identifying LEAs for PI JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Only for LEAs that receive Title I funds • Missed the same indicator (API or graduation rate) for two consecutive years OR • Missed AYP in the same content area and in each grade span (2-5, 6-8 and grade 10) for two consecutive years 89 LEAs in PI JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • About 17 percent of Title I LEAs are in PI – Approximately 961 LEAs in Title I – 165 were in PI for 2006-07 • Interventions on a three-year timeline 90 Identifying LEAs for PI Example JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2007 LEA missed the graduation rate 2008 LEA missed the graduation rate Identified for PI: The LEA missed the same indicator for two consecutive years 91 Identifying LEAs for PI Test 1 (Districtwide) JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2007 The LEA missed AYP in ELA for one student group 2008 The LEA missed AYP in ELA for two student groups Missed in the same content area At risk of being identified for PI Proceed to Test 2 92 Identifying LEAs for PI Test 2 (Grade Span) JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2007 All grade spans missed AYP in ELA 2008 Elementary and middle grade spans missed AYP in ELA but the high school grade span made AYP in ELA Not Identified for PI: One grade span made AYP in ELA in at least one year 93 Identifying LEAs for PI Test 2 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Year 2007 Grade Level Grades 2-5 Grades 6-8 Grade 10 EnglishLanguage Arts No No No Math Yes Yes Yes 2008 Grades 2-5 Grades 6-8 Grade 10 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes 94 JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction An LEA can be in PI even if none of its schools are in PI. True 95 Identifying LEAs for PI JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • PI determination is not based on whether the LEA has schools in PI • AYP for LEAs is based on results for all students enrolled in the LEA for a full academic year 96 Identifying LEAs for PI JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Anomalies usually result from subgroup size issues • Some subgroups may not be significant at the school level but are when results are aggregated to the LEA level – Students with disabilities 97 Contact Information JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction General AYP questions, Appeals of AYP, PI identification Evaluation, Research and Analysis Unit 916-319-0875 evaluation@cde.ca.gov 98 Contact Information JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction API questions, data corrections, general data issues, complex calculation questions Academic Accountability Unit 916-319-0863 aau@cde.ca.gov 99 Contact Information JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction PI schools Years 1 and 2 Title I Policy and Accountability 916-319-0854 pi@cde.ca.gov PI schools Years 3-5 District and School Program Coordination 916-319-0833 dspc@cde.ca.gov 100 Contact Information JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Program Improvement LEAs Intervention Assistance Office 916-319-0836 intervenenet@cde.ca.gov 101