Academic Performance Index: pupil subgroups: performance data.
Summary
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, with the approval of the State Board of Education, to develop an Academic Performance Index (API) to measure school and pupil performance. Existing law requires a school to demonstrate comparable improvement in academic achievement as measured by the API by all numerically significant pupil subgroups at the school, including ethnic subgroups, socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils, English learners, and pupils with disabilities. For purposes of these provisions, existing law defines a numerically significant pupil subgroup as one that either consists of at least 50 pupils each of whom has a valid test score, or one that constitutes at least 15% of the total population of pupils at a school who have valid test scores, except as specified. This bill would require that reporting conducted pursuant to these provisions include performance data for pupil subgroups consisting of 10 or more pupils with valid test scores. The bill would require that reporting conducted pursuant to these provisions for any pupil subgroup that is not numerically significant, as defined, be marked with an asterisk that indicates less statistical certainty than data based on a numerically significant subgroup. The bill would require that this reporting be conducted in accordance with specified federal privacy laws, and would state the Legislature's intent that this data not be used for federal or state accountability purposes.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Aug 2011
Senate Passage
May 2011
Assembly Passage
Aug 2011
Vetoed
Mar 2012
Introduced Feb 17, 2011
Vetoed Mar 1, 2012
Floor votes · Senate Aug 30, 2011 · Assembly Aug 18, 2011
How they voted
32–0
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 35
Aug 30, 2011
D
Democratic23
95% Yea
R
Republican12
83% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
27
Key actions
7
Committee
5
Amendments
3
Mar 1, 2012
Vetoed
Veto sustained.
upper
Mar 1, 2012
Vetoed
Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.
upper
Oct 8, 2011
Vetoed
In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
upper
Oct 8, 2011
Vetoed
Vetoed by the Governor.
upper
Aug 30, 2011
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (32-0-3)
senate
Aug 30, 2011
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 2142.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Aug 18, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (67-0-5)
assembly
Aug 18, 2011
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Jul 13, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (July 13).
lower
Jun 29, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (June 22).
lower
May 19, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
lower
May 3, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Apr 12, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0. Page 558.) (April 6).
upper
Mar 3, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
upper
Feb 17, 2011
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
CD
Curren D Price
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 512
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 512. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline