1 / 19

MI-SAAS: Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System

Learn about MI-SAAS, designed to enhance accountability in Michigan schools. Understand components like student proficiency, improvement, AYP status, and more. Get insights into accreditation status and reporting features for schools and districts.

alessa
Download Presentation

MI-SAAS: Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MI-SAAS: Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System Overview of Key Features 2010-2011 School Year

  2. MI-SAAS History • Designed to replace the EdYes! system in order to: • Create coherent accountability policy in Michigan • Align federal and state requirements • Implement a system that is more transparent and credible

  3. Overview of MI-SAAS MI standards determine accreditation Recognition of academic progress and success in all core subjects Recognition that 5 and 6 year graduation rates are successes Schools will be able to understand their accreditation status

  4. Components of MI-SAAS • Four components: • Student Proficiency and Improvement (Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking) • Additional Factors (compliance with statute, Board policy) • AYP Status • Persistently Lowest Achieving school status To be fully accredited, you need to be accredited in all areas.

  5. MI-SAAS Reporting • Dashboard display • Allows schools, teachers, students and parents to understand performance on multiple metrics • Allows schools and districts to report additional information (Success Indicators, other accreditations, etc.) • Note: Does not count toward calculation; for informational purposes only

  6. Student Proficiency and Improvement Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking calculations Only for schools with at least 30 full academic year students over the previous two years. Grade 3-9 students will be assigned to the “feeder school” where they learned during the year prior to testing for proficiency. Proficiency is based on MEAP and MI-Access or MME and MI-Access Based on two-year average percent proficient and improvement

  7. Student Improvement: Performance Level Change Achievement “growth” can be calculated only where a Grade 3-8 student has been tested in consecutive years (ie, ELA and Math).

  8. Student Improvement: Four Year Improvement Slope • Predict school-level percents proficient by year for the previous four years

  9. Start with raw data % proficient % improving minus % declining (MEAP reading and math grades 4-7) % improvement trend slope (MEAP Grades 3 and 8; MME) May 17, 2010 9

  10. Calculate an index and percentile rank for each… Subject May 17, 2010 10

  11. Calculate average and overall percentile rank May 17, 2010 11

  12. Statewide Percentile Rank: Accreditation Status • Lowest 5% ranking: Unaccredited • 6-20% ranking: Interim • Above 20% ranking: Accredited Note: This is the initial accreditation status, based on statewide ranking of proficiency and improvement.

  13. Additional Factors Nine requirements have “yes”/“no” answers Do 100% of school staff, as required, hold MI certification? Is the school’s annual School Improvement Plan published? Are required curricula offered? Grade Level Content Expectations in grades K-8 Michigan Merit Curriculum in grades 9-12 Is a fully compliant Annual Report published? Have the School Performance Indicators or equivalent been submitted? Are literacy and math tested annually in grades 1-5? Is the five-year high school graduation rate 80% or above (if the school has a graduation rate), or is the attendance rate 90% or above (if the school does not have a graduation rate)?” If the school was selected to participate in NAEP, did the school do so? Did the school test 95% of all students in every subject? If the answer is “no” (to any question) in two consecutive years, the accreditation status is lowered one level, even if the “no” is for a different question each year.

  14. PLA List and AYP Status • If a school is on the PLA list, the school is unaccredited. • If a school fails AYP, the accreditation status is lowered one level. • Failing AYP cannot lower a school below “interim.”

  15. Additional School, District, Community, and State Info District Context (infrastructure) Financial, Feeder-system, Enrollment People/Programs (resources) Staffing, Program Availability & Participation Results (student performance) AP/Dual Enrollment, English language learners, Dropouts, Grade retention NCA Accreditation (if earned) ACT college readiness, Workforce readiness NCLB/ESEA Report

  16. Other Information Not Used In Accreditation Calculation School: Underwood Middle School District: Anytown, Michigan Year: 2007-08 Accredited Other $4245 $3400 Foundation $7980 $7540 Elements leading to Accreditation Status: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT ELA Math Science S Studies % Proficient 59% 10% 49% 63% %Improvement 6% 25% Subject Percentile Rank 55 65 49 63 COMPLIANCE Curriculum Cert 100 % Plan Published Self-assess Grad 80% Report Published Test 1-5 AYP AND PLA STATUS AYP: PASS PLA List: No District Context NCLB Performance DISTRICT FINANCIAL DATA 4-yr Grad Rate Or Elem attend HQT % Average Tchr Salary Made AYP? State Avg District 97% NA Yes $50,000 4 Instruct as % of Operating Title I Status AYP Phase Students Tested Per Pupil Funding Sp Ed Summary Yes 65% 0 98% ENROLLMENT TRENDS Building District Success Indicators POST-SECONDARY READINESS Applied to ACT College Workforce Post-Sec Readiness Readiness FEEDER schools: Neuroth Elementary (74%) Unaccredited No AYP Bielawski Elementary (12%) Interim Accred AYP Vaughn Elementary (10%) Accredited AYP Other In-district (3%) Other Out-of-district (1%) NA NA NA COMPLETION – SUCCESS RATES People/Programs Dual Grad Rate Dropout Enrollment w/ 6 yrs Rate STAFFING DATA Teacher/Student % of Teachers Ratio Profess NA NA 5% Success w/ Eng Lang Lrnrs 9th Grade Promotion Rate Blue Ribbon School 1/25 96% 80% 2008 70% PROGRAM PARTICIPATION CTE %: Participating Concentrating Completing NA NA NA SCHOOL CHOSEN DATA MdGinity At/Above Grade Level Title I Distinguished Blue Ribbon School POPULATIONS SERVED 90% ELL % F/Red Lunch % Sp Ed%

  17. Current Status State Board of Education approved on 10/12/10; will go to the legislature for final vote in November. Implementing for the 2010-2011 school year Shared educational entities will not receive accreditation status

  18. Questions? Contact Us! • Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability (OEAA) • 517-373-1342 • Venessa Keesler • Manager, Evaluation Research and Accountability • Chris Janzer • Accountability Specialist

More Related