Understanding Michigan’s Accountability System

1. Understanding Michigan’s Accountability System

2. ESEA Waiver Basics Principal 2 of 4 – Accountability & Support • Top to Bottom Ranking given to all schools with 30 or more students tested, full academic year (0 – 99th percentile where 50th is average) • NEW designation for some schools • Reward schools (Top 5%, Significant Improvement or Beating the Odds) • Focus schools (10% of schools with the largest achievement gap between the top and bottom) • Priority schools (Bottom 5%, replaces PLA list) • NEW in 2013, AYP Scorecard based on point system replacing the “all or nothing” of NCLB.

4. Why did we achieve AYP based on student achievement? • Feds approve NEW AYP targets in light of the ESEA Waiver application

5. Accountability Timelines • August 2012: • AYP (original system with new targets to accommodate new cut scores for approximately 3,400 schools) • Education Yes! (original system; not modified) • Top to Bottom Ranking (2,866 schools) • Priority Schools (formerly PLA) (146 schools) • Focus Schools (358 schools) • Reward Schools (286 schools) • August 2013: New AYP Scorecard

6. Top to Bottom Ranking Ranks all schools in the state with at least 30 full academic year students in at least two tested content areas (Reading, Writing, Math, Science and Social Studies weighted equally plus graduation). • Each content area is “normed” in three categories: • 2 years of Achievement (50 – 67%) • 3 – 4 years of Improvement (0 – 25%) • Achievement gaps between top and bottom (25 – 33%) • Graduation rate (10% if applicable) • 2 year Rate (67%) • 4 year slope of improvement (33%)

7. How Is the Top to Bottom Ranking Calculated • Calculating an overall ranking for a school with a graduation rate School Mathematics Std Index 18% School Reading Std Index 18% Overall Standardized School Index Overall School Percentile Rank School Science Std Index 18% School Social Studies Std Index 18% School Writing Std Index 18% School Graduation Rate Std Index 10%

8. How Is the Top to Bottom Ranking Calculated • Calculating an overall ranking for a school without a graduation rate School Mathematics Std Index 20% School Reading Std Index 20% Overall School Standardized Index Overall School Percentile Rank School Science Std Index 20% School Social Studies Std Index 20% School Writing Std Index 20%

9. What are Priority Schools? Formerly known as PLA schools (Federal and state accountability now aligned) Bottom 5% replaces the tiered list as the identification strategy for PLA schools (includes both Title I and non-Title I schools) Year 1 planning (Closure, Restart, Turn-around or Transformation), Year 2 – 4 Implementation

10. What are Focus Schools? Schools with the largest achievement gaps. Achievement gap is defined as the difference between the average scale score for the top 30% of students and the bottom 30% of students. This methodology is an improvement over using a solely demographic-based gap methodology because it targets achievementgaps.

11. What are Focus Schools? • Identifying Focus Schools is a critical component to Michigan achieving key goals: • -to close the achievement gap within schools • -to reduce the achievement gap statewide

12. How Is the Top to Bottom Ranking Calculated • For science, social studies, writing, and grade 11 all tested subjects Two-Year Average Standardized Student Scale (Z) Score School Achievement Z-Score 1/2 Four-Year Achievement Trend Slope School Performance Achievement Trend Z-Score School Content Area Index Content Index Z-score 1/4 Two-Year Average Bottom 30% - Top 30% Z-Score Gap School Achievement Gap Z-Score 1/4

15. What if we have Focus school(s)? • Unlike Priority label, Focus label may only be one year. (Title I set-aside lasts 4 years) NOTE: AYP Scorecard, Top to Bottom Ranking and Reward/Focus/Priority designation for August 2013 determined by Fall MEAP, 2012 and Spring MME, 2013.

16. What if we have Focus school(s)? Requirement for all Focus schools: • Notification of Focus status by August 21, 2012 via the Annual Ed Report • Quarterly reports to the district board of education • Deep diagnosis of data prior to SIP revision (if Title I by Oct 1) • Professional Dialogue, toolkit available to all (if Title I requires DIF with time range of Oct – Jan.) • Revision of School Improvement Plan with activities focused on the Bottom 30% included (if Title I additional revisions to Cons App, both by Jan 30) • NOTE:  Additional requirements of Title I schools regarding set-asides and specific uses of Title I funds.

17. Z-scores (Standard Deviations)

18. Z-scores (Standard Deviations) • Z-scores are centered around zero or the “state average” • Positive is ABOVE the state average • Negative is BELOW the state average State Average Z-score = Zero -1 -3 -2 1 2 3 0.5 -0.5 98% 84% 69% 31% 50% 16% 2% Percentile State Average

19. 2011-12 Top-to-Bottom Individual School Lookup … Download MS Excel file at www.mi.gov/ttb

20. -.4 to .4 .5 to 2.0 -2.0 to -.5

21. Before drawing conclusions … • Dig DEEPER than just proficiency by looking at trendsat both the strand and GLCE level. • Triangulate, i.e. Local Assessment

22. Conclusions Once you have dug deeper and looked at multiple types of data, then ask: • What conclusions can be drawn? • Are our current focus addressing the issues? • What theories do you have that are supported by data about why deficiencies exist?

23. Action • Develop an action plan: • WHO should explore this data? WHO are the experts able to make instructional changes? WHO needs to be empowered? • WHEN will time be given to dialogue about data that will impact instruction and ultimately make a difference for students? • WHAT data have you filtered that will be useful in a data dialogue? WHAT four steps will you use to facilitate a data dialogue? • To truly have a balanced assessment system, WHAT data is missing or under utilized?