Michigan’s Accountability Scorecards

1. Michigan’s AccountabilityScorecards A Brief Introduction

2. District/School Accountability History Pre-2001 • School accountability looked at overall proficiency rates in Reading and Mathematics 2001 • No Child Left Behind Legislation was passed • Schools continue to be held accountable for overall proficiency rates in Reading and Mathematics • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)was introduced which added • State level proficiency rates and increases to 100% proficient for all students • Student group proficiency rates were also introduced into the accountability system. 2013 • State Waiver adopted by Federal Government • New Scorecard introduced • Overall and student groups continued • School AMO’s introduced • Added bottom 30% of students as a new student group • Writing, Science and Social Studies scores added

3. New Accountability System • Adoption of the state’s new waiver to the Elementary Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind 2001) • Schools and districts are expected to have 85% of all students and student groups proficient on state assessment by 2021-2022 • Student groups are defined as any group of 30 or more students who share economic, ethnic, limited English proficient, students with disabilities, or other characteristics.

4. New Accountability System • Schools and districts have been assigned by the state an individual yearly Annual Measureable Objective (AMO) • This objective replaces an annual statewide target of achievement for all schools and districts • AMO was calculated using the proficiency rate from the 2011-2012 school year to create annual targets that increment to an end proficiency rate of 85% by 2021-2022

5. Proficiency Targets Example Example school ends at (at least) 85% proficient in subject Example school starts from 65% proficient in subject Example School has +2% Annual Target

6. The Michigan Department of Education has now developed a five color system for districts and schools called Accountability Scorecards

7. Accountability Scorecard Components • The system is partially a point based system • Each school or district earns an overall proficiency percentage which corresponds to one of the colors in the five color system • The colors can change based upon • Student participation/proficiency on state assessments • Educator Evaluation (Effectiveness Labels and Teacher Student Data Link) • Compliance Factors (School Improvement Plan and School Performance Indicators Report) • Student attendance/graduation rates

8. Accountability Scorecard Components Proficiency, participation and student groups have the most impact on the overall color.

9. 2012-13 Statewide Scorecard Colors

10. Accountability Scorecards Yellow scorecards are extremely common STATEWIDE • This is due to the number of additional factors that prevent a school from receiving a Green or Lime designation • As a common example, if a single student group is not on track to reach 85 percent proficiency or did not test over 95 percent of the population, then that one single subset of students will prevent a school or district from receiving a color higher than yellow.

11. 2012-13 Statewide Scorecards*Excludes educational entities that do not have proficiency points

13. Accountability Scorecards • While this system is somewhat complicated, some educators involved with the creation of the system believe it is a better representation than assigning a simple letter grade to schools and districts. • At the time of public release, nearly all Macomb County schools and districts received yellow, orange or red designations, while three schools received green designations.

14. Significant Changes to the New System • The new bottom 30% student group for proficiency. This group is held to the same AMO as all students • Audit checks (which can significantly affect the final color - see next slide) • Achievement and participation of small groups of students often impact the overall color • Some schools and districts may have high overall achievement on state assessments but this may not be apparent in the color designation in the accountability system

15. AUDIT CHECK

16. Overall Proficiency Percentage and Color for the District and Schools

17. How the elements are assembled to calculate the final COLOR

18. Sample District Overall Status

19. A Little More On “Bottom 30%” This subgroup behaves differently than the others…

20. Suppose we ranked our students by test scale score: • If we have 20% Proficient (2 students) they would be from the highest scoring students… • If we had 50% Proficient, they would be from the highest scoring students…. Bottom 30% Lowest Score Highest Score

21. In fact, the “Bottom 30” subgroup will have 0% proficient until our overall proficiency rate >70%. How does this impact our AMOs?

22. Suppose our AMO is 33% • In our example, that would be 1 student in the Bottom 30% subgroup. • Since all non-Bottom 30% students would have to be proficient before we can get to that student, 33% translates into 80% overall! Bottom 30% Lowest Score Highest Score

23. How does this relate to schools? • The percentage of Michigan schools that have AMOs for 2013-14 below 70% are: • 58% in Reading • 89% in Writing • 95% in Math • 98% in Social Studies • 99.8% in Science • For those schools, they can meet their AMOs for all students and the other subgroups and still not be able to meet it for Bottom 30%.

24. More Questions? Jim Gullen jgullen@misd.net 586.228.3459