The Michigan School Report Card

1. The Michigan School Report Card Michigan Department of Education

2. Guiding Principles of Education YES! • High Academic Standards • Provide Ladders not Hammers • More than a Single Test on a Single Day • Multiple measures • Fairness • We can lead the nation

3. Education YES!until 2005-06 Achievement Change Achievement Status Indicators

4. Education YES! • Achievement Status • Up to a three year Average • Weighted Index • Achievement Change • Improvement (or Decline) • Based on 100% by 2013-14 • Achievement Growth • Delayed until 2006-07 • Indicators of School Performance • “Investments” to Improve Achievement • Self-Assessments

5. Achievement Status and Change • Elementary • English Language Arts and Mathematics • Middle School and High School • Mathematics, English language arts, Science and Social Studies

6. Elementary Report Card

7. Middle School Report Card

8. Education YES!Changes in 2004 • Grading by Content Area Replaces Separate Grades for Status and Change • “Floor” for Achievement Change Impact

9. MEAP Status Formula for Status: Scaled Scores scale score x 1 Total of Weighted Scores x 2 Total of 4s, 3s, 2s, 1s = x 3 Single Weighted Score for each school, for each subject x 4 Total of 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s Total of Weighted Scale Scores

10. MEAP Status MEAP Status 543.7 = A 543.6 533.7 Average Weighted Scale Cut Scores _______ 4th Grade Mathematics = B 533.6 517.5 = C 517.4 510.4 = D 510.3 = F

11. Years of MEAP data that make up the grade for Achievement Status

12. Middle School Status

13. MEAP Change MEAP Change B School Slope to 100% Proficiency % Proficient A C D F Time

14. Achievement Change Examples

15. Achievement Change Examples

16. Years of MEAP Data Used to Calculate Achievement Change

17. Middle School Change

18. Achievement Change • Some schools do not get a Change Score • School is too new • Too few students (1 or more years) • Changes in the MEAP test (need at least one 3-year slope) • Achievement score for these schools is based on status only

19. School Performance Indicators

20. Self Assessment Ratings • Systematically and Consistently Meets Criteria • Progressing Toward Criteria • Starting to Meet Criteria • Not Yet Meeting Criteria

21. Indicators Detail

22. Indicators and Achievement

23. Indicator Revision Schedule • February 2005 • Presentation to State Board of Education • Winter 2005 • Development of Measurement Plan • Spring, 2005 • Field Testing • Fall 2005 • Data Collection on Revised Indicators • Winter 2006 • Report Cards Available to Start Appeals

24. Unified Approach for AYP and Education YES! B A A B C D F B (iv) B Education YES! Composite Score C (iii) C D/Alert (ii) C Unaccredited (i) D/Alert (ii) No AYP Makes AYP (i) – (iv) – Priorities for Assistance

25. NCLB AccountabilityAdequate Yearly Progress • Requires a Single State Accountability System • Goal – 100% Proficiency at the end of 12 Years • States set a starting point at or above a federal minimum and set objectives for improvement

26. Adequate Yearly Progress Must meet all of the following for the district, school and subgroup: • Achievement • Meet state objective or safe harbor • Must meet in both Math and English Language Arts • 95% tested • Must meet in both math and English Language Arts • Additional Academic Indicator • Graduation Rate – high schools • Attendance – elementary and middle schools

27. Michigan AYP Targets

28. 50 “cells” for AYP

29. AYP Overview

32. AYP Improvement Phases Improvement Corrective Action Restructure Implement Plan Choice, Trans., & Supp. Services Choice, Trans., & Supp. Services Choice, Trans., & Supp. Services Choice, Trans., & Supp. Services No AYP No AYP Choice &Trans. Yr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5

33. District AYP • Similar to individual schools, district AYP is based on: • Minimum size of 30 students for the district, in the grades tested, using the same rules as applied to individual schools • Overall student achievement in Math and English Language Arts (ELA) over the entire district.

34. District AYP

35. Graduation Rates • CEPI is NOW accepting data for 2003-2004 graduation rates • The Pupil Headcount Report correction and submission window is: • March 1, 2004 through May 16, 2004 • These graduation rates will be used for AYP on the 2005 Report Card • No report card appeals will be accepted on graduation rates • It is planned that the 2004-05 graduation rates will come directly from SRSD.

36. Plans for 2005 Report Card • Same structure and format as 2004 Report Card • Timeline for 2005 Report Card • Indicators data collection in April-May • Graduation Rates – EDN open now • Appeals start early June • Report Cards released for all schools in August • Same timeline for all schools and district AYP • Retooled Indicators of School Performance for 2006 Report Card

37. Plans for 2004-05 Report Card (cont.) • Nonstandard accommodations will not count as participating for AYP • 1% rule special education • count Phase 1 proficient FIRST • AYP reliability – margin of error? • AYP Graduation Rate based on the current formula • AYP state objective goes up

38. AYP Reliability Example

39. Preview of 2005-06 Report Card • 1st year of 3-8 assessment • Education YES! is probably only status because: • Cannot put old and new assessments on the same trend line • Growth cannot be computed until 2007

40. Preview of 2005-06 Report Card (cont.) • Will new AYP objectives be needed? • An impact analysis will be needed • A new objective will have only 9 years to 100% proficiency • AYP – Use all scores for a school • Cannot ignore valid scores • Group size rule may be modified • Full Academic Year rule may be modified • How will feeder reports be used for accountability?

41. Math AYP Goals Over 12 Years

42. English Language Arts AYP Goals Over 12 Years

43. Preview of 2006-07 Report Card • May include the new high school assessment for AYP • Could include reporting of achievement growth • Compare the student in grade 7 in 2005-06 with the same students in grade 8 in 2006-07 • Originally promised in Education YES! but delayed • Would growth replace change?

44. Education YES!2006-07 and After Achievement Change Achievement Status Achievement Growth Indicators

45. Requirements for Achievement Growth • UICs to match the students • Vertical Scale to match the test reporting scales across grades • A growth metric for reporting • Expectations (cut scores) for achievement growth

46. How to Verify the Data • Is the data correct? • Have all enrolled students been counted? • Have exited students been excluded from enrollment? • Are demographics correct? • Have all assessed students been counted? • Are students in the correct class? • Both MEAP and MI-Access • Are demographics mismatched between enrollment and assessment?

47. Submitting an Appeal • What is the evidence for a correction? • Generally need student names • Assessment corrections often need collaboration from the test proctor • Provide as much detail as possible • Use the Issue Tracker • Make sure your email address is correct • Expect an email confirmation when an appeal is issued.

48. Tips for the Report Card Maze • Where does the data come from? • Enrollment – SRSD • Proficiency – MEAP and Merit • When is a student in grade 11? • Local Grade Placement Policy • Enrollment – SRSD • Assessment – MEAP and Merit • What about ungraded students?

49. Key Messages • We embrace the moral imperative of the No Child Left Behind Act (whose child is it OK to leave behind?). • Michigan has a long and distinguished history of having high academic standards approved by the State Board even before NCLB. • We will comply with the mandates of this comprehensive federal law. • We will continue working to help our schools meet these federal mandates.

50. Key Messages • Our schools are improving, but we still have a long way to go. • It is in our state’s vital best interest to ensure all of our children receive the quality education they need and deserve to be successful in the 21st Century knowledge economy – they are our greatest economic resource.