the michigan school report card michigan department of education
TRANSCRIPT
The Michigan School Report Card
The Michigan School Report Card
Michigan Department of Education
Guiding Principles of Education YES!
Guiding Principles of Education YES!
High Academic StandardsProvide Ladders not HammersMore than a Single Test on a
Single DayMultiple measuresFairnessWe can lead the nation
Education YES!until 2005-06
Education YES!until 2005-06
Achievement Status
AchievementChange
Indicators
Education YES!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
Achievement Status and Change
Achievement Status and Change
ElementaryEnglish Language Arts and
MathematicsMiddle School and High School
Mathematics, English language arts, Science and Social Studies
Elementary Report CardElementary Report Card
Middle School Report CardMiddle School Report Card
Education YES!Changes in 2004Education YES!
Changes in 2004
Grading by Content Area Replaces Separate Grades for Status and Change
“Floor” for Achievement Change Impact
MEAPStatus
scale score
x 1
x 2
x 3
x 4
Scaled
Scores
Total of
1s, 2s, 3s, 4s
Total of
Weighted
Scale Scores
Formula for Status:
Total of Weighted Scores
Total of 4s, 3s, 2s, 1s
=Single Weighted Score for each
school, for each subject
MEAPStatus
543.7543.6
533.7
533.6
517.5
517.4
510.4
510.3
= A
= B
= C
= D
= F
Average
Weighted
Scale
Cut Scores _______
4th Grade
Mathematics
MEAPStatus
Years of MEAP data that make up the grade for Achievement Status
Years of MEAP data that make up the grade for Achievement Status
ContentArea
Elementary Middle School High School
English Language Arts
2002-03 and 2003-04
2002-03 and 2003-04 Class of 2004
Mathematics 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04
2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04
Class of 2003 and 2004
Science 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04
Class of 2003 and 2004
Social Studies 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04
Class of 2002, 2003, and 2004
Middle School StatusMiddle School Status
MEAPChange
AB
C
D
F
School Slope
to 100%
Proficiency
%
Proficient
MEAPChange
Time
Achievement Change Examples
Achievement Change Examples
1997-98 103 47 45.6%
99.1
2001-02 106
1998-99 90 54 60.0%
1999-00 98 56 57.1%
71 67.0%
2000-01 94 69 73.4%
Ratio of
Actual toTarget
Comparison of Target and Actual Improvement Rates Score
2002-03 98 58 59.2%
3.40 5.8 170.5%
YearNumber
Tested
Number
Proficient
Percent
Proficient
Target
ImprovementRate
Actual
ImprovementRate
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Actual Calculated Target
Achievement Change Examples
Achievement Change Examples
YearNumber
Tested
Number
Proficient
Percent
Proficient
Target
ImprovementRate
Actual
ImprovementRate
Ratio of
Actual toTarget
Comparison of Target and Actual Improvement Rates Score
2002-03 51 38 74.5%
2.12 -1.6 -76.7%
65.1%
2000-01 67.3%
1999-00 71.2%
1998-99 72.9%
1997-98 69.2%
50.0
2001-02
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Actual Calculated Target
Years of MEAP Data Used to Calculate Achievement
Change
Years of MEAP Data Used to Calculate Achievement
ChangeContent
AreaElementary Middle School High School
English Language Arts (Reading)
1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, and 2001-02 Reading and 2002-03 and 2003-04 ELA
1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, and 2001-02 Reading and 2002-03 and 2003-04 ELA
Class of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 Reading
Mathematics 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04
1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04
Class of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004
Science 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04
Class of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004
Social Studies 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04
Class of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004
Middle School ChangeMiddle School Change
Achievement ChangeAchievement 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
School Performance Indicators
School Performance Indicators
Instructional Quality
EngagementLearning
Opportunities
Extended Learning Opportunities Continuous
ImprovementFamily Involvement
Teacher Quality/Professional
Development
Student Attendance & Graduation RateCurriculum
AlignmentArts Education and
HumanitiesFour-Year Education & Employment PlanPerformance
Management Systems
Advanced Coursework
School Facilities
Self Assessment RatingsSelf Assessment Ratings
Systematically and Consistently Meets Criteria
Progressing Toward Criteria Starting to Meet Criteria Not Yet Meeting Criteria
Indicators DetailIndicators Detail
Indicators and Achievement
Indicators and Achievement
A B C D F TotalA 392 896 907 438 123 2,756B 16 55 101 78 31 281C 4 5 20 26 18 73D 0 1 5 14 12 32F 0 0 2 4 2 8
Total 412 957 1,035 560 186 3,150
Number of Schools
Achievement GradeIn
dica
tor
Gra
de
Indicator Revision Schedule
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
Unified Approach for AYP and Education YES!
Unified Approach for AYP and Education YES!
Unaccredited (i)
D/Alert (ii)
D/Alert (ii)
C C (iii)
A
B
C
B (iv)ABC
DF
No AYP Makes AYP
Ed
ucati
on
YES
! C
om
posit
e S
core
(i) – (iv) – Priorities for Assistance
B
NCLB AccountabilityAdequate Yearly Progress
NCLB AccountabilityAdequate Yearly ProgressRequires a Single State
Accountability SystemGoal – 100% Proficiency at the end
of 12 YearsStates set a starting point at or
above a federal minimum and set objectives for improvement
Adequate Yearly ProgressAdequate 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
Arts95% tested
Must meet in both math and English Language Arts
Additional Academic Indicator Graduation Rate – high schools Attendance – elementary and middle schools
2002-04 2004-05 2007-08 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Elementary
Mathematics 47% 56% 64% 73% 82% 91% 100%
ELA 38% 49% 59% 69% 79% 90% 100%
Middle School
Mathematics 31% 43% 54% 66% 77% 89% 100%
ELA 31% 43% 54% 66% 77% 89% 100%
High School
Mathematics 33% 44% 56% 67% 78% 89% 100%
ELA 42% 52% 61% 71% 81% 90% 100%
Michigan AYP TargetsMichigan AYP Targets
50 “cells” for AYP50 “cells” for AYP
ELA Math ELA Math
Black or African AmericanAmerican Indian or Alaska NativeAsian American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific IslanderHispanic or LatinoCaucasian or WhiteMultiracial
Additional Indicator -
Attendance or Graduation
Economically Disadvantaged
Whole School
Achievement Participation
Rac
ial/E
thni
c G
roup
s
Limited English ProficientStudents With Disabilities
AYP OverviewAYP Overview
AYP Improvement PhasesAYP Improvement Phases Corrective
Action
Yr. 1 2 3 4 5 6
No
AYP
No
AYPChoice
&Trans.
Choice, Trans.,
& Supp.
Services
Improvement Implement Plan
7
Restructure
Phase 1 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5Phase 0 Phase 2
Choice, Trans.,
& Supp.
Services
Choice, Trans.,
& Supp.
Services
Choice, Trans.,
& Supp.
Services
District AYPDistrict 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.
District AYPDistrict AYP
Graduation RatesGraduation 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.
Plans for 2005 Report CardPlans 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
Plans for 2004-05 Report Card (cont.)Plans for 2004-05 Report Card (cont.)
Nonstandard accommodations will not count as participating for AYP
1% rule special educationcount Phase 1 proficient FIRST
AYP reliability – margin of error?AYP Graduation Rate based on the
current formulaAYP state objective goes up
AYP Reliability ExampleAYP Reliability Example
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 year 2 years 3 years
Multiple Year Averaging
Pe
rce
nt
Pro
fic
ien
t
Preview of 2005-06 Report Card
Preview of 2005-06 Report Card
1st year of 3-8 assessmentEducation YES! is probably only
status because:Cannot put old and new assessments
on the same trend lineGrowth cannot be computed until
2007
Preview of 2005-06 Report Card (cont.)
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% proficiencyAYP – 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?
Math AYP Goals Over 12 Years
Math AYP Goals Over 12 Years
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
School Year
Per
cen
t P
rofic
ien
t
Elementary Middle School High School
English Language Arts AYP Goals Over 12 YearsEnglish Language Arts
AYP Goals Over 12 Years
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
School Year
Pe
rce
nt
Pro
fic
ien
t
Elementary Middle School High School
Preview of 2006-07 Report Card
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?
Education YES!2006-07 and After
Education YES!2006-07 and After
Achievement Status
Achievement Change
AchievementGrowth
Indicators
Requirements for Achievement Growth
Requirements for Achievement Growth
UICs to match the studentsVertical Scale to match the test
reporting scales across gradesA growth metric for reportingExpectations (cut scores) for
achievement growth
How to Verify the DataHow 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?
Submitting an AppealSubmitting an Appeal
What is the evidence for a correction? Generally need student names Assessment corrections often need
collaboration from the test proctorProvide as much detail as possibleUse the Issue Tracker
Make sure your email address is correctExpect an email confirmation when an
appeal is issued.
Tips for the Report Card Maze
Tips for the Report Card Maze
Where does the data come from?Enrollment – SRSDProficiency – MEAP and Merit
When is a student in grade 11?Local Grade Placement PolicyEnrollment – SRSDAssessment – MEAP and Merit
What about ungraded students?
Key MessagesKey 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.
Key MessagesKey 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.
Key MessagesKey Messages
Despite the media’s focus on “failing” schools, the mission of every public school in Michigan is to provide safe and valuable learning environments for our children.
Schools are not “failing.” They all are working hard to improve the academic success of their students.
Key MessagesKey Messages
Regardless of the quirks in the federal NCLB law, we will NOT blame any particular “group” for not making AYP – all children are important and have value.Special EducationLimited English ProficientEconomically Disadvantaged
Key MessagesKey Messages
Still a work in progress at local, state, and federal levels.National and regional education
groups are working to identify and mend the “unintended consequences” of NCLB.
Recent federal “flexibility” adjustments reveal initial flaws in the law.
Contact InformationContact Information
Paul BielawskiOffice of Educational Assessment and
AccountabilityMichigan Department of EducationPO Box 30008Lansing, MI 48909(517) [email protected]