The Michigan School Report Card Michigan Department of Education

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

Education YES! until Achievement Status Achievement Change Indicators

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

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

Elementary Report Card

Middle School Report Card

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

MEAP Status 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

MEAP Status = A = B = C = D = F Average Weighted Scale Cut Scores _______ 4th Grade Mathematics MEAP Status

Years of MEAP data that make up the grade for Achievement Status Content Area ElementaryMiddle SchoolHigh School English Language Arts and Class of 2004 Mathematics , and Class of 2003 and 2004 Science , and Class of 2003 and 2004 Social Studies , and Class of 2002, 2003, and 2004

Middle School Status

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

Achievement Change Examples

Years of MEAP Data Used to Calculate Achievement Change Content Area ElementaryMiddle SchoolHigh School English Language Arts (Reading) , , , and Reading and and ELA Class of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 Reading Mathematics , , , , , , and , , , , , and Class of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 Science , , , , , , and Class of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 Social Studies , , , and Class of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004

Middle School Change

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

School Performance Indicators Instructional Quality Engagement Learning Opportunities Extended Learning Opportunities Continuous Improvement Family Involvement Teacher Quality/ Professional Development Student Attendance & Graduation Rate Curriculum Alignment Arts Education and Humanities Four-Year Education & Employment Plan Performance Management Systems Advanced Coursework School Facilities

Self Assessment Ratings Systematically and Consistently MeetsCriteria Progressing Toward Criteria Starting to Meet Criteria Not Yet Meeting Criteria

Indicators Detail

Indicators and Achievement

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! Unaccredited (i) D/Alert (ii) CC (iii) A B C B (iv) ABCDFABCDF No AYPMakes AYP Education YES! Composite Score (i) – (iv) – Priorities for Assistance B

NCLB Accountability Adequate 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

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

Michigan AYP Targets

50 “cells” for AYP

AYP Overview

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

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.

District AYP

Graduation Rates CEPI is NOW accepting data for 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 graduation rates will come directly from SRSD.

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

Plans for 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

AYP Reliability Example

Preview of Report Card 1 st 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

Preview of 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?

Math AYP Goals Over 12 Years

English Language Arts AYP Goals Over 12 Years

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

Education YES! and After Achievement Status Achievement Change Achievement Growth Indicators

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

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?

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 address is correct Expect an confirmation when an appeal is issued.

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?

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.

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 21 st Century knowledge economy – they are our greatest economic resource.

Key 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 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 Education  Limited English Proficient  Economically Disadvantaged

Key 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 Information Paul Bielawski Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Michigan Department of Education PO Box Lansing, MI (517)