1. Focus Schools and Special Education Centers
Presentation to MAASE
October 10, 2012
Venessa A. Keesler, Ph.D.
Bureau of Assessment and Accountability

2. Taking a Step Back: Why do we do accountability?
Three myths; one reality
Myth #1: To drive reform
Myth #2: To create education policy
Myth #3: Because we are gluttons for punishment
Reality:
Accountability metrics/systems are quantitative articulations of the core policy beliefs of the education system
They help us measure our progress in meeting those core policy goals
They are the measure, not the purpose or the goal

3. Accountability Landscape: 2012
A new era of accountability
Switching from a purely criterion-based system to a normative system
Criterion-based systems: Set average proficiency targets for schools.
Normative system: identifies the “worst” or “best” or “lowest” or “highest”

4. Why the change?
Policy imperative for NCLB: all students CAN and SHOULD demonstrate proficiency  criterion-system with proficiency targets for all schools and subgroups
10 years later: our average achievement is increasing, but we still have students and schools lagging behind
New policy imperative (ESEA Flex): we must target our lowest performing schools AND our lowest performing students more specifically and strategically

5. Why Focus Schools?
Different metric  addresses a different policy goal
Policy goal  to shine new light on the lowest performing students within schools
Priority Schools = lowest performing schools overall
Focus Schools = largest within-school gaps

6. Intersection with Policy Regarding Students With Disabilities
“All means all”
Michigan believes all students should have access to high-quality instruction and rigorous content; and that we must have high expectations for all students
So—the accountability articulation of this core policy belief is to include ALL students and ALL schools in the metrics

7. Quick Reference for Z-Scores
What is a Z-Score?
Quick Reference for Z-Scores

8. Why do We Use Z Scores?
Z-scores are a standardized measure that helps you compare individual student (or school) data to the state average data (average scores across populations).
Z-scores allow us to “level the playing field” across grade levels and subjects
Each Z-score corresponds to a value in a normal distribution. A Z-Score will describe how much a value deviates from the mean.
What do you need to know: Z-scores are used throughout the ranking to compare a school’s value on a certain component to the average value across all schools.

9. What is a Z-Score? Z-scores are centered around zero
Positive numbers mean the student or school is above the state average
Negative numbers mean the student or school is below the state average
State
Average
…Worse than state average
Better than state average….
Note: The distances between numbers are not equal. There is a “bell curve” overlaid on this schematic. Between -1 and 1, there are 64% of the schools. Between -2 and 2, 95% of schools, and between -3 and 3, 99% of schools. So that means, if you are at zero, you are doing better than 50% of schools. By the time you move to +1, you are doing better than 84% of schools (50+34). Most of the schools fall between -1 and 1. This is why scores in here are relatively near the average, although the closer you get to -1 or +1, the further away from that average you get. -3 -2 -1 1 2 3

10. Z-Score Examples
Your school has a z-score of You are better than the state average.
Z-score of 1.5
State
Average
…Worse than state average
Better than state average…. -3 -2 -1 1 2 3

11. Z-Score Examples
Your school has a z-score of .2. You are better than the state average, but not by a lot.
Z-score of 0.2
Z-score of 1.5
State
Average
…Worse than state average
Better than state average…. -3 -2 -1 1 2 3

12. Z-Score Examples
Your school has a z-score of You are very far below state average.
Z-score of -2.0
Z-score of 0.2
Z-score of 1.5
State
Average
…Worse than state average
Better than state average…. -3 -2 -1 1 2 3

13. How do we get Standardized Scale Scores for Each Student?
Step #1: Take each student’s score on the test they took and compare that score to the statewide average for students who took that same test in the same grade and year
This creates a student-level z-score for each student in each content area
Compare
MEAP to MEAP
MEAP-Access to MEAP-Access
MME to MME
MI-Access
Participation to Participation
Supported Independence to Supported Independence
Functional Independence to Functional Independence
Why do we do this?
Puts all student test scores on a metric that can be combined, regardless of which test they took
Allows us to compare similar students to each other, before we begin to summarize into schools and compare schools to schools
Means that we do not rank schools on the “percent of students proficient” but instead on their average standardized achievement
Key takeaway to share with schools: the students are compared with similar students first, before the school is ranked at all. This helps “level the playing” field across test types.
NOTE ON NEXT SLIDES: Only use these with a school if you feel it benefits your conversation. They are placed here primarily for your own reference.

14. What do we do with those standardized scores?
Step #2: Once each student has a z-score for each content area (based on the test they took), we take all of the students in a each school, and rank order the students within the school.
Z-scores will have come from different tests, and compare students to statewide average for that grade, test, and subject
But they can now be combined for the school
Step #3: Add up all z-scores and take the average. This is now the average standardized student scale score.
Step #4: Define the top and bottom 30% subgroups, based on that rank ordering.

15. Student
Test Taken
Z-score
Tommy
Mi-Access, Participation
2.5
Sally
MEAP
2.0
Maura
MI-Access, SI
1.9
Fred
1.5
Ichabod
MEAP-Access
1.0
Freud
0.8
Maybelle
MI-Access, FI
0.7
Destiny
0.5
Harold
-0.2
Bickford
-0.5
Talledaga
-0.7
Francine
-1.2
Joey
-1.9
William
-2.2

16. Average Z-score (average standardized student scale score): 0.28
Test Taken
Z-score
Tommy
Mi-Access, Participation
2.5
Sally
MEAP
2.0
Maura
MI-Access, SI
1.9
Fred
1.5
Ichabod
MEAP-Access
1.0
Freud
0.8
Maybelle
MI-Access, FI
0.7
Destiny
0.5
Harold
-0.2
Bickford
-0.5
Talledaga
-0.7
Francine
-1.2
Joey
-1.9
William
-2.2
Average Z-score (average standardized student scale score): 0.28
(sum all z-scores, divide by 15)

17. Student
Test Taken
Z-score
Tommy
Mi-Access, Participation
2.5
Sally
MEAP
2.0
Maura
MI-Access, SI
1.9
Fred
1.5
Ichabod
MEAP-Access
1.0
Freud
0.8
Maybelle
MI-Access, FI
0.7
Destiny
0.5
Harold
-0.2
Bickford
-0.5
Talledaga
-0.7
Francine
-1.2
Joey
-1.9
William
-2.2
Top 30%
Bottom 30%

18. Implications for SWDs and Center Programs
Students compared only with other students who took the same assessment (Participation to Participation, etc.)
All schools treated the same
Not that center programs have a gap; but that they have some of the largest gaps
Don’t assume the bottom 30% is only one type of student; can look at student data file

19. Final Point
The accountability system will not pick and choose between students and/or schools; it will apply the same rules to all students/schools
Accountability system does not decide when to deviate from this; core educational policy does
Need to continue to work to make sure that metrics mirror policy goals

20. Contact Information
Venessa A. Keesler, Ph.D. Evaluation, Research and Accountability Bureau of Assessment and Accountability or