Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

MI-SAAS: A New Era in School Accountability Overview of New School Accreditation System (MI-SAAS) October 28, 2010.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "MI-SAAS: A New Era in School Accountability Overview of New School Accreditation System (MI-SAAS) October 28, 2010."— Presentation transcript:

1 MI-SAAS: A New Era in School Accountability Overview of New School Accreditation System (MI-SAAS) October 28, 2010

2 5/26/2016 2 MI-SAAS Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System (MI-SAAS)

3 5/26/2016 3 MI-SAAS History Designed to replace the EdYes! system in order to: –Create coherent accountability policy in Michigan –Align federal and state requirements –Implement a system that is more transparent and credible

4 5/26/2016 4 Overview of MI-SAAS MI standards determine accreditation Recognition of academic success in all core subjects Five and six year graduation rates are successes Schools can understand accreditation status

5 5/26/2016 5 Components of MI-SAAS Four elements: 1.Student Proficiency and Improvement (Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking) on all tested content areas 2.Persistently Lowest Achieving (PLA) Schools list

6 5/26/2016 6 Components of MI-SAAS 3.Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) status 4.Additional factors (compliance with state statute, Board policy) To be fully accredited, a school must be accredited in all areas

7 5/26/2016 7 MI-SAAS Reporting Dashboard display Allows schools, teachers, students and parents to understand performance on multiple metrics Allows schools and districts to report additional information –Does not count toward status –Needs to be available on a statewide basis to count

8 5/26/2016 8 Proficiency and Improvement Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking –Schools with at least 30 full academic year students in the previous two years in at least two tested subjects. –Based on all tested subjects (mathematics, reading, writing, science, and social studies)

9 5/26/2016 9 Proficiency and Improvement Proficiency is based on MEAP and MI-Access or MME and MI- Access Grade 3-9 students assigned to the “feeder school” where they learned the year prior to testing for proficiency

10 5/26/2016 10 Proficiency and Improvement Two-year average percent proficient Improvement: 2 year average increasing or decreasing or four year slope

11 5/26/2016 11 Student Improvement Performance Level Change Achievement “growth” can be calculated only where a grade 3-8 student has been tested in consecutive years (reading and mathematics).

12 5/26/2016 12 Performance Level Change

13 5/26/2016 13 Student Improvement Four year improvement slope for: –Writing, science and social studies for elementary/ middle schools –All subjects for high schools, Calculated as the slope of a linear regression of percent proficient on year

14 5/26/2016 14 Improvement Slope

15 5/26/2016 15 Top to Bottom List Placement –Mathematics (Math) –Reading (Read) –Science (Sci) –Social Studies (Soc Stud) –Writing (Write) Schematic shown in following slides Five subjects (and abbreviations)

16 5/26/2016 16 Top to Bottom List Placement Separated by Elementary/ Middle (E/MS) and High School (HS) levels, with –E/MS indicating grades 2-8 –HS indicating grade 11

17 5/26/2016 17 Top to Bottom List Placement Most schools will have indicators for the 5 content areas in only one level (E/MS or HS) Schools educating students in both the E/MS and HS levels will have indicators for the 5 content areas in both levels (E/MS and HS)

18 18 Start with raw data for each content area and level % proficient % improving minus % declining (Reading and Math in Elementary/Middle School) % improvement trend slope (All content areas in High School) (Science, Social Studies & Writing in Elem/Middle School)

19 19

20 20

21 21 Most schools will have raw data for only one level For example, a high school educating students in grades 9-12 will only have the raw data outlined in red

22 22 Calculate Z-Scores Z-scores indicate how far above or below the state average the school is for each content area and level Separate z-scores are also calculated for proficiency and improvement Negative z-scores Negative z-scores indicate the school scores below the state average Positive z-scores Positive z-scores indicate the school scores above the state average Z-Scores level the playing field between Elementary/Middle Schools and High Schools, between different content areas, and between proficiency and improvement metrics

23 Create an Index for Each Subject and Level Index is based 2/3 on percent proficient Index is based 1/3 on improvement

24

25 Calculate a percentile rank for each… Subject and Level

26 Calculate average percentile rank

27 5/26/2016 27 Calculate overall percentile rank

28 5/26/2016 28 Statewide Percentile Rank The First Element in Determining Accreditation Ranking less than 5%: Unaccredited Ranking 5% or greater but less than 20%: Interim Ranking 20% or greater: Accredited Note: This is a school’s initial accreditation status, based on proficiency and improvement.

29 5/26/2016 29 PLA List The Second Element in Determining Accreditation If a school is on the PLA list, the initial accreditation status becomes “unaccredited”

30 5/26/2016 30 AYP Status The Third Element in Determining Accreditation If a school fails to make AYPAND The initial accreditation status is “Accredited”THEN The initial accreditation status is lowered to “Interim”

31 5/26/2016 31 Additional Factors The Fourth Element in Determining Accreditation Nine requirements have “yes”/“no” answers: 1.Do 100% of school staff, as required, hold MI certification? 2.Is the school’s annual School Improvement Plan published?

32 5/26/2016 32 Additional Factors 3.Are required curricula offered? –Grade Level Content Expectations in grades K-8 –Michigan Merit Curriculum in grades 9-12

33 5/26/2016 33 Additional Factors 4.Is a fully compliant Annual Report published? 5.Have the School Performance Indicators or equivalent been submitted? 6.Are literacy and math tested annually in grades 1-5?

34 5/26/2016 34 Additional Factors 7.Is the five-year high school graduation rate 80% or above (if the school has a graduation rate), OR Is the attendance rate 90% or above (if the school does not have a graduation rate)?

35 5/26/2016 35 Additional Factors 8. If the school was selected to participate in NAEP, did the school do so? 9.Did the school test 95% of all students in every tested content area?

36 5/26/2016 36 Additional Factors If the answer is “no” (to any question) in two consecutive years, the accreditation status is lowered one level, even if the “no” is for a different question each yearIf the answer is “no” (to any question) in two consecutive years, the accreditation status is lowered one level, even if the “no” is for a different question each year At this point, the accreditation status is final (no longer initial)At this point, the accreditation status is final (no longer initial)

37 5/26/2016 37

38 5/26/2016 38 Additional School, District, Community, and State Info School ContextSchool Context –Grade Configuration, Feeder-system, Enrollment, Demographics District Context (infrastructure)District Context (infrastructure) –Financials, Enrollment, Demographics People/Programs (resources)People/Programs (resources) –Staffing, Program Availability, Program Participation

39 5/26/2016 39 Additional School, District, Community, and State Info Additional Student Performance MetricsAdditional Student Performance Metrics AP/Dual Enrollment, English language learners, Dropouts, Grade retentionAP/Dual Enrollment, English language learners, Dropouts, Grade retention NCA Accreditation (if earned)NCA Accreditation (if earned) ACT college readiness, Workforce readinessACT college readiness, Workforce readiness

40 Mock Report Card Dashboard A mock school report card dashboard is presented on the next slideA mock school report card dashboard is presented on the next slide Gives the concept of what the new school report card will look like.Gives the concept of what the new school report card will look like. Several buttons where you can click through to obtain more detailsSeveral buttons where you can click through to obtain more details Complete look, then piece by piece lookComplete look, then piece by piece look 5/26/2016 40

41 5/26/2016 41

42 Identifying Information 5/26/2016 42

43 MI-SAAS Accreditation Status 5/26/2016 43

44 MI-SAAS Accreditation Elements 5/26/2016 44 Can click on “Details…” buttons to get complete information on the statewide academic achievement ranking and PLA calculations.

45 MI-SAAS Additional Factors Details 5/26/2016 45

46 Adequate Yearly Progress Status 5/26/2016 46

47 Adequate Yearly Progress Elements 5/26/2016 47 Can click on “Details…” buttons to get complete information on the participation and proficiency targets.

48 Locally Provided Information 5/26/2016 48

49 Additional School, District, & State Information Dashboard (For Example Additional School, District, & State Information Dashboard (For Example) 5/26/2016 49

50 5/26/2016 50 Current Status State Board of Education approved on 10/12/10; will go to the legislature for review in November.State Board of Education approved on 10/12/10; will go to the legislature for review in November. Implementation is planned for the 2010-2011 school yearImplementation is planned for the 2010-2011 school year Shared educational entities will not receive accreditation statusShared educational entities will not receive accreditation status

51 Who Receives an Accreditation Status? All schools will receive an accreditation statusAll schools will receive an accreditation status –The achievement/improvement portion will only be calculated for schools that have at least 30 Full Academic Year (FAY) students tested in at least two content areas –If a school does not meet the “30 FAY tested in two content areas” threshold, the initial accreditation status from element 1 will be “Accredited” and the remainder of elements will be applied as specified 5/26/2016 51

52 52 Referent Group The MI-SAAS system is based on a set of recommendations from a referent group, modified to accommodate changing legislative requirements. We appreciate the hard work of this group to design the system.

53 53 Referent Group Aggie Kubrak, Middle Cities Education Association Bill Miller, Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators Bruce Fey, Wayne County RESA Carolyn Logan, Michigan Education Association Deb Squires, Michigan Association of School Boards Ernie Bauer, Oakland Schools Greg Bishop, Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals Jamie San Miguel, Michigan Alternative Education Organization

54 54 Referent Group Karen Micek, Michigan Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Kathy Sergeant, North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement Kevin Hollenbeck, Upjohn Institute Kimberly Wells, CMU Center for Charter Schools Lois Doniver, Michigan AFT Mike Addonizio, Wayne State University Sue Zurvalec, Michigan Association of School Administrators Tony Thaxton, Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education

55 5/26/2016 55 Questions? Contact Us! Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability (OEAA) 517-373-1342 Venessa Keesler, Manager of Evaluation Research and AccountabilityVenessa Keesler, Manager of Evaluation Research and Accountability Chris Janzer, Accountability SpecialistChris Janzer, Accountability Specialist


Download ppt "MI-SAAS: A New Era in School Accountability Overview of New School Accreditation System (MI-SAAS) October 28, 2010."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google