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
scale score x 1
Scaled Scores
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
Content Area 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
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
Content Area Elementary 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
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
Instructional Quality Engagement Learning Opportunities
Extended Learning Opportunities Continuous Improvement Family Involvement
Teacher Quality/ Professional Development Continuous Improvement Student Attendance Graduation Rate
Teacher Quality/ Professional Development Curriculum Alignment Student Attendance Graduation Rate
Arts Education and Humanities Curriculum Alignment Four-Year Education Employment Plan
Arts Education and Humanities Performance Management Systems Four-Year Education Employment Plan
Advanced Coursework Performance Management Systems School Facilities
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
B (iv)
Education YES! Composite Score
C
C (iii)
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
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
AYP Improvement Phases
Corrective Action
Improvement
Implement Plan
Restructure
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 1
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase 0
Phase 2
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 states 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.

51
Key Messages

• Despite the medias 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.

52
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

53
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.

54
Contact Information

• Paul Bielawski
• Office of Educational Assessment and
  Accountability
• Michigan Department of Education
• PO Box 30008
• Lansing, MI 48909
• [phone]
• bielawp_at_michigan.gov