MI-SAAS: Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System Overview of Key Features 2010-2011...
-
Upload
brett-newton -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of MI-SAAS: Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System Overview of Key Features 2010-2011...
MI-SAAS: MI-SAAS: Michigan School Michigan School
Accreditation and Accreditation and Accountability SystemAccountability System
Overview of Key FeaturesOverview of Key Features
2010-2011 School Year2010-2011 School Year
MI-SAAS HistoryMI-SAAS History
Designed to replace the Designed to replace the EdYes! system in order to:EdYes! system in order to:– Create coherent accountability Create coherent accountability
policy in Michiganpolicy in Michigan– Align federal and state Align federal and state
requirementsrequirements– Implement a system that is Implement a system that is
more transparent and crediblemore transparent and credible
Overview of MI-SAASOverview of MI-SAAS MI standards determine MI standards determine
accreditationaccreditation
Recognition of academic progress Recognition of academic progress and success in all core subjectsand success in all core subjects
Recognition that 5 and 6 year Recognition that 5 and 6 year graduation rates are successesgraduation rates are successes
Schools will be able to understand Schools will be able to understand their accreditation statustheir accreditation status
Components of MI-Components of MI-SAASSAAS Four components:Four components:
– Student Proficiency and Improvement Student Proficiency and Improvement (Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking)(Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking)
– Additional Factors (compliance with Additional Factors (compliance with statute, Board policy)statute, Board policy)
– AYP StatusAYP Status
– Persistently Lowest Achieving school Persistently Lowest Achieving school statusstatus
To be fully accredited, you need to be To be fully accredited, you need to be accredited in all areas. accredited in all areas.
MI-SAAS ReportingMI-SAAS Reporting
Dashboard displayDashboard display Allows schools, teachers, students and Allows schools, teachers, students and
parents to understand performance on parents to understand performance on multiple metricsmultiple metrics
Allows schools and districts to report Allows schools and districts to report additional information (Success Indicators, additional information (Success Indicators, other accreditations, etc.)other accreditations, etc.)– Note: Does not count toward Note: Does not count toward
calculation; for informational purposes calculation; for informational purposes onlyonly
Student Proficiency and Student Proficiency and ImprovementImprovement
Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking calculationsStatewide Top to Bottom Ranking calculations
– Only for schools with at least 30 full academic year Only for schools with at least 30 full academic year students over the previous two years.students over the previous two years.
Grade 3-9 students will be assigned to the Grade 3-9 students will be assigned to the “feeder school” where they learned during the “feeder school” where they learned during the year prior to testing for proficiency.year prior to testing for proficiency.
Proficiency is based on MEAP and MI-Access or Proficiency is based on MEAP and MI-Access or MME and MI-AccessMME and MI-Access
Based on two-year average percent proficient Based on two-year average percent proficient and improvement and improvement
Student Improvement: Student Improvement: Performance Level Performance Level ChangeChange
Achievement “growth” can be calculated Achievement “growth” can be calculated only where a Grade 3-8 student has been only where a Grade 3-8 student has been tested in consecutive years (ie, ELA and tested in consecutive years (ie, ELA and Math).Math).
Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid HighLow M I I SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SIMid D M I I SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SIHigh D D M I I SI SI SI SI SI SI SILow SD D D M I I SI SI SI SI SI SIMid SD SD D D M I I SI SI SI SI SIHigh SD SD SD D D M I I SI SI SI SILow SD SD SD SD D D M I I SI SI SIMid SD SD SD SD SD D D M I I SI SIHigh SD SD SD SD SD SD D D M I I SILow SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D D M I IMid SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D D M IHigh SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D D M
SD = Significant Decline M = Maintaining I = ImprovementD = Decline SI = Significant Improvement
Advanced
Proficient
Not Proficient
Partially Proficient
Grade X MEAP Achievement
Grade X + 1 MEAP AchievementNot Proficient Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced
Student Improvement: Student Improvement: Four Year Improvement Four Year Improvement SlopeSlope Predict school-level percents Predict school-level percents
proficient by year for the previous proficient by year for the previous four yearsfour years
Four Year Improvement Slope
01020304050607080
2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Pe
rce
nts
Pro
fic
ien
t
Improving
Declining
Mixed
May 17, 2010 9Soc
ial S
tudi
esS
cien
ce
Rea
ding
(Writ
ing
calc
ulat
ed
sepa
rate
ly)
Mat
hem
atic
s Two-year Average Percent Proficient
Two year average % improvement
minus % declining OR 4-year slope (improvement)
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
4-year slope (improvement)
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
4-year slope (improvement)
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
Mathematics Index
2/3
1/3
Reading Index
2/3
1/3
Science Index
2/3
1/3
Social Studies Index
2/3
1/3
Mathematics Percentile Rank
ELA Percentile Rank
Science Percentile Rank
Social Studies Percentile Rank
Ave
rag
e of
all
Ass
ign
ed P
erce
ntile
Ra
nks
Ove
rall
Per
cent
ile R
ank
(ran
kin
g on
the
ave
rage
of a
ll pe
rce
ntile
ran
ks m
etric
)
Two year average % improvement
minus % declining OR 4-year slope (improvement)
Start with raw data
% proficient
% improving minus % declining (MEAP reading and math grades 4-7)
% improvement trend slope (MEAP Grades 3 and 8; MME)
May 17, 2010 10Soc
ial S
tudi
esS
cien
ceR
eadi
ng(w
ritin
g ca
lcul
ated
se
para
tely
)M
athe
mat
ics Two-year Average
Percent Proficient
Two year average % improvement
minus % declining OR 4-year slope (improvement)
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
4-year slope (improvement)
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
4-year slope (improvement)
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
Mathematics Index
2/3
1/3
Reading
2/3
1/3
Science Index
2/3
1/3
Social Studies Index
2/3
1/3
Mathematics Percentile Rank
Reading Percentile Rank
Science Percentile Rank
Social Studies Percentile Rank
Ave
rag
e of
all
Ass
ign
ed P
erce
ntile
Ra
nks
Ove
rall
Per
cent
ile R
ank
(ran
kin
g on
the
ave
rage
of a
ll pe
rce
ntile
ran
ks m
etric
)
Two year average % improvement
minus % declining OR 4-year slope (improvement)
Calculate an index andpercentile rank for each…
Subject
May 17, 2010 11Soc
ial S
tudi
esS
cien
ceR
eadi
ng(w
ritin
g ca
lcul
ated
se
para
tely
)M
athe
mat
ics Two-year Average
Percent Proficient
Two year average % improvement
minus % declining OR 4-year slope (improvement)
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
4-year slope (improvement)
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
4-year slope (improvement)
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
Mathematics Index
2/3
1/3
Reading Index
2/3
1/3
Science Index
2/3
1/3
Social Studies Index
2/3
1/3
Mathematics Percentile Rank
Reading Percentile Rank
Science Percentile Rank
Social Studies Percentile Rank
Ave
rag
e of
all
Ass
ign
ed P
erce
ntile
Ra
nks
Ove
rall
Per
cent
ile R
ank
(ran
kin
g on
the
ave
rage
of a
ll pe
rce
ntile
ran
ks m
etric
)
Two year average % improvement
minus % declining OR 4-year slope (improvement)
Calculate average andoverall percentile rank
Statewide Percentile Statewide Percentile Rank: Accreditation Rank: Accreditation StatusStatus Lowest 5% ranking: UnaccreditedLowest 5% ranking: Unaccredited 6-20% ranking: Interim 6-20% ranking: Interim Above 20% ranking: AccreditedAbove 20% ranking: Accredited
Note: This is the initial accreditation Note: This is the initial accreditation status, based on statewide ranking status, based on statewide ranking of proficiency and improvement.of proficiency and improvement.
Additional FactorsAdditional Factors Nine requirements have “yes”/“no” answersNine requirements have “yes”/“no” answers
1)1) Do 100% of school staff, as required, hold MI certification?Do 100% of school staff, as required, hold MI certification?2)2) Is the school’s annual School Improvement Plan published? Is the school’s annual School Improvement Plan published? 3)3) Are required curricula offered?Are required curricula offered?
Grade Level Content Expectations in grades K-8Grade Level Content Expectations in grades K-8 Michigan Merit Curriculum in grades 9-12Michigan Merit Curriculum in grades 9-12
4)4) Is a fully compliant Annual Report published?Is a fully compliant Annual Report published?5)5) Have the School Performance Indicators or equivalent been Have the School Performance Indicators or equivalent been
submitted?submitted?6)6) Are literacy and math tested annually in grades 1-5?Are literacy and math tested annually in grades 1-5?7)7) Is the five-year high school graduation rate 80% or above (if the 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 school has a graduation rate), or is the attendance rate 90% or above (if the school does not have a graduation rate)?”above (if the school does not have a graduation rate)?”
8)8) If the school was selected to participate in NAEP, did the school If the school was selected to participate in NAEP, did the school do so?do so?
9)9) Did the school test 95% of all students in every subject?Did the school test 95% of all students in every subject? If the answer is “no” (to any question) in two If the answer is “no” (to any question) in two
consecutive years, the accreditation status is lowered consecutive years, the accreditation status is lowered one level, even if the “no” is for a different question one level, even if the “no” is for a different question each year.each year.
PLA List and AYP PLA List and AYP StatusStatus If a school is on the PLA list, the If a school is on the PLA list, the
school is unaccredited.school is unaccredited. If a school fails AYP, the If a school fails AYP, the
accreditation status is lowered accreditation status is lowered one level.one level.– Failing AYP cannot lower a school Failing AYP cannot lower a school
below “interim.”below “interim.”
Statewide Percentile
Rank Not On PLA List
Made AYP
Met Target on Nine Additional Factors
Accreditation Result
High Y Y Y AccreditedHigh Y N Y InterimHigh Y Y N InterimMid Y N Y InterimMid Y Y Y InterimHigh N N N UnaccreditedHigh N N Y UnaccreditedHigh N Y N UnaccreditedHigh N Y Y UnaccreditedHigh Y N N UnaccreditedLow N N N UnaccreditedLow N N Y UnaccreditedLow N Y N UnaccreditedLow N Y Y UnaccreditedLow Y N N UnaccreditedLow Y N Y UnaccreditedLow Y Y N UnaccreditedLow Y Y Y UnaccreditedMid N N N UnaccreditedMid N N Y UnaccreditedMid N Y N UnaccreditedMid N Y Y UnaccreditedMid Y N N UnaccreditedMid Y Y N Unaccredited
High = ranking greater than or equal to 20th percentileMid = ranking greater than or equal to 5th percentile, but less than 20th percentileLow = ranking less than 5th percentile
Determination of Accreditation Status in MI-SAAS
Additional School, Additional School, District, Community, and District, Community, and State InfoState Info
District Context (infrastructure)District Context (infrastructure) Financial, Feeder-system, EnrollmentFinancial, Feeder-system, Enrollment
People/Programs (resources)People/Programs (resources) Staffing, Program Availability & ParticipationStaffing, Program Availability & Participation
Results (student performance)Results (student performance) AP/Dual Enrollment, English language learners, AP/Dual Enrollment, English language learners,
Dropouts, Grade retentionDropouts, Grade retention NCA Accreditation (if earned) NCA Accreditation (if earned) ACT college readiness, Workforce readinessACT college readiness, Workforce readiness
NCLB/ESEA ReportNCLB/ESEA Report
District Context
People/Programs
Success Indicators
NCLB PerformanceDISTRICT FINANCIAL DATA
ENROLLMENT TRENDS Building District
FEEDER schools:
Neuroth Elementary (74%) Unaccredited No AYP
Bielawski Elementary (12%) Interim Accred AYP
Vaughn Elementary (10%) Accredited AYP
Other In-district (3%) Other Out-of-district (1%)
$50,000
65%
300350400450
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
STAFFING DATA Teacher/Student % of Teachers Ratio Profess1/25 96%
NA NA 5%
POST-SECONDARY READINESSApplied to ACT College WorkforcePost-Sec Readiness Readiness
NA NA NA
PROGRAM PARTICIPATION CTE %: Participating Concentrating Completing
NA
Other Information Not Used In Accreditation CalculationOther Information Not Used In Accreditation Calculation
Dual Grad Rate DropoutEnrollment w/ 6 yrs Rate
80% 2008
98%
Success w/Eng Lang Lrnrs
90%
MdGinity At/Above Grade Level
Blue Ribbon School
Yes
Made AYP?4-yr Grad RateOr Elem attend
97%
HQT %
NA
300350400450
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
70%
9th Grade Promotion Rate
POPULATIONS SERVED
NA NA
State Avg District
Average Tchr Salary
Instruct as % of Operating
Sp Ed Summary
Per Pupil Funding
SCHOOL CHOSEN DATA
YesTitle I Status
0
AYP Phase Students Tested
Title I Distinguished
COMPLETION – SUCCESS RATES
Foundation
Other
$7980
$4245
$7540
$3400
ELL % F/Red Lunch % Sp Ed%
4
School: Underwood Middle SchoolDistrict: Anytown, MichiganYear: 2007-08
Accredited
Elements leading to Accreditation Status:
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
AYP: PASSPLA List: No
AYP AND PLA STATUS
ELA Math Science S Studies
% Proficient 59% 10% 49% 63%%Improvement 6% 25%
Subject Percentile Rank
55 65 49 63
COMPLIANCE
Report Published
CurriculumPlan Published
Test 1-5
Grad 80%
Cert 100 %Self-assess
Blue Ribbon School
Current StatusCurrent Status
State Board of Education State Board of Education approved on 10/12/10; will go to approved on 10/12/10; will go to the legislature for final vote in the legislature for final vote in November.November.
Implementing for the 2010-2011 Implementing for the 2010-2011 school yearschool year
Shared educational entities will Shared educational entities will not receive accreditation statusnot receive accreditation status
Questions? Contact Us!Questions? Contact Us!
Office of Educational Assessment Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability (OEAA)and Accountability (OEAA)
517-373-1342517-373-1342 Venessa KeeslerVenessa Keesler
– Manager, Evaluation Research and Manager, Evaluation Research and AccountabilityAccountability
Chris JanzerChris Janzer– Accountability SpecialistAccountability Specialist