Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores Report to the Superintendent Roundtable
12
Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores Report to the Superintendent Roundtable February 23, 2011
description
Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores Report to the Superintendent Roundtable. February 23, 2011. Agenda. Background on Raising Cut Scores Impact of Cut Scores MI-SAAS Overview Questions…. Statewide Preliminary Cut Scores Study Results -- Reading. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores Report to the Superintendent Roundtable
Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores
Report to the Superintendent Roundtable
February 23, 2011
Agenda•Background on Raising Cut Scores
•Impact of Cut Scores
•MI-SAAS Overview
•Questions…
Statewide Preliminary Cut Scores Study Results -- Reading
9084 85 88
82 83
65
3948
4435 36 38 38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3 4 5 6 7 8 11
Actual Percentages in 2009-10 (with current cut scores)
Projected Percentages in 2009-10 (with projected college ready cut scores)Grade
Perc
entP
rofic
ient
Statewide Preliminary Cut Scores Study Results -- Mathematics
95 92
80 82 82
70
50
34 38 40 38 39 39
29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3 4 5 6 7 8 11
Actual Percentages in 2009 (with current cut scores)
Projected Percentages in 2009 (with projected college ready cut scores)
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
Grade
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Current AYP Calculation
•Aggregate and subgroups:▫Percent proficient – annual targets▫Percent tested (95% target)
•Attendance (90% target) for elementary and middle schools
•Graduation (80% target) for high schools
Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability (MI-SAAS) ComponentsApproved at February 2011 State Board Meeting
• Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking▫ Student Achievement and Improvement▫ Student Graduation Rates and Improvement
• Appearance on the List of Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
• Additional Factors (compliance with state statute, board policy)
• Additional School, District, Community and State Information
• Sunset Clause
Statewide Percentile Rank Not On PLA List Met Target on Nine Additional Factors
Accreditation Result
High Y Y AccreditedHigh Y N Interim Mid Y Y InterimHigh N N Unaccredited High N Y Unaccredited Low N N Unaccredited Low N Y Unaccredited Low Y N Unaccredited Low Y Y Unaccredited Mid N N Unaccredited Mid N Y Unaccredited Mid Y N Unaccredited
Determination of Accreditation Status in MI-SAAS
Low = ranking less than 5th percentile Mid = ranking greater than or equal to 5th percentile, but less than 20th percentile High = ranking greater than or equal to 20th percentile
