Benchmarking michigan s education performance and funding data masa winter 2009 l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 35

Benchmarking Michigan’s Education Performance and Funding Data MASA Winter 2009 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 100 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Benchmarking Michigan’s Education Performance and Funding Data MASA Winter 2009. Thomas White, [email protected] 517.515.1604. Comparing Michigan’s Disadvantaged Pupil Characteristics in General. Comparing Michigan to the Nation on NAEP, Grades 4 & 8 for 2007 .

Download Presentation

Benchmarking Michigan’s Education Performance and Funding Data MASA Winter 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Benchmarking michigan s education performance and funding data masa winter 2009 l.jpg

Benchmarking Michigan’s Education Performance and Funding DataMASA Winter 2009

Thomas White, [email protected] 517.515.1604


Comparing michigan s disadvantaged pupil characteristics in general l.jpg

Comparing Michigan’s Disadvantaged Pupil Characteristics in General


Comparing michigan to the nation on naep grades 4 8 for 2007 l.jpg

Comparing Michigan to the Nation on NAEP, Grades 4 & 8 for 2007


How students performed on college entrance exams l.jpg

How Students Performed on College Entrance Exams


Michigan compared with surrounding states naep reading and math 2007 l.jpg

Michigan Compared with Surrounding States NAEP Reading and Math - 2007


Students at risk the philadelphia story source epc@msu l.jpg

Students at RiskThe Philadelphia StorySource: [email protected]

  • 80% of all dropouts can be determined at risk as 8th and 9th graders based on two indicators; there was a 75% probability of failure to graduate if:

    • Absent more than 20% of time in 8th grade

    • Failed either English or Math in 8th grade


Students at risk the philadelphia story l.jpg

Students at RiskThe Philadelphia Story

A second group of dropouts not at-risk as 8th graders became at risk (75% probability) in 9th grade with just one of the following indicators

  • Absent 30% or more of the time

  • Earned less than 2 credits (5 needed to advance)

  • Not promoted to 10th grade on time


Graduation rates for metro detroit michigan and us for 2005 06 source sharif shakrani phd msu l.jpg

Graduation Rates for Metro Detroit, Michigan and US for 2005-06Source: Sharif Shakrani, PhD, MSU


Slide9 l.jpg

% Students Who Met or Exceeded Proficient ELA and Math on MME, 2008, Grade 11Source: Sharif Shakrani, PhD, MSU


Slide10 l.jpg

Percentage of Students Who Met or Exceeded Proficient Reading Levels DPS Compared with PSA’s 4th Grade MEAP, 2006-07


Slide11 l.jpg

High Poverty/High Performing Elementary Schools in Michigan75% + Minority/75% + Low Income/ Reading Scores > 90 % ile Source: The Education Trust


Slide12 l.jpg

High Performance in High Poverty Schools 90/90/90 and BeyondSource: Douglas Reeves, PhD, Center for Assessment and Harvard

90/90/90 Means, 90% for:

  • Free and Reduced Lunch

  • Minority Population

  • 90th Percentile Performance or Higher

    Study covered 1995-1998; 130,000 students in 228 buildings


Characteristics of 90 90 90 schools l.jpg

Characteristics of 90/90/90 Schools

Five Characteristics Common:

  • Focus on Academic Achievement

  • Clear Curriculum Choices

  • Frequent Assessments and Opportunities for Improvement

  • Emphasis on Non-Fiction Writing

  • Collaborative Scoring of Student Work


90 90 90 focus on achievement l.jpg

90/90/90 Focus on Achievement

  • Laser Focus on Achievement

  • Openly Displayed Achievement/Improvement Data in the School

  • Obvious to All Observers


90 90 90 curriculum choices l.jpg

90/90/90 Curriculum Choices

  • Teachers did not necessarily “cover” the curriculum

  • Chose to emphasize reading, writing and mathematics

  • Still outperformed peer schools in science


90 90 90 frequent assessment l.jpg

90/90/90 Frequent Assessment

  • Many students were low performing coming into the school

  • No penalty for low performance; low performance followed by multiple opportunities to improve

  • Most schools conducted weekly assessments

  • Assessment scoring guides used for active coaching


90 90 90 written assessments l.jpg

90/90/90 Written Assessments

  • “By far the most common characteristic…was their emphasis on requiring written responses in performance assessments.”

  • Emphasis on “informative writing”


90 90 90 collaborative scoring l.jpg

90/90/90 Collaborative Scoring

  • A “striking” characteristic was frequent external scoring of assessments

  • Schools developed common assessment practices that included exchanging papers between teachers/principal/other schools


90 90 90 results without proprietary programs l.jpg

90/90/90 Results Without Proprietary Programs

  • None of the schools used a proprietary program

  • However, teachers and administrators used “strikingly similar” techniques without externally imposed methods

  • Consistent practices in instruction and assessment with support of teachers

  • Practices are “…mundane, inexpensive, and most importantly, replicable.”


90 90 90 other key factors l.jpg

90/90/90 Other Key Factors

  • Time devoted to collaboration of teachers

  • Collaboration was focused on examination of student work and identifying proficiency

  • No extra budget or time was devoted to collaboration; it was part of routine

  • More frequent feedback to students


90 90 90 other key factos l.jpg

90/90/90 Other Key Factos

  • Schools made “remarkable” changes to schedules

    • Routinely devoted 3 hours a day to literacy at elementary level

    • At secondary, routinely provided double periods of English and math

    • Teachers engaged in action research and mid-course corrections


90 90 90 other key factors22 l.jpg

90/90/90 Other Key Factors

  • Principals did not “fire” teachers but made reassignments based on skill set

  • Intensive focus on student data from multiple sources and specifically focused cohort data

  • Respect for all adults, included bus drivers, food service workers in professional development

  • Interdisciplinary cooperation of teachers


Comparing michigan mi expenditures compared to us source schooldatadirect org l.jpg

Comparing MichiganMI Expenditures Compared to USSource: Schooldatadirect.org


Mi operating expenditures by function compared to us for 2006 source schooldatadirect org l.jpg

MI Operating Expenditures by Function Compared to US for 2006Source: schooldatadirect.org


Michigan to us expenditure comparison 1999 00 to 2005 06 us census bureau data l.jpg

Michigan to US Expenditure Comparison 1999-00 to 2005-06US Census Bureau Data


Michigan school finance tidbits source senate fiscal agency l.jpg

Michigan School Finance TidbitsSource: Senate Fiscal Agency

  • From FY 03 to FY 09 State Spending for K-12 Education has:

    • risen from $11.335 billion to $11.816 billion

      • At least $300 million of that was “transferred” and had previously been part of another budget or resulted from reimbursement for local sources cut by the legislature, other costs were shifted to education

      • An increase of 4.3%, Detroit CPI increased 15.2%

        • Compares with to 8.7% for overall state budget


Michigan school finance tidbits source senate fiscal agency27 l.jpg

Michigan School Finance TidbitsSource: Senate Fiscal Agency

  • Between 2002-03 and 2008-09 the Minimum Foundation Allowance went form $6,700 to $7,316

    • An increase of $616 per pupil

    • Increase of 9.1% (Detroit CPI = 15.2%)

    • Pupil count fell from 1,750,631 to approximately 1,650,000; a decrease of 100,631 or 5.7%


Michigan tax comparisons for 2007 source taxadmin org l.jpg

Michigan Tax Comparisons for 2007Source: taxadmin.org

  • Michigan’s total State Tax Revenue was $2,368 per capita

  • US Average was $2,487 per capita

    • Michigan ranked 29 (1 being worst)

    • Ohio ranked 38

    • Illinois ranked 30

    • Indiana ranked 35


Slide29 l.jpg

State Only/State and Local Collections by Source 2007 Michigan Compared to USPercentage of Source to Total CollectionsSource: taxadmin.org


According to the tax foundation l.jpg

According to the Tax Foundation

  • Michigan Ranked 27th (1 being worst) for Total State and Local Tax Burden

  • Michigan Ranked 31st for “Tax Freedom Day” at April 16

    • Tax Freedom Day = Based on personal income, how long it takes for average person to pay taxes

    • US Tax Freedom Day was April 23


Slide31 l.jpg

Michigan Tax ComparisonBusiness Tax Index for 08 and 09Breakdown by Type for 2009(1 = “best” 50 = worst)Source: Tax Foundation


Benchmarking in general l.jpg

Benchmarking in General

  • Useful information that helps shape thinking

  • Be cautious with its use

  • Be clear about limitations of data

  • Not all decisions are/should be based on quantitative data

  • BUT it is a good place to start and good way to keep track of important things


Benchmarking in general33 l.jpg

Benchmarking in General

  • What is for internal use only?

  • What do you use with public and boards?

  • Do you need to seek agreement on benchmarks first with the affected groups?

  • Making sure you measure what is important and useful

  • Transparency WHY NOT? It’s already out there on Facebook


Benchmarking some interesting stuff l.jpg

Benchmarking Some Interesting Stuff

  • MSBO Benchmarks Facilities and Transportation Expense and Utilization Data

    • Maint. Expenditures have declined by 3.6% per sq foot over 7 years; salaries by 7.5%

    • Utilities costs have risen by 36% per sq foot from 2000 to 2006; $1 per square foot to $1.36

    • Average busing cost of $835 per pupil

      • Varies by district size and geography from $580 to $966


Fun facts from us census bureau l.jpg

Fun Facts from US Census Bureau

  • 55.8 million students enrolled in US K-12 system for 2008

  • 11% students in private schools

  • 1.1 million children home schooled in 2003

  • 42% of students age 12-17 participated in some sport

  • 70% of students enrolled in kindergarten attended full day/week


  • Login