Education YES! and AYP Lessons Learned

1. Education YES! and AYP Lessons Learned Michigan Department of Education

2. What’s Was New in 2003-04 • Education YES! Grading System • Grading by Content Area Replaces Separate Grades for Status and Change • “Floor” for Achievement Change Impact • Less Than Full Academic Year • MEAP demographics or SRSD matching • Flexibility on AYP Participation • Multiple Year Averaging for Participation

3. What’s Was New (con’t) • Flexibility on English Language Learners • AYP and Alternate Performance Standards (1% Rule) • New Schools and Reconfigured Schools • Report Card Appeals System

4. Yet to Come for 2004 • Graphs for Achievement Change • Evidence for the Indicators • AYP for Small Schools • High School Report Cards • District AYP

5. Education YES!until 2005-06 Achievement Change Achievement Status Indicators

6. Education YES! • Status • Up to a three year Average • Weighted Index • Change • Improvement (or Decline) • Based on 100% by 2013-14 • Growth • Delayed until 2006-07 • Indicators of School Performance • “Investments” to Improve Achievement • Self-Assessments

7. Education YES! Issues • The status score is difficult to calculate and verify; • The change score is VERY complicated, difficult to explain and has unintended effects

8. Achievement Status • Relatively few complaints • Many confuse weighted index with average scale score • Some think that the weighting lowered their grade • Is the weighted index a disincentive for level 1? • It may be difficult for schools to make rapid improvements because of multiple year averaging

9. Achievement Change • Many 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) • "Ancient history" is causing low grades • Current leadership and staff had nothing to do with it • Could we use the higher of the most recent 3-year slope and the average of the 3 slopes

10. Achievement Change (cont) • Most recent high school ELA scores were not used for the computation of the "actual" slope for some content areas • Old and new tests not averaged in computing the target • Science and Social Studies are not required by the NCLB model • Will not be able to compute a three year slope using current MEAP data starting in 2005-06

11. Achievement Change Examples

12. Achievement Change Examples

14. School Performance Indicators

15. Indicators • School's self-evaluations avoided listing as unaccredited (Detroit News) • Indicators are "wishy-washy" (Plank) • Is the indicator score based on current data or at the time of the survey? • Grades are now inconsistent with evidence for schools that appealed • Indicator data may be inconsistent with other state collected data: • Attendance and graduation rates • Highly qualified teachers • Career Preparation Accountability System

17. Unified Approach for AYP and Education YES! B A A B C D F B (iv) B Education YES! Composite Score C (iii) C D/Alert (ii) C Unaccredited (i) D/Alert (ii) No AYP Makes AYP (i) – (iv) – Priorities for Assistance

18. Composite • Many schools still do not get a grade • Should the composite be 2/3 status and 1/3 indicators where change is not computed? • Some think that AYP should interact more directly with the letter grade • How to handle K-12 schools?

19. 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

20. 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

21. 50 “cells” for AYP

22. Michigan AYP Targets

23. AYP Improvement Phases Improvement Corrective Action Restructure Implement Plan 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 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5

27. 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?

28. What is a School? A school is a logical unit (not necessarily a physical building) that can be defined by: • Administrator(s) • Teachers • Students • Curriculum • Hours of instruction • Compliance with Michigan Compiled Laws • Membership for State School Aid • Assessment

29. 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?

30. 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.

31. Graduation Rates • CEPI received data corrections for 2002-2003 graduation rates • The Pupil Headcount Report correction and submission window was • August 16, 2004 through September 15, 2004 • These graduation rates will be used for AYP on the 2004 Report Card • No report card appeals will be accepted on graduation rates • The 2003-04 graduation rates are to come directly from SRSD

32. Contact Information Paul Bielawski Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Michigan Department of Education PO Box 30008 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 335-5784 bielawp@michigan.gov