MI-SAAS: A New Era in School Accountability

1. MI-SAAS: A New Era in School Accountability Overview of New School Accreditation System (MI-SAAS) October 28, 2010

2. MI-SAAS Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System (MI-SAAS)

3. MI-SAAS History • Designed to replace the EdYes! system in order to: • Create coherent accountability policy in Michigan • Align federal and state requirements • Implement a system that is more transparent and credible

4. Overview of MI-SAAS • MI standards determine accreditation • Recognition of academic success in all core subjects • Five and six year graduation rates are successes • Schools can understand accreditation status

5. Components of MI-SAAS • Four elements: • Student Proficiency and Improvement (Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking) on all tested content areas • Persistently Lowest Achieving (PLA) Schools list

6. Components of MI-SAAS • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) status • Additional factors (compliance with state statute, Board policy) • To be fully accredited, a school must be accredited in all areas

7. MI-SAAS Reporting • Dashboard display • Allows schools, teachers, students and parents to understand performance on multiple metrics • Allows schools and districts to report additional information • Does not count toward status • Needs to be available on a statewide basis to count

8. Proficiency and Improvement • Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking • Schools with at least 30 full academic year students in the previous two years in at least two tested subjects. • Based on all tested subjects (mathematics, reading, writing, science, and social studies)

9. Proficiency and Improvement • Proficiency is based on MEAP and MI-Access or MME and MI-Access • Grade 3-9 students assigned to the “feeder school” where they learned the year prior to testing for proficiency

10. Proficiency and Improvement • Two-year average percent proficient • Improvement: 2 year average increasing or decreasing or four year slope

11. Student Improvement • Performance Level Change • Achievement “growth” can be calculated only where a grade 3-8 student has been tested in consecutive years (reading and mathematics).

12. Performance Level Change

13. Student Improvement • Four year improvement slope for: • Writing, science and social studies for elementary/ middle schools • All subjects for high schools, • Calculated as the slope of a linear regression of percent proficient on year

14. Improvement Slope

15. Mathematics (Math) Reading (Read) Science (Sci) Social Studies (Soc Stud) Writing (Write) Top to Bottom List Placement Schematic shown in following slides Five subjects (and abbreviations)

16. Top to Bottom List Placement • Separated by Elementary/ Middle (E/MS) and High School (HS) levels, with • E/MS indicating grades 2-8 • HS indicating grade 11

17. Top to Bottom List Placement • Most schools will have indicators for the 5 content areas in only one level (E/MS or HS) • Schools educating students in both the E/MS and HS levels will have indicators for the 5 content areas in both levels (E/MS and HS)

18. Start with raw data for each content area and level % proficient % improving minus % declining (Reading and Math in Elementary/Middle School) % improvement trend slope (All content areas in High School) (Science, Social Studies & Writing in Elem/Middle School) 18

19. 19

20. 20

21. Most schools will have raw data for only one level For example, a high school educating students in grades 9-12 will only have the raw data outlined in red 21

22. Calculate Z-Scores Z-scores indicate how far above or below the state average the school is for each content area and level Separate z-scores are also calculated for proficiency and improvement Negative z-scoresindicate the school scores below the state average Positive z-scoresindicate the school scores above the state average Z-Scores level the playing field between Elementary/Middle Schools and High Schools, between different content areas, and between proficiency and improvement metrics 22

23. Create an Index for Each Subject and Level Index is based 2/3 on percent proficient Index is based 1/3 on improvement

25. Calculate a percentile rank for each… Subject and Level

26. Calculate average percentile rank

27. Calculate overall percentile rank 27 11/9/2019

28. Statewide Percentile Rank The First Element in Determining Accreditation • Ranking less than 5%: Unaccredited • Ranking 5% or greater but less than 20%: Interim • Ranking 20% or greater: Accredited Note: This is a school’s initial accreditation status, based on proficiency and improvement.

29. PLA List The Second Element in Determining Accreditation • If a school is on the PLA list, the initial accreditation status becomes “unaccredited”

30. AYP Status The Third Element in Determining Accreditation If a school fails to make AYP AND The initial accreditation status is “Accredited” THEN The initial accreditation status is lowered to “Interim”

31. Additional Factors The Fourth Element in Determining Accreditation Nine requirements have “yes”/“no” answers: Do 100% of school staff, as required, hold MI certification? Is the school’s annual School Improvement Plan published?

32. Additional Factors 3. Are required curricula offered? • Grade Level Content Expectations in grades K-8 • Michigan Merit Curriculum in grades 9-12

33. Additional Factors • Is a fully compliant Annual Report published? • Have the School Performance Indicators or equivalent been submitted? • Are literacy and math tested annually in grades 1-5?

34. Additional Factors • 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 above (if the school does not have a graduation rate)?

35. Additional Factors 8. If the school was selected to participate in NAEP, did the school do so? 9. Did the school test 95% of all students in every tested content area?

36. Additional Factors • If the answer is “no” (to any question) in two consecutive years, the accreditation status is lowered one level, even if the “no” is for a different question each year • At this point, the accreditation status is final (no longer initial)

38. Additional School, District, Community, and State Info School Context Grade Configuration, Feeder-system, Enrollment, Demographics District Context (infrastructure) Financials, Enrollment, Demographics People/Programs (resources) Staffing, Program Availability, Program Participation

39. Additional School, District, Community, and State Info • Additional Student Performance Metrics • AP/Dual Enrollment, English language learners, Dropouts, Grade retention • NCA Accreditation (if earned) • ACT college readiness, Workforce readiness

40. Mock Report Card Dashboard • A mock school report card dashboard is presented on the next slide • Gives the concept of what the new school report card will look like. • Several buttons where you can click through to obtain more details • Complete look, then piece by piece look

42. Identifying Information

43. MI-SAAS Accreditation Status

44. MI-SAAS Accreditation Elements • Can click on “Details…” buttons to get complete information on the statewide academic achievement ranking and PLA calculations.

45. MI-SAAS Additional Factors Details

46. Adequate Yearly Progress Status

47. Adequate Yearly Progress Elements • Can click on “Details…” buttons to get complete information on the participation and proficiency targets.

48. Locally Provided Information

49. Additional School, District, & State Information Dashboard (For Example)

50. Current Status State Board of Education approved on 10/12/10; will go to the legislature for review in November. Implementation is planned for the 2010-2011 school year Shared educational entities will not receive accreditation status