ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAMSMERA November 26, 2013

OUTLINE

Priority School Study Scorecard Analyses House Bill 5112 Overview

PRIORITY SCHOOLS BACKGROUND

Priority Schools have existed for four years.

They experience challenges in:– Student achievement, gap closure, growth

and graduation rates– Building and district leadership, effective

classroom instruction, building a culture and climate geared to success, and school governance

METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

Top to Bottom (TTB) Components– Student achievement level Individual student progress or schoolwide

improvement Size of the within-school achievement gap Graduation rate and improvement in

graduation rate (high school only)

PRIORITY SCHOOL IDENTIFICATION

Identification of Priority Schools Bottom 5% on the TTB list Grad rate less than 60% for three years

running

Identification versus Intervention Intervention for at least four years Re-identification every year

6

7

8

9

20% proficiency rate - 21 proficient - 84 not proficient4.8% annual decline in proficiency

10

35% proficiency rate - 88 proficient - 158 not proficient1.5% annual increase in proficiency

11

55% proficiency rate - 64 proficient - 52 not proficient6.5% annual increase in proficiency

12

13

14

Same Priority School as Before

15

Same Priority School as Before• 20% proficiency rate• Achievement gap a little

less than 2 standard deviations smaller than the state average

16

Same Mid-Level Comparison School as Before• 35% proficiency rate• Achievement gap a little

larger than the state average

17

Same High-Level Comparison School as Before• 55% proficiency rate• Achievement gap a little

more than 1 standard deviation larger than the state average

18

19

20

Same Priority School as Before

21

Same Priority School as Before• 64% graduation rate• 4% annual improvement

in graduation rate

22

Same Mid-Level Comparison School as Before• 79% graduation rate• 1% annual improvement

in graduation rate

23

Same High-Level Comparison School as Before• 95% graduation rate• 2% annual improvement

in graduation rate

24

2012-13 SCHOOL SCORECARD RESULTS

Overall Colors Building-Level: Green = 93 Lime = 0 Yellow = 2598 Orange = 184 Red = 481

2012-13 SUBGROUP RESULTS - MATH

Subgroup Total Met Met %

Safe Harbor

Safe Harbor %

Total Met

Total Met %

Am. Indian/AK Nat.

27 22 81.5 1 3.7 23 85.2

Asian 173 170 98.3 0 0 170 98.3

Black/Af. Am.

893 519 58.1 32 3.6 551 61.7

Hispanic 327 268 82 5 1.5 273 83.5

Two or More 53 45 84.9 0 0 45 84.9

White 2561 2510

98 1 0 2511 98

SE 1333 443 33.2 107 8 550 41.3

ED 2683 2154

80.3 50 1.9 2204 82.1

EL 243 125 51.4 6 2.5 131 53.9

Bottom 30 2950 109 3.7 30 1 139 4.7

All Subgroups

11243 6365

56.6 232 2.1 6597 58.7

2012-13 SUBGROUP RESULTS - READING

Subgroup Total Met Met %

Safe Harbor

Safe Harbor %

Total Met

Total Met %

Am. Indian/AK Nat.

27 25 92.6 1 3.7 26 96.3

Asian 173 168 97.1 0 0 168 97.1

Black/Af. Am.

893 809 90.6 10 1.1 918 91.7

Hispanic 327 315 96.3 0 0 315 96.3

Two or More 54 53 98.1 0 0 53 98.1

White 2560 2513

98.2 2 0.1 2515 98.2

SE 1344 229 17 237 17.6 466 34.7

ED 2685 2532

94.3 18 0.7 2550 95

EL 243 157 64.6 22 9.1 179 73.7

Bottom 30 2951 564 19.1 254 8.6 818 27.7

All Subgroups

11257 7365

65.4 544 4.8 7909 70.3

2012-13 SUBGROUP RESULTS - SCIENCE

Subgroup Total Met Met %

Safe Harbor

Safe Harbor %

Total Met

Total Met %

Am. Indian/AK Nat.

6 5 83.3 0 0 5 83.3

Asian 53 48 90.6 0 0 48 90.6

Black/Af. Am.

503 108 21.5 5 1 113 22.5

Hispanic 97 40 41.2 2 2.1 42 43.3

Two or More 5 3 60 0 0 3 60

White 2060 2011

97.6 2 0.1 2013 97.7

SE 226 16 7.1 8 3.5 24 10.6

ED 1687 1050

62.2 6 0.4 1056 62.6

EL 76 9 11.8 0 0 9 11.8

Bottom 30 2595 14 0.5 2 0.1 16 0.6

All Subgroups

7308 3304

45.2 25 0.3 3329 45.6

2012-13 SUBGROUP RESULTS – SOCIAL STUDIES

Subgroup Total Met Met %

Safe Harbor

Safe Harbor %

Total Met

Total Met %

Am. Indian/AK Nat.

4 4 100 0 0 4 100

Asian 55 53 96.4 0 0 53 96.4

Black/Af. Am.

506 337 66.6 4 0.8 341 67.4

Hispanic 105 93 88.6 0 0 93 88.6

Two or More 4 4 100 0 0 4 100

White 1904 1867

98.1 7 0.4 1874 98.4

SE 190 12 6.3 13 6.8 25 13.2

ED 1616 1430

88.5 11 0.7 1441 89.2

EL 74 25 33.8 1 1.4 26 35.1

Bottom 30 2416 138 5.7 0 0 138 5.7

All Subgroups

6874 3963

57.7 36 0.5 3999 58.2

2012-13 SUBGROUP RESULTS - WRITING

Subgroup Total Met Met %

Safe Harbor

Safe Harbor %

Total Met

Total Met %

Am. Indian/AK Nat.

4 4 100 0 0 4 100

Asian 50 46 92 0 0 46 92

Black/Af. Am.

502 413 82.3 11 2.2 424 84.5

Hispanic 103 97 94.2 0 0 97 94.2

Two or More 4 2 50 1 25 3 75

White 2073 2031

98 10 0.5 2041 98.5

SE 190 5 2.6 34 17.9 39 20.5

ED 1747 1561

89.4 28 1.6 1589 91

EL 81 47 58 6 7.4 53 65.4

Bottom 30 2610 393 15.1 25 1 418 16

All Subgroups

7364 4599

62.5 115 1.6 4714 64

A BRIEF ANALYSIS

• Out of 93 Green schools, 49 schools have no proficiency data (participation, compliance factors)

• 2893 schools had at least one red proficiency cell for the Bottom 30% subgroup Overall color drops to yellow with at least one red cell

• 162 schools had 10 or less possible points: 41 green 36 yellow 20 orange 65 red

SAFE HARBOR

Safe Harbor is currently met when meeting the state’s rate of improvement at the 80th percentile 350 buildings made Safe Harbor in at least

one content area and subgroup

SMALL SCHOOLS SCALE CHANGE SCENARIO

Alternate color scale for schools with small amount of possible points (162 with 10 or less) Example scenario:

X >= 75% = Green = 41 schools (no change) 60% <= x < 75% = Lime = 0 schools (no

change) 50% <= x < 60% = Yellow = 53 schools (+17) 40% <= x < 50% = Orange = 7 schools (-13) X < 40% = Red = 61 schools (-4)

SMALL SCHOOLS ALTERNATE SCALE AND NO AUDITS

Schools with 10 possible points or less and no audits Example scenario:

X >= 75% = Green = 46 schools (+5) 60% <= x < 75% = Lime = 2 schools (+2) 50% <= x < 60% = Yellow = 46 schools (+10) 40% <= x < 50% = Orange = 7 schools (-13) X < 40% = Red = 61 schools (-4)

SMALL SCHOOLS ALTERNATE SCALE, NO AUDITS, MODIFIED SAFE HARBOR

Schools with 10 possible points or less, no audits, Safe Harbor threshold = 65th percentile Example scenario:

X >= 75% = Green = 53 schools (+12) 60% <= x < 75% = Lime = 0 schools (no

change) 50% <= x < 60% = Yellow = 81 schools (+45) 40% <= x < 50% = Orange = 3 schools (-17) X < 40% = Red = 25 schools (-40)

NEW SCHOOLS POSSIBLE CHANGES FOR 2013-14

Add an indicator for new schools/schools without proficiency points meeting non-proficiency areas (participation, compliance, etc.) 49 schools in 2012-13 would have met this

criteria

PROFICIENCY CELL AUDIT SCENARIOS

Change audit rules for proficiency cells Example Scenario:

1 red cell = overall green 2 red cells = overall lime > 2 red cells = overall yellow minimum

Results for 2012-13: 168 green (+75) 143 lime (+143) 2380 yellow (-218) 184 orange 481 red

PROFICIENCY CELL AUDIT SCENARIOS Change audit rules for proficiency cells – example

2 Example Scenario:

0 red cells = overall green 1 red cell = overall lime > 1 red cell = overall yellow minimum

Results for 2012-13: 93 green 86 lime (+86) 2512 yellow (-86) 184 orange 481 red

PROFICIENCY CELL AUDIT SCENARIOS Change audit rules for proficiency cells – example

3 Example Scenario:

2 red cells = overall green 5 red cells = overall lime > 5 red cells = overall yellow minimum

Results for 2012-13: 229 green (+136) 1264 lime (+1264) 1198 yellow (-1400) 184 orange 481 red

SAFE HARBOR SCENARIOS

Modify Safe Harbor so the threshold is the 65th percentile instead of the 80th

2012-13 results affect orange, yellow, and red counts:

93 green 0 lime 2806 yellow (+208) 96 orange (-88) 361 red (-120)

LOW FAY POSSIBLE CHANGE FOR 2013-14

All Students cells with low (10 or less) FAY numbers No points for all students cells with low (under 10)

FAY students Display color but do not award points and do not include

in audit checks 2012-13 Results:

134 green (+41) 3 lime (+3) 2569 yellow (-29) 172 orange (-12) 478 red (-3)

LOW FAY POSSIBLE CHANGES FOR 2013-14 ALTERNATE 2

Do not display all students cells for third, fourth, or fifth content area - only display two content areas with most FAY students 2012-13 Results:

93 green 0 lime 2758 yellow (+160) 111 orange (-73) 394 red (-87)

CHANGE PROCESS

Need Stakeholder input – internal and external Watch for MDE survey asking for feedback

Finalize recommendations Submit amendments with ESEA

Flexibility extension in February 2014

PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Starting in 2016 - letter grade system A-F Buildings containing grades K-8:

One point for each 1% of pupils scoring in performance levels 1 or 2 in each of the five content areas

One point for each 1% of pupils making annual growth in reading/math

One point for each 1% of included pupils in the bottom 30% making annual growth in reading/math

Buildings containing grades 9-12: Points system At least 50% of points based on pupil proficiency Balance of points based on graduation rate, measures of

college and career readiness, and learning gains

PROPOSED LEGISLATION CONT’D

Points are summed and schools assigned a grade based on annually determined grading scale. Two separate scales will exist for K-8 and 9-12 buildings

Initial grade distribution: 10% of schools receive A 28% of schools receive B 31% of schools receive C 28% of schools receive D 5% of schools receive F

Grading scale can be changed to ensure 5% of schools receive F grades, or when greater than 74% of schools received an A or B grade in preceding year

Schools that do not contain all of grades K-8 or 9-12 will have modified grading scales to reflect total possible points that may be achieved with the grade configuration

PROPOSED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS For schools and districts

Letter grades for current year and the preceding two years

Number of teachers and administrators rated effective or highly effective

Total number of teachers and administrators

OTHER ITEMS OF NOTE IN PROPOSAL Buildings containing both spans (K-8 and 9-

12) will get a separate grade for each span Buildings in operation for at least three years

shall be ordered closed or placed under supervision of State School Reform Office if: Receive a grade of F for two or more years in a

four year span AND Identified in the lowest 5% of all schools in

learning gains for two or more years in a four year span

OTHER ITEMS OF NOTE IN PROPOSAL CONT’D

MDE shall not establish any other evaluation or ranking system for public schools

Statutory or regulatory reports can be waived for schools consistently maintaining a grade of A or B

Schools fitting certain criteria (SDA, 95% SE pop, etc.) can be designated Alternative Education Campuses No letter grade Assigned “Maintaining” or “Failing” status

Maintaining = pupils making meaningful, measurable academic progress toward educational goals

CONTACT

877-560-8378 mde-accountability@michigan.gov