MI-SAAS: MI-SAAS: Michigan School Michigan School

Accreditation and Accreditation and Accountability SystemAccountability System

Overview of Key FeaturesOverview of Key Features

2010-2011 School Year2010-2011 School Year

MI-SAAS HistoryMI-SAAS History

Designed to replace the Designed to replace the EdYes! system in order to:EdYes! system in order to:– Create coherent accountability Create coherent accountability

policy in Michiganpolicy in Michigan– Align federal and state Align federal and state

requirementsrequirements– Implement a system that is Implement a system that is

more transparent and crediblemore transparent and credible

Overview of MI-SAASOverview of MI-SAAS MI standards determine MI standards determine

accreditationaccreditation

Recognition of academic progress Recognition of academic progress and success in all core subjectsand success in all core subjects

Recognition that 5 and 6 year Recognition that 5 and 6 year graduation rates are successesgraduation rates are successes

Schools will be able to understand Schools will be able to understand their accreditation statustheir accreditation status

Components of MI-Components of MI-SAASSAAS Four components:Four components:

– Student Proficiency and Improvement Student Proficiency and Improvement (Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking)(Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking)

– Additional Factors (compliance with Additional Factors (compliance with statute, Board policy)statute, Board policy)

– AYP StatusAYP Status

– Persistently Lowest Achieving school Persistently Lowest Achieving school statusstatus

To be fully accredited, you need to be To be fully accredited, you need to be accredited in all areas. accredited in all areas.

MI-SAAS ReportingMI-SAAS Reporting

Dashboard displayDashboard display Allows schools, teachers, students and Allows schools, teachers, students and

parents to understand performance on parents to understand performance on multiple metricsmultiple metrics

Allows schools and districts to report Allows schools and districts to report additional information (Success Indicators, additional information (Success Indicators, other accreditations, etc.)other accreditations, etc.)– Note: Does not count toward Note: Does not count toward

calculation; for informational purposes calculation; for informational purposes onlyonly

Student Proficiency and Student Proficiency and ImprovementImprovement

Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking calculationsStatewide Top to Bottom Ranking calculations

– Only for schools with at least 30 full academic year Only for schools with at least 30 full academic year students over the previous two years.students over the previous two years.

Grade 3-9 students will be assigned to the Grade 3-9 students will be assigned to the “feeder school” where they learned during the “feeder school” where they learned during the year prior to testing for proficiency.year prior to testing for proficiency.

Proficiency is based on MEAP and MI-Access or Proficiency is based on MEAP and MI-Access or MME and MI-AccessMME and MI-Access

Based on two-year average percent proficient Based on two-year average percent proficient and improvement and improvement

Student Improvement: Student Improvement: Performance Level Performance Level ChangeChange

Achievement “growth” can be calculated Achievement “growth” can be calculated only where a Grade 3-8 student has been only where a Grade 3-8 student has been tested in consecutive years (ie, ELA and tested in consecutive years (ie, ELA and Math).Math).

Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid HighLow M I I SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SIMid D M I I SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SIHigh D D M I I SI SI SI SI SI SI SILow SD D D M I I SI SI SI SI SI SIMid SD SD D D M I I SI SI SI SI SIHigh SD SD SD D D M I I SI SI SI SILow SD SD SD SD D D M I I SI SI SIMid SD SD SD SD SD D D M I I SI SIHigh SD SD SD SD SD SD D D M I I SILow SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D D M I IMid SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D D M IHigh SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D D M

SD = Significant Decline M = Maintaining I = ImprovementD = Decline SI = Significant Improvement

Advanced

Proficient

Not Proficient

Partially Proficient

Grade X MEAP Achievement

Grade X + 1 MEAP AchievementNot Proficient Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced

Student Improvement: Student Improvement: Four Year Improvement Four Year Improvement SlopeSlope Predict school-level percents Predict school-level percents

proficient by year for the previous proficient by year for the previous four yearsfour years

Four Year Improvement Slope

01020304050607080

2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Pe

rce

nts

Pro

fic

ien

t

Improving

Declining

Mixed

May 17, 2010 9Soc

ial S

tudi

esS

cien

ce

Rea

ding

(Writ

ing

calc

ulat

ed

sepa

rate

ly)

Mat

hem

atic

s Two-year Average Percent Proficient

Two year average % improvement

minus % declining OR 4-year slope (improvement)

Two-Year Average Percent Proficient

4-year slope (improvement)

Two-Year Average Percent Proficient

4-year slope (improvement)

Two-Year Average Percent Proficient

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

Mathematics Index

2/3

1/3

Reading Index

2/3

1/3

Science Index

2/3

1/3

Social Studies Index

2/3

1/3

Mathematics Percentile Rank

ELA Percentile Rank

Science Percentile Rank

Social Studies Percentile Rank

Ave

rag

e of

all

Ass

ign

ed P

erce

ntile

Ra

nks

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

(ran

kin

g on

the

ave

rage

of a

ll pe

rce

ntile

ran

ks m

etric

)

Two year average % improvement

minus % declining OR 4-year slope (improvement)

Start with raw data

% proficient

% improving minus % declining (MEAP reading and math grades 4-7)

% improvement trend slope (MEAP Grades 3 and 8; MME)

May 17, 2010 10Soc

ial S

tudi

esS

cien

ceR

eadi

ng(w

ritin

g ca

lcul

ated

se

para

tely

)M

athe

mat

ics Two-year Average

Percent Proficient

Two year average % improvement

minus % declining OR 4-year slope (improvement)

Two-Year Average Percent Proficient

4-year slope (improvement)

Two-Year Average Percent Proficient

4-year slope (improvement)

Two-Year Average Percent Proficient

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

Mathematics Index

2/3

1/3

Reading

2/3

1/3

Science Index

2/3

1/3

Social Studies Index

2/3

1/3

Mathematics Percentile Rank

Reading Percentile Rank

Science Percentile Rank

Social Studies Percentile Rank

Ave

rag

e of

all

Ass

ign

ed P

erce

ntile

Ra

nks

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

(ran

kin

g on

the

ave

rage

of a

ll pe

rce

ntile

ran

ks m

etric

)

Two year average % improvement

minus % declining OR 4-year slope (improvement)

Calculate an index andpercentile rank for each…

Subject

May 17, 2010 11Soc

ial S

tudi

esS

cien

ceR

eadi

ng(w

ritin

g ca

lcul

ated

se

para

tely

)M

athe

mat

ics Two-year Average

Percent Proficient

Two year average % improvement

minus % declining OR 4-year slope (improvement)

Two-Year Average Percent Proficient

4-year slope (improvement)

Two-Year Average Percent Proficient

4-year slope (improvement)

Two-Year Average Percent Proficient

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

Mathematics Index

2/3

1/3

Reading Index

2/3

1/3

Science Index

2/3

1/3

Social Studies Index

2/3

1/3

Mathematics Percentile Rank

Reading Percentile Rank

Science Percentile Rank

Social Studies Percentile Rank

Ave

rag

e of

all

Ass

ign

ed P

erce

ntile

Ra

nks

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

(ran

kin

g on

the

ave

rage

of a

ll pe

rce

ntile

ran

ks m

etric

)

Two year average % improvement

minus % declining OR 4-year slope (improvement)

Calculate average andoverall percentile rank

Statewide Percentile Statewide Percentile Rank: Accreditation Rank: Accreditation StatusStatus Lowest 5% ranking: UnaccreditedLowest 5% ranking: Unaccredited 6-20% ranking: Interim 6-20% ranking: Interim Above 20% ranking: AccreditedAbove 20% ranking: Accredited

Note: This is the initial accreditation Note: This is the initial accreditation status, based on statewide ranking status, based on statewide ranking of proficiency and improvement.of proficiency and improvement.

Additional FactorsAdditional Factors Nine requirements have “yes”/“no” answersNine requirements have “yes”/“no” answers

1)1) Do 100% of school staff, as required, hold MI certification?Do 100% of school staff, as required, hold MI certification?2)2) Is the school’s annual School Improvement Plan published? Is the school’s annual School Improvement Plan published? 3)3) Are required curricula offered?Are required curricula offered?

Grade Level Content Expectations in grades K-8Grade Level Content Expectations in grades K-8 Michigan Merit Curriculum in grades 9-12Michigan Merit Curriculum in grades 9-12

4)4) Is a fully compliant Annual Report published?Is a fully compliant Annual Report published?5)5) Have the School Performance Indicators or equivalent been Have the School Performance Indicators or equivalent been

submitted?submitted?6)6) Are literacy and math tested annually in grades 1-5?Are literacy and math tested annually in grades 1-5?7)7) Is the five-year high school graduation rate 80% or above (if the 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 school has a graduation rate), or is the attendance rate 90% or above (if the school does not have a graduation rate)?”above (if the school does not have a graduation rate)?”

8)8) If the school was selected to participate in NAEP, did the school If the school was selected to participate in NAEP, did the school do so?do so?

9)9) Did the school test 95% of all students in every subject?Did the school test 95% of all students in every subject? If the answer is “no” (to any question) in two If the answer is “no” (to any question) in two

consecutive years, the accreditation status is lowered consecutive years, the accreditation status is lowered one level, even if the “no” is for a different question one level, even if the “no” is for a different question each year.each year.

PLA List and AYP PLA List and AYP StatusStatus If a school is on the PLA list, the If a school is on the PLA list, the

school is unaccredited.school is unaccredited. If a school fails AYP, the If a school fails AYP, the

accreditation status is lowered accreditation status is lowered one level.one level.– Failing AYP cannot lower a school Failing AYP cannot lower a school

below “interim.”below “interim.”

Statewide Percentile

Rank Not On PLA List

Made AYP

Met Target on Nine Additional Factors

Accreditation Result

High Y Y Y AccreditedHigh Y N Y InterimHigh Y Y N InterimMid Y N Y InterimMid Y Y Y InterimHigh N N N UnaccreditedHigh N N Y UnaccreditedHigh N Y N UnaccreditedHigh N Y Y UnaccreditedHigh Y N N UnaccreditedLow N N N UnaccreditedLow N N Y UnaccreditedLow N Y N UnaccreditedLow N Y Y UnaccreditedLow Y N N UnaccreditedLow Y N Y UnaccreditedLow Y Y N UnaccreditedLow Y Y Y UnaccreditedMid N N N UnaccreditedMid N N Y UnaccreditedMid N Y N UnaccreditedMid N Y Y UnaccreditedMid Y N N UnaccreditedMid Y Y N Unaccredited

High = ranking greater than or equal to 20th percentileMid = ranking greater than or equal to 5th percentile, but less than 20th percentileLow = ranking less than 5th percentile

Determination of Accreditation Status in MI-SAAS

Additional School, Additional School, District, Community, and District, Community, and State InfoState Info

District Context (infrastructure)District Context (infrastructure) Financial, Feeder-system, EnrollmentFinancial, Feeder-system, Enrollment

People/Programs (resources)People/Programs (resources) Staffing, Program Availability & ParticipationStaffing, Program Availability & Participation

Results (student performance)Results (student performance) AP/Dual Enrollment, English language learners, AP/Dual Enrollment, English language learners,

Dropouts, Grade retentionDropouts, Grade retention NCA Accreditation (if earned) NCA Accreditation (if earned) ACT college readiness, Workforce readinessACT college readiness, Workforce readiness

NCLB/ESEA ReportNCLB/ESEA Report

District Context

People/Programs

Success Indicators

NCLB PerformanceDISTRICT FINANCIAL DATA

ENROLLMENT TRENDS Building District

FEEDER schools:

Neuroth Elementary (74%) Unaccredited No AYP

Bielawski Elementary (12%) Interim Accred AYP

Vaughn Elementary (10%) Accredited AYP

Other In-district (3%) Other Out-of-district (1%)

$50,000

65%

300350400450

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

STAFFING DATA Teacher/Student % of Teachers Ratio Profess1/25 96%

NA NA 5%

POST-SECONDARY READINESSApplied to ACT College WorkforcePost-Sec Readiness Readiness

NA NA NA

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION CTE %: Participating Concentrating Completing

NA

Other Information Not Used In Accreditation CalculationOther Information Not Used In Accreditation Calculation

Dual Grad Rate DropoutEnrollment w/ 6 yrs Rate

80% 2008

98%

Success w/Eng Lang Lrnrs

90%

MdGinity At/Above Grade Level

Blue Ribbon School

Yes

Made AYP?4-yr Grad RateOr Elem attend

97%

HQT %

NA

300350400450

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

70%

9th Grade Promotion Rate

POPULATIONS SERVED

NA NA

State Avg District

Average Tchr Salary

Instruct as % of Operating

Sp Ed Summary

Per Pupil Funding

SCHOOL CHOSEN DATA

YesTitle I Status

0

AYP Phase Students Tested

Title I Distinguished

COMPLETION – SUCCESS RATES

Foundation

Other

$7980

$4245

$7540

$3400

ELL % F/Red Lunch % Sp Ed%

4

School: Underwood Middle SchoolDistrict: Anytown, MichiganYear: 2007-08

Accredited

Elements leading to Accreditation Status:

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

AYP: PASSPLA List: No

AYP AND PLA STATUS

ELA Math Science S Studies

% Proficient 59% 10% 49% 63%%Improvement 6% 25%

Subject Percentile Rank

55 65 49 63

COMPLIANCE

Report Published

CurriculumPlan Published

Test 1-5

Grad 80%

Cert 100 %Self-assess

Blue Ribbon School

Current StatusCurrent Status

State Board of Education State Board of Education approved on 10/12/10; will go to approved on 10/12/10; will go to the legislature for final vote in the legislature for final vote in November.November.

Implementing for the 2010-2011 Implementing for the 2010-2011 school yearschool year

Shared educational entities will Shared educational entities will not receive accreditation statusnot receive accreditation status

Questions? Contact Us!Questions? Contact Us!

Office of Educational Assessment Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability (OEAA)and Accountability (OEAA)

517-373-1342517-373-1342 Venessa KeeslerVenessa Keesler

– Manager, Evaluation Research and Manager, Evaluation Research and AccountabilityAccountability

Chris JanzerChris Janzer– Accountability SpecialistAccountability Specialist