ELPA, MEAP, and MME Reporting Office of Educational Assessment & Accountability (OEAA) 2006 OEAA Fall Conference Marilyn Roberts – Director, Office of Education Assessment & Accountability Jim Griffiths – Coordinator, Assessment Administration & Reporting Sue Peterman - Department Analyst, MEAP Patricia King – Department Analyst, MME

2 Progress Reporting Explained fully in session #25 MEAP, MI-Access, and ELPA Two-phase implementation of progress reporting –Phase 1: Descriptive reports –Phase 2 (Tentative): Evaluative reports

3 Progress Reporting Phase 1: Descriptive reports –Student transitions from one performance level to another from one grade to the next –Individual reports and school aggregate reports Phase 2: Evaluative reports –Maintain phase 1 information –Add for individual students: Excellent, Sufficient, Fair, Poor progress –Add for schools: Progress profiles indicating percentages of students achieving each level of progress

4 Progress Reporting MEAP and MI-Access –Phase 1: Fall 2006 –Phase 2: Fall 2007 ELPA –Phase 1: Spring 2007 –Phase 2: Spring 2008

5 REVIEWING REPORTS Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) Michigan Merit Examination (MME) Similar reports presented together

6 MEAP and MME – Types of Reports Individual Student Data –Parent Report –Individual Student Report –Student Labels –Student/Class Roster Reports

7 Aggregate Data –Summary reports School, District, State level Feeder school reports (MEAP only) –Demographic reports School, District, State level –Comprehensive report District, ISD level MEAP and MME – Types of Reports

8 MEAP & MME – Parent Report Includes all MEAP/MME subjects (reading, writing, total ELA, mathematics, science, social studies) Front cover –MEAP/MME scale scores –MEAP/MME performance levels Inside –More granular reports (e.g. strands) –Graphical reports –Explanations –MME only: ACT and WorkKeys scores

9 MEAP Only – Parent Report Progress reports (Fall 2006) –Last year’s Performance Level –This year’s Performance Level Expanded progress reports (Fall 2007) –Fall 2006 progress information plus… –Evaluative Progress Level Excellent, Sufficient, Fair, Poor

13 MEAP & MME – Individual Student Report Includes all MEAP/MME subjects Student demographics Includes overall and specific MEAP/MME scores –Scale scores –Performance levels –Sub-scores (e.g. domains, benchmarks) Includes constructed response data –Essay scores, condition codes, and comment codes

14 MEAP & MME – Individual Student Report MEAP 3-8 only –Progress reports Fall 2006: This year’s and last year’s performance levels Fall 2007: Fall 2006 information plus progress level (Excellent, Sufficient, Fair, Poor) MME only –Includes ACT standardized test scores ACT scores for all subjects WorkKeys scores

16 MEAP – Student Label Progress levels (Excellent, Sufficient, Fair, Poor) may be included on labels beginning Fall 2007

17 MME – Student Label

18 MEAP/MME – Student/Class Rosters Separate reports for each subject One line for each student Includes overall and specific MEAP/MME scores –Scale score –Performance levels –Sub-scores (e.g. benchmarks, domains, GLCEs) Progress reports on MEAP only –Fall 2006: Performance levels last year & this year –Fall 2007: Fall 2006 progress information plus evaluative progress level (Excellent, Sufficient, Fair, Poor)

20 MEAP – Summary Report Includes all MEAP subjects aggregated to the school, district, and state levels Four years of summary data on student performance –Scale scores –Performance levels One-year summaries of student performance –Sub-scores –Constructed responses

21 MEAP – Summary Report Expanded Progress Reports for Fall 2007 MEAP School Progress profiles for… –Students who were not previously proficient –Students who were previously proficient –Percentages of students attaining Excellent, Sufficient, Fair, Poor progress Possible accountability uses of progress profiles for Fall 2007 –EducationYES! –AYP (needs US Department of Education approval)

22 MEAP – Summary Report Summary reports also include one-year summary data on student progress –Student transitions (in performance levels) from one grade to the next –Fall 2006: Descriptive reports of transitions from one performance level to another in one grade to the next –Fall 2007: Evaluative progress profiles (percent attaining Excellent, Sufficient, Fair, and Poor progress) Feeder school reports are the same as summary reports without the progress information

23 MME – Summary Report Includes all MME subjects aggregated to the school, district, and state levels Four years of summary data on student performance –Scale scores –Performance levels One-year summaries of student performance –Sub-scores –Constructed responses

28 MEAP/MME – Comprehensive Report Includes all MEAP/MME subjects aggregated to the district and ISD levels –One year summaries of scale scores and performance levels District summaries –One summary line for the entire district –A summary line for each school in the district ISD summaries –One summary line for the entire ISD –A summary line for each district in the ISD MEAP 3-8 only Fall 2007: Progress Profile summaries

30 MEAP/MME – Demographic Report Includes all MEAP/MME subjects aggregated to the school, district, and state levels One-year summaries of data on student performance –Scale scores –Performance levels Disaggregated by all NCLB reporting subgroups

32 ELPA REPORTS English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA) Differs from MEAP and MME, therefore presented separately –One overall ELPA scale score –One overall ELPA set of standards Basic, Low Intermediate, High Intermediate, Proficient –Multiple domain scale scores Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking, Comprehension Comprehension is composed of selected standards in Reading and Listening –An approximate “proficient” cut score for each domain

33 ELPA – Types of Administrations Spring –Regular assessment window –All LEP students Screener (Fall semester) –On-demand assessment window –Newly arrived LEP students –Linked to the Spring ELPA scale

34 ELPA – Types of Reports Individual Student Data –Spring Administration Parent Report Individual Student Report Class Roster Report Student Label –Screener Administration Individual Student Report Screener Class Roster

35 ELPA – Types of Reports Aggregate Data –Spring Administration Summary report Demographic report –Screener Administration (electronic only) No aggregate reports from screener

36 ELPA – Regular Administration – Parent Report Overall ELPA scale score Overall ELPA performance level Overall ELPA graphical display Domain-specific scale scores –Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking, Comprehension Domain-specific approximate “proficient” cut score Progress Spring 2007: previous and current performance level Progress Spring 2008: add evaluative labels (Excellent, Sufficient, Fair, Poor progress)

37 ELPA – Regular Administration – Individual Student Report Overall performance level Overall & domain-specific scale scores –Overall –Reading, writing, listening, speaking, comprehension Overall & domain-specific “proficient” cut scores Granular scores for sub-domains Progress Spring 2007: previous and current performance level Progress Spring 2008: add evaluative labels (Excellent, Sufficient, Fair, Poor progress)

38 ELPA – Screener Administration – Individual Student Report Overall scale score Overall performance level –Low Intermediate and High Intermediate are collapsed into a single Intermediate performance level –The screener is not long enough to separate the two intermediate performance levels Domain-specific raw scores –The screener is not long enough to derive scale scores for each domain

39 ELPA – Regular Administration – Class Roster Report One line per student –Overall performance level –Overall & domain-specific scale scores –Overall & domain specific “proficient” cut scores –Sub-domain scores –Progress Spring 2007: previous and current performance level –Progress Spring 2008: add evaluative labels (Excellent, Sufficient, Fair, Poor progress)

40 ELPA – Screener Administration – Class Roster Report One line per student Overall performance level –Low Intermediate and High Intermediate are collapsed into a single Intermediate performance level –The screener is not long enough to separate the two intermediate performance levels Domain-specific raw scores –The screener is not long enough to derive scale scores for each domain

41 ELPA – Regular Administration – Student Label Progress labels (Excellent, Sufficient, Fair, Poor) to be added for Spring 2008

42 ELPA – Regular Administration – (Aggregate) Summary Report One line per grade –One-year proficiency summaries (means and percents) –Overall scale scores –Overall performance levels –Domain-specific scale scores –Sub-domain scores Progress reports –Add descriptive summaries for Spring 2007 –Add evaluative summary profiles for Spring 2008 (percents achieving Excellent, Sufficient, Fair, and Poor progress)

43 ELPA – Regular Administration – Demographic Report One-year summaries (means and percentages) of data on student performance –Overall and domain-specific scale scores –Overall performance levels Disaggregated by all NCLB reporting subgroups

44 Presenter contact information Marilyn Roberts Director, Office of Education Assessment & Accountability Jim Griffiths Coordinator, Assessment Administration & Reporting Sue Peterman Department Analyst, MEAP Pat King Department Analyst, MME

45 Program contact information Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability (877)