1. Update on District and School Accountability Systems 2014 AdvancED Michigan Fall Conference November 7, 2014

2. Session Outline 2014-15 Statewide Assessment Transition Overview Accountability Systems Transition Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs)

3. Transition from Fall to Spring – summative assessments English Language Arts administered in all grades 3- 8 and 11 (Common Core State Standards literacy) Science assessments administered in Grades 4, 7, and 11  Previously administered in Fall - Grades 5 and 8; and Spring – Grade 11  Same content coverage as previously Social studies assessments administered in Grades 5, 8, and 11  Previously administered in Fall - Grades 6 and 9; and Spring – Grade 11  Same content coverage as previously

7. Accountability Systems Transitions Top-to-Bottom/Beating the Odds  Norm-based Scorecards/AMAOs  Criterion-based Accountability Miscellany  Full Academic Year (FAY)  Growth metric

8. Implications Background All students test in spring starting 2014-15  Grades 3-9 previously tested in fall New tests in 2014-15  Staggered windows (two grades at a time)  Higher usage of online testing www.michigan.gov/baa

9. Top-to-Bottom/Beating the Odds Implications Achievement Component  Uses a two year average with z-scores Achievement Gap Component  Compares two year average of top 30% and bottom 30% using z-scores Improvement Component  Z-score Improvement slopes used for all subjects and grades except 3-8 reading and math  Performance level change used for 3-8 reading and math Beating the Odds  Uses Top-to-Bottom in both studies

10. Accountability Scorecards Two “levels” of Accountability Scorecards:  District Scorecards & School Scorecards Scorecards will use a color coding system (green, lime, yellow, orange, purple, and red) to indicate school performance. Combines traditional accountability metrics with Top-to- Bottom labels and other state/federal requirements. Overall color is determined by Top to Bottom status as well as points earned by meeting traditional AYP requirements.  Individual “cells” use red/yellow/green coding scheme  Points-based system where full points earned for meeting a target, half points earned for meeting safe harbor

11. Accountability Scorecards Implications Scorecards are most affected as they do not use z-scores  Multi-year proficiency averaging uses proficiency percentages  Safe Harbor uses improvement slopes or year over year improvement  Performance level change cannot be used in counting “Growth” students as proficient  Proficiency targets were set using 2011-12 test results. MDE is able to revisit these targets under ESEA Flex

12. Accountability Miscellany Full Academic Year – move to all spring testing requires a change in the definition for at least grades 3-9 Systems Timelines – public release and accountability reporting

13. Contact Dan LaDue – ladued@michigan.govladued@michigan.gov Jared Robinson – robinsonj33@michigan.govrobinsonj33@michigan.gov Chris Janzer – janzerc@michigan.govjanzerc@michigan.gov MDE-accountability@michigan.gov