1. MI-SAAS: Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System Overview of Key Features 2010-2011 School Year

2. MI-SAAS History Designed to replace the EdYes! system in order to: 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

3. Overview of MI-SAAS MI standards determine accreditation MI standards determine accreditation Recognition of academic progress and success in all core subjects Recognition of academic progress and success in all core subjects Recognition that 5 and 6 year graduation rates are successes Recognition that 5 and 6 year graduation rates are successes Schools will be able to understand their accreditation status Schools will be able to understand their accreditation status

4. Components of MI-SAAS Four components: Four components: –Student Proficiency and Improvement (Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking) –Additional Factors (compliance with statute, Board policy) –AYP Status –Persistently Lowest Achieving school status To be fully accredited, you need to be accredited in all areas.

5. MI-SAAS Reporting Dashboard display Dashboard display Allows schools, teachers, students and parents to understand performance on multiple metrics Allows schools, teachers, students and parents to understand performance on multiple metrics Allows schools and districts to report additional information (Success Indicators, other accreditations, etc.) Allows schools and districts to report additional information (Success Indicators, other accreditations, etc.) –Note: Does not count toward calculation; for informational purposes only

6. Student Proficiency and Improvement Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking calculations Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking calculations –Only for schools with at least 30 full academic year students over the previous two years. Grade 3-9 students will be assigned to the “feeder school” where they learned during the year prior to testing for proficiency. Grade 3-9 students will be assigned to the “feeder school” where they learned during the year prior to testing for proficiency. Proficiency is based on MEAP and MI-Access or MME and MI-Access Proficiency is based on MEAP and MI-Access or MME and MI-Access Based on two-year average percent proficient and improvement Based on two-year average percent proficient and improvement

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

8. Student Improvement: Four Year Improvement Slope Predict school-level percents proficient by year for the previous four years Predict school-level percents proficient by year for the previous four years

9. May 17, 20109 Start with raw data % proficient % improving minus % declining (MEAP reading and math grades 4-7) % improvement trend slope (MEAP Grades 3 and 8; MME)

10. May 17, 201010 Calculate an index and percentile rank for each… Subject

11. May 17, 201011 Calculate average and overall percentile rank

12. Statewide Percentile Rank: Accreditation Status Lowest 5% ranking: Unaccredited Lowest 5% ranking: Unaccredited 6-20% ranking: Interim 6-20% ranking: Interim Above 20% ranking: Accredited Above 20% ranking: Accredited Note: This is the initial accreditation status, based on statewide ranking of proficiency and improvement.

13. Additional Factors Nine requirements have “yes”/“no” answers Nine requirements have “yes”/“no” answers 1)Do 100% of school staff, as required, hold MI certification? 2)Is the school’s annual School Improvement Plan published? 3)Are required curricula offered?  Grade Level Content Expectations in grades K-8  Michigan Merit Curriculum in grades 9-12 4)Is a fully compliant Annual Report published? 5)Have the School Performance Indicators or equivalent been submitted? 6)Are literacy and math tested annually in grades 1-5? 7)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)?” 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 subject? 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. 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.

14. PLA List and AYP Status If a school is on the PLA list, the school is unaccredited. If a school is on the PLA list, the school is unaccredited. If a school fails AYP, the accreditation status is lowered one level. If a school fails AYP, the accreditation status is lowered one level. –Failing AYP cannot lower a school below “interim.”

16. Additional School, District, Community, and State Info District Context (infrastructure) District Context (infrastructure) Financial, Feeder-system, Enrollment Financial, Feeder-system, Enrollment People/Programs (resources) People/Programs (resources) Staffing, Program Availability & Participation Staffing, Program Availability & Participation Results (student performance) Results (student performance) AP/Dual Enrollment, English language learners, Dropouts, Grade retention AP/Dual Enrollment, English language learners, Dropouts, Grade retention NCA Accreditation (if earned) NCA Accreditation (if earned) ACT college readiness, Workforce readiness ACT college readiness, Workforce readiness NCLB/ESEA Report NCLB/ESEA Report

17. District Context People/Programs Success Indicators NCLB Performance DISTRICT 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% STAFFING DATA Teacher/Student % of Teachers Ratio Profess 1/2596% NA 5% POST-SECONDARY READINESS Applied to ACT College Workforce Post-Sec Readiness Readiness NA PROGRAM PARTICIPATION CTE %: Participating Concentrating Completing NA Other Information Not Used In Accreditation Calculation Dual Grad Rate Dropout Enrollment w/ 6 yrsRate 80%2008 98% Success w/ Eng Lang Lrnrs 90% MdGinity At/Above Grade Level Blue Ribbon School Yes Made AYP? 4-yr Grad Rate Or Elem attend 97% HQT % NA 70% 9 th Grade Promotion Rate POPULATIONS SERVED NA State Avg District Average Tchr Salary Instruct as % of Operating Sp Ed Summary Per Pupil Funding SCHOOL CHOSEN DATA Yes Title I Status 0 AYP PhaseStudents Tested Title I Distinguished COMPLETION – SUCCESS RATES Foundation Other $7980 $4245 $7540 $3400 ELL % F/Red Lunch % Sp Ed% 4 School: Underwood Middle School District: Anytown, Michigan Year: 2007-08 Accredited Elements leading to Accreditation Status: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AYP: PASS PLA List: No AYP AND PLA STATUS ELA Math Science S Studies % Proficient 59% 10% 49% 63% %Improvement 6% 25% Subject Percentile Rank 55654963 COMPLIANCE Report Published Curriculum Plan Published Test 1-5 Grad 80% Cert 100 % Self-assess Blue Ribbon School

18. Current Status State Board of Education approved on 10/12/10; will go to the legislature for final vote in November. State Board of Education approved on 10/12/10; will go to the legislature for final vote in November. Implementing for the 2010-2011 school year Implementing for the 2010-2011 school year Shared educational entities will not receive accreditation status Shared educational entities will not receive accreditation status

19. Questions? Contact Us! Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability (OEAA) Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability (OEAA) 517-373-1342 517-373-1342 Venessa Keesler Venessa Keesler –Manager, Evaluation Research and Accountability Chris Janzer Chris Janzer –Accountability Specialist