1. SLIP January 24, 2014

2.  Scorecard Summary  Scorecard Change Analysis for 2012-13 SY  House Bill 5112 Overview  Shared Educational Entities Overview  Current Status of Educator Evaluations

4.  Individual proficiency, graduation/attendance cells use three colors:  Differentiated proficiency targets by content area (all five) for each school and district  Attendance for schools that do not graduate students – whole school only. Target is 90% or improvement target  Graduation cohort uses 4, 5, 6 year rate with 80% target or improvement target 210 Target was MetSafe HarborTarget not Met

5.  Individual participation, educator evaluations, compliance factors use two colors:  No points are earned for participation – red cells (<95%) directly affect the overall scorecard color  Educator Evaluations and Compliance Factors are worth an additional 5% each of proficiency points

6. Attain 85% or greater of possible points Attain at least 70% but less than 85% of possible points Attain at least 60% but less than 70% of possible points Attain at least 50% but less than 60% of possible points Attain less than 50% of possible points

7.  Red cells present on the Scorecards will lower the overall Scorecard color  Red overall grad/attend/ed evals/compliance factors = overall scorecard no higher than yellow  At least two content areas with less than 95% participation rate = red overall scorecard

8.  Each system can affect the other:  Top to Bottom -> Scorecard  Priority = Red Scorecard  Scorecard -> Top to Bottom  Red Scorecard will take away Reward label  Red Scorecard two consecutive years or three out of last five years for participation = Priority label  Green Scorecard with at least 85% proficiency in each subject and showing continuous improvement = Reward label  Green Bottom 30% cells in all subjects and 75 th percentile or higher on TTB = no Focus label

9.  Overall Color Counts for Building-Level: Green = 93 Lime = 0 Yellow = 2598 Orange = 184 Red = 481

10. SubgroupTotalMetMet %Safe HarborSafe Harbor % Total MetTotal Met % Am. Indian/AK Nat. 272281.513.72385.2 Asian17317098.30017098.3 Black/Af. Am.89351958.1323.655161.7 Hispanic3272688251.527383.5 Two or More534584.9004584.9 White256125109810251198 SE133344333.2107855041.3 ED2683215480.3501.9220482.1 EL24312551.462.513153.9 Bottom 3029501093.73011394.7 All Subgroups11243636556.62322.1659758.7

11. SubgroupTotalMetMet %Safe HarborSafe Harbor % Total MetTotal Met % Am. Indian/AK Nat. 272592.613.72696.3 Asian17316897.10016897.1 Black/Af. Am.89380990.6101.191891.7 Hispanic32731596.30031596.3 Two or More545398.1005398.1 White2560251398.220.1251598.2 SE13442291723717.646634.7 ED2685253294.3180.7255095 EL24315764.6229.117973.7 Bottom 30295156419.12548.681827.7 All Subgroups11257736565.45444.8790970.3

12. SubgroupTotalMetMet %Safe HarborSafe Harbor % Total MetTotal Met % Am. Indian/AK Nat. 6583.3005 Asian534890.6004890.6 Black/Af. Am.50310821.55111322.5 Hispanic974041.222.14243.3 Two or More5360003 White2060201197.620.1201397.7 SE226167.183.52410.6 ED1687105062.260.4105662.6 EL76911.8009 Bottom 302595140.520.1160.6 All Subgroups7308330445.2250.3332945.6

13. SubgroupTotalMetMet %Safe HarborSafe Harbor % Total MetTotal Met % Am. Indian/AK Nat. 44100004 Asian555396.4005396.4 Black/Af. Am.50633766.640.834167.4 Hispanic1059388.6009388.6 Two or More44100004 White1904186798.170.4187498.4 SE190126.3136.82513.2 ED1616143088.5110.7144189.2 EL742533.811.42635.1 Bottom 3024161385.7001385.7 All Subgroups6874396357.7360.5399958.2

14. SubgroupTotalMetMet %Safe HarborSafe Harbor % Total MetTotal Met % Am. Indian/AK Nat. 44100004 Asian504692004692 Black/Af. Am.50241382.3112.242484.5 Hispanic1039794.2009794.2 Two or More4250125375 White2073203198100.5204198.5 SE19052.63417.93920.5 ED1747156189.4281.6158991 EL81475867.45365.4 Bottom 30261039315.125141816 All Subgroups7364459962.51151.6471464

15. 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 fewer possible points:  41 green  0 lime  36 yellow  20 orange  65 red

16.  Safe Harbor is currently met when meeting the state’s rate of improvement at the 80 th percentile  350 buildings made Safe Harbor in at least one content area and subgroup

18.  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)

19.  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)

20.  Schools with 10 possible points or less, no audits, Safe Harbor threshold = 65 th 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)

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

22.  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

23.  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

24.  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

25.  Modify Safe Harbor so the threshold is the 65 th percentile instead of the 80 th  2012-13 results affect color outcome counts: 93 green 0 lime 2806 yellow (+208) 96 orange (-88) 361 red (-120)

26.  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)

27.  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)

28.  Need Stakeholder input – internal and external  If you have feedback, please email: mde- accountability@michigan.govmde- accountability@michigan.gov  Finalize recommendations  Submit as amendments with ESEA Flexibility extension in February 2014

29. HB 5112

30.  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

31.  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

32.  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

33.  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

34.  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

35. Current Options for Alternate Accountability Systems

36.  Policy created to attribute student scores to district-level accountability, rather than to a school building or program.  Created to help “good deed” schools and programs have some flexibility on how school accountability is distributed.

37.  Alternative Education  Early/Middle College  Gifted & Talented  Special Education

38.  MDE and CEPI created two vehicles to accommodate flexible accountability for these “good deed” schools and programs. 1) SEEs: “Shared Educational Entities” 2) S2E2s: “Shared Specialized Educational Entities” Sending Scores Back

39.  “Shared Educational Entity”  A separate school that “stands alone” and does not serve a mix of SEE and non-SEE students  SEE students enroll in the SEE building, using the SEE building code  SEE students test at the SEE building  SEE building is MME test center if 11 th /12 th graders are served that test with this assessment A SEE is a School!

40. Sparty’s Special Education Center Bdlg. in Sparty’s School District East Lansing School District Special Ed. Students Lansing School District Special Ed. Students Sparty’s School District Special Ed. Students SEEs: Conceptually A SEE is a School!

41. School A ***Entire population of SEE building is students with disabilities*** School B “Elem. School” School C “Middle School” School D “High School” SEEs: Conceptually School A serves only SEE students. A SEE is a School!

42. o Only for those entities who are in a relationship to deliver educational services to students in classrooms spread among multiple locations o One code per ISD or consortium; can use class/group codes or research codes to differentiate students by program for assessment results o Will be used in a special way during MSDS reporting S2E2 is NOT a School, it’s a program!

43.  “Specialized Shared Educational Entity”  An ISD or consortium program structure where students are served in multiple classrooms among member districts  S2E2 students enroll in the school building in which they are educated  S2E2 students test in the school building in which they are educated  Buildings that house S2E2 classrooms must be in a MME test center approved school if 11 th /12 th graders are served S2E2 is NOT a School, it’s a program!

44. Mild CI Classroom in East Lansing School District’s High School “Go Green, Go White S2E2” a cooperative program of Sparticus Intermediate School District Severe CI Classroom in Waverly School District’s Middle School SWD Classroom in Sparty’s School District Elementary School Lansing District SWD Students East Lansing District SWD Students Okemos District SWD Students S2E2s: Conceptually S2E2 is NOT a School, it’s a program!

45. School A Mild CI Classroom School BSevere CI Classroom School C Mild CI Classroom School D Mild CI Classroom S2E2s: Conceptually Classrooms exist in multiple buildings/districts. S2E2 is NOT a School, it’s a program!

46. School A Mild CI Classroom School BMild CI Classroom School C Mild CI Classroom School D Mild CI Classroom These classrooms makeup the S2E2! S2E2 is NOT a School, it’s a program! S2E2s: Conceptually

47. SEES2E2 Resident District Student Scores Sending Scores Back Student Assessment Proficiency Rates and Assessment Participation Rates are Sent Back to the Resident District.

48.  SEE and S2E2 students are accountable at their RESIDENT DISTRICTS  SEE & S2E2 students are pulled out of their respective buildings and sent back to the district-level Accountability Scorecard for where they are a resident of  SEE & S2E2 students contribute on scorecards for their RESIDENT DISTRICT Scorecard for: Capitol Area School District Sending Scores Back

49. Current Status

50.  Educator Evaluations for the 2013-14 SY must be based on 25% student achievement and growth measures.  40% of evaluation for 14-15 and 50% for 15-16.  Currently passed eval law not specific about which assessments can be used for data component (state, local, vendor, etc.).  Not specific about decisions for educators of special education students, simply stated that MCEE tools must allow for eval of SE educators.

51.  Bipartisan proposed changes to current Eval Law 380.1249 of Revised School Code:  HB 5223  http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-HB-5223 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-HB-5223  HB 5224  http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-HB-5224 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-HB-5224  HB 5223/5224 House Fiscal Agency specific analysis available on either above link.

52.  Effectiveness labels remain the same.  Data component of eval remains 25% for 13- 14, 14-15, 15-16, and 16-17 school years.  Teachers evaluated 2x/year except where 2 consecutive effective or highly effective evals.  School-level growth not more than 10% eval.  Local/vendor developed assessments for content areas not provided by the state where state standard exists.

53.  Four teacher observation tools selected.  Three administrator tools selected.  Teacher and administrator tools consistent with MCEE recommendations.  Local tool available as an option if tools meets specific criteria identified in new bills.  MCEE recommendations report can be found at: http://www.mcede.org/.http://www.mcede.org/

54.  877-560-8378  mde-accountability@michigan.gov mde-accountability@michigan.gov