MI-SAAS: Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability System

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
• 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
• Recognition of academic progress and success in
  all core subjects
• Recognition that 5 and 6 year graduation rates
  are successes
• Schools will be able to understand their
  accreditation status

4
Components of MI-SAAS

• 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
• 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.)
• Note Does not count toward calculation for
  informational purposes only

6
Student Proficiency and Improvement

• 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.
• Proficiency is based on MEAP and MI-Access or MME
  and MI-Access
• 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).

8
Student Improvement Four Year Improvement Slope

• Predict school-level percents proficient by year
  for the previous four years

9
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
9
10
Calculate an index and percentile rank for
each Subject
May 17, 2010
10
11
Calculate average and overall percentile rank
May 17, 2010
11
12
Statewide Percentile Rank Accreditation Status

• Lowest 5 ranking Unaccredited
• 6-20 ranking Interim
• 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
• Do 100 of school staff, as required, hold MI
  certification?
• Is the schools annual School Improvement Plan
  published?
• Are required curricula offered?
• Grade Level Content Expectations in grades K-8
• Michigan Merit Curriculum in grades 9-12
• Is a fully compliant Annual Report published?
• Have the School Performance Indicators or
  equivalent been submitted?
• Are literacy and math tested annually in grades
  1-5?
• 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)?
• If the school was selected to participate in
  NAEP, did the school do so?
• 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.

14
PLA List and AYP Status

• If a school is on the PLA list, the school is
  unaccredited.
• If a school fails AYP, the accreditation status
  is lowered one level.
• Failing AYP cannot lower a school below interim.

15
(No Transcript)
16
Additional School, District, Community, and State
Info

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

17
Other Information Not Used In Accreditation
Calculation
District Context
NCLB Performance
DISTRICT FINANCIAL DATA
4-yr Grad Rate Or Elem attend
HQT
Made AYP?
Average Tchr Salary
State Avg District
Yes
97
NA
50,000
4
Instruct as of Operating
Title I Status
AYP Phase
Students Tested
Sp Ed Summary
Per Pupil Funding
Yes
65
0
98
ENROLLMENT TRENDS Building
District
Success Indicators
POST-SECONDARY READINESS Applied to ACT
College Workforce Post-Sec
Readiness Readiness
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)
NA
NA
NA
COMPLETION SUCCESS RATES
People/Programs
Dual Grad Rate Dropout Enrollment
w/ 6 yrs Rate
STAFFING DATA Teacher/Student of
Teachers
Ratio Profess
NA
NA
5
Success w/ Eng Lang Lrnrs
9th Grade Promotion Rate
Blue Ribbon School
1/25
96
80
2008
70
PROGRAM PARTICIPATION CTE Participating
Concentrating Completing
NA
NA
NA
SCHOOL CHOSEN DATA
MdGinity At/Above Grade Level
Blue Ribbon School
Title I Distinguished
POPULATIONS SERVED
90
ELL F/Red Lunch Sp Ed
18
Current Status

• 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
• Shared educational entities will not receive
  accreditation status

19
Questions? Contact Us!

• Office of Educational Assessment and
  Accountability (OEAA)
• 517-373-1342
• Venessa Keesler
• Manager, Evaluation Research and Accountability
• Chris Janzer
• Accountability Specialist