Accountability Scorecards

1. Accountability Scorecards Okemos Board of Education September 2013

2. Background Information • “Michigan Accountability Scorecards” replace Michigan’s AYP report cards that were required under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 • Michigan received a waiver from the U. S. Department of Education to develop a new accountability system for school performance

3. Overview • Two “levels” of Accountability Scorecards: • DistrictScorecards & SchoolScorecards • Scorecards will use a color coding system to indicate school performance • Green (85% or greater of possible points) • Lime (70% to 85% of possible points) • Yellow (60% to 70% of possible points) • Orange (50% to 60% of possible points) • Red (less than 50% of possible points) • Combines traditional accountability metrics with Top-to-Bottom labels and other state/federal requirements.

4. Color-Coded Scorecards • Colors are given to schools and districts for each “scorecard component” and an overall color. • Overall status color is determined using a point-based system from the number of target areas the school/district has met and the school ranking. Decreasing # points received and increasing # targets not met…

5. What Changed? • Additional subgroup: Bottom 30% • Attendance target of 90% -(only for school, no subgroups) • Differentiated proficiency targets • Based on a school’s past performance • Goal of 85% proficient at end of 2021-22 • Targets increase in 10 equal increments • Safe Harbor based on 80th percentile of statewide proficiency • Use school/district improvement slope to determine met/not met • Inclusion of Educator Effectiveness label reporting and TSDL completion in Scorecards • Inclusion of Compliance Factors (SIP & SPR)

6. What Stayed the Same? • Participation requirement = 95% for school/district overall and all valid subgroups • Graduation requirement = 80% for school/district overall and all valid subgroups • Use of provisional and growth scores for accountable proficiency rates

7. School and District Scorecard Subgroups • All Students • Bottom 30% (for proficiency calculations only) NEW! • American Indian or Alaska Native • Black or African American • AsianNEW! • Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander NEW! • White • Two or more races • Hispanic of any races • Economically Disadvantaged • English Language Learners • Students with Disabilities Previously ONE group!

8. Participation Target • Two options for school/district color status for this target area. 95% Assessed Met 95% Assessed Not Met • These colors are given ONLY on the participation target portion of the scorecard. This does not change your entire school/district status, however, it can impact your overall color.

9. Proficiency Targets Targets are based on 2011-12 proficiency rates: • (85 – current percent proficient) / 10 = annual increment • Increments do not reset • Proficiency targets are set using PLs 1 & 2 only (not Provisional or Growth Proficient) • Provisional and/or Growth Proficient willhelp you meet targets

10. Proficiency Targets Example Example school ends at (at least) 85% proficient in subject Example school starts from 65% proficient in subject Example School has +2% Annual Target

11. Proficiency “Cell” Basics • All valid subgroups (30 students or more) will have a proficiency cell with possible points • Schools and districts will always have an “All Students” group • All assessed content areas will have cells (Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Science, and Social Studies)

12. Proficiency Cell Colors and Points • Green cells are worth two points and are earned by meeting the school’s or district’s proficiency target • Yellow cells are worth one point and are earned by meeting the Safe Harbor target (multi-year averaging of proficiency target) • Red cells are worth zero points and are earned by not meeting proficiency or Safe Harbor targets • The Bottom 30% subgroup will earn a green cell and two points by meeting the Safe Harbor target

13. “Accountable Proficient” versus Proficient Students considered proficient are… vs. For ‘True Proficiency’ purposes: • Performance Level 1 or 2 For ‘Accountable Proficiency’ purposes: • Students must attain a performance level of 1 or 2 –OR– • Students must attain a scale score that is within 2 standard errors of the proficient cut score (provisionally proficient). –OR– • Students must demonstrate growth at a rate that will allow them to reach proficiency in three years (growth proficient).

14. Full Academic Year (FAY) • Students that were present in the building for the last: • 2 count days + student in end-of-year collection (Elem./M.S.) • 3 count days + student in end-of-year collection (H.S.) • Only FAY students can count toward a school or district’s proficiency rates for accountability purposes. • Limits the impact of student transiency on accountability. • Ensures that only students that have been educated by the school/district count for proficiency.

15. Graduation Rates 3 Possible colors to receive for this target area: • If a school/subgroup has a graduation rate of at least 80%, it will receive a green cell (2 points). • If it makes the graduation rate improvement target, it will receive a yellowcell (1 point). • If it misses both the rate and the improvement target, they will receive a red cell (0 points).

16. Attendance Rates 3 Possible colors to receive for this target area: • If a school meets the attendance target, it will receive a green cell (2 points) for attendance rate. • If a school meets the attendance improvement target, it will receive a yellowcell (1 point). • If it misses the attendance target, they will receive a redcell (0 points).

17. Okemos School’s Data

18. Okemos District Data

19. Where to Find the Data • MI School Data (open to the public) • https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/ReportCard/AccountabilityScorecard/AccountabilityScorecard.aspx • Button on Okemos Schools website- home page • BAA Secure Site (need login and password) • https://baa.state.mi.us/BAASecure/Accountability/EntityScorecardStatus.aspx

20. District-Wide Improvement Strategies • Analyze district and building data to determine needs (top-to-bottom student data file, universal screeners, and common assessments) • Focus on “high expectations for all students” • Increase awareness for creating “culturally responsive environments” in our schools • Strategic Plan- Diversity goals • Study special education service delivery through “Special Education Program Review Committee”

21. District-Wide Improvement Strategies • Continue building a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) • instructional coaches (expanded to OHS, CMS) • improved core and supplemental instruction • data analysis/ data meetings • professional development • PLCs • Attend ISD sessions with building administrators and teacher leaders to increase skills in delivering MTSS

22. Questions?