Michigan’s Accountability System

What Does It Take To Be A Green School?

There were 98 “Green” Schools

Or is 96? The Downloadable Database now has two new green schools:

-- 9th Grade Transition & Alternative Learning Center, Inkster-- Clare-Gladwin Area School

So, We’ll go with 96 Green Schools

Couple Quick Factoids• Only 7 had a Top-to-Bottom Ranking • Only 13 had AMO targets

28 - Had ZERO Possible Points (brand new in 2012-13, so no Proficiency data, no SIP Requirement, No REP data Requirement

96 Green Schools

96 – 28 = 68

24 - Opened or reconfigured in Fall 2011, so their AMO was zero

(AMOs were based on 2011-12 FAY percent proficient…these schools had none, so actually their AMO was set at the percent proficient in 2012-13)

68 – 24 = 44

96 Green Schools

Opened in 2011 (points awarded for zero proficient)

29 – Less then 30 FAY students (small schools)- no bottom 30 % subgroups

44 – 29 = 15

96 Green Schools

• A 95% confidence interval is used• Compares school proficiency against a statewide target, based on based on the number

of FAY students: > sqrt((p * (1 - p)) /n)

p = percent proficient, n = number of FAY students• Confidence interval put around theTARGET, not the “sample” (Pct Prof of FAY kids).• So, with 23 FAY Kids:

> 1.96* sqrt((.14*(1-.14)) / 23) = 14.2% > Bottom end of the Math Target “Confidence Interval” = -0.2 > So, Zero Percent Proficient means the school made the target

AMO Targets for Small Schools

6 – No AMO, with > 30 in 2012- “Target” becomes small school target

- Again, bottom 30 subgroup can be awarded 2 pts. with no students proficient

15 – 6 = 9

96 Green Schools

(Not sure why Bottom 30% gets a green – a Sample Size of 12 is the point where Zero kids will get you a green).

2 Closed in 2012, no data available

9 – 2 = 7

96 Green Schools

Closed 2012

(same for all subjects)

6 – AMO targets for Math & Reading only (No Bottom 30% in Science or Soc. Studies)

7 – 6 = 1

96 Green Schools

And the School Left Standing:Webster Elementary, Livonia School District

100% - Math, Soc. Studies, and Writing99.6% - Reading, 94% - Science (bottom 30%, 82% proficient)

Proficiency Rates

Bottom 30 Math Math Std Error Math Z Score Math Proficient3 46 -1.609 Provisional3 50 -1.694 Provisional

“To have ANY students proficient in the Bottom 30% subgroup, a school needs to have 70% proficient in the ALL Students group”

This is not exactly accurate…

- 13,399 Valid/FAY Science Scores- 0.1% (20 students) Bottom 30%, Provisionally Proficient - all -- but 1, from a gifted/magnet program -- had a SEM of > 44 (13 had the maximum SEM of 50)

Math - 32,337 FAY/Valid Math Scores - Bottom 30%, proficient 2.8% growth 1.0% provisional

Genesee ISD-Wide DataBut Pretty Close …

And REALLY Close in Science

So, you want to be a Green School next year?

It’s best, this year, you look like this

Arvon Township School21798 Skanee RoadSkanee, MI 49962

http://www.arvontownshipschool.org/about.php

Or This….

Accountability for Title III/Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students -- AMAOs (Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives)

AMAO 1: ProgressThe district must demonstrate that the percentage of its students making “progress” on the English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA) meets or exceeds the current year’s target.

The AMAO 1 progress calculation is done in the following manner for each district:1. Calculate the number of EL students in the district.2. Calculate the number of those students gaining at least 4 points* on the ELPAscale from the previous year (or a prior year).3. Divide the result of (2) by the result of (1) to obtain the percentage of students in each district making sufficient progress over the past year.4. A district is identified as making sufficient progress if the target percentage ofits EL students gained a minimum of 4 points from the previous year’s (or a prior year’s) ELPA.*The rationale for choosing a cutoff of 4 points is that it is larger than the overall standard error of measurement along the ELPA scale, indicating that if a student made at least that much progress, it is attributable to student gains rather than measurement error.

Progress Calculation

State-Wide Mean Scale Score Year 2 Grade - Year 1 (Grade - 1)

GRADE 2009 2010 2011 2112 2013 2009 -- 2010

2010 -- 2011

2011 -- 2012

2012 -- 2013

K 531 525 525 526 529 1 559 556 556 559 560 25 31 34 342 586 586 591 593 590 27 35 37 313 607 606 608 607 609 20 22 16 174 620 621 622 622 622 14 16 14 155 629 630 632 632 632 10 11 10 106 614 614 615 615 617 -15 -15 -17 -167 621 629 623 624 623 15 9 9 88 628 629 632 631 630 8 3 8 69 631 628 632 632 633 0 3 0 3

10 637 637 640 639 639 6 12 7 711 643 643 646 645 643 6 9 5 412 643 644 648 647 643 1 5 1 -2

Statewide Mean Scale Scores, and Mean Across-Year “Growth” from Year to Year

2006 Technical Manual, with Standard Setting

2006 Technical Manual, with Standard Setting, and 1st Years’ Scores

2010 Technical Manual: Mean Scale Scores

2013 Technical Manual: Mean Scale Scores

……………..Because test results provide students, teachers, and parents with an objective report of each student’s strengths and weaknesses in the English language skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, the MI-ELPA helps determine whether these students are making adequate progress toward English language proficiency. Year-to-year progress in language proficiency can also be measured and documented after the MI-ELPA vertical scale is successfully established.

2007 Tech Manual

………………This vertical development of the language tested allows the test to differentiate more finely among students at different stages of language acquisition. Because test results provide students, teachers, and parents with an objective report of each student’s strengths and weaknesses in the English language skills of speaking, listening, reading, writing, and comprehension, the ELPA helps determine whether these students are making adequate progress towards English language proficiency.

2110 & 2013 Tech Manual

Purpose and Recommended Use

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AT ITEM AND TEST LEVELS 4.1 Item-Level Descriptive Statistics 4.2 Higher-Level Descriptive Statistics RELIABILITY 5.1 Classical True Score Theory Internal Consistency Reliability Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) within CTT Framework 5.2 Conditional SEM within the IRT Framework 5.3 Inter-Rater Reliability 5.4 Quality (or Reliability) of Classification Decisions at Proficient Cuts CALIBRATION, EQUATING, AND SCALING 6.1 The Unidimensional Rasch and Partial Credit Models 6.2 Calibration of the Spring 2013 ELPA Stability of Anchor Items 6.3 Scale Scores for the ELPA 6.4 Test Characteristic Curves for the ELPA by Assessment Level IRT STATISTICS 7.1 Rasch Statistics 7.2 Evidence of Model Fit 7.3 Item Information 8.1 Validity Evidence of the ELPA Test Content Relation between ELPA and Michigan English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards Validity of the Presentation of the Listening Stimulus 8.2 Validity Evidence of the Internal Structure of the ELPA 8.3 Validity Evidence of the External Structure of the ELPA Relation between the ELPA and the MEAP Subject Tests Relation between the ELPA and the MME Subject Tests Distribution of Student Classification across Performance Levels

A number of extensive, well documented Technical Manual have been done …But don’t see anything on how the vertical scale was “successfully established.”