Following the introductory videos explaining how the school index reports the percentage of a state set target, a new video has been posted on proficiency. In this video, we examine how the state set the targets for proficiency at the 75th percentile, meaning 25% of schools are already above the target. We also examine how content areas are weighted by the number of students but subgroups are not weighted the same. Visit the Accountability Page for the collection of support videos and other resources.
In addition to the requirement of an improvement plan in June, please remember each building and each district must submit a program evaluation using the "long form" provided by MDE. The department requires only one evaluation to be submitted on the "long form" for each entity into ASSIST. All federally funded programs must also be evaluated and districts would likely benefit from the "compact evaluation form" found on the Prog Eval Page. A new video has been posted explaining how the evaluation process fits into school improvement and the tools available on the SI Timeline.
School Index by MI Dept of Education
ESSA requires new labels such as Comprehensive Support and Improvement schools which replace the previous label Priority. With the new labels also come a new system to identify the lowest 5% of schools in the state.
The Accountability Page will be updated over the next couple of weeks to include videos and resources that hopefully help educators to make sense of this complicated index system. The first of these videos comes in two parts, about 10 minutes each. Part 1a covers the purpose, labels, how to interpret the overall score, this might be intuitive for some people. Video 1b digs a little deeper into the score calculations of participation components. The next video, not yet posted, will cover the differences between proficiency on MI School Data and the Proficiency Index (and why the index does not favor MS).
The current Governor’s Budget Proposal calls for changes to the accountability portion of 31a while leaving the language of how to identify students as At Risk unchanged. In the proposal, school accountability changes from all students identified as At Risk (“3060” in MSDS) to Economically Disadvantaged students specifically. Additionally, accountability is proposed to be tied to the state average of proficient Economically Disadvantaged students, still at 3rd Grade (ELA), 8th Grade (Math), and 11th Grade (ELA, Math, Science).
A student is considered At Risk if ANY of the following apply:
The language of how to identify students as At Risk has not changed in the proposal, nor have there been significant changes to how services can be provided. The implication is that schools and districts can still use 31a funds to provide the services that At-Risk students need regardless of how they were identified, but will be accountable to the performance of students that are identified as Economically Disadvantaged.
See pages 75 - 77 for proposed details on accountability measures and consequences for not meeting requirements.
Other proposed changes:
The 2018 School and District Reporting Tasks in ASSIST™ have been assigned. Lead administrators and head of institutions received the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) Reporting Memo (January 4, 2018) outlining the reporting requirements for schools and systems. School and system level entities are required to submit the following online reports (during the designated time frames) which are accessible through the AdvancED ASSIST website:
Over the past several days, we have updated some areas of the sitimeline. The practical monthly checklist has been revised to be more reader friendly and incorporates embedded support links. In addition, a new Comprehensive Needs Assessment page has been developed and is ready to use. We hope this page will provide clarity around the question "What is a CNA?" All schools are required to complete a CNA under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
A Change Process that impacts adult culture and student achievement
Join us on Monday, November 20, at 2:45 p.m. in banquet room 8 of the Lansing Center.
“Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.” - V. Lombardi.
As we continue to reflect on what defines success in some area schools, we see some of the same principles from Kotter’s Change Process, which begins with a sense of urgency. Learn how we create urgency through the lens of poverty and the stories of multiple elementary schools across two districts. Common steps in a change process, however, context really matters. Leave with tools to begin your own session. Resources linked here the day of the conference:
Upcoming changes 2017/18 and beyond
MDE has negotiated with Advanc-ED to continue for one more year (2017/18) the ASSIST platform. However, most compliance reports have become optional, knowing best practice is to make the best use of the school improvement process using your own templates or continuing to use those in ASSIST. The key is to make the process practical for your school and district. The Home page provides the general requirements for three different situations: Priority schools, Advanc-ED external review, or the most common option for both Advanc-ED and MDE accredited schools pictured below. In addition, slides for the SI Update at OAISD on 10/16 are located here.
The Reading Now Network Data for 2017 is now online. NEW this year is an online, interactive tool from Tableau and an updated MS Excel Document. Find links to the data on the RNN Data Tool page.
What is coming in 2018-19
The law (PA 173) requires student growth to increase to 40% of an educator's evaluation for tested grades and subjects. Half of the measure shall be based on growth and assessment data from the state assessment. The other half comes from local assessments. What happens when benchmark assessments such as NWEA-MAP, iReady, and STAR become approved by the state as the state tool to measure student growth? What will districts use to measure local growth and assessment data?
Solution: Simple Gain or Categorical Growth?
Since Student Learning Objectives are simple a PROCESS and a FRAMEWORK, educators must choose a growth measure to set growth targets. The two most common growth measures are Simple Gain (i.e. pre/post-testing) and Categorical Growth. Portions of the Practitioner's Guide from CCSSO focuses on these two common forms of growth: Simple Gain and Categorical (PDF). An example of categorical growth can be seen in the Sample Algebra 1 SLO by OAISD. Both guidance and the blank template can be found on the SLO Writing Guidance page.
Recent presentation on writing a SLO using interim assessments typically used within a PLC was offered in August: Key slides and ALL potential slides with links.
Check here for recent updates or simply add to your RSS Feeds