Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores Report to the Superintendent Roundtable February 23, 2011
Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores Report to the Superintendent Roundtable February 23, 2011.
Dec 17, 2015
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores
Report to the Superintendent Roundtable
February 23, 2011
Agenda
•Background on Raising Cut Scores
•Impact of Cut Scores
•MI-SAAS Overview
•Questions…
Statewide Preliminary Cut Scores Study Results -- Reading
9084 85 88
82 83
65
39
4844
35 36 38 38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3 4 5 6 7 8 11
Actual Percentages in 2009-10 (with current cut scores)
Projected Percentages in 2009-10 (with projected college ready cut scores)Grade
Perc
entP
rofic
ient
Statewide Preliminary Cut Scores Study Results -- Mathematics
95 92
80 82 82
70
50
3438 40 38 39 39
29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3 4 5 6 7 8 11
Actual Percentages in 2009 (with current cut scores)
Projected Percentages in 2009 (with projected college ready cut scores)
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
Grade
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Current AYP Calculation
•Aggregate and subgroups:▫Percent proficient – annual targets▫Percent tested (95% target)
•Attendance (90% target) for elementary and middle schools
•Graduation (80% target) for high schools
Michigan School Accreditation and Accountability (MI-SAAS) Components
Approved at February 2011 State Board Meeting
• Statewide Top to Bottom Ranking▫ Student Achievement and Improvement▫ Student Graduation Rates and Improvement
• Appearance on the List of Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
• Additional Factors (compliance with state statute, board policy)
• Additional School, District, Community and State Information
• Sunset Clause
Statewide Percentile Rank Not On PLA List Met Target on Nine Additional Factors
Accreditation Result
High Y Y Accredited
High Y N Interim
Mid Y Y Interim
High N N Unaccredited
High N Y Unaccredited
Low N N Unaccredited
Low N Y Unaccredited
Low Y N Unaccredited
Low Y Y Unaccredited
Mid N N Unaccredited
Mid N Y Unaccredited
Mid Y N Unaccredited
Determination of Accreditation Status in MI-SAAS
Low = ranking less than 5th percentile
Mid = ranking greater than or equal to 5th percentile, but less than 20th percentile
High = ranking greater than or equal to 20th percentile
Related Documents
