Michael P. Flanagan, Chairman SUBJECT - State of Michigan

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION LANSING

RICK SNYDER GOVERNOR

MICHAEL P. FLANAGAN STATE SUPERINTENDENT

January 22, 2013

MEMORANDUM TO:

State Board of Education

FROM:

Michael P. Flanagan, Chairman

SUBJECT:

Presentation on Public School Academy (PSA) Authorizer Performance Metrics

The report (Attachment A) on PSA Authorizer Performance Metrics has been prepared in response to a request from the State Board of Education (SBE). Michigan Department of Education staff requested the assistance of the Michigan State University’s Education Policy Center (MSU EPC) to compile data and prepare the report, which compares the performance of large PSA authorizers using the same business rules for the state’s Top to Bottom school list. In addition, MDE staff prepared a chart and several graphs that illustrate the number of Priority, Focus and Reward schools by authorizer (Attachment B).

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION JOHN C. AUSTIN – PRESIDENT CASANDRA E. ULBRICH – VICE PRESIDENT DANIEL VARNER – SECRETARY RICHARD ZEILE – TREASURER MICHELLE FECTEAU – NASBE DELEGATE LUPE RAMOS-MONTIGNY KATHLEEN N. STRAUS EILEEN LAPPIN WEISER 608 WEST ALLEGAN STREET P.O. BOX 30008 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909 www.michigan.gov/mde (517) 373-3324

Attachment A Education Policy Center Michigan State University A Comparison of Michigan’s Charter School Authorizers By Liyang Mao and Bettie Landauer-Menchik, Education Policy Center, Michigan State University Purpose This study compares the performance of the large charter school authorizers in Michigan by using Michigan’s 2011-12 School Ranking Business Rules, i.e. the rules used for the state’s school top to bottom list. Large authorizers are defined as those with three or more schools. Part I ranks authorizers by the Top to Bottom rules. Part II compares the growth rates of authorizers using Michigan’s rules in order to make a reasonable comparison to the CREDO report. Part III of this study compares subgroup performance by authorizer using the Top to Bottom ranking rules. The eleven charter authorizers included in this study have authorized at least three schools in the state. Bay Mills Community College (BMCC) Central Michigan University (CMU) Detroit Public Schools (DPS) Eastern Michigan University (EMU) Ferris State University (FSU) Grand Valley State University (GVSU)

Lake Superior State University (LSSU) Northern Michigan University (NMU) Oakland University (OU) Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU) Wayne RESA (WRESA)

Three authorizers account for almost two-thirds of full academic year (FAY) charter school students taking Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP) test: Central Michigan University (CMU), Grand Valley State University (GVSU), and Bay Mills Community College (BMCC). CMU, GVSU, and Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU) account for 45% of high school students taking the Michigan Merit Exam (MME). Part I: Applying Michigan’s Top to Bottom Rules for Authorizers Part I of this study created a top to bottom ranking for the eleven large authorizers based on the MDE’s 2011-12 School Ranking Business Rules. Ranking calculations for the “all students group” are based on MEAP or MME test and do not include students who took MEAP-Access or MI-Access. Only Full Academic Year (FAY) students were included. The ranking is based on student achievement, student growth over time, authorizer improvement over time, and achievement gaps across all five tested subjects (mathematics, reading, science, social studies, and writing), as well as the graduation rate for authorizers with graduating students.

Disclaimer: The content of this paper represents the work of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the Education Policy Center or Michigan State University

Attachment A Specifically, authorizers were rank ordered using a proficiency index (weighted average of two years of achievement data), a progress index (two or four years of achievement data), and an achievement gap index (weighted average of two years of top/bottom 30 percent of students’ achievement data). Authorizers with graduating students also had graduation rate and graduation rate improvement variable included in their ranking calculation. Achievement is weighted more than improvement or achievement gaps. This is because the focus is on persistently low-achieving schools. Weighting achievement more heavily assures that the lowest performing schools, unless they are improving significantly over time, still receive the assistance and monitoring they need to begin improvement and/or increase their improvement to a degree that will lead reasonably quickly to adequate achievement levels. Table 1 shows the number of full academic year students (FAY) from the most recent MEAP and MME tests. Table 1: Number of Full Academic Year Students by Authorizer for MEAP 2011 and MME 2012 Number of FAY student tested in MEAP 2011 Math Reading Writing Science BMCC

CMU DPS EMU FSU GVSU LSSU NMU OU

SVSU WRESA

11,426 16,940 994 2,098 4,754 12,913 2,970 1,575 3,434 6,341 756

10,085 14,652 820 1,881 4,057 11,223 2,539 1,366 2,983 5,338 640

10,059 14,609 817 1,879 4,056 11,208 2,536 1,356 2,989 5,328 642

3,389 4,870 276 630 1,344 3,780 868 446 1,023 1,770 187

Number of FAY student tested in MME 2012 Math Reading Writing Science Social Studies

Social Studies

3,143 4,779 256 571 1,338 3,711 805 444 960 1,857 224

BMCC

CMU DPS EMU FSU GVSU LSSU NMU OU

SVSU WRESA

350 843 131 61 335 495 176 27 128 732 217

350 846 138 63 340 502 176 27 128 735 224

348 850 138 66 348 503 175 27 128 734 226

350 847 134 62 342 496 176 27 128 734 219

354 843 137 62 339 500 176 27 128 737 218

Three authorizers account for almost two-thirds of charter school students taking MEAP: CMU, GVSU, and BMCC. CMU, GVSU, and SVSU account for 45% of high school students taking MME. Table 2 shows the ranking for the authorizers using the same methodology as the state’s top to bottom ranking. The ranking is based on student achievement, student growth over time, authorizer improvement over time, and achievement gaps across all five tested subjects (mathematics, reading, science, social studies, and writing), as well as the graduation rate for authorizers with graduating students.

A-2

Attachment A Table 2: Ranking of Authorizers using the State Top to Bottom Rules MEAP z-scores

MME z-scores

Authorizer

GVSU LSSU CMU OU WRESA

Math 1.69 0.48 1.48 -0.47 0.37

Reading 1.68 0.70 0.98 0.07 0.52

Writing 1.50 0.28 0.72 0.41 0.21

SVSU BMCC FSU NMU EMU DPS

-0.65 0.45 -0.59 -0.17 -1.20 -1.40

-0.51 -0.08 -0.75 0.28 -1.90 -0.98

-0.59 0.61 0.49 -2.04 -1.31 -0.27

Science Social Studies 1.30 0.33 0.50 0.21 -0.36 1.25 0.54 1.15 0.35 -0.37 -1.07 -0.53 -0.65 -0.02 -1.72 1.65

0.45 0.57 -0.70 0.28 -1.01 -2.17

Math Reading Writing 0.83 1.54 0.65 1.55 0.77 1.02 0.33 0.88 0.66 0.34 -0.39 0.62 0.31 0.07 0.27 -0.12 -0.66 -0.29 N/A -0.03 -2.25

0.34 -1.80 0.14 N/A -0.29 -1.28

0.44 -1.13 -0.48 N/A 0.17 -2.22

Authorizer

Graduation Performance Index Science Social Studies Rate Index 1.04 1.29 1.09 1.18 1.18 1.33 0.44 0.77 0.88 0.82 0.14 0.70 0.10 -0.68 0.50 0.20 0.35 0.79 -0.92 0.17 0.61 -0.67 -0.48 N/A -1.50 -1.52

-0.04 -1.22 -1.01 N/A -0.15 -1.13

0.41 0.90 0.18 -1.02 0.55 -2.27

-0.06 -0.31 -0.37 -0.40 -0.75 -1.27

The MEAP and MME subject areas show the z-scores for each content area and the graduation rate. The last column is the Authorizer Performance Index. The Authorizer Performance Index shows the rank order using a proficiency index (weighted average of two years of achievement data), a progress index (two or four years of achievement data), and an achievement gap index (weighted average of two years of top/bottom 30 percent of students’ achievement data). Authorizers with graduating students also had graduation rate and graduation rate improvement included in their ranking calculation. Scores that are positive show those authorizers that rank above the average across the eleven authorizers. GVSU ranks highest among the listed authorizers followed by LSSU and CMU. Scores that are negative show those authorizers below the average of the eleven authorizers. EMU and DPS rank lowest. Part II: Michigan’s Growth Model compared to CREDO’s Tables 3 and 4 are provided to show a reasonable comparison with the CREDO results IF the CREDO study had used the same methodology that Michigan uses to evaluate growth. Michigan uses FAY students in its growth measure. CREDO does not use FAY data in its study and uses a different definition of growth than Michigan does. CREDO includes students matched to comparable Traditional Public Schools (TPS) students with similar demographics. For example, Black students who receive free and reduced price lunch in charter schools in Detroit are compared to similar students in TPS in Detroit. Table 3 shows the cumulative growth/progress of students in math for the last three years of MEAP using only FAY students. The four comparisons include the percent of students proficient (proficient in 2008-11), the percent of students Improving or Significantly Improving, the percent of students Not Proficient but Improving, and the percent of students moving from Not or Partially Proficient to Proficient or Advanced (growth from 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11).

A-3

Attachment A Table 3: Cumulative Growth in Math from 2009 - 2011 for students in grade 3-8 Math Cumulative Growth Not/Partially Proficient -> Proficient/ Advanced

PSAname

N_math

Percent Proficient

Percent Improving

Not/Partially Proficient but Improving

State

1,579,995

37%

33%

25%

8%

All TPSs

1,481,841

38%

33%

25%

8%

The 11 Large Authorizers

98,138

27%

36%

30%

8%

CMU, GVSU, and LSSU

49,767

32%

36%

29%

9%

BMCC

17,903

25%

36%

31%

8%

CMU

26,046

29%

36%

29%

8%

DPS

1,487

21%

36%

33%

10%

EMU

3,438

22%

34%

30%

7%

FSU

6,887

16%

38%

35%

7%

GVSU

19,204

36%

36%

28%

9%

LSSU

4,517

35%

37%

29%

10%

NMU

2,524

24%

33%

29%

7%

OU

5,521

23%

34%

30%

8%

SVSU

9,697

20%

33%

29%

7%

914

23%

40%

36%

10%

WRESA

Approximately 37% of students statewide were proficient on the math tests, compared to 38% of students in TPS, 27% in schools of the large authorizers, and 32% of students in schools affiliated with the three major authorizers. The growth rate for each of the authorizers was equivalent or higher than the state average. It is reasonable to expect that students who are not proficient are more likely to improve than students who are already proficient. While students in DPS and WRESA authorized schools are less likely to be proficient in math than the state average, they have a higher percentage of students improving, including students moving from not proficient to proficient. Table 4 shows the cumulative growth/progress of students in reading for the last three years of MEAP using only FAY students. The four comparisons include the percent of students proficient (proficient in 2008-11), the percent of students Improving or Significantly Improving, the percent of students Not Proficient but Improving, and the percent of students moving from Not or Partially Proficient to Proficient or Advanced (growth from 2008-9, 2009-10, and 2010-11).

A-4

Attachment A Table 4: Cumulative Growth in Reading from 2009 - 2011 for students in grade 3-8 Reading Cumulative Growth

State

1,577,792

62%

37%

19%

Not/Partially Proficient -> Proficient/ Advanced 10%

All TPSs

1,479,740

62%

37%

19%

10%

The 11 Large Authorizers

98,036

52%

40%

25%

12%

CMU, GVSU, and LSSU

49,714

58%

39%

22%

12%

BMCC

17,899

50%

41%

26%

12%

CMU

26,017

55%

40%

24%

11%

DPS

1,487

43%

39%

28%

15%

EMU

3,432

41%

39%

28%

12%

FSU

6,887

38%

42%

32%

13%

GVSU

19,191

62%

38%

21%

11%

LSSU

4,506

61%

40%

22%

13%

NMU

2,504

53%

37%

22%

11%

OU

5,535

47%

40%

28%

13%

SVSU

9,663

45%

40%

28%

13%

915

66%

38%

18%

12%

PSAname

WRESA

N_reading

Percent Proficient

Percent Improving

Not/Partially Proficient but Improving

Approximately 62% of students statewide were proficient on the MEAP reading 2011, compared to 62% of students in TPS, 52% in the schools of the large authorizers, and 58% of students in schools affiliated with the three largest authorizers. However, the totality of schools of the included authorizers had higher rates of growth than the TPS. Part III: Authorizer Comparison by Subgroup Part III of this study compares the authorizers using the Top to Bottom Business Rules on the MEAP by subgroup: 1) All students; 2) by race and ethnicity (Comparing Black, White and Hispanic students); 3) by Economically Disadvantaged (ED) and Not Economically Disadvantaged (not ED), 4) by Limited English Proficient (LEP) and not Limited English Proficient (not LEP), and 5) by Special Education (SE) and not Special Education (not SE). Within and between each subgroup, authorizers were compared by percent proficient in the MEAP tests in: Reading in Grades 3 to 8 Mathematics in Grades 3 to 8 Writing in Grades 4 and 7 Science in Grades 5 and 8 Social Studies in Grades 6 and 9

A-5

Attachment A Results Table 5 shows the number of students tested in MEAP tested grades and the distribution of students. This table can be used to compare the proportion of students in each subgroup by authorizer. In Michigan, race is correlated with economically disadvantaged (ED). Black and Hispanic students are more likely to receive free or reduced price lunch than White students. Students in charter schools are more likely to be Black and ED than the state population as a whole. A smaller percentage of Special Education students are in charter schools than the state population as a whole. Table 5: Comparison of the number of students tested by subgroup and the distribution of students tested Number of Students Tested All Authorizer Students State 1,570,028 All Authorizers 109,308 BMCC 19,823 CMU 28,915 DPS 1,602 EMU 3,549 FSU 7,842 GVSU 21,775 LSSU 5,242 NMU 2,731 OU 5,997 SVSU 10,688 WRESA 1,144

White 1,111,664 37,976 6,224 11,674 2 510 1,750 9,083 2,046 952 1,824 3,473 438

Black 276,261 57,787 10,942 14,414 1,592 2,751 4,954 9,832 2,796 755 4,068 5,131 552

Hispanic 93,615 7,591 1,303 1,373 6 165 780 1,339 217 401 40 1,880 87

ED 742,697 73,555 13,604 18,494 1,195 2,815 6,403 12,773 3,145 1,974 4,637 7,970 545

NotED 827,331 35,753 6,219 10,421 407 734 1,439 9,002 2,097 757 1,360 2,718 599

LEP 59,785 5,963 1,099 1,183 98 735 544 171 155 664 1,306 8

Not LEP 1,510,243 103,345 18,724 27,732 1,602 3,451 7,107 21,231 5,071 2,576 5,333 9,382 1,136

SE 175,360 9,815 1,770 2,630 112 392 736 1,996 469 310 356 966 78

NotSE 1,394,668 99,493 18,053 26,285 1,490 3,157 7,106 19,779 4,773 2,421 5,641 9,722 1,066

Distribution of Students Tested All Authorizer Students State 100% All Authorizers 100% BMCC 100% CMU 100% DPS 100% EMU 100% FSU 100% GVSU 100% LSSU 100% NMU 100% OU 100% SVSU 100% WRESA 100%

White 71% 35% 31% 40% 0% 14% 22% 42% 39% 35% 30% 32% 38%

Black 18% 53% 55% 50% 99% 78% 63% 45% 53% 28% 68% 48% 48%

Hispanic 6% 7% 7% 5% 0% 5% 10% 6% 4% 15% 1% 18% 8%

ED 47% 67% 69% 64% 75% 79% 82% 59% 60% 72% 77% 75% 48%

Not ED 53% 33% 31% 36% 25% 21% 18% 41% 40% 28% 23% 25% 52%

LEP 4% 5% 6% 4% 0% 3% 9% 2% 3% 6% 11% 12% 1%

Not LEP 96% 95% 94% 96% 100% 97% 91% 98% 97% 94% 89% 88% 99%

SE 11% 9% 9% 9% 7% 11% 9% 9% 9% 11% 6% 9% 7%

NotSE 89% 91% 91% 91% 93% 89% 91% 91% 91% 89% 94% 91% 93%

Statewide 18% of tested students are Black; among the authorizers, the highest percentage of Black students tested is in DPS authorized schools (99%), followed by EMU

A-6

Attachment A (78%), and OU (68%). For the four largest authorizers, the percentage of students tested who are Black is BMCC: (55%), CMU: (50%), SVSU: (48%) and GVSU: (45%). Table 6: Percentage of FAY students by subgroup proficient in Math and Reading in all tested grades State BMCC CMU DPS EMU FSU GVSU LSSU NMU OU SVSU WRESA

All Students 37% 25% 28% 21% 21% 16% 35% 32% 23% 23% 20% 23%

White 42% 38% 42% N/A 42% 27% 46% 44% 29% 33% 32% 32%

Black 15% 17% 15% 21% 16% 10% 23% 22% 13% 18% 12% 16%

Hispanic 23% 23% 26% N/A 29% 17% 29% 28% 18% 10% 22% 25%

Math ED 22% 19% 19% 18% 18% 14% 26% 24% 18% 20% 16% 13%

Reading All Students White Black Hispanic ED State 63% 70% 40% 49% 49% BMCC 53% 65% 44% 52% 46% CMU 56% 69% 43% 53% 46% DPS 44% N/A 44% N/A 40% EMU 42% 67% 37% 47% 37% FSU 40% 51% 35% 38% 36% GVSU 63% 75% 50% 60% 54% LSSU 61% 75% 52% 61% 54% NMU 54% 62% 40% 46% 49% OU 49% 52% 47% 32% 46% SVSU 46% 59% 40% 38% 41% WRESA 67% 79% 57% 71% 57% Note: If the number of students is less than 10, the percent

NotED 50% 39% 46% 29% 33% 27% 48% 42% 34% 30% 32% 33%

NotED 76% 68% 74% 56% 63% 60% 76% 72% 66% 59% 62% 76% proficient

LEP 18% 15% 16% N/A 43% 10% 21% 18% 4% 14% 19% N/A

NotLEP 37% 26% 29% 21% 20% 17% 35% 32% 24% 24% 20% 23%

LEP NotLEP 30% 65% 29% 54% 27% 57% N/A 44% 47% 42% 19% 43% 41% 64% 44% 62% 17% 56% 22% 52% 29% 49% N/A 67% was not calculated

SE 13% 7% 10% 16% 15% 5% 13% 16% 8% 7% 8% 13%

NotSE 39% 27% 30% 21% 22% 18% 37% 33% 24% 24% 21% 24%

SE NotSE 26% 67% 18% 56% 23% 59% 36% 44% 20% 45% 17% 43% 26% 67% 28% 64% 23% 57% 20% 50% 19% 49% 33% 69% and is shown as N/A

In math, statewide, 37% of all students tested were proficient. The authorizers vary from a high of 35% proficient by GVSU to a low of 16% by FSU. Statewide, the percent of Black students proficient was 15%, compared to 23% of Black students at schools authorized by GVSU, 22% at schools authorized by LSSU, 21% at schools authorized by DPS. Only 10% of Black students were proficient in schools authorized by FSU and 12% in schools authorized by SVSU. Special Education students at schools authorized by DPS, EMU, and LSSU outperformed students statewide. In reading, the proficiency rate of all students at schools authorized by Wayne RESA, GVSU and LSSU were close to the state average. The percentage of proficient Black students was higher than the state average for schools authorized by BMCC, CMU, DPS, GVSU, LSSU, OU and WRESA. Special education students at Wayne RESA, LSSU, and DPS authorized schools had a higher percentage of students that were proficient than the state.

A-7

Attachment A Table 7 compares the MEAP proficiency rates for all students on reading and math in grades 5 and 8 grades - the transition years for many students. Writing, science and social studies are shown for the grades where students are tested. Each subject and grade is ranked from the lowest percent proficient to the highest. Table 7:

Proficiency Rates for All students by Test, Grade, and Authorizer

Math_G5 Math_G8

Reading_G5 Reading_G8

Writing_G4 Writing_G7

Science_G5 Science_G8

Social Studies_G6 Social Studies_G9

DPS 11% FSU 10%

FSU 17% EMU 10%

NMU 21% SVSU 12%

SVSU 21% NMU 14%

WRESA 23% OU 14%

OU 25% DPS 15%

BMCC 27% BMCC 17%

EMU 28% CMU 21%

CMU 29% WRESA 23%

GVSU 36% LSSU 26%

LSSU 38% GVSU 29%

State 40% State 30%

DPS 45% FSU 39%

FSU 45% EMU 40%

EMU 50% DPS 43%

SVSU 52% SVSU 44%

OU 53% NMU 46%

BMCC 56% BMCC 49%

NMU 57% OU 50%

CMU 60% CMU 54%

GVSU 67% State 59%

State 67% LSSU 59%

LSSU 70% WRESA 61%

WRESA 75% GVSU 61%

EMU 27% DPS 23%

FSU 30% EMU 28%

NMU 30% FSU 32%

SVSU 33% NMU 35%

BMCC 39% SVSU 35%

OU 39% WRESA 37%

DPS 40% BMCC 40%

CMU 41% CMU 46%

WRESA 42% OU 47%

LSSU 42% LSSU 48%

State 46% State 48%

GVSU 48% GVSU 50%

FSU 4% FSU 5%

OU 5% WRESA 5%

SVSU 6% NMU 5%

EMU 6% SVSU 6%

NMU 6% OU 7%

BMCC 7% EMU 7%

WRESA 10% BMCC 10%

CMU 10% CMU 10%

GVSU 13% GVSU 13%

LSSU 13% LSSU 14%

DPS 16% State 16%

State 17% DPS 21%

FSU 8% DPS 6%

DPS 11% NMU 10%

OU 12% FSU 10%

EMU 12% EMU 12%

SVSU 14% SVSU 13%

BMCC 15% BMCC 17%

NMU 16% OU 19%

LSSU 20% WRESA 20%

WRESA 20% CMU 21%

CMU 20% LSSU 24%

GVSU 24% GVSU 25%

State 28% State 31%

For most subjects and grades, the state proficiency rate is higher than any of the authorizers. Authorizers that have the highest proficiency rates for most subjects are GVSU and LSSU. Detroit is the highest ranked authorizer for Science in both 5th and 8th grade. LSSU and Wayne RESA outperform the state average in 5th grade reading and LSSU, WRESA, and FVSU outperform the state in 8th grade reading.

A-8

Attachment A Table 8 compares the percentage of proficiency rates on MEAP by race and ethnicity in selected grades in all tested subjects. Proficiency is ranked based on the Black student proficiency rate. Table 8: Comparison of MEAP Proficiency rates by Subject, Grade, Race and Ethnicity Math_G5 Math_G5 Math_G5 Math_G5

Black Hispanic White All

NMU 10% 12% 32% 21%

FSU 11% 21% 27% 17%

DPS 11% N/A N/A 11%

SVSU 13% 22% 33% 21%

CMU 16% 23% 42% 29%

BMCC 17% 27% 41% 27%

State 18% 25% 45% 40%

OU 18% N/A 42% 25%

EMU 24% 37% 52% 28%

WRESA 24% 6% 24% 23%

GVSU 26% 28% 45% 36%

LSSU 31% 21% 50% 38%

Math_G8 Math_G8 Math_G8 Math_G8


FSU 5% 21% 18% 10%

EMU 5% 7% 34% 10%

NMU 7% 11% 13% 14%

CMU 8% 19% 35% 21%

WRESA 8% 15% 49% 23%

SVSU 9% 6% 23% 12%

State 9% 16% 35% 30%

OU 10% N/A 20% 14%

BMCC 11% 14% 28% 17%

DPS 15% N/A N/A 15%

GVSU 17% 27% 45% 29%

LSSU 17% 21% 40% 26%

Reading_G5 Reading_G5 Reading_G5 Reading_G5


FSU 40% 47% 54% 45%

NMU 43% 47% 66% 57%

EMU 44% 60% 77% 50%

DPS 45% N/A N/A 45%

SVSU 46% 43% 63% 52%

State 47% 55% 73% 67%

CMU 48% 60% 73% 60%

BMCC 48% 56% 66% 56%

OU 51% N/A 58% 53%

GVSU 56% 64% 76% 67%

LSSU 68% 46% 76% 70%

WRESA 68% 63% 83% 75%

Reading_G8 Reading_G8 Reading_G8 Reading_G8


FSU 33% 41% 55% 39%

EMU 36% 27% 63% 40%

NMU 37% 46% 49% 46%

State 38% 45% 65% 59%

SVSU 38% 36% 57% 44%

WRESA 42% 69% 90% 61%

DPS 43% N/A N/A 43%

CMU 43% 55% 67% 54%

BMCC 45% 51% 57% 49%

LSSU 49% 61% 76% 59%

OU 49% N/A 53% 50%

GVSU 52% 56% 73% 61%

Writing_G4 Writing_G4 Writing_G4 Writing_G4


NMU 17% 27% 35% 30%

FSU 25% 33% 36% 30%

EMU 26% 39% 29% 27%

SVSU 26% 32% 43% 33%

State 28% 35% 51% 46%

CMU 29% 39% 51% 41%

BMCC 32% 35% 47% 39%

LSSU 35% 26% 51% 42%

WRESA 36% 33% 45% 42%

OU 39% N/A 40% 39%

DPS 40% N/A N/A 40%

GVSU 40% 42% 53% 48%

Writing_G7 Writing_G7 Writing_G7 Writing_G7


DPS 23% N/A N/A 23%

EMU 24% 36% 49% 28%

FSU 25% 30% 46% 32%

NMU 27% 44% 44% 35%

State 27% 37% 54% 48%

WRESA 29% 20% 52% 37%

SVSU 32% 33% 42% 35%

BMCC 34% 47% 47% 40%

CMU 35% 39% 58% 46%

LSSU 42% 46% 58% 48%

GVSU 43% 47% 57% 50%

OU 44% N/A 53% 47%

Science_G5 Science_G5 Science_G5 Science_G5


FSU 1% 3% 11% 4%

SVSU 2% 3% 13% 6%

NMU 2% N/A 11% 6%

EMU 2% 3% 29% 6%

BMCC 2% 5% 14% 7%

CMU 2% 6% 19% 10%

GVSU 3% 7% 21% 13%

State 4% 7% 20% 17%

OU 4% N/A 9% 5%

WRESA 4% 13% 14% 10%

LSSU 13% 3% 15% 13%

DPS 16% N/A N/A 16%

Science_G8 Science_G8 Science_G8 Science_G8


FSU 1% 5% 13% 5%

WRESA 2% N/A 13% 5%

EMU 2% 7% 32% 7%

SVSU 3% 3% 13% 6%

NMU 3% 2% 7% 5%

State 3% 7% 19% 16%

CMU 3% 9% 17% 10%

GVSU 5% 10% 24% 13%

OU 5% N/A 10% 7%

BMCC 7% 7% 16% 10%

LSSU 8% 6% 23% 14%

DPS 21% N/A N/A 21%

Soc St_G6 Soc St_G6 Soc St_G6 Soc St_G6


NMU 3% 11% 24% 16%

FSU 5% 5% 16% 8%

EMU 6% 17% 36% 12%

SVSU 8% 13% 23% 14%

CMU 9% 14% 33% 20%

BMCC 9% 7% 26% 15%

State 9% 16% 34% 28%

GVSU 10% 19% 36% 24%

OU 10% N/A 16% 12%

DPS 11% N/A N/A 11%

LSSU 15% 20% 28% 20%

WRESA 18% 10% 27% 20%

Soc St_G9 Soc St_G9 Soc St_G9 Soc St_G9


NMU 3% 12% 12% 10%

WRESA 3% N/A 49% 20%

FSU 5% 17% 27% 10%

DPS 6% N/A N/A 6%

CMU 7% 25% 36% 21%

EMU 7% 9% 40% 12%

State 8% 19% 37% 31%

SVSU 8% 10% 24% 13%

GVSU 10% 22% 45% 25%

BMCC 10% 24% 29% 17%

LSSU 13% 16% 42% 24%

OU 16% N/A 25% 19%

A-9

Attachment A In all subjects, there remain significant gaps between subgroups. Black students are the lowest performing subgroup in all subjects. LSSU, GVSU, and OU have a higher percentage of Black students proficient in almost all subjects than the state. In 8th grade reading, Black students outperform the state in schools of 9 of the authorizers; Hispanic students outperform the state in schools of 5 authorizers; White students outperform the state in schools of 4 authorizers. All students, including the subgroups, in schools authorized by NMU, FSU, EMU, and SVSU (except in 7th grade writing) are less likely to be proficient on these MEAP tests. Students in DPS authorized schools exceed all other authorizers in both 5th and 8th grade science.

A-10

Attachment A Table 9 compares the proficiency rate on MEAP in selected grades in all tested subject by the percentage of students who are Economically Disadvantaged (ED). Student proficiency is ranked based on the proficiency rate of Economically Disadvantaged students. Table 9: Comparison of MEAP Proficiency rates by Subject, Grade and Economically Disadvantaged Math_G5 Math_G5 Math_G5

ED Not ED All

DPS 10% 12% 11%

FSU 16% 25% 17%

SVSU 17% 33% 21%

WRESA 17% 28% 23%

NMU 18% 28% 21%

CMU 20% 45% 29%

BMCC 21% 40% 27%

OU 22% 34% 25%

State 25% 53% 40%

EMU 26% 36% 28%

GVSU 28% 48% 36%

LSSU 31% 51% 38%

Math_G8 Math_G8 Math_G8

ED Not ED All

WRESA 5% 43% 23%

EMU 6% 25% 10%

SVSU 8% 25% 12%

FSU 8% 16% 10%

CMU 11% 38% 21%

BMCC 12% 31% 17%

NMU 12% 19% 14%

DPS 13% 23% 15%

OU 13% 18% 14%

State 15% 41% 30%

LSSU 17% 38% 26%

GVSU 20% 43% 29%

Reading_G5 ED Reading_G5 Not ED Reading_G5 All

DPS 40% 57% 45%

FSU 41% 66% 45%

EMU 44% 75% 50%

SVSU 46% 68% 52%

BMCC 49% 71% 56%

OU 50% 65% 53%

CMU 51% 76% 60%

NMU 54% 64% 57%

State 54% 80% 67%

GVSU 59% 79% 67%

LSSU 66% 76% 70%

WRESA 71% 77% 75%

Reading_G8 ED Reading_G8 Not ED Reading_G8 All

EMU 36% 55% 40%

FSU 36% 52% 39%

DPS 38% 63% 43%

SVSU 39% 59% 44%

NMU 43% 56% 46%

State 44% 70% 59%

CMU 45% 71% 54%

BMCC 45% 60% 49%

WRESA 47% 75% 61%

OU 49% 54% 50%

LSSU 50% 72% 59%

GVSU 54% 71% 61%

Writing_G4 ED Writing_G4 Not ED Writing_G4 All

NMU 25% 46% 30%

EMU 26% 32% 27%

FSU 28% 39% 30%

SVSU 28% 48% 33%

CMU 31% 59% 41%

BMCC 32% 54% 39%

State 33% 60% 46%

LSSU 33% 55% 42%

WRESA 36% 46% 42%

DPS 36% 52% 40%

OU 36% 50% 39%

GVSU 40% 60% 48%

Writing_G7 ED Writing_G7 Not ED Writing_G7 All

DPS 22% 25% 23%

EMU 23% 46% 28%

WRESA 25% 44% 37%

FSU 28% 46% 32%

NMU 29% 50% 35%

SVSU 32% 45% 35%

State 34% 61% 48%

BMCC 35% 51% 40%

CMU 36% 63% 46%

LSSU 41% 58% 48%

GVSU 43% 60% 50%

OU 44% 57% 47%

Science_G5 ED Science_G5 Not ED Science_G5 All

FSU 2% 12% 4%

EMU 2% 23% 6%

SVSU 3% 15% 6%

BMCC 4% 15% 7%

CMU 4% 21% 10%

OU 4% 11% 5%

NMU 4% 12% 6%

WRESA 5% 13% 10%

GVSU 7% 21% 13%

State 8% 25% 17%

DPS 8% 37% 16%

LSSU 11% 16% 13%

Science_G8 ED Science_G8 Not ED Science_G8 All

EMU 3% 25% 7%

SVSU 3% 15% 6%

FSU 4% 10% 5%

CMU 4% 19% 10%

NMU 5% 7% 5%

OU 5% 13% 7%

BMCC 6% 17% 10%

GVSU 7% 21% 13%

State 7% 23% 16%

LSSU 9% 19% 14%

DPS 13% 53% 21%

WRESA N/A 11% 5%

Soc St_G6 Soc St_G6 Soc St_G6

ED Not ED All

FSU 5% 26% 8%

EMU 7% 35% 12%

DPS 9% 16% 11%

SVSU 10% 27% 14%

BMCC 10% 26% 15%

OU 10% 18% 12%

NMU 10% 31% 16%

CMU 11% 38% 20%

WRESA 12% 28% 20%

GVSU 14% 37% 24%

State 15% 40% 28%

LSSU 16% 27% 20%


ED Not ED All

DPS 5% 10% 6%

WRESA 6% 38% 20%

FSU 8% 19% 10%

EMU 8% 21% 12%

NMU 8% 14% 10%

SVSU 10% 25% 13%

CMU 12% 33% 21%

BMCC 12% 26% 17%

LSSU 13% 41% 24%

GVSU 15% 38% 25%

OU 15% 33% 19%

State 17% 43% 31%

In schools authorized by GVSU and LSSU Economically Disadvantaged students perform as well or better than the state average on most MEAP tests.

A-11

Attachment A Table 10 compares the proficiency on MEAP in selected grades in math by Limited English Proficiency. Student proficiency is ranked based on the Limited English Proficiency rate. Table 10: Comparison of MEAP Proficiency rates by Subject, Grade and Limited English Proficiency Math_G5 Math_G5 Math_G5

LEP Not LEP All

NMU 7% 22% 21%

FSU 13% 18% 17%

LSSU 13% 39% 38%

CMU 15% 29% 29%

BMCC 16% 28% 27%

GVSU 16% 37% 36%

SVSU 18% 22% 21%

State 20% 40% 40%

OU 20% 25% 25%

EMU 55% 27% 28%

DPS N/A 11% 11%

WRESA N/A 23% 23%


LEP Not LEP All

SVSU 6% 13% 12%

BMCC 7% 18% 17%

CMU 8% 22% 21%

OU 8% 15% 14%

LSSU 10% 27% 26%

State 10% 30% 30%

FSU 11% 10% 10%

GVSU 14% 29% 29%

DPS N/A 15% 15%

EMU N/A 10% 10%

NMU N/A 14% 14%

WRESA N/A 24% 23%

Reading_G5 LEP Reading_G5 Not LEP Reading_G5 All

NMU 17% 60% 57%

FSU 17% 48% 45%

OU 21% 56% 53%

CMU 28% 61% 60%

SVSU 33% 55% 52%

State 34% 69% 67%

BMCC 40% 57% 56%

LSSU 43% 71% 70%

GVSU 45% 68% 67%

EMU 60% 50% 50%

DPS N/A 45% 45%

WRESA N/A 75% 75%

Reading_G8 LEP Reading_G8 Not LEP Reading_G8 All

BMCC 19% 51% 49%

OU 22% 55% 50%

State 22% 60% 59%

CMU 26% 55% 54%

FSU 27% 40% 39%

SVSU 28% 45% 44%

LSSU 30% 60% 59%

GVSU 33% 61% 61%

DPS N/A 43% 43%

EMU N/A 40% 40%

NMU N/A 48% 46%

WRESA N/A 61% 61%

Writing_G4 LEP Writing_G4 Not LEP Writing_G4 All

NMU 15% 32% 30%

SVSU 21% 35% 33%

CMU 22% 41% 41%

FSU 24% 31% 30%

BMCC 25% 39% 39%

State 25% 47% 46%

OU 28% 41% 39%

GVSU 30% 48% 48%

LSSU 31% 43% 42%

EMU 35% 27% 27%

DPS N/A 40% 40%

WRESA N/A 41% 42%

Writing_G7 LEP Writing_G7 Not LEP Writing_G7 All

NMU 7% 36% 35%

FSU 10% 34% 32%

LSSU 18% 49% 48%

State 18% 49% 48%

BMCC 19% 41% 40%

SVSU 23% 37% 35%

CMU 25% 47% 46%

GVSU 26% 51% 50%

OU 27% 50% 47%

DPS N/A 23% 23%

EMU N/A 28% 28%

WRESA N/A 37% 37%

Science_G5 Science_G5 Science_G5

LEP Not LEP All

SVSU 0% 7% 6%

OU 1% 6% 5%

CMU 2% 10% 10%

State 2% 17% 17%

GVSU 2% 13% 13%

BMCC 3% 7% 7%

NMU 3% 7% 6%

EMU 5% 6% 6%

DPS N/A 16% 16%

FSU N/A 4% 4%

LSSU N/A 14% 13%

WRESA N/A 10% 10%

Science_G8 Science_G8 Science_G8

LEP Not LEP All

CMU 1% 10% 10%

OU 1% 8% 7%

BMCC 1% 10% 10%

State 2% 16% 16%

GVSU 3% 13% 13%

LSSU 5% 14% 14%

DPS N/A 21% 21%

EMU N/A 7% 7%

FSU N/A 5% 5%

NMU N/A 6% 5%

SVSU N/A 7% 6%

WRESA N/A 5% 5%


LEP Not LEP All

BMCC 2% 15% 15%

FSU 3% 9% 8%

CMU 4% 21% 20%

SVSU 5% 16% 14%

State 6% 29% 28%

LSSU 9% 21% 20%

GVSU 10% 24% 24%

EMU 18% 12% 12%

DPS N/A 11% 11%

NMU N/A 17% 16%

OU N/A 13% 12%

WRESA N/A 20% 20%


LEP Not LEP All

SVSU 4% 14% 13%

State 6% 32% 31%

NMU 6% 10% 10%

BMCC 7% 18% 17%

CMU 8% 21% 21%

OU 9% 21% 19%

FSU 10% 10% 10%

GVSU 13% 25% 25%

LSSU 15% 24% 24%

DPS N/A 6% 6%

EMU N/A 11% 12%

WRESA N/A 20% 20%

BMCC, CMU and SVSU authorized school have the highest number of LEP students. LEP students in these schools generally do not exceed the state average on performance for any of the MEAP tests.

A-12

Attachment A Table 11 compares the proficiency rate on MEAP in selected grades in all tested subjects by Special Education status. Student proficiency is ranked based on the proficiency rate of Special Education students. Table 11: Comparison of MEAP Proficiency rates by Subject, Grade for Special Education students Math_G5 Math_G5 Math_G5

SE Not SE All

NMU 7% 22% 21%

OU 7% 26% 25%

BMCC 7% 29% 27%

SVSU 8% 22% 21%

FSU 12% 18% 17%

CMU 13% 30% 29%

GVSU 14% 38% 36%

State 15% 43% 40%

LSSU 19% 40% 38%

EMU 21% 29% 28%

DPS N/A 11% 11%

WRESA N/A 25% 23%


SE Not SE All

FSU 1% 11% 10%

NMU 2% 15% 14%

OU 3% 15% 14%

BMCC 3% 19% 17%

SVSU 4% 13% 12%

CMU 4% 23% 21%

LSSU 5% 28% 26%

EMU 5% 11% 10%

State 5% 32% 30%

DPS 8% 15% 15%

GVSU 10% 31% 29%

WRESA N/A 24% 23%

Reading_G5 SE Reading_G5 Not SE Reading_G5 All

NMU 18% 61% 57%

OU 18% 55% 53%

SVSU 21% 54% 52%

BMCC 23% 59% 56%

EMU 24% 53% 50%

FSU 25% 47% 45%

CMU 30% 63% 60%

GVSU 30% 71% 67%

State 31% 72% 67%

DPS 31% 46% 45%

LSSU 42% 72% 70%

WRESA 50% 76% 75%

Reading_G8 SE Reading_G8 Not SE Reading_G8 All

BMCC 10% 53% 49%

FSU 11% 42% 39%

CMU 14% 58% 54%

DPS 15% 45% 43%

SVSU 16% 46% 44%

OU 17% 52% 50%

LSSU 18% 63% 59%

State 18% 63% 59%

GVSU 20% 64% 61%

EMU 22% 42% 40%

NMU 28% 48% 46%

WRESA N/A 64% 61%

Writing_G4 SE Writing_G4 Not SE Writing_G4 All

SVSU 6% 36% 33%

NMU 8% 33% 30%

LSSU 9% 45% 42%

OU 9% 41% 39%

BMCC 10% 41% 39%

FSU 10% 32% 30%

CMU 15% 43% 41%

EMU 16% 28% 27%

State 17% 50% 46%

WRESA 19% 43% 42%

GVSU 20% 50% 48%

DPS 44% 40% 40%

Writing_G7 SE Writing_G7 Not SE Writing_G7 All

FSU 1% 35% 32%

EMU 4% 31% 28%

BMCC 6% 43% 40%

NMU 7% 39% 35%

SVSU 9% 38% 35%

LSSU 9% 52% 48%

CMU 10% 50% 46%

State 10% 52% 48%

DPS 12% 24% 23%

OU 12% 50% 47%

GVSU 15% 54% 50%

WRESA 15% 39% 37%

Science_G5 SE Science_G5 Not SE Science_G5 All

LSSU 1% 14% 13%

FSU 2% 4% 4%

NMU 2% 7% 6%

SVSU 3% 6% 6%

BMCC 3% 8% 7%

OU 4% 6% 5%

EMU 4% 7% 6%

CMU 5% 11% 10%

State 6% 18% 17%

GVSU 7% 14% 13%

DPS 12% 16% 16%

WRESA N/A 10% 10%

Science_G8 SE Science_G8 Not SE Science_G8 All

OU 2% 8% 7%

BMCC 3% 10% 10%

LSSU 3% 15% 14%

CMU 3% 11% 10%

SVSU 3% 6% 6%

State 3% 18% 16%

NMU 4% 6% 5%

GVSU 4% 13% 13%

DPS 8% 22% 21%

EMU 10% 7% 7%

FSU N/A 5% 5%

WRESA N/A 6% 5%


SE Not SE All

OU 2% 12% 12%

NMU 2% 17% 16%

BMCC 4% 16% 15%

SVSU 5% 15% 14%

DPS 6% 11% 11%

CMU 6% 22% 20%

LSSU 6% 22% 20%

FSU 7% 8% 8%

EMU 7% 13% 12%

GVSU 8% 26% 24%

State 9% 31% 28%

WRESA N/A 21% 20%


SE Not SE All

FSU 3% 11% 10%

OU 3% 20% 19%

BMCC 4% 18% 17%

NMU 5% 11% 10%

LSSU 6% 26% 24%

SVSU 6% 14% 13%

GVSU 6% 26% 25%

WRESA 8% 21% 20%

State 8% 34% 31%

CMU 9% 22% 21%

EMU 11% 12% 12%

DPS 13% 5% 6%

The percentage of proficient Special Education students is consistently equal or better in schools authorized by DPS, WRESA, and GVSU.

A-13

Attachment B

Authorizer Priority/Focus/Reward School Summary

Public School Academy Unit Office of Education Improvement and Innovation

Prepared by staff to illustrate the number of priority, focus, and reward schools attributable to each authorizer

B-1

Attachment B Authorizer Priority/Focus/Reward School Summary Priority Quartile Authorizers Ranking 0-25 26-50 Bay Mills Community 51-75 College 76-100 No Ranking* Bay Mills Community College Total Bay-Arenac No Ranking ISD Bay-Arenac ISD Total 0-25 26-50 Central Michigan 51-75 University 76-100 No Ranking* Central Michigan University Total Cheb-OtsegoPresque Isle No Ranking* ESD Cheb-Otsego-Presque Isle ESD Total DeTour Area No Ranking* Schools DeTour Area Schools Total 0-25 51-75 Detroit City School District 76-100 No Ranking* Detroit City School District Total

Count 2

Percent 4.55%

2

4.55%

1

0.00% 1.56%

1

1.56%

Focus Count 1 4 1

6

4

13.64%

Total Percent

1

43.18% 31.82% 4.55% 4.55% 15.91%

3

6.82%

33

75.00%

44

100.00%

. 0.00%

1 1 15 21 4 4 8

100.00% 100.00% 23.44% 32.81% 6.25% 6.25% 12.50%

1 1 16 23 9 8 8

100.00% 100.00% 25.00% 35.94% 14.06% 12.50% 12.50%

52

81.25%

64

100.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

0.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

0.00%

1 1

100.00% 100.00%

9 9

60.00% 60.00%

1 1 4 1 1 9 15

100.00% 100.00% 26.67% 6.67% 6.67% 60.00% 100.00%

1.56%

10

0.00%

0.00%

6.67%

Total Count 19 14 2 2 7

1

1

Percent 36.36% 18.18% 2.27% 2.27% 15.91%

1.56%

6.67%

Count 16 8 1 1 7

1

1

Percent

No Designation

4.55% 0.00% 2.27%

2

2 5 3

0.00% 26.67%

26.67%

2.27% 9.09% 2.27%

Count

0.00%

0.00%

4

Percent

Reward

3.13% 7.81% 4.69%

15.63%

1

6.67%

1

6.67%

B-2

Attachment B Authorizer Priority/Focus/Reward School Summary Priority Quartile Ranking 0-25

Authorizers Eastern Michigan 26-50 University Eastern Michigan University Total Eaton ISD No Ranking* Eaton ISD Total 0-25 26-50 Ferris State University 51-75 No Ranking* Ferris State University Total Grand Rapids 0-25 Public Schools Grand Rapids Public Schools Total 0-25 26-50 Grand Valley State 51-75 University 76-100 No Ranking* Grand Valley State University Total Highland Park 0-25 City Schools Highland Park City Schools Total 51-75 Hillsdale ISD 76-100 Hillsdale ISD Total

Count

Percent

1

11.11%

1

11.11%

Focus Count

0.00%

0.00%

Count

Percent

No Designation Count

Percent

Total Count

Total Percent

6

66.67%

7

77.78%

1

11.11%

2

22.22%

7 1 1 11 4 1 6 22

77.78% 100.00% 0.43% 44.00% 16.00% 4.00% 24.00% 188.43%

9 1 1 12 6 1 6 25

100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 48.00% 24.00% 4.00% 24.00% 300.00%

1

100.00%

0.00% 20.93% 20.93% 16.28% 6.98% 16.28%

1 10 9 11 6 7

100.00% 23.26% 20.93% 25.58% 13.95% 16.28%

1

11.11%

1

11.11%

0.00%

0.00% 4.00% 4.00%

0.00%

1 1

1

4.00%

2

8.00%

1

4.00%

1

100.00%

1 1

100.00% 2.33%

1 3

2.33% 6.98%

3

6.98%

9 9 7 3 7

5

11.63%

3

6.98%

35

81.40%

43

100.00%

1

50.00%

1

50.00%

2

100.00%

1

50.00%

1 1 1 2

50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00%

2 1 1 2

100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Percent

Reward

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

B-3

Attachment B Authorizer Priority/Focus/Reward School Summary Priority Quartile Ranking

Authorizers Kalamazoo No Ranking* RESA Kalamazoo RESA Total Kellogg Community No Ranking* College Kellogg Community College Total 26-50 Lake Superior 51-75 State 76-100 University No Ranking* Lake Superior State University Total Macomb ISD 26-50 Macomb ISD Total Manistee ISD No Ranking* Manistee ISD Total 0-25 Northern Michigan 26-50 University 51-75 Northern Michigan University Total 0-25 Oakland 51-75 University 76-100 Oakland University Total Ottawa Area No Ranking* ISD Ottawa Area ISD Total

Count

Percent

Focus Count

0.00%

1

1

1

Count

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Percent

Reward

1

100.00%

Count

Percent

Total Count

1 1

100.00% 100.00%

1 1

100.00% 100.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

1 2 1 1 3

100.00% 22.22% 11.11% 11.11% 33.33%

1 3 1 2 3

100.00% 33.33% 11.11% 22.22% 33.33%

7 1 1 1 1 2 1

77.78% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 40.00% 20.00%

9 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 60.00% 20.00% 20.00%

3 6 2

60.00% 66.67% 22.22%

11.11% 11.11%

8

88.89%

5 6 2 1 9

100.00% 66.67% 22.22% 11.11% 100.00%

0.00%

1 1

100.00% 100.00%

1 1

100.00% 100.00%

Percent

0.00%

0.00% 100.00%

0.00%

1

11.11%

1

11.11%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00% 20.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1

20.00%

1

20.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1 1

No Designation

Total Percent

B-4

Attachment B Authorizer Priority/Focus/Reward School Summary Priority Quartile Authorizers Ranking Saginaw ISD No Ranking* Saginaw ISD Total 0-25 Saginaw Valley 26-50 State 51-75 University No Ranking* Saginaw Valley State University Total St. Clair No Ranking* County RESA St. Clair County RESA Total Suttons Bay No Ranking* Public Schools Suttons Bay Public Schools Total Traverse City Area Public No Ranking* Schools Traverse City Area Public Schools Total Washtenaw Community 76-100 College Washtenaw Community College Total Washtenaw 76-100 ISD Washtenaw ISD Total

Count

Percent

Focus Count

0.00%

0.00%

Count

Percent

Count

Percent

Total Count

Total Percent

2 2 13 5 2 7

100.00% 100.00% 41.94% 16.13% 6.45% 22.58%

2 2 14 6 4 7

100.00% 100.00% 45.16% 19.35% 12.90% 22.58%

1 1 1

1

3.23%

3

9.68%

1

3.23%

27

87.10%

31

100.00%

0.00%

4 4

100.00% 100.00%

4 4

100.00% 100.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

1

100.00%

0.00%

1 1

100.00% 100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00% 1 1

0.00%

No Designation

0.00% 3.23% 3.23% 3.23%

0.00%

0.00%

Percent

Reward

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00% 100.00%

0.00%

B-5

Attachment B Authorizer Priority/Focus/Reward School Summary Priority Quartile Authorizers Ranking 0-25 26-50 Wayne RESA 51-75 No Ranking* Wayne RESA Total Midland No Ranking* County ESA Midland County ESA Total Allegan Area No Ranking* ESA Allegan Area ESA Total Grand Total

Count

Percent

Focus Count

0.00%

9

Percent

Reward Count

0.00%

Count

Percent

Total Count

0.00%

2 1 1 3 7

28.57% 28.57% 28.57% 28.57% 114.29%

2 1 1 3 7

28.57% 14.29% 14.29% 42.86% 100.00%

2 2

100.00% 100.00%

2 2

100.00% 100.00%

1 1 234

100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

1 1 288

100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Percent

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00% 100.00%

0.00% 100.00%

0.00% 100.00%

23

22

No Designation

Total Percent

* “No Ranking” status indicates a school has less than 30 FAY students in at least two test subjects; or a school is too new and does not have a minimum of two years of test data.

B-6