ACADEMIC - NACSA · one capstone report - the Annual Scorecard of School Performance. These...

2013-2014

ACADEMICPERFORMANCE REPORT

ABC Academy

Footer

Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

2 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University

The Governor John Engler Center for Charter SchoolsCentral Michigan University | Mount Pleasant, MI 48859

(989) 774-2100 | www.TheCenterForCharters.org

To transform public education through accountability, innovation and access to quality education for all students.

OUR MISSION

We envision a diverse and dynamic public education marketplace that fosters academic excellence for all children.

OUR VISION

3© 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan UniversityFooter

Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

To the dedicated board members serving charter public schools authorized by Central Michigan University:

On behalf of our entire team at The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools (Center), I am pleased to provide you with this year’s annual Academic Performance Report (APR). As each of us works to fulfill the ambitious goal of preparing students academically for success in college, work and life, you can trust that the Center is committed to providing you with the most up-to-date, relevant and accurate information that we hope will assist you in your decision-making activities. This report, which is the first of four reports in the Performance Suite, is one tool that provides academic information to help you reach that goal.

This APR focuses on the Academy’s academic performance throughout the 2013-2014 school year as it relates to the Educational Goal outlined in the Charter Contract. Centering on the instructional outcomes of the Academy, this report provides rich information on whether or not students are making measurable progress toward college readiness. While it includes graphic illustrations of academic performance, it is not all-encompassing and should be reviewed in the unique context of the Academy.

As always, the Center welcomes your feedback in order for us to maximize the usefulness of this information and to ensure you have the information you need. We cannot thank you enough for your dedication and commitment to pursuing excellence for Michigan’s students. Your efforts at creating quality educational opportunities will help to ensure each and every child has the tools necessary to be successful in college, work and life.

Thank you for keeping kids first!

Cynthia M. Schumacher Executive Director

June 2014

Cynthia M. Schumacher Executive Director


The annual performance report suite is made up of three distinct reports: the Academic Performance Report, the Operational Performance Report and the Fiscal Performance Report as well as one capstone report - the Annual Scorecard of School Performance. These reports, shown to the right, cover each of the primary content areas and are intended to provide a greater understanding of the Academy’s holistic performance for a complete academic year (July through June).

The first report is distributed in June when the academic data becomes available with the operational and fiscal reports following suit. The final report, the Scorecard, is released in the winter of the following year as the summary of the three performance reports.

ACADEMICPERFORMANCEREPORT

2013-2014

ACADEMICPERFORMANCE REPORT

ABC Academy

The first performance report, published annually in the summer, provides a comprehensive overview of the Academy’s academic outcomes for the academic year just completed.

FISCALPERFORMANCE REPORT

2013-2014

FISCALPERFORMANCE REPORT

ABC Academy

The third and final performance report, published annually in the winter, provides a comprehensive overview of the Academy’s financial outcomes for the previous academic year.

The second performance report, published annually in the fall, provides a comprehensive overview of the Academy’s operational outcomes for the academic year ending in June.

OPERATIONALPERFORMANCE REPORT

2013-2014

OPERATIONALPERFORMANCE REPORT

ABC Academy

2013-2014

SCORECARDSCHOOL PERFORMANCE

ABC Academy

of

As a summary of the three performance reports, published annually in the winter, the Scorecard provides an overview of the Academy’s performance as it relates to the Charter Contract.

SCORECARDOF SCHOOLPERFORMANCE

REPORT SUITE


Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

6 ACADEMY OVERVIEW

8 THE EDUCATIONAL GOAL 8 The Charter Contract: Schedule 7b

9 Preparing Students Academically for Success in College, Work and Life

10 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 10 Performance Series & MAP

12 EXPLORE, PLAN & ACT

14 STUDENT GROWTH 14 Performance Series & MAP

16 EXPLORE to PLAN & PLAN to ACT

18 STATE & FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY 18 State Accreditation & the State Accountability Scorecard

19 Accountability Flowchart

20 Michigan Educational Assessment Program

22 Michigan Merit Exam

24 State Accountability

25 Top-to-Bottom Ranking & ACT Composite Results

26 ACADEMY COMPARISON

28 OTHER MEASURES

30 END NOTES 30 Acronyms & Glossary

31 Sources & Citations

SCORECARDOF SCHOOLPERFORMANCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Date Opened District Code9/1/1995 2013-2014_MI-63901

Grades Served AddressK-12 1234 Abacus Ave.

Scholastic, MI 42860

Charter Contract2012-2017

Management

Mission Statement

Chart 2

Chart 3

Date Opened: AOIS Chart 2 Enrollment by Year: CEPI - Public Headcount Data; MSDS

Grades Offered: AOIS Chart 3 Enrollment by Grade: MSDS - Fall 2013 Unaudited

Contract Term: AOIS

ESP: AOIS

Mission Stmt: AOIS

Demographics

Sources:

Number of Students in Each Grade

Enrollment by Year

ABC Academy

Self-managed

Prepare students academically for success in college, work and life.

25 20 31 27 28 24 32 34 30 27 47 31 41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th

291325

348 342 335 338366 382 390 397

050

100

150

200250

300

350

400450

04-0

5

05-0

6

06-0

7

07-0

8

08-0

9

09-1

0

10-1

1

11-1

2

12-1

3

13-1

4

ACADEMY OVERVIEWDemographics





Management

Mission Statement

Chart 2

Chart 3



Contract Term: AOIS

ESP: AOIS

Mission Stmt: AOIS

Demographics

Sources:


Enrollment by Year

ABC Academy

Self-managed


25 20 31 27 28 24 32 34 30 27 47 31 41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


291325

348 342 335 338366 382 390 397

050

100

150

200250

300

350

400450

04-0

5

05-0

6

06-0

7

07-0

8

08-0

9

09-1

0

10-1

1

11-1

2

12-1

3

13-1

4

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Total Enrollment by Year






Management

Mission Statement

Chart 2

Chart 3



Contract Term: AOIS

ESP: AOIS

Mission Stmt: AOIS

Demographics

Sources:


Enrollment by Year

ABC Academy

Self-managed


25 20 31 27 28 24 32 34 30 27 47 31 41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


291325

348 342 335 338366 382 390 397

050

100

150

200250

300

350

400450

04-0

5

05-0

6

06-0

7

07-0

8

08-0

9

09-1

0

10-1

1

11-1

2

12-1

3

13-1

4

Fig. 4

Length of Student Enrollment

Stu

den

tsS

tud

ents

Stu

den

ts

ABC Academy

LOE 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8+ YearsCount 48 50 57 44 34 29 23 100Percent 13% 14% 14% 12% 8% 7% 8% 25%

Fall_2013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+

Notes:

1) Source: Fall MSDS - Unaudited

2) Years enrolled calculated by subtracting field 20 (Date of Enrollment) from field 123 (Date of Count)

3) Students with duplicate UICs were not included in this count

4) Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding

5) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University

Created: 5/27/2011 2:04:01 PM

Updated: 12/6/2013 2:16:19 PM

13% 14% 14% 12% 8% 7% 8% 25%0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8+ Years

74%3+ Year Students

EthnicityYour

SchoolCMU

AverageState

Average

American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.3% 0.3% 0.7%Asian American 2.0% 2.7% 3.0%Black or African American 65.9% 50.2% 18.2%Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%White 22.3% 38.4% 68.5%Hispanic or Latino 2.3% 2.8% 6.7%Multi-Racial 7.2% 5.5% 2.8%

Notes:

1) Source: Fall 2013 CEPI - Public Headcount Data


Created: 6/9/2010 1:50:39 PM

Updated: 7/16/2013 2:45:34 PM

Student Ethnicity Breakdown

ABC Academy

Page 1 of 1 Printed: 6/17/2014 3:45 PM





Management

Mission Statement

Chart 2

Chart 3



Contract Term: AOIS

ESP: AOIS

Mission Stmt: AOIS

Demographics

Sources:


Enrollment by Year

ABC Academy

Self-managed


25 20 31 27 28 24 32 34 30 27 47 31 41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


291325

348 342 335 338366 382 390 397

050

100

150

200250

300

350

400450

04-0

5

05-0

6

06-0

7

07-0

8

08-0

9

09-1

0

10-1

1

11-1

2

12-1

3

13-1

4

Fig. 1

Racial/Ethnic Breakdown

Fig. 5

Knowing your students and from which communities they come helps in understanding the make-up of the Academy and the student population it serves. The data displayed in this section represents a summary of the Academy’s demographics for the 2013-2014 school year and provides an overview of trending and comparison information.


Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

ABC Academy

LOE 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8+ YearsCount 48 50 57 44 34 29 23 100Percent 13% 14% 14% 12% 8% 7% 8% 25%

Fall_2013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+

Notes:

1) Source: Fall MSDS - Unaudited

2) Years enrolled calculated by subtracting field 20 (Date of Enrollment) from field 123 (Date of Count)

3) Students with duplicate UICs were not included in this count

4) Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding


Created: 5/27/2011 2:04:01 PM

Updated: 12/6/2013 2:16:19 PM

13% 14% 14% 12% 8% 7% 8% 25%0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8+ Years

74%3+ Year Students

COMPOSITE RESIDENT DISTRICTWHERE YOUR STUDENTS COME FROM

A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School 2012-2013

Students' Resident District

Number of Students from

Resident District

Percent of Students from

Resident District

Southfield Public School District 113 29.7%Farmington Public School District 42 11.0%West Bloomfield School District 40 10.5%Oak Park, School District of the City of 35 9.2%Hamtramck, School District of the City of 34 8.9%Warren Consolidated Schools 21 5.5%Livonia Public Schools School District 11 2.9%Detroit City School District 10 2.6%Warren Woods Public Schools 8 2.1%Dearborn Heights School District #7 7 1.8%Dearborn City School District 6 1.6%School District of the City of Royal Oak 6 1.6%Novi Community School District 6 1.6%Bloomfield Hills Schools 5 1.3%Waterford School District 5 1.3%Ferndale Public Schools 5 1.3%Northville Public Schools 4 1.0%Madison District Public Schools 4 1.0%Troy School District 4 1.0%Other 15 3.9%

Total Number of Districts: 28

Chart_10_CRD Page 1 of 1 Printed: 4/22/2013 4:51 PM

Fig. 10

The Composite Resident District (CRD) illustrates the public school districts to which students would be assigned if they were not enrolled in the Academy. A list of those resident districts along with a detailed map showing the location of the Academy is shown below. Due to geographical constraints, the map may not show all districts.

Detroit10

Utica1

South Lyon1

Rochester1

Troy4

Livonia11

Waterford5

Farmington42

Northville4

Southfield113

Novi6

Dearborn6

Walled Lake Consolidated

3

Birmingham3

Chippewa Valley

1

Bloomfield Hills5 Warren

Consolidated21 Royal Oak

6

West Bloomfield40

Woodhaven-Brownstown3

Berkley1

Ferndale5

Ecorse1

Warren Woods8

Hamtramck34

Dearborn Heights7

Oak Park35

Madison4

Oakland County

Wayne County

Washtenaw County

Macomb County

0 5 10Miles

Lowest 25%

25% - 50%

50% - 75%

Highest 25%

ABC Academy

StudentPopulation:

!( School

!(

!(

Fig. 8

Fig. 7

Fig. 6

MEAP and MME Achievement Results

*Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) – Federal law that prohibits student-identifiable education data from being publicly disseminated. A group of 10 or fewer students is considered to contain student-identifiable data.

- - No Data Available.Fig. 9

ABC Academy

SUBJECT/ GRADE 2013-2014 2012-2013 CHANGE

COMPOSITE RESIDENT DISTRICT STATE AVERAGE

Reading 3 61.7% 56.4% 5.3% 58.7% 61.3%

Reading 4 63.6% 69.0% -5.4% 68.5% 70.0%

Reading 5 79.3% 60.0% 19.3% 68.3% 71.7%

Reading 6 66.7% 70.6% -3.9% 67.2% 71.5%

Reading 7 77.4% 48.0% 29.4% 54.2% 60.4%

Reading 8 78.9% 44.0% 34.9% 66.4% 72.7%

Reading 11 72.7% 57.7% 15.0% 48.8% 58.7%

Math 3 42.6% 20.5% 22.1% 39.3% 40.2%

Math 4 52.9% 23.3% 29.6% 41.9% 45.3%

Math 5 33.3% 36.7% -3.4% 41.7% 45.2%

Math 6 24.2% 35.3% -11.1% 36.4% 41.5%

Math 7 39.4% 24.0% 15.4% 33.6% 39.2%

Math 8 26.3% 12.5% 13.8% 30.7% 34.5%

Math 11 28.1% 20.0% 8.1% 22.7% 28.8%

11.3% Special Education

88.7% General Education

Free and Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility2013-2014

General and Special Education Status2013-2014

62% Free

9.6% Reduced

28.4% Not-Eligible

English Language Learners (ELL)2013-2014

9.4% ELL Student Pop.


ABC Academy

Notes:1) Sources: Fall 2010 , 2011 MEAP; Fall 2011 MSDS - Unaudited; Spring 2011, 2012 MME; Fall 2011 CEPI Public FRL Data2) Chart Numbers: A10.04.00; D30.03.00; D40.03.003) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University

Updated: 7/25/2014 2:43:10 PM

Printed: 7/25/2014 2:38 PM



Reading 3 61.7% 56.4% 5.3% 58.7% 61.3%

Reading 4 63.6% 69.0% -5.4% 68.5% 70.0%

Reading 5 79.3% 60.0% 19.3% 68.3% 71.7%

Reading 6 66.7% 70.6% -3.9% 67.2% 71.5%

Reading 7 77.4% 48.0% 29.4% 54.2% 60.4%

Reading 8 78.9% 44.0% 34.9% 66.4% 72.7%

Reading 11 72.7% 57.7% 15.0% 48.8% 58.7%

Math 3 42.6% 20.5% 22.1% 39.3% 40.2%

Math 4 52.9% 23.3% 29.6% 41.9% 45.3%

Math 5 33.3% 36.7% -3.4% 41.7% 45.2%

Math 6 24.2% 35.3% -11.1% 36.4% 41.5%

Math 7 39.4% 24.0% 15.4% 33.6% 39.2%

Math 8 26.3% 12.5% 13.8% 30.7% 34.5%

Math 11 28.1% 20.0% 8.1% 22.7% 28.8%





62% Free

9.6% Reduced

28.4% Not-Eligible




ABC Academy


Updated: 7/25/2014 2:43:10 PM

Printed: 7/25/2014 2:38 PM



Reading 3 61.7% 56.4% 5.3% 58.7% 61.3%

Reading 4 63.6% 69.0% -5.4% 68.5% 70.0%

Reading 5 79.3% 60.0% 19.3% 68.3% 71.7%

Reading 6 66.7% 70.6% -3.9% 67.2% 71.5%

Reading 7 77.4% 48.0% 29.4% 54.2% 60.4%

Reading 8 78.9% 44.0% 34.9% 66.4% 72.7%

Reading 11 72.7% 57.7% 15.0% 48.8% 58.7%

Math 3 42.6% 20.5% 22.1% 39.3% 40.2%

Math 4 52.9% 23.3% 29.6% 41.9% 45.3%

Math 5 33.3% 36.7% -3.4% 41.7% 45.2%

Math 6 24.2% 35.3% -11.1% 36.4% 41.5%

Math 7 39.4% 24.0% 15.4% 33.6% 39.2%

Math 8 26.3% 12.5% 13.8% 30.7% 34.5%

Math 11 28.1% 20.0% 8.1% 22.7% 28.8%





62% Free

9.6% Reduced

28.4% Not-Eligible




ABC Academy


Updated: 7/25/2014 2:43:10 PM

Printed: 7/25/2014 2:38 PM



Reading 3 61.7% 56.4% 5.3% 58.7% 61.3%

Reading 4 63.6% 69.0% -5.4% 68.5% 70.0%

Reading 5 79.3% 60.0% 19.3% 68.3% 71.7%

Reading 6 66.7% 70.6% -3.9% 67.2% 71.5%

Reading 7 77.4% 48.0% 29.4% 54.2% 60.4%

Reading 8 78.9% 44.0% 34.9% 66.4% 72.7%

Reading 11 72.7% 57.7% 15.0% 48.8% 58.7%

Math 3 42.6% 20.5% 22.1% 39.3% 40.2%

Math 4 52.9% 23.3% 29.6% 41.9% 45.3%

Math 5 33.3% 36.7% -3.4% 41.7% 45.2%

Math 6 24.2% 35.3% -11.1% 36.4% 41.5%

Math 7 39.4% 24.0% 15.4% 33.6% 39.2%

Math 8 26.3% 12.5% 13.8% 30.7% 34.5%

Math 11 28.1% 20.0% 8.1% 22.7% 28.8%





62% Free

9.6% Reduced

28.4% Not-Eligible




ABC Academy


Updated: 7/25/2014 2:43:10 PM

Printed: 7/25/2014 2:38 PM

General and Special Education Status

Free and Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility



Reading 3 61.7% 56.4% 5.3% 58.7% 61.3%

Reading 4 63.6% 69.0% -5.4% 68.5% 70.0%

Reading 5 79.3% 60.0% 19.3% 68.3% 71.7%

Reading 6 66.7% 70.6% -3.9% 67.2% 71.5%

Reading 7 77.4% 48.0% 29.4% 54.2% 60.4%

Reading 8 78.9% 44.0% 34.9% 66.4% 72.7%

Reading 11 72.7% 57.7% 15.0% 48.8% 58.7%

Math 3 42.6% 20.5% 22.1% 39.3% 40.2%

Math 4 52.9% 23.3% 29.6% 41.9% 45.3%

Math 5 33.3% 36.7% -3.4% 41.7% 45.2%

Math 6 24.2% 35.3% -11.1% 36.4% 41.5%

Math 7 39.4% 24.0% 15.4% 33.6% 39.2%

Math 8 26.3% 12.5% 13.8% 30.7% 34.5%

Math 11 28.1% 20.0% 8.1% 22.7% 28.8%





62% Free

9.6% Reduced

28.4% Not-Eligible




ABC Academy


Updated: 7/25/2014 2:43:10 PM

Printed: 7/25/2014 2:38 PM

English Language Learners (ELL)



Reading 3 61.7% 56.4% 5.3% 58.7% 61.3%

Reading 4 63.6% 69.0% -5.4% 68.5% 70.0%

Reading 5 79.3% 60.0% 19.3% 68.3% 71.7%

Reading 6 66.7% 70.6% -3.9% 67.2% 71.5%

Reading 7 77.4% 48.0% 29.4% 54.2% 60.4%

Reading 8 78.9% 44.0% 34.9% 66.4% 72.7%

Reading 11 72.7% 57.7% 15.0% 48.8% 58.7%

Math 3 42.6% 20.5% 22.1% 39.3% 40.2%

Math 4 52.9% 23.3% 29.6% 41.9% 45.3%

Math 5 33.3% 36.7% -3.4% 41.7% 45.2%

Math 6 24.2% 35.3% -11.1% 36.4% 41.5%

Math 7 39.4% 24.0% 15.4% 33.6% 39.2%

Math 8 26.3% 12.5% 13.8% 30.7% 34.5%

Math 11 28.1% 20.0% 8.1% 22.7% 28.8%





62% Free

9.6% Reduced

28.4% Not-Eligible




ABC Academy


Updated: 7/25/2014 2:43:10 PM

Printed: 7/25/2014 2:38 PM



Reading 3 61.7% 56.4% 5.3% 58.7% 61.3%

Reading 4 63.6% 69.0% -5.4% 68.5% 70.0%

Reading 5 79.3% 60.0% 19.3% 68.3% 71.7%

Reading 6 66.7% 70.6% -3.9% 67.2% 71.5%

Reading 7 77.4% 48.0% 29.4% 54.2% 60.4%

Reading 8 78.9% 44.0% 34.9% 66.4% 72.7%

Reading 11 72.7% 57.7% 15.0% 48.8% 58.7%

Math 3 42.6% 20.5% 22.1% 39.3% 40.2%

Math 4 52.9% 23.3% 29.6% 41.9% 45.3%

Math 5 33.3% 36.7% -3.4% 41.7% 45.2%

Math 6 24.2% 35.3% -11.1% 36.4% 41.5%

Math 7 39.4% 24.0% 15.4% 33.6% 39.2%

Math 8 26.3% 12.5% 13.8% 30.7% 34.5%

Math 11 28.1% 20.0% 8.1% 22.7% 28.8%





62% Free

9.6% Reduced

28.4% Not-Eligible




ABC Academy


Updated: 7/25/2014 2:43:10 PM

Printed: 7/25/2014 2:38 PM


Measure 1: Student AchievementThe academic achievement of all students in grades 2 through 11, who have been enrolled for three¹ or more years at the Academy, will be assessed using the following metrics and achievement targets:

Educational Goal to be Achieved:

Prepare students academically for success in college, work and life. To determine whether the Academy is achieving or demonstrating measurable progress toward the achievement of this goal, the Center will annually assess the Academy’s performance using the following measures:

Measure 2: Student GrowthThe academic growth of all students in grades 3 through 11 at the Academy will be assessed using the following metrics and growth targets:

Students enrolled for three1 or more years will on average achieve scaled scores equal to or greater than the grade-level achievement targets for reading and math identified in this schedule.

Students enrolled for three1 or more years will on average achieve EXPLORE, PLAN and ACT subject scores equal to or greater than the achievement targets for reading, math, science, and English identified in this schedule.

The average college readiness level based on subject scores from the EXPLORE®, PLAN® and ACT® tests by ACT, Inc. administered in the spring.

Grades 2-8

Grades 8-11

GRADES METRICS ACHIEVEMENT TARGETS

Growth made by students from fall-to-spring in reading and math as measured by scaled scores on the Performance Series by Scantron or NWEA MAP.

Students’ fall-to-spring academic growth on average will demonstrate measurable progress toward the grade-level achievement targets for reading and math identified in the schedule.

Students’ academic growth between tests on average will demonstrate measurable progress toward the achievement targets for the grade-level subject scores in reading, math, science, and English identified in the schedule.

Growth made by students in reading, math, science, and English as measured by subject scores on the EXPLORE, PLAN and ACT tests.

Grades 3-8

Grades 9-11

GRADES METRICS GROWTH TARGETS

¹If the cohort of students enrolled for three or more years is not sufficient in size to conduct a valid analysis, the cohort of students enrolled for two or more years will be used.

Schedule 7b of the Charter Contract states that “Pursuant to Applicable Law and the Terms and Conditions of this Contract, including Article VI, Section 6.2, the Academy shall achieve or demonstrate measurable progress for all groups of pupils toward the achievement of the educational goal identified in this schedule. Upon request, the Academy shall provide The Center for Charter Schools with a written report, along with supporting data, assessing the Academy’s progress toward achieving this goal. In addition, the University expects the Academy will meet the State of Michigan’s accreditation standards and achieve Adequate Yearly Progress pursuant to state and federal law.”

THE EDUCATIONAL GOALThe Charter Contract: Schedule 7b

Setting clear targets will help guide students to focus on making sufficient academic growth that will lead to greater choices and opportunities when they complete high school. The Charter Contract includes the Educational Goal (Schedule 7b) that establishes one goal with aligned measures, metrics and targets to help guide the Academy in achieving or demonstrating measurable progress toward the achievement of this goal. The illustrations on the facing page are designed to provide you with a picture of how the targets can help the Academy aim for higher outcomes from elementary school through high school.

The average college readiness level based on scaled scores from the Performance Series® by Scantron® or NWEA MAP® reading and math tests administered in the spring.

Please note the measure of student growth is the most important, but not the only factor the Center considers when determining whether the Academy is “demonstrating measurable progress” toward the contractual goal of preparing students academically for success in college, work and life.

Charter Contract:


Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

Student AchievementUsing a projected growth curve, the graph below illustrates the achievement targets that must be met in order to remain on track to attain a composite score of 21 on the ACT by grade 11. Although academic preparedness is the goal, and not a specific ACT score, research has shown that subject scores at or above the College Readiness Benchmarks are good predictors of whether or not a student is academically prepared for success in college or a career. This graph also illustrates the relationship between the Performance Series and Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) tests, as well as the correlation between Performance Series and MAP, and the EXPLORE, PLAN and ACT tests. Student achievement targets in reading and math for grades 2 through 8 are shown, while the EXPLORE, PLAN and ACT composite scores are shown for grades 8 through 11 to help illustrate the path from grade 2 to grade 11.

Student GrowthBelow are examples of typical test results, showing normal student growth for grades 2 through 11. The chart on the left (grades 2 through 8) illustrates the typical student gain from the fall and spring Performance Series and MAP test results. Additionally, the chart on the right (grades 9 through 11) illustrates the typical student gain from spring to spring results for the EXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT.

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

GRADE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Performance Series (Reading/Math) & MAP (Reading/Math)

Achievement TargetsACT

21PLAN

18

201/204

208/214

215/224218/229

222/236227/242

2504/2380

2691/2497

2843/26152921/2733

2948/28003012/2890

2265/2191

190/191

EXPLORE, PLAN and ACT (Composite Scores)

1617

Growth Performance Series/MAP Achievement Targets

Normal Student Growth

GR 2 GR 3 GR 4 GR 5 GR 6 GR 7 GR 8

Fall

Sprin

g

Fall

Sprin

g

Fall

Sprin

g

Fall

Sprin

g

Fall

Sprin

g

Fall

Sprin

g

Fall

Sprin

g

Growth EXPLORE/PLAN/ACT Achievement Targets

Normal Student GrowthGrades 2 through 8 Grades 9 through 11

PS or MAP

Grades 2 through 11

Achievement and Growth

EXPLORE

PSMAP

GRADE 11Spring

ACT21

GRADE 10Spring

PLAN18

GRADE 9Spring

17EXPLORE

THE EDUCATIONAL GOALPreparing Students Academically for Success in College, Work and Life


Scale

Sco

re

Academic achievement is the demonstration of student performance, evident when a student has attained a specific skill or concept, as measured against set standards. Achievement of basic skills in reading and mathematics can be measured using standardized assessments such as the Performance Series by Scantron and MAP by NWEA.

One advantage of the Performance Series and MAP tests is the use of a computer-adaptive testing system, which provides scores that are accurate, immediate and reliable. One of the greatest benefits of these computer-adaptive tests is that students are not assessed only on material from their grade level, but rather the test adapts to the student’s achievement level, whether above or below the grade in which he or she has been placed. Consequently, teachers are provided immediate, real-time results with richer information about the students in their classroom than they would receive from a more traditional test.

As the first measure of the Educational Goal, the charts on the facing page illustrate whether or not students who have been continuously enrolled for three¹ or more years at the Academy are on-track to be academically prepared for success in college, work and life.

Measuring Student Achievement in Grades 2 through 8

Understanding the Charts

SCALED SCORE

A scaled score is a conversion of a student’s raw score on a test to a common scale that allows for a numerical comparison between students.

GRADE

Student results are shown for each grade. The grades are depicted by the label below the chart, from grade 2 through grade 8.

STUDENT SCORES

The average student scores for each grade are represented by the bars. The current year scores for students enrolled for three¹ or more years are maroon. The previous years’ scores are illustrated in progressively lighter shades of gray.

ACHIEVEMENT TARGET

The achievement target is the benchmark that is specified in the Charter Contract for each grade, based on the cohort of students enrolled three¹ or more years.

2158

2 3

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENTPerformance Series & MAP

Proof Point 5A - MAP Achievement

Canton Charter Academy

Flagship

Chart 9 and 10 MAP ProficiencyCreated: 4/28/2011 3:32:42 PMUpdated: 6/7/2013 1:29:14 PM

210

223

For use in UTC

MAP Spring ResultsSTUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS AS COMPARED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGETS

197

208

220

225

226

231

237

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re

Spring 2011-2012 Spring 2012-2013 Spring 2013-2014 Achievement Targets

Reading

GRADE

189

202

213

223

219

228

231

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Math

GRADE

84%

81%

82%

16% Students Did Not Meet Target

84% Students Met Target

2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014

37%

37%

34%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014

Charts (MAP) Printed: 6/18/2014 2:09 PM



Flagship


210

223

For use in UTC


197

208

220

225

226

231

237

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Reading

GRADE

189

202

213

223

219

228

231

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Math

GRADE

84%

81%

82%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014

37%

37%

34%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014




Flagship


210

223

For use in UTC


197

208

220

225

226

231

237

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Reading

GRADE

189

202

213

223

219

228

231

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Math

GRADE

84%

81%

82%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014

37%

37%

34%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014




Flagship


210

223

For use in UTC


197

208

220

225

226

231

237

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Reading

GRADE

189

202

213

223

219

228

231

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Math

GRADE

84%

81%

82%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014

37%

37%

34%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014



Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy



Flagship


210

223

For use in UTC


197

208

220

225

226

231

237

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Reading

GRADE

189

202

213

223

219

228

231

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Math

GRADE

84%

81%

82%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014

37%

37%

34%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014


Math

Fig. 11

Fig. 12

1If the cohort of students enrolled for three or more years is not sufficient in size to conduct a valid analysis, the cohort of students enrolled for two or more years will be used.


NOTE: Results for schools that made a transition in assessment within the last three years (e.g., from Performance Series to MAP) are converted to the current year’s assessment scale.

ReadingPercent of Students Meeting the Target

ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS



Flagship


210

223

For use in UTC


197

208

220

225

226

231

237

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Reading

GRADE

189

202

213

223

219

228

231

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Math

GRADE

84%

81%

82%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014

37%

37%

34%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014




Flagship


210

223

For use in UTC


197

208

220

225

226

231

237

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Reading

GRADE

189

202

213

223

219

228

231

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Math

GRADE

84%

81%

82%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014

37%

37%

34%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014


Scale

Sco

reScale

Sco

re

Percent of Students Meeting the Target ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS



Flagship


210

223

For use in UTC


197

208

220

225

226

231

237

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Reading

GRADE

189

202

213

223

219

228

231

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Math

GRADE

84%

81%

82%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014

37%

37%

34%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014




Flagship


210

223

For use in UTC


197

208

220

225

226

231

237

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Reading

GRADE

189

202

213

223

219

228

231

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Math

GRADE

84%

81%

82%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014

37%

37%

34%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014




Flagship


210

223

For use in UTC


197

208

220

225

226

231

237

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Reading

GRADE

189

202

213

223

219

228

231

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Math

GRADE

84%

81%

82%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014

37%

37%

34%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014




Flagship


210

223

For use in UTC


197

208

220

225

226

231

237

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Reading

GRADE

189

202

213

223

219

228

231

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sca

led

Sco

re


Math

GRADE

84%

81%

82%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014

37%

37%

34%



2011-2012



2012-2013



2013-2014



High school achievement is the demonstration of student performance evident when a student has attained a specific skill or concept measured by the Educational Planning and Assessment System® (EPAS®) by ACT, Inc.

As part of the EPAS system, the EXPLORE, PLAN and ACT tests provide rich information that allow schools to follow students’ progress toward college readiness. These tests align with targets established by ACT, Inc., aptly named College Readiness Benchmark Scores.

The charts on the facing page illustrate whether or not students who have been continuously enrolled for three¹ or more years at the Academy are on-track to be academically prepared for success in college, work and life.

Measuring Student Achievement in Grades 8 through 11

Test/Grade Reading Math Science English

EXPLORE Grade 8 EXPLORE Grade 9 PLAN Grade 10 ACT Grade 11

ACT College Readiness Benchmark Scores

15 17 20 1316 18 20 1417 19 21 1521 22 24 18

Understanding The Charts

SCALED SCORE

A scaled score is a conversion of a student’s raw score on a test to a common scale that allows for a numerical comparison between students.

GRADE

Student results are shown for each grade. The grades are depicted by the label below the chart, from grade 8 through grade 11.

STUDENT SCORES

The average student scores for each grade are represented by the bars. The current year scores for students enrolled for three¹ or more years are maroon. The previous years’ scores are illustrated in progressively lighter shades of gray.

ACHIEVEMENT TARGET

The achievement target is the benchmark that is specified in the Charter Contract for each grade based on the cohort of students enrolled three¹ or more years.

TEST

Because high school students take different tests each year, the label provides the actual test students took in each grade. EXPLORE is taken in grades 8 and 9, the PLAN in grade 10 and the ACT in grade 11.

SUBJECT

Student results are shown for the EXPLORE, PLAN and ACT tests. The subjects are depicted by the label above the chart, which include reading, math, science and English.

Sco

re

A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School

Chart 10 and 11 EPAS Pro�ciencyCreated: 4/28/2011 4:47:40 PM

Updated: 6/13/2011 1:13:55 PM

15.3

16.5

17.5

20.6

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

08 09 10 11

English

16.6

16.9

18.2

19.6

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

08 09 10 11

Science

14.8

16.5

16.7

20.7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

08 09 10 11

Math

14.7

15.2

16.1

18.4

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

08 09 10 11

Reading

EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT

Percent of Students Meeting the Target












%23%73 15% 67%

Chart_13-16_Measure_1_Status Printed: 6/18/2012 5:19 PM

GRADE TEST

Proof Point 5A - EPAS Achievement


Chart 10 and 11 EPAS ProficiencyCreated: 4/28/2011 4:47:40 PM

Updated: 6/2/2014 3:52:53 PM

14.7

17.5

20.5

19.9

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

English

17.4

17.8

19.1

20.2

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Science

16.0

16.5

18.4

19.7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Math

14.8

16.1

17.9

18.3

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Reading


52%

32%

37% 37% Students Met Target






2011-2012

39%

33%

32%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

19%

18%

15%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

80%

75%

67%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

2013-2014

2012-2013

Percent of Students

2013-20142012-20132011-2012 Achievement Targets


Chart 9 and 10 PS ProficiencyCreated: 4/28/2011 3:32:42 PM

2279

2368

2413

2512

2564

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

2 3 4 5 6 7

Sca

led

Sco

re

All Students Spring 2009 All Students Spring 2010 3+ Year Spring 2010 Achievement Targets

MathMath

GRADE

Reading ScienceMath

EXPLORE, PLAN & ACT Spring Results 2009-10 ACHIEVEMENT SPRING RESULTS

All Subjects

Example 2

GRADETEST

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT

All Students Spring 2009 All Students Spring 2010 3+ Year Spring 2010

24

20

16

12

Scor

e

28

R = 59G = 183B = 136

Achievement Targets

Old Redford Academy


Updated: 4/29/2011 3:17:18 PM

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

32

36

8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11

Sca

led

Sco

re

All Students 2008-2009 All Students 2009-2010 3+ Year 2009-2010 Achievement Targets

All Subjects

GRADETEST

Reading Math Science English

EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACTEXPLORE PLAN ACT


NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E

NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E

NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E

Achievement Targets2010-11 School Year

R: 191 G: 80 B:77

R: 217 G: 150 B:148

R: 242 G: 220 B:219

R: 89 G:170 B:206

R: 141 G: 194 B:217

R: 193 G: 219 B:230

R: 99 G: 155 B:106

R: 153 G: 199 B:157

R: 202 G: 221 B:203

R: 214 G: 190 B:110

R: 230 G: 210 B:142

R: 248 G: 237 B:202

2009-10 School Year2008-09 School Year

17.6

17.2

17.8

19.4


2279

2368

2413

2512

2564

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

2 3 4 5 6 7

Sca

led

Sco

re


MathMath

GRADE

Reading ScienceMath


All Subjects

Example 2

GRADETEST

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT


24

20

16

12

Scor

e

28

R = 59G = 183B = 136

Achievement Targets

Old Redford Academy


Updated: 4/29/2011 3:17:18 PM

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

32

36

8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11

Sca

led

Sco

re


All Subjects

GRADETEST




NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E

NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E

NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E


R: 191 G: 80 B:77

R: 217 G: 150 B:148

R: 242 G: 220 B:219

R: 89 G:170 B:206

R: 141 G: 194 B:217

R: 193 G: 219 B:230

R: 99 G: 155 B:106

R: 153 G: 199 B:157

R: 202 G: 221 B:203

R: 214 G: 190 B:110

R: 230 G: 210 B:142

R: 248 G: 237 B:202


17.6

17.2

17.8

19.4

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENTEXPLORE, PLAN & ACT


Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

EXPLORE, PLAN and ACT Results AVERAGES FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS AS COMPARED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGET


2279

2368

2413

2512

2564

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

2 3 4 5 6 7

Sca

led

Sco

re


MathMath

GRADE

Reading ScienceMath


All Subjects

Example 2

GRADETEST

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT


24

20

16

12

Scor

e

28

R = 59G = 183B = 136

Achievement Targets

Old Redford Academy


Updated: 4/29/2011 3:17:18 PM

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

32

36

8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11

Sca

led

Sco

re


All Subjects

GRADETEST




NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E

NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E

NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E


R: 191 G: 80 B:77

R: 217 G: 150 B:148

R: 242 G: 220 B:219

R: 89 G:170 B:206

R: 141 G: 194 B:217

R: 193 G: 219 B:230

R: 99 G: 155 B:106

R: 153 G: 199 B:157

R: 202 G: 221 B:203

R: 214 G: 190 B:110

R: 230 G: 210 B:142

R: 248 G: 237 B:202


17.6

17.2

17.8

19.4


2279

2368

2413

2512

2564

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

2 3 4 5 6 7

Sca

led

Sco

re


MathMath

GRADE

Reading ScienceMath


All Subjects

Example 2

GRADETEST

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT


24

20

16

12

Scor

e

28

R = 59G = 183B = 136

Achievement Targets

Old Redford Academy


Updated: 4/29/2011 3:17:18 PM

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

32

36

8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11

Sca

led

Sco

re


All Subjects

GRADETEST




NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E

NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E

NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E


R: 191 G: 80 B:77

R: 217 G: 150 B:148

R: 242 G: 220 B:219

R: 89 G:170 B:206

R: 141 G: 194 B:217

R: 193 G: 219 B:230

R: 99 G: 155 B:106

R: 153 G: 199 B:157

R: 202 G: 221 B:203

R: 214 G: 190 B:110

R: 230 G: 210 B:142

R: 248 G: 237 B:202


17.6

17.2

17.8

19.4


2279

2368

2413

2512

2564

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

2 3 4 5 6 7

Sca

led

Sco

re


MathMath

GRADE

Reading ScienceMath


All Subjects

Example 2

GRADETEST

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT


24

20

16

12

Scor

e

28

R = 59G = 183B = 136

Achievement Targets

Old Redford Academy


Updated: 4/29/2011 3:17:18 PM

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

32

36

8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11

Sca

led

Sco

re


All Subjects

GRADETEST




NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E

NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E

NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E


R: 191 G: 80 B:77

R: 217 G: 150 B:148

R: 242 G: 220 B:219

R: 89 G:170 B:206

R: 141 G: 194 B:217

R: 193 G: 219 B:230

R: 99 G: 155 B:106

R: 153 G: 199 B:157

R: 202 G: 221 B:203

R: 214 G: 190 B:110

R: 230 G: 210 B:142

R: 248 G: 237 B:202


17.6

17.2

17.8

19.4


2279

2368

2413

2512

2564

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

2 3 4 5 6 7

Sca

led

Sco

re


MathMath

GRADE

Reading ScienceMath


All Subjects

Example 2

GRADETEST

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT

8 EXPLORE

10PLAN

9 11ACT


24

20

16

12

Scor

e

28

R = 59G = 183B = 136

Achievement Targets

Old Redford Academy


Updated: 4/29/2011 3:17:18 PM

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

32

36

8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11

Sca

led

Sco

re


All Subjects

GRADETEST




NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E

NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E

NO D

ATA

AVAI

LABL

E


R: 191 G: 80 B:77

R: 217 G: 150 B:148

R: 242 G: 220 B:219

R: 89 G:170 B:206

R: 141 G: 194 B:217

R: 193 G: 219 B:230

R: 99 G: 155 B:106

R: 153 G: 199 B:157

R: 202 G: 221 B:203

R: 214 G: 190 B:110

R: 230 G: 210 B:142

R: 248 G: 237 B:202


17.6

17.2

17.8

19.4

ACT Composite ResultsThe Academy’s Composite ACT ScoresSpring 2014 ACT


1) Sources: Spring 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 ACT - Student-level Data from MME


Created: 6/6/2011 3:32:31 PM

Updated: 5/22/2012 4:13:59 PM

19.9

20.0

18.5

18.7

19.4

19.6

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

21

3+ Students1All Students

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

Fig. 17

1If the cohort of students enrolled for three or more years is not sufficient in size to conduct a valid analysis, the cohort of students enrolled for two or more years will be used.


Sco

re

GRADE

TEST

This chart shows the Academy’s average composite scores for students who took the ACT test over the past three years. The chart also includes a horizontal line illustrating the ACT College Readiness Benchmark Score of 21. The maximum score that can be achieved on the ACT is a 36. The 2012-13 national average for students entering college was a composite score of 21.






Updated: 6/2/2014 3:52:53 PM

14.7

17.5

20.5

19.9

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

English

17.4

17.8

19.1

20.2

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Science

16.0

16.5

18.4

19.7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Math

14.8

16.1

17.9

18.3

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Reading


52%

32%







2011-2012

39%

33%

32%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

19%

18%

15%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

80%

75%

67%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

2013-2014

2012-2013

Percent of Students



Spring 2014 ACT




Created: 6/6/2011 3:32:31 PM

Updated: 5/22/2012 4:13:59 PM

19.9

20.0

18.5

18.7

19.4

19.6

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

21


2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

Spring 2014 ACT




Created: 6/6/2011 3:32:31 PM

Updated: 5/22/2012 4:13:59 PM

19.9

20.0

18.5

18.7

19.4

19.6

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

21


2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014




Updated: 6/2/2014 3:52:53 PM

14.7

17.5

20.5

19.9

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

English

17.4

17.8

19.1

20.2

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Science

16.0

16.5

18.4

19.7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Math

14.8

16.1

17.9

18.3

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Reading


52%

32%







2011-2012

39%

33%

32%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

19%

18%

15%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

80%

75%

67%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

2013-2014

2012-2013

Percent of Students








Updated: 6/2/2014 3:52:53 PM

14.7

17.5

20.5

19.9

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

English

17.4

17.8

19.1

20.2

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Science

16.0

16.5

18.4

19.7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Math

14.8

16.1

17.9

18.3

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Reading


52%

32%







2011-2012

39%

33%

32%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

19%

18%

15%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

80%

75%

67%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

2013-2014

2012-2013

Percent of Students








Updated: 6/2/2014 3:52:53 PM

14.7

17.5

20.5

19.9

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

English

17.4

17.8

19.1

20.2

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Science

16.0

16.5

18.4

19.7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Math

14.8

16.1

17.9

18.3

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Reading


52%

32%







2011-2012

39%

33%

32%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

19%

18%

15%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

80%

75%

67%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

2013-2014

2012-2013

Percent of Students








Updated: 6/2/2014 3:52:53 PM

14.7

17.5

20.5

19.9

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

English

17.4

17.8

19.1

20.2

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Science16

.0

16.5

18.4

19.7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Math

14.8

16.1

17.9

18.3

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

8 9 10 11

Reading


52%

32%







2011-2012

39%

33%

32%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

19%

18%

15%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

80%

75%

67%

Percent of Students

2013-2014

2012-2013







2011-2012

2013-2014

2012-2013

Percent of Students



Fig. 13-16


Proof Point 5B - MAP Growth

MAP Fall-to-Spring ResultsALL STUDENTS ANALYZED BY GROWTH TOWARD ACHIEVEMENT TARGETS BASED ON MATCHED FALL-TO-SPRING SCORES

Reading

Math


160

175

190

205

220

235

250

265

280

160

175

190

205

220

235

250

265

280

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade


Chart_18_19_M2Growth_MAP Page 1 of 1 Printed: 6/12/2014 3:14 PM

Performance Series Fall-to-Spring ResultsALL STUDENTS ANALYZED BY GROWTH TOWARD ACHIEVEMENT TARGET, BASED ON MATCHED FALL TO SPRING SCORES

Reading

Math


1300

1550

1800

2050

2300

2550

2800

3050

3300

1300

1550

1800

2050

2300

2550

2800

3050

3300

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

MP 15:4 2102/7/6 :detnirP1 fo 1 egaPSP_htworG2M_91_81_trahC

Student growth compares the difference between two or more tests given to a student or group over time. This is done by comparing a student’s fall test score with his or her spring test score to determine the amount of change between the two tests.

Growth can provide a gauge of how much a student learned over the course of the school year. Measuring growth toward a meaningful standard, like a college readiness achievement target, will demonstrate whether students are growing the necessary amount to be college ready. Additionally, by calculating the amount of growth a student or group of students has made in the course of a year, a school can evaluate the effectiveness of the educational program and curriculum.

The charts on the facing page illustrate whether or not students at the Academy made the necessary growth from fall to spring, on average, to reach the achievement targets (see pp. 8-9 for additional information on achievement targets).

Please note that this measure of student growth is the most important, but not the only factor, the Center considers when determining whether the Academy is “demonstrating measurable progress” toward the contractual goal of preparing students academically for success in college, work and life.

Measuring Student Growth in Grades 3 through 8

Understanding the Charts

SCALED SCORE

A scaled score is a conversion of a student’s raw score on a test to a common scale that allows for a numerical comparison to be made.

TEST YEAR

Student results are shown for each grade by the year the tests were given. The grades are depicted by the label above the chart. The current school year’s test results (fall to spring) are provided, as well as two prior years for comparison.

STUDENT SCORES

Average student scores are shown as two points: a beginning score (or fall test) and an ending score (or spring test). The beginning score is the dot while the ending score is the tip of the arrow.

ACHIEVEMENT TARGET

The achievement target is the benchmark that is specified in the Charter Contract for each grade, based on the cohort of students enrolled three or more years.

GROWTH

The gain (or loss) from fall-to-spring is displayed by the line between the beginning score and the ending score. This distance indicates the simple growth between two tests.

Scale

Sco

re

Grade 4

STUDENT GROWTHPerformance Series & MAP


Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

Fig. 18

Fig. 19


NOTE: Results for schools that made a transition in assessment within the last three years (e.g., from Performance Series to MAP) are converted to the current year’s assessment scale.

READING

MATH



Reading

Math


160

175

190

205

220

235

250

265

280

160

175

190

205

220

235

250

265

280

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4






Reading

Math


160

175

190

205

220

235

250

265

280

160

175

190

205

220

235

250

265

280

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4






Reading

Math


160

175

190

205

220

235

250

265

280

160

175

190

205

220

235

250

265

280

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201




Scale

Sco

reScale

Sco

re

Beginning Score Ending Score Achievement Target


EXPLORE to PLAN and PLAN to ACT ResultsALL STUDENTS ANALYZED BY GROWTH TOWARD ACHIEVEMENT TARGET, BASED ON MATCHED YEAR TO YEAR SCORES


hsilgnEecneicShtaMgnidaeR

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

MP 35:4 2102/7/6 :detnirP1 fo 1 egaPSAPE_htworG2M_02_trahC

Student growth compares the difference between two or more tests given to a student or group over time. This is done by comparing a student’s EXPLORE/PLAN test score with his or her PLAN/ACT score the following year in order to determine the amount of change between the two tests.

Growth can provide a gauge of how much a student learned over the course of the school year. Measuring growth toward a meaningful standard, like a college readiness achievement target, will demonstrate whether students are growing the necessary amount to be college ready. Additionally, by calculating the amount of growth a student or group of students has made from year-to-year, a school can evaluate the effectiveness of the educational program and curriculum.

The charts on the facing page illustrate whether or not students at the Academy made the necessary growth between tests, on average, to reach the achievement targets (see pp. 8-9 for additional information on achievement targets).

Please note that this measure of student growth is the most important, but not the only factor, the Center considers when determining whether the Academy is “demonstrating measurable progress” toward the contractual goal of preparing students academically for success in college, work and life.

Measuring Student Growth in Grades 9 through 11

Understanding The Charts

SCALED SCORE

A scaled score is a conversion of a student’s raw score on a test to a common scale that allows for a numerical comparison to be made.

TEST CYCLE

Student results are shown as a year-to-year cycle. The tests are depicted by the label above the chart, from EXPLORE in grade 9 to PLAN in grade 10, as well as PLAN in grade 10 to ACT in grade 11. The most recent year’s test cycle is provided, as well as two prior cycles for comparison.

STUDENT SCORES

Average student scores are shown as two points of data: a beginning score (grade 9) and an ending score (grade 10). The beginning score is the dot, while the ending score is the tip of the arrow.

ACHIEVEMENT TARGET

The achievement target is the benchmark that is specified in the Charter Contract for each grade, based on the cohort of students enrolled three or more years.

GROWTH

The gain (or loss) from year-to-year is displayed by the line between the beginning score and the ending score. This distance indicates the simple growth between two tests.

Sco

re

EXPLORE to PLAN and PLAN to ACT ResultsALL STUDENTS ANALYZED BY GROWTH TOWARD ACHIEVEMENT TARGET, BASED ON MATCHED YEAR TO YEAR SCORES


hsilgnEecneicShtaMgnidaeR

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

MP 35:4 2102/7/6 :detnirP1 fo 1 egaPSAPE_htworG2M_02_trahC

STUDENT GROWTHEXPLORE to PLAN & PLAN to ACT


Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

EXPLORE to PLAN and PLAN to ACT Results ALL STUDENTS ANALYZED BY GROWTH TOWARD ACHIEVEMENT BASED ON MATCHED YEAR TO YEAR SCORES

Fig. 20


EXPLORE-to-PLAN and PLAN-to-ACT ResultsALL STUDENTS ANALYZED BY GROWTH TOWARD ACHIEVEMENT TARGETS BASED ON MATCHED YEAR-TO-YEAR SCORES

A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian SchoolProof Point 5B - EPAS


11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29EXPLORE to PLAN PLAN to ACT EXPLORE to PLAN PLAN to ACT EXPLORE to PLAN PLAN to ACT EXPLORE to PLAN PLAN to ACT

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

Chart_20_M2Growth_EPAS Page 1 of 1 Printed: 6/12/2014 3:20 PM

Sco

re




11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27


2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4





11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27


2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4





11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27


2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4


Beginning Score Ending Score Achievement Target


Michigan has transitioned to a new state and federal accountability system developed under a waiver of certain requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (commonly known as NCLB). The waiver was approved by the US Department of Education in August 2012. The new accountability system replaced the previous system of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in August 2013. Both the old and new systems use the MEAP (grades 3 through 8) and MME (grade 11).The new accountability system has three components:

1. Michigan school accreditation system (Education YES!), 2. Top-to-Bottom Ranking 3. Accountability Scorecard (new for 2013)

As illustrated on the following page, all schools will receive a state report card grade and accreditation status under Education YES!, a percentile ranking on the Top-to-Bottom Ranking, and an Accountability Scorecard. This information will be reported publicly for all schools. In addition, some schools, based on the Top-to-Bottom ranking, are identified as either a Priority School, a Focus School or a Reward School.

As required by state law, schools in the bottom 5% of the Top-to-Bottom list are identified as Priority Schools and must develop a plan for transformation, turn-around, restart or closure under the supervision of the State Reform Officer. Schools with the largest achievement gap between the top 30% and bottom 30% of students are identified as Focus Schools and must develop a plan to address the achievement gap. High-achieving, high-growth or “Beating the Odds” schools are identified as Reward Schools. Reward schools will be recognized by the MDE.

Accreditation & Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver

NOTICE: The state remains in the process of transitioning to the accountability system designed under the federal waiver. Applicable law may require provisions not addressed in this publication at the time it was printed. The Center strongly encourages the Academy Board and the administration to remain current with the reporting changes at both the state and federal levels. The Center will continue to alert and inform academies and stakeholders as revisions are made available.

STATE & FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITYState Accreditation & the State Accountability Scorecard


Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

State and Federal AccountabilityO V E R V I E W

TEST

GRADES

SUBJECTS

ELEMENTS

OUTPUTS

REQUIREDACTION

CRITERIA

Education YES! (Accreditation)

• MEAP & MME: Proficiency & Change - All Subjects

• Self Assessment

• State Report Card with Status & Letter Grade: Summary Accredited (A) Interim Accredited (B, C or D) Unaccredited (F)

Top-to-Bottom Ranking

• MEAP & MME: Proficiency & Change - Reading & Math (MEAP—2 year average)* (MME—3 year average)*

• Achievement Gap - Top 30% vs. Bottom 30%

• Graduation Rate & Improvement - HS Only

• Statewide Percentile Ranking

*at least 30 Full Academic Year students (FAY)NOTE: Methodology and elements have changed yearly.

Accountability Scorecard

• MEAP & MME: Proficiency & Change - All Subjects* (Proficiency targets set for subgroups to reach 85% by 2022)

• Compliance• Status of Educator Evaluations• Graduation Rate• Attendance

• Color-coded scorecard based on subgroup performance and other indicators

*at least 30 Full Academic Year students (FAY)

STATUS Focus School Reward SchoolPriority School

• High Performing, High Improvement, or “Beating the Odds”

• 10% of schools with largest achievement gap (Top 30% vs. Bottom 30% of students)

• Bottom 5% of Top-to-Bottom list

• Recognized publicly by the MDE at conferences and other events

• Placed under supervision of State Reform Officer

• Required to develop a 4-year reform/redesign plan: - Transformation, Turn-around, Restart or Closure

• Required to set aside Title I funds

Michigan Educational Assessment Program(MEAP)

Michigan Merit Exam(MME)

Grades 3 through 9 Grade 11 (and eligible students in Grade 12)

Reading & Math (3-8), Writing (4 & 7),Science (5 & 8) & Social Studies (6 & 9)

Reading, Writing, Math, Science & Social Studies

ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS

OUTCOMES

ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

ITEM

No Designation

• The school has not been identified as a Priority, Focus or Reward school

• None• Assigned an ISD Intervention Specialist

• Required to develop a 4-year plan to address the achievement gap

• Required to set aside Title I funds

STATE & FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY STATE & FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITYAccountability Flowchart


ABC Academy

MEAP

Notes:

1) Source: Fall 2011, 2012, 2013 MEAP - Student-level and Public data


Updated: 4/21/2014 2:23:48 PM

ComparisonComparisonComparisonComparisonComparison

52.9

%

20.4

% 13.5

%

28.6

%

42.6

%

59.5

%

25.6

%

5.3%

37.1

%

58.2

%

69.8

%

37.8

% 11.5

%

27.3

%

54.7

%

63.8

%

37.0

% 12.9

%

20.0

%

51.6

%

68.0

%

40.9

%

18.3

%

26.0

%

51.8

%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Composite Resident District Fall 2013 State Average Fall 2013

Printed: 6/17/2014 3:53 PM

The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) test was created to evaluate what Michigan educators believe all students should know and be able to do in the core academic areas of reading, math, science, social studies and writing. These tests reveal how Michigan’s students and schools are doing based on standards established by the Michigan Department of Education. The MEAP test is the only common academic measure given to all Michigan students and serves as a measure for school accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Education YES! accreditation system.

Each October, the MEAP test is administered to students in grades 3 through 9. Although not all subjects are tested each year, math and reading are an annual component of the MEAP in grades 3 through 8. Based on state-specified Grade-Level Content Expectations (GLCE), the MEAP is used to determine how much students have learned. Because students are tested in the fall, the content expectations tested are from the previous grade level. The results of the tests are released in the spring, making it difficult for teachers to use this information for instruction.

Student scores are placed within one of four performance levels Advanced, Proficient, Partially Proficient and Not Proficient. These performance levels correspond to the scaled scores and are defined as a range of the student’s achievement level.

MEAP Proficiency in Grades 3 through 9

MEAP Results AVERAGES FOR ALL STUDENTS IN GRADES 3 THROUGH 9 AS COMPARED TO THE COMPOSITE RESIDENT DISTRICT AND STATE AVERAGES

Fig. 21

Perc

ent

Pro

ficie

nt

Level 1 – Advanced

Level 2 – Proficient

Level 3 – Partially Proficient

Level 4 – Not Proficient

PERFORMANCE LEVELS

{{

Proficient

Not-Proficient


STATE & FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITYMichigan Educational Assessment Program

ABC Academy

MEAP

Notes:

1) Source: Fall 2011, 2012, 2013 MEAP - Student-level and Public data


Updated: 4/21/2014 2:23:48 PM


52.9

%

20.4

% 13.5

%

28.6

%

42.6

%

59.5

%

25.6

%

5.3%

37.1

%

58.2

%

69.8

%

37.8

% 11.5

%

27.3

%

54.7

%

63.8

%

37.0

% 12.9

%

20.0

%

51.6

%

68.0

%

40.9

%

18.3

%

26.0

%

51.8

%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Composite Resident District Fall 2013 State Average Fall 2013

Printed: 6/17/2014 3:53 PM


Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

CRD State Average

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2013-2014 2013-2014

All Students 52.9% 59.5% 69.8% #N/A

Ethnic/Racial Minorities 54.1% 61.0% 73.2% #N/A

Students with Disabilities 10.3% 13.0% 37.5% #N/A

Limited English Proficient -- -- -- #N/A

Economically Disadvantaged 46.8% 55.5% 63.6% #N/A

Male 47.0% 50.6% 63.3% #N/A

Female 57.5% 66.7% 76.6% #N/A

CRD State Average

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2013-2014 2011-2012

All Students 20.4% 25.6% 37.8% #N/A





Male 18.8% 27.6% 42.0% #N/A

Female 21.7% 24.1% 33.3% #N/A

MEAP

Notes:

1) Source: Fall 2009 - 2011 MEAP - Public Data; Fall 2009 - 2011 MSDS - Unaudited

2) Groups with less than 10 students are not included and are represtned with an asterisk

3) Compiled by: The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University

Updated: 2/1/2013 10:28:37 AM

Proof Point 4A - Achievement by Subgroups - MEAP

End

Academy Percent Proficient


Reading

Math

In order to better determine if the Academy is meeting the needs of all students, state legislation was passed in 2012 that requires schools to analyze student data by sub-group. The tables below present the MEAP scores by main sub-groups.

MEAP Sub-Groups

Fig. 21

Fig. 23


- - No Data Available.

MEAP Results by Sub-Group PERCENT PROFICIENT IN READING AND MATH FOR EACH SUB-GROUP IN GRADES 3 THROUGH 8 AS COMPARED TO STATE AVERAGES

Fig. 22

CRD State Average

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2013-2014 2013-2014

All Students 52.9% 59.5% 69.8% #N/A





Male 47.0% 50.6% 63.3% #N/A

Female 57.5% 66.7% 76.6% #N/A

CRD State Average

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2013-2014 2011-2012

All Students 20.4% 25.6% 37.8% #N/A





Male 18.8% 27.6% 42.0% #N/A

Female 21.7% 24.1% 33.3% #N/A

MEAP

Notes:

1) Source: Fall 2009 - 2011 MEAP - Public Data; Fall 2009 - 2011 MSDS - Unaudited



Updated: 2/1/2013 10:28:37 AM

Proof Point 4A - Achievement by Subgroups - MEAP

End



Reading

Math


The Michigan Merit Exam (MME) is based on state-specific High School Content Expectations (HSCE) covering what students should know and be able to do before they graduate from high school. A student’s MME score is based on a complete set of items from all three parts of the exam: the ACT test; the WorkKeys® assessment by ACT, Inc.; and Michigan-developed assessments in mathematics, science and social studies.

Each spring, the MME is administered to students in grade 11 in reading, math, science, social studies and writing. Based on the HSCE from the Michigan Merit Curriculum, the MME is used to determine how much students have learned.

The scores from these tests range on a scale of 950 to 1250. Student scores are placed within one of four performance levels: Advanced, Proficient, Partially Proficient and Not Proficient. Levels one and two are considered proficient, while levels three and four are not proficient.

MME Proficiency

MME Results

AVERAGES FOR ALL STUDENTS IN GRADE 11

Level 1 – Advanced

Level 2 – Proficient

Level 3 – Partially Proficient

Level 4 – Not Proficient

PERFORMANCE LEVELS

{{

Proficient

Not-Proficient


ABC Academy

Notes:

1) Source: Spring 2012, 2013, 2014 MME - PDC Warehouse

2) = 10 or less students tested


Updated: 7/10/2014 4:32:40 PM


44.1

% 10.2

%

8.5%

29.0

%

31.0

%

57.7

%

20.0

%

25.0

%

55.0

%

38.5

%

72.2

%

28.1

%

28.1

%

50.0

%

72.7

%

48.8

%

22.7

%

35.3

%

51.9

%

52.9

%

58.7

%

28.8

%

28.4

%

43.9

%

50.8

%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2014 Composite Resident District Spring 2014 State Average Spring 2014

Printed: 10/15/2014 3:53 PM

Fig. 24

Perc

ent

Pro

ficie

nt

STATE & FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITYMichigan Merit Exam

ABC Academy

Notes:

1) Source: Spring 2012, 2013, 2014 MME - PDC Warehouse

2) = 10 or less students tested


Updated: 7/10/2014 4:32:40 PM


44.1

% 10.2

%

8.5%

29.0

%

31.0

%

57.7

%

20.0

%

25.0

%

55.0

%

38.5

%

72.2

%

28.1

%

28.1

%

50.0

%

72.7

%

48.8

%

22.7

%

35.3

%

51.9

%

52.9

%

58.7

%

28.8

%

28.4

%

43.9

%

50.8

%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2014 Composite Resident District Spring 2014 State Average Spring 2014

Printed: 10/15/2014 3:53 PM


Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

In order to better determine if the Academy is meeting the needs of all students, state legislation was passed in 2012 that requires schools to analyze student data by sub-group. The tables below present the MME scores by main sub-groups.

MME Sub-Groups

MME Results by Sub-Group PERCENT PROFICIENT IN READING AND MATH FOR EACH SUB-GROUP IN GRADE 11 AS COMPARED TO STATE AVERAGES

Fig. 24

CRD State Average

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2013-2014 2013-2014

All Students 44.1% 57.7% 72.7%

Ethnic/Racial Minorities * * --

Students with Disabilities * * *

Limited English Proficient -- -- --

Economically Disadvantaged 31.3% * *

Male 39.1% 27.3% 64.3%

Female 47.2% 80.0% 78.9%

CRD State Average

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2013-2014 2011-2012

All Students 10.2% 20.0% 28.1%

Ethnic/Racial Minorities * * --

Students with Disabilities * * *

Limited English Proficient -- -- --

Economically Disadvantaged 6.3% * *

Male 13.0% * 30.8%

Female 8.3% 25.0% 26.3%

MME

Notes:

1) Source: Spring 2010 - 2012 MME - Public Data; Fall 2009 - 2011 MSDS - Unaudited



Updated: 2/1/2013 10:28:37 AM

Proof Point 4B - Achievement by Subgroups - MME

ABC Academy



Reading

Math

Fig. 26

Fig. 25


- - No Data Available.


Michigan transitioned to a new state and federal accountability system developed under a waiver of certain requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (commonly known as No Child Left Behind or NCLB). The waiver was approved by the US Department of Education in August 2012. Michigan’s new School Accountability Scorecard system replaced the prior system of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in August 2013.

Education YES! Report Card & AYP

Fig. 27

STATE & FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITYState Accountability

2012-13 Accountability Scorecard Data Entry

District Code MI-25905District Name ABC Academy

Math ReadingSocial

Studies Science WritingCompletion

RateAttendance

RateEducator

EvaluationsCompliance

Factors Overall

Green Green Green Green Green Green -- Green Green Yellow

Notes:

1) Source: Jenn, what's the official source?


Created: 5/5/2014 11:57:18 AM

2012-2013 Academy Accountability Scorecard Overview

2012-2013 Academy Status

The information provided in this report was retrieved from the Michigan Department of Education and state’s MI School Data website. To access this information, including detailed reports, please visit: http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-22709---,00.html and https://www.mischooldata.org.

For more information about the Michigan School Accountability Scorecards and how to read these reports, please visit: http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-22709_25058---,00.html.

The Accountability Scorecards replaced Michigan’s AYP report cards under a waiver Michigan received from the U.S. Department of Education in 2012 from certain requirements of the NCLB Act of 2001. Each school building and district receives an overall color (Green, Lime, Yellow, Orange or Red) based on the components within the Accountability Scorecard. The table below shows the Academy’s results on the 2012-2013 Michigan School Accountability Scorecard:

Michigan’s Top-to-Bottom Ranking includes a designation for schools that meet specific criteria outlined in the accountability system.

•Reward Schools: based on the top 5% of schools in the ranking as well as the schools with the highest improvement values from this list. “Beating the Odds” schools, which are those schools either outperforming their expected ranking or outperforming other similarly-situated schools, are also Reward Schools.

•Focus Schools: based on the achievement gap component of this list.

•Priority Schools: based on the bottom 5% of this list.

The graphic below shows the Academy’s results of the 2012-2013 Top-to-Bottom designation:

Top-to-Bottom Designation

Michigan School Accountability Scorecard

ABC Academy

B-08265

No Designation

Notes:

1) Source: 2012-2013 Prior levels - MDE


Created: 3/25/2014 11:09:37 AM

2012-2013 Priority Level

Page 1 of 1 Printed: 6/18/2014 1:56 PM


Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

On January 4, 2010, the State passed a seminal education reform law requiring the Michigan Department of Education to annually publish a list of “persistently low-achieving” schools. In response to this law, on August 16, 2010, the Michigan Department of Education published a Top-to-Bottom List ranking all public schools by proficiency and growth on the MEAP and MME.

The table to the left shows the state-wide percentile ranking for each school chartered by CMU during 2012-2013, the latest year in which information is available. The highest performing public school in the state received a ranking of 100 while the lowest performing school received a ranking of 0. The Charter School Ranking is the school’s rank out of 220 Michigan charter schools that received a statewide percentile ranking. For more information on the State’s Top-to-Bottom Ranking, please visit: http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-37818_56562---,00.html.

ACT Composite Results 2013-2014 ACT RESULTS AS COMPARED TO THE COLLEGE READINESS BENCHMARK

Top-to-Bottom Ranking of All CMU Schools2012-2013 Michigan Department of Education

75th Percentile and AboveStatewidePercentileRanking

Charter School

Ranking

Canton Charter Academy 98 2

South Arbor Charter Academy 95 4

Holly Academy 94 5

Charyl Stockwell Academy 93 8

Eagle Crest Charter Academy 91 9

Cross Creek Charter Academy 90 10

Charyl Stockwell Academy - High School 89 11

Midland Academy of Advanced and Creative Studies 85 14

Summit Academy North High School 84 16

West MI Academy of Environmental Science 81 18

Island City Academy 79 21

Walden Green Montessori 75 27

50th - 74th PercentileMorey Montessori Public School Academy 70 34

Summit Academy 69 36

Central Academy 68 38

Summit Academy North Middle School 66 41

Summit Academy North Elementary School 65 42

Global Preparatory Academy 65 43

Trillium Academy 63 44

Cole Academy 59 47

New Beginnings Academy 53 54

West Village Academy 52 59

International Academy of Flint (K-12) 51 60

AGBU Alex-Marie Manoogian School 50 62

25th - 49th PercentileDa Vinci Institute (K-8) 49 66

Old Redford Academy - Middle 45 71

Renaissance Public School Academy 44 73

Riverside Academy - West Campus 43 76

Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse of Detroit 41 79

Woodland Park Academy 39 85

New Branches Charter Academy 36 92

Riverside Academy 35 96

Countryside Academy-Middle/High School 31 108

Countryside Academy-Elementary 30 111

The Dearborn Academy 30 115

Michigan Technical Academy Middle School 28 118

Old Redford Academy - High 28 119

Flagship Charter Academy 28 121

Linden Charter Academy 27 123

Plymouth Educational Center 26 126

Plymouth Educational Center Preparatory High School 25 131

Below the 25th PercentileQuest Charter Academy 20 143

North Saginaw Charter Academy 20 147

Dr. Charles Drew Academy 18 154

Taylor International Academy 14 166

Old Redford Academy - Elementary 14 168

Detroit West Preparatory Academy 13 171

Academy of Southfield 12 176

El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz Academy 11 181

Threshold Academy 10 185

Woodward Academy 9 189

Eaton Academy 9 191

Detroit Leadership Academy 8 194

Pansophia Academy 6 205

Michigan Technical Academy Elementary 3 219

Mid-Michigan Leadership Academy 0 236

Updated; 9/26/2013 3:36:37 PM

Fig. 27

Fig. 28

Fig. 29

Spring 2014 ACT

1) Sources: Spring 2014 ACT - Student-level D

ata from M

ME

2) Com

piled by: The Center for C

harter Schools Central M

ichigan University

Created: 6/6/2011 3:32:31 PM

Updated: 6/2/2014 12:46:54 PM

2013-2014

0 6 12 18 24 30 36

Oakland FlexTech Academy Δ

Plymouth Educational Center Charter School

Flint Public Schools

Old Redford Academy

Jalen Rose Leadership Academy Δ

Detroit Public Schools

Eaton Academy

Nexus Academy of Lansing Δ

Lansing Public Schools

Nexus Academy of Royal Oak Δ

Da Vinci Institute

International Academy of Flint

Grand Rapids Public Schools

Pansophia Academy

FlexTech High School Δ

Riverside Academy

Great Lakes Cyber Academy Δ

Countryside Academy

Trillium Academy

West MI Academy of Environmental Science

Central Academy

AGBU Alex-Marie Manoogian School

Nexus Academy of Grand Rapids Δ

State Average

Kensington Woods High School

Summit Academy North

Midland Academy of Advanced and Creative Studies

Charyl Stockwell Academy

Spring 2014 ACT

ACT C

ollege Readiness B

enchmark Score

21

STATE & FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITYTop-to-Bottom Ranking & ACT Composite Results

r Schools in their first three years of operation.

Spring 2014 ACT

1) Sources: Spring 2014 ACT - Student-level Data from MME


Created: 6/6/2011 3:32:31 PM

Updated: 6/2/2014 12:46:54 PM 2013-2014

06

1218

2430

36

Oakl

and

Flex

Tech

Aca

dem

y Δ

Plym

outh

Edu

catio

nal C

ente

r Cha

rter S

choo

l

Flin

t Pub

lic S

choo

ls

Old

Redf

ord

Acad

emy

Jale

n Ro

se L

eade

rshi

p Ac

adem

y Δ

Detro

it Pu

blic

Sch

ools

Eato

n Ac

adem

y

Nexu

s Ac

adem

y of

Lan

sing

Δ

Lans

ing

Publ

ic S

choo

ls

Nexu

s Ac

adem

y of

Roy

al O

ak Δ

Da V

inci

Inst

itute

Inte

rnat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Flin

t

Gran

d Ra

pids

Pub

lic S

choo

ls

Pans

ophi

a Ac

adem

y

Flex

Tech

Hig

h Sc

hool

Δ

Rive

rsid

e Ac

adem

y

Grea

t Lak

es C

yber

Aca

dem

y Δ

Coun

trysi

de A

cade

my

Trill

ium

Aca

dem

y

Wes

t MI A

cade

my

of E

nviro

nmen

tal S

cien

ce

Cent

ral A

cade

my

AGBU

Ale

x-M

arie

Man

oogi

an S

choo

l

Nexu

s Ac

adem

y of

Gra

nd R

apid

s Δ

Stat

e Av

erag

e

Kens

ingt

on W

oods

Hig

h Sc

hool

Sum

mit

Acad

emy

North

Mid

land

Aca

dem

y of

Adv

ance

d an

d Cr

eativ

e St

udie

s

Char

yl S

tock

wel

l Aca

dem

y

Spring 2014 ACT ACT College Readiness Benchmark Score

21

Spring 2014 ACT

1) Sources: Spring 2014 ACT - Student-level Data from MME


Created: 6/6/2011 3:32:31 PM

Updated: 6/2/2014 12:46:54 PM 2013-2014

06

1218

2430

36

Oakl

and

Flex

Tech

Aca

dem

y Δ

Plym

outh

Edu

catio

nal C

ente

r Cha

rter S

choo

l

Flin

t Pub

lic S

choo

ls

Old

Redf

ord

Acad

emy

Jale

n Ro

se L

eade

rshi

p Ac

adem

y Δ

Detro

it Pu

blic

Sch

ools

Eato

n Ac

adem

y

Nexu

s Ac

adem

y of

Lan

sing

Δ

Lans

ing

Publ

ic S

choo

ls

Nexu

s Ac

adem

y of

Roy

al O

ak Δ

Da V

inci

Inst

itute

Inte

rnat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Flin

t

Gran

d Ra

pids

Pub

lic S

choo

ls

Pans

ophi

a Ac

adem

y

Flex

Tech

Hig

h Sc

hool

Δ

Rive

rsid

e Ac

adem

y

Grea

t Lak

es C

yber

Aca

dem

y Δ

Coun

trysi

de A

cade

my

Trill

ium

Aca

dem

y

Wes

t MI A

cade

my

of E

nviro

nmen

tal S

cien

ce

Cent

ral A

cade

my

AGBU

Ale

x-M

arie

Man

oogi

an S

choo

l

Nexu

s Ac

adem

y of

Gra

nd R

apid

s Δ

Stat

e Av

erag

e

Kens

ingt

on W

oods

Hig

h Sc

hool

Sum

mit

Acad

emy

North

Mid

land

Aca

dem

y of

Adv

ance

d an

d Cr

eativ

e St

udie

s

Char

yl S

tock

wel

l Aca

dem

y

Spring 2014 ACT ACT College Readiness Benchmark Score

21


Notes:

1) Source: Fall 2013 MEA

P - Student-level and Public Data

2) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central M

ichigan University

Created: 6/6/2011 3:59:18 PM

Updated: 3/20/2014 3:27:32 PM

Fall 2013 ME

AP

Results by S

ubject - CM

U S

chools - Math

Fall 2013 ME

AP

Results by S

ubject - CM

U S

chools - Reading

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

South Arbor Charter Academy


Cross Creek Charter Academy

Holly Academy


Eagle Crest Charter Academy

The Midland Academy of Advanced and Creative Studies

Noor International Academy Δ

Island City Academy

Morey Montessori Public School Academy


West Michigan Academy of Environmental Science

Summit Academy

Renaissance Public School Academy

State Average


Walden Green Montessori


Central Academy

West Village Academy


Cole Academy

The da Vinci Institute

Quest Charter Academy

Woodland Park Academy

Trillium Academy

New Beginnings Academy

Countryside Academy

Riverside Academy

Overall CRD for CMU Schools

El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz Academy

Academy of Southfield

Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse of Detroit


New Branches Charter Academy

North Saginaw Charter Academy

Pansophia Academy

Threshold Academy


Flagship Charter Academy

Linden Charter Academy


The Dearborn Academy

Old Redford Academy

Mid-Michigan Leadership Academy


Eaton Academy

Taylor International Academy

Global Preparatory Academy


Detroit Innovation Academy Δ

Woodward Academy

Dr. Charles Drew Academy

Jefferson International Academy Δ

Michigan Technical Academy

Detroit Leadership Academy

Greater Heights Academy Δ

Academy of International Studies Δ

Starr Detroit Academy Δ

Detroit West Preparatory Academy

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Holly Academy






Island City Academy



State Average



Central Academy

Summit Academy

Cole Academy




Trillium Academy







Threshold Academy

Riverside Academy



Countryside Academy


Pansophia Academy














Old Redford Academy

Woodward Academy


Eaton Academy










Chart_30_31_MEAP_Line_Up

Page 1 of 1Printed: 6/11/2014 12:41 PM

Reading

MEAP Proficiency 2013-2014 MEAP RESULTS AS COMPARED TO THE STATE, MAJOR DISTRICTS

& COMPOSITE RESIDENT DISTRICT AVERAGES

Fig. 30

ACADEMY COMPARISONMEAP Rankings

r Schools in their first three years of operation.


Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

Notes:

1) Source: Fall 2013 MEA

P - Student-level and Public Data

2) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central M

ichigan University

Created: 6/6/2011 3:59:18 PM

Updated: 3/20/2014 3:27:32 PM

Fall 2013 ME

AP

Results by S

ubject - CM

U S

chools - Math

Fall 2013 ME

AP

Results by S

ubject - CM

U S

chools - Reading

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%




Holly Academy





Island City Academy




Summit Academy


State Average




Central Academy



Cole Academy




Trillium Academy


Countryside Academy

Riverside Academy








Pansophia Academy

Threshold Academy






Old Redford Academy



Eaton Academy





Woodward Academy









0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Holly Academy






Island City Academy



State Average



Central Academy

Summit Academy

Cole Academy




Trillium Academy







Threshold Academy

Riverside Academy



Countryside Academy


Pansophia Academy














Old Redford Academy

Woodward Academy


Eaton Academy










Chart_30_31_MEAP_Line_Up

Page 1 of 1Printed: 6/11/2014 12:41 PM

Math

MEAP Proficiency 2013-2014 MEAP RESULTS AS COMPARED TO THE STATE, MAJOR DISTRICTS

& COMPOSITE RESIDENT DISTRICT AVERAGES

Fig. 31Fig. 30r Schools in their first three years of operation.


The Center may elect to conduct an Educational Program Review (EPR) that is conducted by a team of Center staff and consultants. The team conducts a multi-day site visit utilizing the EPR Standards, which are grounded in the Charter Contract and focus on key questions related to the: 1) implementation of the Academy’s curriculum, 2) quality of the delivery of instruction, 3) utilization of assessment data for improvement efforts and 4) overall effectiveness of the Academy leadership to ensure high quality, academic outcomes. The review team conducts classroom observations and interviews administrators, staff members and students. The EPR does not include a limited fiscal review or interview of board members.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM REVIEW

The Center employs special education consultants who provide technical assistance and oversight for CMU authorized schools and act as liaisons between the Academy and local and state agencies. For schools that may be considered for issuance of a new Charter Contract, via reauthorization, the Center’s consultants conduct a comprehensive site visit to ensure the Academy is compliant with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. The consultants document the findings related to the Academy’s special education policies, procedures and practices to ensure compliance with federal and state laws.

SPECIAL EDUCATION REVIEW

OTHER MEASURESProgram Reviews

The Educational Program described in Schedule 7c of the Charter Contract is designed by the Academy and describes the educational philosophy of the school and the manner in which the curriculum is implemented. As part of its general oversight responsibilities, the Center may elect to conduct an Educational Program Review (EPR) or contract for a Quality School Review (QSR) to assist the Center in evaluating the Academy’s implementation, delivery and support of the Educational Program. From each of these reviews, a report is generated, which provides the Center with written documentation of the findings. These reports are a part of the body of information that illustrates the Academy’s academic performance and will be considered throughout the reauthorization process. These reports may also serve as a platform for dialogue to assist the Academy with its improvement efforts.

The Center may elect to contract with a nationally recognized expert in the area of charter school reviews to conduct a Quality School Review (QSR). An external review team conducts a multi-day site visit utilizing the QSR Protocol, which is grounded in the Charter Contract and focuses on critical areas of inquiry associated with curriculum, instruction, assessment and a limited fiscal review of support of the Educational Program. The external team conducts classroom observations and schedules interviews with board members, administrators, staff members and students.

Program Reviews

QUALITY SCHOOL REVIEW


Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

NOTES


ACT, Inc. - the service provider for the EXPLORE®, PLAN® and ACT®

ACT® - a test that assesses high school students’ general educational development and their ability to complete college-level work

AYP - Adequate Yearly Progress

Center - The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools

CMU - Central Michigan University

Composite Resident District (CRD) - a breakdown of which traditional public school districts students would be assigned if they were not enrolled in your school

Educational Goal (Schedule 7b) - prepare students academically for success in college, work and life

Embargo - when the data in the identified chart may not be released or discussed with the public or the news media until after it has been publicly released

EXPLORE® - a test given in grades 8 and 9 provided by ACT, Inc. and utilized by the Academy and the Center in gauging their students’ performance

Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) - Federal law that prohibits student-identifiable education data from being publicly disseminated. A group of 10 or fewer students is considered to contain student-identifiable data (Represented by a * on charts) Measures of Academic Progress® (MAP®) - a computer adaptive test provided by Northwest Evaluation Association

Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) - a test created to evaluate what Michigan educators believe all students should know in the core academic areas in specific grade levels

Michigan Merit Exam (MME) - a test taken in grade 11 which consists of three parts: ACT® test, WorkKeys® by Act, Inc. and any additional tests necessary to ensure Michigan High School Content Expectations (HSCE) are met. This is the final test to assess whether a student is on track for success in college, work and life prior to their high school graduation

NCLB - No Child Left Behind

Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) - the service provider for the Measures of Academic Progress computer-adaptive test

Performance Series® - a computer-adaptive test provided by Scantron and utilized by the Academy and the Center in gauging their students’ performance

PLAN® - a test given in grade 10 provided by ACT, Inc. and utilized by the Academy and the Center in gauging student performance

Scantron® - the service provider for the Performance Series computer-adaptive test

Students’ Observed Scores/Scaled Score - a conversion of a student’s raw score on a test to a common scale that allows for a numerical comparison between students

END NOTESAcronyms & Glossary


Cover

Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM

Updated: 6/7/2012 4:59:24 PM

Header

ABC ACADEMY

ABC ACADEMY

ABC Academy

Fig. 1 Source: The Charter Contract and Educational Service Provider Agreement (if applicable)

Fig. 2 Source: Michigan Department of Education, CEPI Public Data


Fig. 4 Source: Michigan Department of Education, Michigan Student Data System fall - Unaudited


Fig. 6 Source: Michigan Department of Education, MEAP and MME





Fig. 11 Source: Scantron’s Performance Series or NWEA’s MAP: spring reading

Fig. 12 Source: Scantron’s Performance Series or NWEA’s MAP: spring math

Fig. 13 Source: ACT, Inc. EXPLORE & PLAN and MME ACT




Fig. 17 Source: MME ACT spring

Fig. 18 Source: Scantron’s Performance Series or NWEA’s MAP: spring reading

Fig. 19 Source: Scantron’s Performance Series or NWEA’s MAP: spring math


Fig. 21 Source: Michigan Department of Education, MEAP



Fig. 24 Source: Michigan Department of Education, MME



Fig. 27 Source: Michigan Department of Education, Michigan Accountability Scorecards

Fig. 28 Source: Michigan Department of Education, Top-to-Bottom Ranking

Fig. 29 Source: Michigan Department of Education, MME ACT; Benchmark established by ACT, Inc.

Fig. 30 Source: Michigan Department of Education, MEAP reading

Fig. 31 Source: Michigan Department of Education, MEAP math

END NOTESSources & Citations

© 2014 CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY THE GOVERNOR JOHN ENGLER CENTER FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS

Central Michigan University | Mount Pleasant, MI 48859989-774-2100 | www.TheCenterForCharters.org

June 2014

ACADEMIC - NACSA · one capstone report - the Annual Scorecard of School Performance. These...

Documents

Transcript of ACADEMIC - NACSA · one capstone report - the Annual Scorecard of School Performance. These...