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
4 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
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
5© 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
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
6 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
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
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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Total Enrollment by Year
Number of Students in Each Grade
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
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
2) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University
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
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
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.
7© 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
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
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
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.
90.6% General Education
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
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.
90.6% General Education
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
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.
90.6% General Education
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
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.
90.6% General Education
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
General and Special Education Status
Free and Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility
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.
90.6% General Education
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
English Language Learners (ELL)
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.
90.6% General Education
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
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.
90.6% General Education
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
8 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
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:
9© 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
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
10 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
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
Spring 2011-2012 Spring 2012-2013 Spring 2013-2014 Achievement Targets
Math
GRADE
84%
81%
82%
16% Students Did Not Meet Target
84% Students Met Target
2011-2012
19% Students Did Not Meet Target
81% Students Met Target
2012-2013
18% Students Did Not Meet Target
82% Students Met Target
2013-2014
37%
37%
34%
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2011-2012
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2012-2013
66% Students Did Not Meet Target
34% Students Met Target
2013-2014
Charts (MAP) Printed: 6/18/2014 2:09 PM
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
Spring 2011-2012 Spring 2012-2013 Spring 2013-2014 Achievement Targets
Math
GRADE
84%
81%
82%
16% Students Did Not Meet Target
84% Students Met Target
2011-2012
19% Students Did Not Meet Target
81% Students Met Target
2012-2013
18% Students Did Not Meet Target
82% Students Met Target
2013-2014
37%
37%
34%
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2011-2012
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2012-2013
66% Students Did Not Meet Target
34% Students Met Target
2013-2014
Charts (MAP) Printed: 6/18/2014 2:09 PM
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
Spring 2011-2012 Spring 2012-2013 Spring 2013-2014 Achievement Targets
Math
GRADE
84%
81%
82%
16% Students Did Not Meet Target
84% Students Met Target
2011-2012
19% Students Did Not Meet Target
81% Students Met Target
2012-2013
18% Students Did Not Meet Target
82% Students Met Target
2013-2014
37%
37%
34%
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2011-2012
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2012-2013
66% Students Did Not Meet Target
34% Students Met Target
2013-2014
Charts (MAP) Printed: 6/18/2014 2:09 PM
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
Spring 2011-2012 Spring 2012-2013 Spring 2013-2014 Achievement Targets
Math
GRADE
84%
81%
82%
16% Students Did Not Meet Target
84% Students Met Target
2011-2012
19% Students Did Not Meet Target
81% Students Met Target
2012-2013
18% Students Did Not Meet Target
82% Students Met Target
2013-2014
37%
37%
34%
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2011-2012
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2012-2013
66% Students Did Not Meet Target
34% Students Met Target
2013-2014
Charts (MAP) Printed: 6/18/2014 2:09 PM
11© 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
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
Spring 2011-2012 Spring 2012-2013 Spring 2013-2014 Achievement Targets
Math
GRADE
84%
81%
82%
16% Students Did Not Meet Target
84% Students Met Target
2011-2012
19% Students Did Not Meet Target
81% Students Met Target
2012-2013
18% Students Did Not Meet Target
82% Students Met Target
2013-2014
37%
37%
34%
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2011-2012
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2012-2013
66% Students Did Not Meet Target
34% Students Met Target
2013-2014
Charts (MAP) Printed: 6/18/2014 2:09 PM
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.
*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.
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
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
Spring 2011-2012 Spring 2012-2013 Spring 2013-2014 Achievement Targets
Math
GRADE
84%
81%
82%
16% Students Did Not Meet Target
84% Students Met Target
2011-2012
19% Students Did Not Meet Target
81% Students Met Target
2012-2013
18% Students Did Not Meet Target
82% Students Met Target
2013-2014
37%
37%
34%
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2011-2012
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2012-2013
66% Students Did Not Meet Target
34% Students Met Target
2013-2014
Charts (MAP) Printed: 6/18/2014 2:09 PM
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
Spring 2011-2012 Spring 2012-2013 Spring 2013-2014 Achievement Targets
Math
GRADE
84%
81%
82%
16% Students Did Not Meet Target
84% Students Met Target
2011-2012
19% Students Did Not Meet Target
81% Students Met Target
2012-2013
18% Students Did Not Meet Target
82% Students Met Target
2013-2014
37%
37%
34%
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2011-2012
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2012-2013
66% Students Did Not Meet Target
34% Students Met Target
2013-2014
Charts (MAP) Printed: 6/18/2014 2:09 PM
Scale
Sco
reScale
Sco
re
Percent of Students Meeting the Target ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS
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
Spring 2011-2012 Spring 2012-2013 Spring 2013-2014 Achievement Targets
Math
GRADE
84%
81%
82%
16% Students Did Not Meet Target
84% Students Met Target
2011-2012
19% Students Did Not Meet Target
81% Students Met Target
2012-2013
18% Students Did Not Meet Target
82% Students Met Target
2013-2014
37%
37%
34%
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2011-2012
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2012-2013
66% Students Did Not Meet Target
34% Students Met Target
2013-2014
Charts (MAP) Printed: 6/18/2014 2:09 PM
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
Spring 2011-2012 Spring 2012-2013 Spring 2013-2014 Achievement Targets
Math
GRADE
84%
81%
82%
16% Students Did Not Meet Target
84% Students Met Target
2011-2012
19% Students Did Not Meet Target
81% Students Met Target
2012-2013
18% Students Did Not Meet Target
82% Students Met Target
2013-2014
37%
37%
34%
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2011-2012
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2012-2013
66% Students Did Not Meet Target
34% Students Met Target
2013-2014
Charts (MAP) Printed: 6/18/2014 2:09 PM
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
Spring 2011-2012 Spring 2012-2013 Spring 2013-2014 Achievement Targets
Math
GRADE
84%
81%
82%
16% Students Did Not Meet Target
84% Students Met Target
2011-2012
19% Students Did Not Meet Target
81% Students Met Target
2012-2013
18% Students Did Not Meet Target
82% Students Met Target
2013-2014
37%
37%
34%
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2011-2012
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2012-2013
66% Students Did Not Meet Target
34% Students Met Target
2013-2014
Charts (MAP) Printed: 6/18/2014 2:09 PM
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
Spring 2011-2012 Spring 2012-2013 Spring 2013-2014 Achievement Targets
Math
GRADE
84%
81%
82%
16% Students Did Not Meet Target
84% Students Met Target
2011-2012
19% Students Did Not Meet Target
81% Students Met Target
2012-2013
18% Students Did Not Meet Target
82% Students Met Target
2013-2014
37%
37%
34%
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2011-2012
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
37% Students Met Target
2012-2013
66% Students Did Not Meet Target
34% Students Met Target
2013-2014
Charts (MAP) Printed: 6/18/2014 2:09 PM
12 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
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
37% Students Met Target
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
Percent of Students Meeting the Target
32% Students Met Target
68% Students Did Not Meet Target
Percent of Students Meeting the Target
15% Students Met Target
85% Students Did Not Meet Target
Percent of Students Meeting the Target
67% Students Met Target
33% Students Did Not Meet 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
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
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
EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT
52%
32%
37% 37% Students Met Target
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
32% Students Met Target
68% Students Did Not Meet Target
52% Students Met Target
48% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
39%
33%
32%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
32% Students Met Target
68% Students Did Not Meet Target
33% Students Met Target
67% Students Did Not Meet Target
39% Students Met Target
61% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
19%
18%
15%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
15% Students Met Target
85% Students Did Not Meet Target
18% Students Met Target
82% Students Did Not Meet Target
19% Students Met Target
81% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
80%
75%
67%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
67% Students Met Target
33% Students Did Not Meet Target
75% Students Met Target
25% Students Did Not Meet Target
80% Students Met Target
20% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
2013-2014
2012-2013
Percent of Students
2013-20142012-20132011-2012 Achievement Targets
Chart_13-16_Measure_1_Status Printed: 6/13/2014 12:53 PM
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
Chart 10 and 11 EPAS Pro�ciencyCreated: 4/28/2011 4:47:40 PM
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
Reading Math Science English
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
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
Chart 10 and 11 EPAS Pro�ciencyCreated: 4/28/2011 4:47:40 PM
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
Reading Math Science English
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
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENTEXPLORE, PLAN & ACT
13© 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
EXPLORE, PLAN and ACT Results AVERAGES FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS AS COMPARED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGET
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
Chart 10 and 11 EPAS Pro�ciencyCreated: 4/28/2011 4:47:40 PM
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
Reading Math Science English
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
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
Chart 10 and 11 EPAS Pro�ciencyCreated: 4/28/2011 4:47:40 PM
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
Reading Math Science English
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
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
Chart 10 and 11 EPAS Pro�ciencyCreated: 4/28/2011 4:47:40 PM
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
Reading Math Science English
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
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
Chart 10 and 11 EPAS Pro�ciencyCreated: 4/28/2011 4:47:40 PM
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
Reading Math Science English
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
ACT Composite ResultsThe Academy’s Composite ACT ScoresSpring 2014 ACT
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
1) Sources: Spring 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 ACT - Student-level Data from MME
2) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University
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.
*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.
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.
Percent of Students Meeting the Target
ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS
Proof Point 5A - EPAS Achievement
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
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
EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT
52%
32%
37% 37% Students Met Target
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
32% Students Met Target
68% Students Did Not Meet Target
52% Students Met Target
48% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
39%
33%
32%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
32% Students Met Target
68% Students Did Not Meet Target
33% Students Met Target
67% Students Did Not Meet Target
39% Students Met Target
61% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
19%
18%
15%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
15% Students Met Target
85% Students Did Not Meet Target
18% Students Met Target
82% Students Did Not Meet Target
19% Students Met Target
81% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
80%
75%
67%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
67% Students Met Target
33% Students Did Not Meet Target
75% Students Met Target
25% Students Did Not Meet Target
80% Students Met Target
20% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
2013-2014
2012-2013
Percent of Students
2013-20142012-20132011-2012 Achievement Targets
Chart_13-16_Measure_1_Status Printed: 6/13/2014 12:53 PM
Spring 2014 ACT
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
1) Sources: Spring 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 ACT - Student-level Data from MME
2) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University
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
Spring 2014 ACT
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
1) Sources: Spring 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 ACT - Student-level Data from MME
2) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University
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
Proof Point 5A - EPAS Achievement
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
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
EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT
52%
32%
37% 37% Students Met Target
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
32% Students Met Target
68% Students Did Not Meet Target
52% Students Met Target
48% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
39%
33%
32%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
32% Students Met Target
68% Students Did Not Meet Target
33% Students Met Target
67% Students Did Not Meet Target
39% Students Met Target
61% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
19%
18%
15%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
15% Students Met Target
85% Students Did Not Meet Target
18% Students Met Target
82% Students Did Not Meet Target
19% Students Met Target
81% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
80%
75%
67%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
67% Students Met Target
33% Students Did Not Meet Target
75% Students Met Target
25% Students Did Not Meet Target
80% Students Met Target
20% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
2013-2014
2012-2013
Percent of Students
2013-20142012-20132011-2012 Achievement Targets
Chart_13-16_Measure_1_Status Printed: 6/13/2014 12:53 PM
Percent of Students Meeting the Target
ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS
Proof Point 5A - EPAS Achievement
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
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
EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT
52%
32%
37% 37% Students Met Target
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
32% Students Met Target
68% Students Did Not Meet Target
52% Students Met Target
48% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
39%
33%
32%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
32% Students Met Target
68% Students Did Not Meet Target
33% Students Met Target
67% Students Did Not Meet Target
39% Students Met Target
61% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
19%
18%
15%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
15% Students Met Target
85% Students Did Not Meet Target
18% Students Met Target
82% Students Did Not Meet Target
19% Students Met Target
81% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
80%
75%
67%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
67% Students Met Target
33% Students Did Not Meet Target
75% Students Met Target
25% Students Did Not Meet Target
80% Students Met Target
20% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
2013-2014
2012-2013
Percent of Students
2013-20142012-20132011-2012 Achievement Targets
Chart_13-16_Measure_1_Status Printed: 6/13/2014 12:53 PM
Percent of Students Meeting the Target
ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS
Proof Point 5A - EPAS Achievement
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
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
EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT
52%
32%
37% 37% Students Met Target
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
32% Students Met Target
68% Students Did Not Meet Target
52% Students Met Target
48% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
39%
33%
32%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
32% Students Met Target
68% Students Did Not Meet Target
33% Students Met Target
67% Students Did Not Meet Target
39% Students Met Target
61% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
19%
18%
15%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
15% Students Met Target
85% Students Did Not Meet Target
18% Students Met Target
82% Students Did Not Meet Target
19% Students Met Target
81% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
80%
75%
67%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
67% Students Met Target
33% Students Did Not Meet Target
75% Students Met Target
25% Students Did Not Meet Target
80% Students Met Target
20% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
2013-2014
2012-2013
Percent of Students
2013-20142012-20132011-2012 Achievement Targets
Chart_13-16_Measure_1_Status Printed: 6/13/2014 12:53 PM
Percent of Students Meeting the Target
ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS
Proof Point 5A - EPAS Achievement
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
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
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
EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT EXPLORE PLAN ACT
52%
32%
37% 37% Students Met Target
63% Students Did Not Meet Target
32% Students Met Target
68% Students Did Not Meet Target
52% Students Met Target
48% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
39%
33%
32%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
32% Students Met Target
68% Students Did Not Meet Target
33% Students Met Target
67% Students Did Not Meet Target
39% Students Met Target
61% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
19%
18%
15%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
15% Students Met Target
85% Students Did Not Meet Target
18% Students Met Target
82% Students Did Not Meet Target
19% Students Met Target
81% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
80%
75%
67%
Percent of Students
2013-2014
2012-2013
67% Students Met Target
33% Students Did Not Meet Target
75% Students Met Target
25% Students Did Not Meet Target
80% Students Met Target
20% Students Did Not Meet Target
2011-2012
2013-2014
2012-2013
Percent of Students
2013-20142012-20132011-2012 Achievement Targets
Chart_13-16_Measure_1_Status Printed: 6/13/2014 12:53 PM
Fig. 13-16
14 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
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
Canton Charter Academy
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
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
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
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
15© 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
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
*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.
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
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
Canton Charter Academy
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
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
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
Canton Charter Academy
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
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
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
Canton Charter Academy
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
43rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade
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
Scale
Sco
reScale
Sco
re
Beginning Score Ending Score Achievement Target
16 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
EXPLORE to PLAN and PLAN to ACT ResultsALL STUDENTS ANALYZED BY GROWTH TOWARD ACHIEVEMENT TARGET, BASED ON MATCHED YEAR TO YEAR SCORES
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
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
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
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
17© 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
EXPLORE to PLAN and PLAN to ACT Results ALL STUDENTS ANALYZED BY GROWTH TOWARD ACHIEVEMENT BASED ON MATCHED YEAR TO YEAR SCORES
Fig. 20
*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.
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
Reading Math Science English
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
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
Reading Math Science English
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
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
Reading Math Science English
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
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
Reading Math Science English
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
Beginning Score Ending Score Achievement Target
18 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
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
19© 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
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
20 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
ABC Academy
MEAP
Notes:
1) Source: Fall 2011, 2012, 2013 MEAP - Student-level and Public data
2) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University
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
*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.
STATE & FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITYMichigan Educational Assessment Program
ABC Academy
MEAP
Notes:
1) Source: Fall 2011, 2012, 2013 MEAP - Student-level and Public data
2) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University
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
21© 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
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
Ethnic/Racial Minorities 9.8% 20.3% 31.9% #N/A
Students with Disabilities 3.2% 4.3% 10.0% #N/A
Limited English Proficient -- -- -- #N/A
Economically Disadvantaged 14.3% 22.5% 32.8% #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
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
*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.
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
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
Ethnic/Racial Minorities 9.8% 20.3% 31.9% #N/A
Students with Disabilities 3.2% 4.3% 10.0% #N/A
Limited English Proficient -- -- -- #N/A
Economically Disadvantaged 14.3% 22.5% 32.8% #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
Academy Percent Proficient
Reading
Math
22 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
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
*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.
ABC Academy
Notes:
1) Source: Spring 2012, 2013, 2014 MME - PDC Warehouse
2) = 10 or less students tested
3) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University
Updated: 7/10/2014 4:32:40 PM
ComparisonComparisonComparisonComparisonComparison
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%
Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
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
3) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University
Updated: 7/10/2014 4:32:40 PM
ComparisonComparisonComparisonComparisonComparison
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%
Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2014 Composite Resident District Spring 2014 State Average Spring 2014
Printed: 10/15/2014 3:53 PM
23© 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
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
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 4B - Achievement by Subgroups - MME
ABC Academy
Academy Percent Proficient
Academy Percent Proficient
Reading
Math
Fig. 26
Fig. 25
*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.
24 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
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?
2) Compiled by: The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University
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
2) Compiled by: The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University
Created: 3/25/2014 11:09:37 AM
2012-2013 Priority Level
Page 1 of 1 Printed: 6/18/2014 1:56 PM
25© 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
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
2) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University
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
2) Compiled by: The Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University
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
26 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
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
Canton Charter Academy
Cross Creek Charter Academy
Holly Academy
Charyl Stockwell 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
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
West Michigan Academy of Environmental Science
Summit Academy
Renaissance Public School Academy
State Average
Summit Academy North
Walden Green Montessori
International Academy of Flint
Central Academy
West Village Academy
Kensington Woods High School
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
Plymouth Educational Center Charter School
New Branches Charter Academy
North Saginaw Charter Academy
Pansophia Academy
Threshold Academy
Lansing Public Schools
Flagship Charter Academy
Linden Charter Academy
Grand Rapids Public Schools
The Dearborn Academy
Old Redford Academy
Mid-Michigan Leadership Academy
Detroit Public Schools
Eaton Academy
Taylor International Academy
Global Preparatory Academy
Flint Public Schools
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%
Canton Charter Academy
South Arbor Charter Academy
Holly Academy
Cross Creek Charter Academy
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
Eagle Crest Charter Academy
West Michigan Academy of Environmental Science
Noor International Academy Δ
Island City Academy
Charyl Stockwell Academy
The Midland Academy of Advanced and Creative Studies
State Average
Quest Charter Academy
Summit Academy North
Central Academy
Summit Academy
Cole Academy
Renaissance Public School Academy
Morey Montessori Public School Academy
North Saginaw Charter Academy
Trillium Academy
Academy of Southfield
Walden Green Montessori
Flagship Charter Academy
International Academy of Flint
New Beginnings Academy
Overall CRD for CMU Schools
Threshold Academy
Riverside Academy
Linden Charter Academy
West Village Academy
Countryside Academy
El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz Academy
Pansophia Academy
Grand Rapids Public Schools
New Branches Charter Academy
Woodland Park Academy
The da Vinci Institute
The Dearborn Academy
Lansing Public Schools
Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse of Detroit
Flint Public Schools
Detroit Public Schools
Detroit Innovation Academy Δ
Jefferson International Academy Δ
Plymouth Educational Center Charter School
Kensington Woods High School
Old Redford Academy
Woodward Academy
Taylor International Academy
Eaton Academy
Starr Detroit Academy Δ
Dr. Charles Drew Academy
Michigan Technical Academy
Mid-Michigan Leadership Academy
Detroit Leadership Academy
Global Preparatory Academy
Detroit West Preparatory Academy
Academy of International Studies Δ
Greater Heights Academy Δ
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.
27© 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
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
Canton Charter Academy
Cross Creek Charter Academy
Holly Academy
Charyl Stockwell 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
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
West Michigan Academy of Environmental Science
Summit Academy
Renaissance Public School Academy
State Average
Summit Academy North
Walden Green Montessori
International Academy of Flint
Central Academy
West Village Academy
Kensington Woods High School
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
Plymouth Educational Center Charter School
New Branches Charter Academy
North Saginaw Charter Academy
Pansophia Academy
Threshold Academy
Lansing Public Schools
Flagship Charter Academy
Linden Charter Academy
Grand Rapids Public Schools
The Dearborn Academy
Old Redford Academy
Mid-Michigan Leadership Academy
Detroit Public Schools
Eaton Academy
Taylor International Academy
Global Preparatory Academy
Flint Public Schools
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%
Canton Charter Academy
South Arbor Charter Academy
Holly Academy
Cross Creek Charter Academy
A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School
Eagle Crest Charter Academy
West Michigan Academy of Environmental Science
Noor International Academy Δ
Island City Academy
Charyl Stockwell Academy
The Midland Academy of Advanced and Creative Studies
State Average
Quest Charter Academy
Summit Academy North
Central Academy
Summit Academy
Cole Academy
Renaissance Public School Academy
Morey Montessori Public School Academy
North Saginaw Charter Academy
Trillium Academy
Academy of Southfield
Walden Green Montessori
Flagship Charter Academy
International Academy of Flint
New Beginnings Academy
Overall CRD for CMU Schools
Threshold Academy
Riverside Academy
Linden Charter Academy
West Village Academy
Countryside Academy
El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz Academy
Pansophia Academy
Grand Rapids Public Schools
New Branches Charter Academy
Woodland Park Academy
The da Vinci Institute
The Dearborn Academy
Lansing Public Schools
Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse of Detroit
Flint Public Schools
Detroit Public Schools
Detroit Innovation Academy Δ
Jefferson International Academy Δ
Plymouth Educational Center Charter School
Kensington Woods High School
Old Redford Academy
Woodward Academy
Taylor International Academy
Eaton Academy
Starr Detroit Academy Δ
Dr. Charles Drew Academy
Michigan Technical Academy
Mid-Michigan Leadership Academy
Detroit Leadership Academy
Global Preparatory Academy
Detroit West Preparatory Academy
Academy of International Studies Δ
Greater Heights Academy Δ
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.
28 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
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
29© 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
NOTES
30 Academic Performance Report 2013-2014 © 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
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
31© 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
Fig. 1 Source: The Charter Contract and Educational Service Provider Agreement (if applicable)
Fig. 2 Source: Michigan Department of Education, CEPI Public Data
Fig. 3 Source: Michigan Department of Education, CEPI Public Data
Fig. 4 Source: Michigan Department of Education, Michigan Student Data System fall - Unaudited
Fig. 5 Source: Michigan Department of Education, CEPI Public Data
Fig. 6 Source: Michigan Department of Education, MEAP and MME
Fig. 7 Source: Michigan Department of Education, CEPI Public Data
Fig. 8 Source: Michigan Department of Education, Michigan Student Data System fall - Unaudited
Fig. 9 Source: Michigan Department of Education, Michigan Student Data System fall - Unaudited
Fig. 10 Source: Michigan Department of Education, Michigan Student Data System fall - Unaudited
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. 14 Source: ACT, Inc. EXPLORE & PLAN and MME ACT
Fig. 15 Source: ACT, Inc. EXPLORE & PLAN and MME ACT
Fig. 16 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. 20 Source: ACT, Inc. EXPLORE & PLAN and MME ACT
Fig. 21 Source: Michigan Department of Education, MEAP
Fig. 22 Source: Michigan Department of Education, MEAP
Fig. 23 Source: Michigan Department of Education, MEAP
Fig. 24 Source: Michigan Department of Education, MME
Fig. 25 Source: Michigan Department of Education, MME
Fig. 26 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
Top Related