A Comparison of Michigan’s Charter School Authorizers
By Liyang Mao and Bettie Landauer-Menchik, Education Policy Center, Michigan State University, December
2012
Purpose
This study compares the performance of the large charter school authorizers in Michigan by using Michigan’s
2011-12 School Ranking Business Rules, i.e. the rules used for the state’s school top to bottom list. Large
authorizers are defined as those with three or more schools. Part I ranks authorizers by the Top to Bottom rules.
Part II compares the growth rates of authorizers using Michigan’s rules in order to make a reasonable comparison
to the CREDO report. Part III of this study compares subgroup performance by authorizer using the Top to
Bottom ranking rules.
Each of the eleven charter authorizers included in this study currently authorize at least three schools in the state.






Bay Mills Community College (BMCC)
Central Michigan University (CMU)
Detroit Public Schools (DPS)
Eastern Michigan University (EMU)
Ferris State University (FSU)
Grand Valley State University (GVSU)





Lake Superior State University (LSSU)
Northern Michigan University (NMU)
Oakland University (OU)
Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU)
Wayne RESA (WRESA)
Three authorizers account for almost two- thirds of full academic year (FAY) charter school students taking
MEAP: Central Michigan (CMU), Grand Valley (GVSU), and Bay Mills (BMCC). CMU, GVSU, and Saginaw
Valley (SVSU) account for 45% of high school students taking MME.
Part I: Applying Michigan’s Top to Bottom Rules for Authorizers
Part I of this study created a top to bottom ranking for the eleven large authorizers based on the MDE’s 2011-12
School Ranking Business Rules. Ranking calculations for the “all students group” are based on MEAP or MME
test and does not include students who took MEAP-Access or MI-Access. Only Full Academic Year (FAY)
students were included.
The ranking is based on student achievement, student growth over time, authorizer improvement over time, and
achievement gaps across all five tested subjects (mathematics, reading, science, social studies, and writing), as
well as graduation rate for authorizers with graduating students.
Specifically, authorizers were rank ordered using a proficiency index (weighted average of two years of
achievement data), a progress index (two or four years of achievement data), and an achievement gap index
(weighted average of two years of top/bottom 30 percent of students’ achievement data). Authorizers with
graduating students also had graduation rate and graduation rate improvement included in their ranking
calculation. **For a more detailed methodology of the Business Rules from the state’s website, see pages 13-16.
Achievement is weighted more than improvement or achievement gaps. This is because the focus is on
persistently low-achieving schools. Weighting achievement more heavily assures that the lowest performing
schools, unless they are improving significantly over time, still receive the assistance and monitoring they need to
begin improvement and/or increase their improvement to a degree that will lead reasonably quickly to adequate
achievement levels.
Disclaimer: The content of this paper represents the work or the authors and does not necessarily represent the
views of the Education Policy Center or Michigan State University
Table 1 shows the number of full academic year students (FAY) from the most recent MEAP and MME tests.
Table 1: Number of Full Academic Year Students by Authorizer for MEAP 2011 and MME 2012
Number of FAY student tested in MEAP 2011
Math
Reading
Writing
Science
BMCC
CMU
DPS
EMU
FSU
GVSU
LSSU
NMU
OU
SVSU
WRESA
11,426
16,940
994
2,098
4,754
12,913
2,970
1,575
3,434
6,341
756
10,085
14,652
820
1,881
4,057
11,223
2,539
1,366
2,983
5,338
640
10,059
14,609
817
1,879
4,056
11,208
2,536
1,356
2,989
5,328
642
3,389
4,870
276
630
1,344
3,780
868
446
1,023
1,770
187
Number of FAY student tested in MME 2012
Math
Reading
Writing
Science Social Studies
Social Studies
3,143
4,779
256
571
1,338
3,711
805
444
960
1,857
224
350
843
131
61
335
495
176
27
128
732
217
BMCC
CMU
DPS
EMU
FSU
GVSU
LSSU
NMU
OU
SVSU
WRESA
350
846
138
63
340
502
176
27
128
735
224
348
850
138
66
348
503
175
27
128
734
226
350
847
134
62
342
496
176
27
128
734
219
354
843
137
62
339
500
176
27
128
737
218
Three authorizers account for almost two- thirds of charter school students taking MEAP: CMU, GVSU, and
BMCC. CMU, GVSU, and SVSU account for 45% of high school students taking MME.
Table 2 shows the ranking for the authorizers using the same methodology as the state’s top to bottom ranking.
The ranking is based on student achievement, student growth over time, authorizer improvement over time, and
achievement gaps across all five tested subjects (mathematics, reading, science, social studies, and writing), as
well as graduation rate for authorizers with graduating students.
Table 2: Ranking of Authorizers using the State Top to Bottom Rules
MEAP z-scores
MME z-scores
Authorizer
GVSU
LSSU
CMU
OU
WRESA
Math
1.69
0.48
1.48
-0.47
0.37
Reading
1.68
0.70
0.98
0.07
0.52
Writing
1.50
0.28
0.72
0.41
0.21
SVSU
BMCC
FSU
NMU
EMU
DPS
-0.65
0.45
-0.59
-0.17
-1.20
-1.40
-0.51
-0.08
-0.75
0.28
-1.90
-0.98
-0.59
0.61
0.49
-2.04
-1.31
-0.27
Science Social Studies
1.30
0.33
0.50
0.21
-0.36
1.25
0.54
1.15
0.35
-0.37
-1.07
-0.53
-0.65
-0.02
-1.72
1.65
0.45
0.57
-0.70
0.28
-1.01
-2.17
Math Reading Writing
0.83
1.54
0.65
1.55
0.77
1.02
0.33
0.88
0.66
0.34
-0.39
0.62
0.31
0.07
0.27
-0.12
-0.66
-0.29
N/A
-0.03
-2.25
0.34
-1.80
0.14
N/A
-0.29
-1.28
0.44
-1.13
-0.48
N/A
0.17
-2.22
Authorizer
Graduation Performance
Index
Science Social Studies Rate Index
1.04
1.29
1.09
1.18
1.18
1.33
0.44
0.77
0.88
0.82
0.14
0.70
0.10
-0.68
0.50
0.20
0.35
0.79
-0.92
0.17
0.61
-0.67
-0.48
N/A
-1.50
-1.52
-0.04
-1.22
-1.01
N/A
-0.15
-1.13
0.41
0.90
0.18
-1.02
0.55
-2.27
-0.06
-0.31
-0.37
-0.40
-0.75
-1.27
The MEAP and MME subject areas show the z-scores for each content area and the graduation rate. The last
column is the Authorizer Performance Index. The Authorizer Performance Index shows the rank order using a
proficiency index (weighted average of two years of achievement data), a progress index (two or four years of
achievement data), and an achievement gap index (weighted average of two years of top/bottom 30 percent of
students’ achievement data). Authorizers with graduating students also had graduation rate and graduation rate
improvement included in their ranking calculation. Scores that are positive show those authorizers that rank
above the average across the eleven authorizers. GVSU ranks highest among the listed authorizers followed by
2
LSSU and CMU. Scores that are negative show those authorizers below the average of the eleven authorizers.
EMU and DPS rank lowest.
Part II: Michigan’s Growth Model compared to CREDO’s
Tables 3 and 4 are provided to show a reasonable comparison with the CREDO results IF the CREDO study had
used the same methodology that Michigan uses to evaluate growth. Michigan uses FAY students in its growth
measure. CREDO does not use FAY data in their study and uses a different definition of growth than
Michigan does. CREDO includes students matched to comparable Traditional Public Schools (TPS) students
with similar demographics. For example, Black students who receive free and reduced price lunch in charter
schools in Detroit are compared to similar students in TPS in Detroit.
Table 3 shows the cumulative growth/progress of students in math for the last three years of MEAP using only
FAY students. The four comparisons include the percent of students proficient (proficient in 2008-11), the percent
of students Improving or Significantly Improving, the percent of students Not Proficient but Improving, and the
percent of students moving from Not or Partially Proficient to Proficient or Advanced (growth from 2008-9,
2009-10, and 2010-11).
Table 3: Cumulative Growth in Math from 2009 - 2011 for students in grade 3-8
Math Cumulative Growth
Not/Partially
Proficient ->
Proficient/
Advanced
PSAname
N_math
Percent
Proficient
Percent
Improving
Not/Partially
Proficient but
Improving
State
1,579,995
37%
33%
25%
8%
All TPSs
1,481,841
38%
33%
25%
8%
The 11 Large Authorizers
98,138
27%
36%
30%
8%
CMU, GVSU, and LSSU
49,767
32%
36%
29%
9%
BMCC
17,903
25%
36%
31%
8%
CMU
26,046
29%
36%
29%
8%
DPS
1,487
21%
36%
33%
10%
EMU
3,438
22%
34%
30%
7%
FSU
6,887
16%
38%
35%
7%
GVSU
19,204
36%
36%
28%
9%
LSSU
4,517
35%
37%
29%
10%
NMU
2,524
24%
33%
29%
7%
OU
5,521
23%
34%
30%
8%
SVSU
9,697
20%
33%
29%
7%
914
23%
40%
36%
10%
WRESA
37% of students statewide were proficient on the MEAP, compared to 38% of students in TPS, 27% in schools of
the large authorizers, and 32% of students in schools affiliated with the three major authorizers. The growth rate
for each of the authorizers was equivalent or higher than the state average. It is reasonable to expect that students
who are not proficient are more likely to improve than students who are already proficient. While students in
DPS and WRESA authorized schools are less likely to be proficient in math than the state average, they have a
higher percentage of students improving, including students moving from not proficient to proficient.
3
Table 4 shows the cumulative growth/progress of students in reading for the last three years of MEAP using only
FAY students. The four comparisons include the percent of students proficient (proficient in 2008-11), the percent
of students Improving or Significantly Improving, the percent of students Not Proficient but Improving, and the
percent of students moving from Not or Partially Proficient to Proficient or Advanced (growth from 2008-9,
2009-10, and 2010-11).
Table 4: Cumulative Growth in Reading from 2009 - 2011 for students in grade 3-8
Reading Cumulative Growth
State
1,577,792
62%
37%
19%
Not/Partially
Proficient ->
Proficient/
Advanced
10%
All TPSs
1,479,740
62%
37%
19%
10%
The 11 Large Authorizers
98,036
52%
40%
25%
12%
CMU, GVSU, and LSSU
49,714
58%
39%
22%
12%
BMCC
17,899
50%
41%
26%
12%
CMU
26,017
55%
40%
24%
11%
DPS
1,487
43%
39%
28%
15%
EMU
3,432
41%
39%
28%
12%
FSU
6,887
38%
42%
32%
13%
GVSU
19,191
62%
38%
21%
11%
LSSU
4,506
61%
40%
22%
13%
NMU
2,504
53%
37%
22%
11%
OU
5,535
47%
40%
28%
13%
SVSU
9,663
45%
40%
28%
13%
915
66%
38%
18%
12%
PSAname
N_reading
WRESA
Percent
Proficient
Percent
Improving
Not/Partially
Proficient but
Improving
62% of students statewide were proficient on the MEAP reading 2011, compared to 62% of students in
Traditional Public Schools (TPS), 52% in the schools of the large authorizers, and 58% of students in schools
affiliated with the three largest authorizers. However, the totality of schools of the included authorizers had
higher rates of growth than the traditional public schools.
Part III: Authorizer Comparison by Subgroup
Part II of this study compares the authorizers using the Top to Bottom Business Rules on the MEAP by subgroup:
1) All students; 2) by race and ethnicity (Comparing Black, White and Hispanic students); 3) by Economically
Disadvantaged (ED) and Not Economically Disadvantaged (not ED), 4) by Limited English Proficient (LEP) and
not Limited English Proficient (not LEP), and 5) by Special Education (SE) and not Special Education (not SE).
Within and between each subgroup, authorizers were compared by percent proficient in the MEAP tests in:





Reading in Grades 3 to 8
Mathematics in Grades 3 to 8
Writing in Grades 4 and 7
Science in Grades 5 and 8
Social Studies in Grades 6 and 9
4
Results
Table 5 shows the number of students tested in MEAP tested grades and the distribution of students. This table
can be used to compare the proportion of students in each subgroup by authorizer. In Michigan, race is correlated
with economically disadvantaged (ED). Black and Hispanic students are more likely to receive free or reduced
price lunch than White students. Students in charter schools are more likely to be Black and Economically
Disadvantaged than the state population as a whole. A smaller percentage of Special Education students are in
charter schools than the state population as a whole.
Table 5: Comparison of the number of students tested by subgroup and the distribution of students tested
Number of Students Tested
All
Authorizer Students
State
1,570,028
All Authorizers
109,308
BMCC
19,823
CMU
28,915
DPS
1,602
EMU
3,549
FSU
7,842
GVSU
21,775
LSSU
5,242
NMU
2,731
OU
5,997
SVSU
10,688
WRESA
1,144
White
1,111,664
37,976
6,224
11,674
2
510
1,750
9,083
2,046
952
1,824
3,473
438
Black
276,261
57,787
10,942
14,414
1,592
2,751
4,954
9,832
2,796
755
4,068
5,131
552
Hispanic
93,615
7,591
1,303
1,373
6
165
780
1,339
217
401
40
1,880
87
ED
742,697
73,555
13,604
18,494
1,195
2,815
6,403
12,773
3,145
1,974
4,637
7,970
545
NotED
827,331
35,753
6,219
10,421
407
734
1,439
9,002
2,097
757
1,360
2,718
599
LEP
59,785
5,963
1,099
1,183
98
735
544
171
155
664
1,306
8
Not LEP
1,510,243
103,345
18,724
27,732
1,602
3,451
7,107
21,231
5,071
2,576
5,333
9,382
1,136
SE
175,360
9,815
1,770
2,630
112
392
736
1,996
469
310
356
966
78
NotSE
1,394,668
99,493
18,053
26,285
1,490
3,157
7,106
19,779
4,773
2,421
5,641
9,722
1,066
Distribution of Students Tested
All
Authorizer Students
State
100%
All Authorizers 100%
BMCC
100%
CMU
100%
DPS
100%
EMU
100%
FSU
100%
GVSU
100%
LSSU
100%
NMU
100%
OU
100%
SVSU
100%
WRESA
100%
White
71%
35%
31%
40%
0%
14%
22%
42%
39%
35%
30%
32%
38%
Black
18%
53%
55%
50%
99%
78%
63%
45%
53%
28%
68%
48%
48%
Hispanic
6%
7%
7%
5%
0%
5%
10%
6%
4%
15%
1%
18%
8%
ED
47%
67%
69%
64%
75%
79%
82%
59%
60%
72%
77%
75%
48%
Not ED
53%
33%
31%
36%
25%
21%
18%
41%
40%
28%
23%
25%
52%
LEP
4%
5%
6%
4%
0%
3%
9%
2%
3%
6%
11%
12%
1%
Not LEP
96%
95%
94%
96%
100%
97%
91%
98%
97%
94%
89%
88%
99%
SE
11%
9%
9%
9%
7%
11%
9%
9%
9%
11%
6%
9%
7%
NotSE
89%
91%
91%
91%
93%
89%
91%
91%
91%
89%
94%
91%
93%
Statewide 18% of tested students are Black; among the authorizers, the highest percentage of Black students
tested is in DPS authorized schools (99%), followed by EMU (78%), and OU (68%). For the four largest
authorizers, the percentage of students tested who are Black is BMCC: 55%, CMU: 50%, SVSU: 48% and GVSU:
45%.
5
Table 6 shows the percentage of FAY students proficient in Math and Reading on MEAP by subgroups.
Table 6: Percentage of FAY students by subgroup proficient in Math and Reading in all tested grades
State
BMCC
CMU
DPS
EMU
FSU
GVSU
LSSU
NMU
OU
SVSU
WRESA
All Students
37%
25%
28%
21%
21%
16%
35%
32%
23%
23%
20%
23%
White
42%
38%
42%
N/A
42%
27%
46%
44%
29%
33%
32%
32%
Black
15%
17%
15%
21%
16%
10%
23%
22%
13%
18%
12%
16%
Hispanic
23%
23%
26%
N/A
29%
17%
29%
28%
18%
10%
22%
25%
Math
ED
22%
19%
19%
18%
18%
14%
26%
24%
18%
20%
16%
13%
NotED
50%
39%
46%
29%
33%
27%
48%
42%
34%
30%
32%
33%
LEP
18%
15%
16%
N/A
43%
10%
21%
18%
4%
14%
19%
N/A
NotLEP
37%
26%
29%
21%
20%
17%
35%
32%
24%
24%
20%
23%
SE
13%
7%
10%
16%
15%
5%
13%
16%
8%
7%
8%
13%
NotSE
39%
27%
30%
21%
22%
18%
37%
33%
24%
24%
21%
24%
State
BMCC
CMU
DPS
EMU
FSU
GVSU
LSSU
NMU
OU
SVSU
WRESA
All Students
63%
53%
56%
44%
42%
40%
63%
61%
54%
49%
46%
67%
White
70%
65%
69%
N/A
67%
51%
75%
75%
62%
52%
59%
79%
Black
40%
44%
43%
44%
37%
35%
50%
52%
40%
47%
40%
57%
Hispanic
49%
52%
53%
N/A
47%
38%
60%
61%
46%
32%
38%
71%
Reading
ED
49%
46%
46%
40%
37%
36%
54%
54%
49%
46%
41%
57%
NotED
76%
68%
74%
56%
63%
60%
76%
72%
66%
59%
62%
76%
LEP
30%
29%
27%
N/A
47%
19%
41%
44%
17%
22%
29%
N/A
NotLEP
65%
54%
57%
44%
42%
43%
64%
62%
56%
52%
49%
67%
SE
26%
18%
23%
36%
20%
17%
26%
28%
23%
20%
19%
33%
NotSE
67%
56%
59%
44%
45%
43%
67%
64%
57%
50%
49%
69%
Note: If the number of students is less than 10, the percent proficient was not calculated and is shown as N/A
In math, statewide, 37% of all students tested were proficient. The authorizers vary from a high of 35% proficient
by GVSU to a low of 16% by FSU. Statewide, the percent of Black students proficient was 15%, compared to 23%
of Black students at schools authorized by GVSU, 22% at schools authorized by LSSU, 21% at schools
authorized by DPS. Only 10% of Black students were proficient in schools authorized by FSU and 12% in schools
authorized by SVSU. Special Education students at schools authorized by DPS, EMU, and LSSU outperformed
students statewide.
In reading, the proficiency rate of all students at schools authorized by Wayne RESA, GVSU and LSSU were
close to the state average. The percentage of proficient Black students was higher than the state average for
schools authorized by BMCC, CMU, DPS, GVSU, LSSU, OU and WRESA. Special education students at
Wayne RESA, LSSU, and DPS authorized schools had a higher percentage of students that were proficient than
the state.
6
Table 7 compares the MEAP proficiency rates for all students on reading and math in grades 5 and 8 grades - the transition years for
many students. Writing, science and social studies are shown for the grades where students are tested. Each subject and grade is
ranked from the lowest percent proficient to the highest.
Table 7: Proficiency Rates for All students by Test, Grade, and Authorizer
Math_G5
Math_G8
Reading_G5
Reading_G8
Writing_G4
Writing_G7
Science_G5
Science_G8
Social Studies_G6
Social Studies_G9
DPS
11%
FSU
10%
FSU
17%
EMU
10%
NMU
21%
SVSU
12%
SVSU
21%
NMU
14%
WRESA
23%
OU
14%
OU
25%
DPS
15%
BMCC
27%
BMCC
17%
EMU
28%
CMU
21%
CMU
29%
WRESA
23%
GVSU
36%
LSSU
26%
LSSU
38%
GVSU
29%
State
40%
State
30%
DPS
45%
FSU
39%
FSU
45%
EMU
40%
EMU
50%
DPS
43%
SVSU
52%
SVSU
44%
OU
53%
NMU
46%
BMCC
56%
BMCC
49%
NMU
57%
OU
50%
CMU
60%
CMU
54%
GVSU
67%
State
59%
State
67%
LSSU
59%
LSSU
70%
WRESA
61%
WRESA
75%
GVSU
61%
EMU
27%
DPS
23%
FSU
30%
EMU
28%
NMU
30%
FSU
32%
SVSU
33%
NMU
35%
BMCC
39%
SVSU
35%
OU
39%
WRESA
37%
DPS
40%
BMCC
40%
CMU
41%
CMU
46%
WRESA
42%
OU
47%
LSSU
42%
LSSU
48%
State
46%
State
48%
GVSU
48%
GVSU
50%
FSU
4%
FSU
5%
OU
5%
WRESA
5%
SVSU
6%
NMU
5%
EMU
6%
SVSU
6%
NMU
6%
OU
7%
BMCC
7%
EMU
7%
WRESA
10%
BMCC
10%
CMU
10%
CMU
10%
GVSU
13%
GVSU
13%
LSSU
13%
LSSU
14%
DPS
16%
State
16%
State
17%
DPS
21%
FSU
8%
DPS
6%
DPS
11%
NMU
10%
OU
12%
FSU
10%
EMU
12%
EMU
12%
SVSU
14%
SVSU
13%
BMCC
15%
BMCC
17%
NMU
16%
OU
19%
LSSU
20%
WRESA
20%
WRESA
20%
CMU
21%
CMU
20%
LSSU
24%
GVSU
24%
GVSU
25%
State
28%
State
31%
For most subjects and grades, the state proficiency rate is higher than any of the authorizers. Authorizers that have the highest proficiency rates
for most subjects are GVSU and LSSU. Detroit is the highest ranked authorizer for Science in both 5th and 8th grade. LSSU and Wayne RESA
outperform the state average in 5th grade reading and LSSU, WRESA, and FVSU outperform the state in 8th grade reading.
7
Table 8 compares the percentage of proficiency rates on MEAP by race and ethnicity in selected grades in all tested
subjects. Proficiency is ranked based on the Black student proficiency rate.
Table 8: Comparison of MEAP Proficiency rates by Subject, Grade, Race and Ethnicity
Math_G5
Math_G5
Math_G5
Math_G5
Black
Hispanic
White
All
NMU
10%
12%
32%
21%
FSU
11%
21%
27%
17%
DPS
11%
N/A
N/A
11%
SVSU
13%
22%
33%
21%
CMU
16%
23%
42%
29%
BMCC
17%
27%
41%
27%
State
18%
25%
45%
40%
OU
18%
N/A
42%
25%
EMU
24%
37%
52%
28%
WRESA
24%
6%
24%
23%
GVSU
26%
28%
45%
36%
LSSU
31%
21%
50%
38%
Math_G8
Math_G8
Math_G8
Math_G8
Black
Hispanic
White
All
FSU
5%
21%
18%
10%
EMU
5%
7%
34%
10%
NMU
7%
11%
13%
14%
CMU
8%
19%
35%
21%
WRESA
8%
15%
49%
23%
SVSU
9%
6%
23%
12%
State
9%
16%
35%
30%
OU
10%
N/A
20%
14%
BMCC
11%
14%
28%
17%
DPS
15%
N/A
N/A
15%
GVSU
17%
27%
45%
29%
LSSU
17%
21%
40%
26%
Reading_G5
Reading_G5
Reading_G5
Reading_G5
Black
Hispanic
White
All
FSU
40%
47%
54%
45%
NMU
43%
47%
66%
57%
EMU
44%
60%
77%
50%
DPS
45%
N/A
N/A
45%
SVSU
46%
43%
63%
52%
State
47%
55%
73%
67%
CMU
48%
60%
73%
60%
BMCC
48%
56%
66%
56%
OU
51%
N/A
58%
53%
GVSU
56%
64%
76%
67%
LSSU
68%
46%
76%
70%
WRESA
68%
63%
83%
75%
Reading_G8
Reading_G8
Reading_G8
Reading_G8
Black
Hispanic
White
All
FSU
33%
41%
55%
39%
EMU
36%
27%
63%
40%
NMU
37%
46%
49%
46%
State
38%
45%
65%
59%
SVSU
38%
36%
57%
44%
WRESA
42%
69%
90%
61%
DPS
43%
N/A
N/A
43%
CMU
43%
55%
67%
54%
BMCC
45%
51%
57%
49%
LSSU
49%
61%
76%
59%
OU
49%
N/A
53%
50%
GVSU
52%
56%
73%
61%
Writing_G4
Writing_G4
Writing_G4
Writing_G4
Black
Hispanic
White
All
NMU
17%
27%
35%
30%
FSU
25%
33%
36%
30%
EMU
26%
39%
29%
27%
SVSU
26%
32%
43%
33%
State
28%
35%
51%
46%
CMU
29%
39%
51%
41%
BMCC
32%
35%
47%
39%
LSSU
35%
26%
51%
42%
WRESA
36%
33%
45%
42%
OU
39%
N/A
40%
39%
DPS
40%
N/A
N/A
40%
GVSU
40%
42%
53%
48%
Writing_G7
Writing_G7
Writing_G7
Writing_G7
Black
Hispanic
White
All
DPS
23%
N/A
N/A
23%
EMU
24%
36%
49%
28%
FSU
25%
30%
46%
32%
NMU
27%
44%
44%
35%
State
27%
37%
54%
48%
WRESA
29%
20%
52%
37%
SVSU
32%
33%
42%
35%
BMCC
34%
47%
47%
40%
CMU
35%
39%
58%
46%
LSSU
42%
46%
58%
48%
GVSU
43%
47%
57%
50%
OU
44%
N/A
53%
47%
Science_G5
Science_G5
Science_G5
Science_G5
Black
Hispanic
White
All
FSU
1%
3%
11%
4%
SVSU
2%
3%
13%
6%
NMU
2%
N/A
11%
6%
EMU
2%
3%
29%
6%
BMCC
2%
5%
14%
7%
CMU
2%
6%
19%
10%
GVSU
3%
7%
21%
13%
State
4%
7%
20%
17%
OU
4%
N/A
9%
5%
WRESA
4%
13%
14%
10%
LSSU
13%
3%
15%
13%
DPS
16%
N/A
N/A
16%
Science_G8
Science_G8
Science_G8
Science_G8
Black
Hispanic
White
All
FSU
1%
5%
13%
5%
WRESA
2%
N/A
13%
5%
EMU
2%
7%
32%
7%
SVSU
3%
3%
13%
6%
NMU
3%
2%
7%
5%
State
3%
7%
19%
16%
CMU
3%
9%
17%
10%
GVSU
5%
10%
24%
13%
OU
5%
N/A
10%
7%
BMCC
7%
7%
16%
10%
LSSU
8%
6%
23%
14%
DPS
21%
N/A
N/A
21%
Soc St_G6
Soc St_G6
Soc St_G6
Soc St_G6
Black
Hispanic
White
All
NMU
3%
11%
24%
16%
FSU
5%
5%
16%
8%
EMU
6%
17%
36%
12%
SVSU
8%
13%
23%
14%
CMU
9%
14%
33%
20%
BMCC
9%
7%
26%
15%
State
9%
16%
34%
28%
GVSU
10%
19%
36%
24%
OU
10%
N/A
16%
12%
DPS
11%
N/A
N/A
11%
LSSU
15%
20%
28%
20%
WRESA
18%
10%
27%
20%
Soc St_G9
Soc St_G9
Soc St_G9
Soc St_G9
Black
Hispanic
White
All
NMU
3%
12%
12%
10%
WRESA
3%
N/A
49%
20%
FSU
5%
17%
27%
10%
DPS
6%
N/A
N/A
6%
CMU
7%
25%
36%
21%
EMU
7%
9%
40%
12%
State
8%
19%
37%
31%
SVSU
8%
10%
24%
13%
GVSU
10%
22%
45%
25%
BMCC
10%
24%
29%
17%
LSSU
13%
16%
42%
24%
OU
16%
N/A
25%
19%
In all subjects, there remain significant gaps between subgroups. Black students are the lowest performing subgroup in all
subjects. LSSU, GVSU, and OU have a higher percentage of Black students proficient in almost all subjects than the state.
In 8th grade reading, Black students outperform the state in schools of 9 of the authorizers, Hispanic students outperform
8
the state in schools of 5 authorizers; White students outperform the state in schools of 4 authorizers. All students,
including the subgroups, in schools authorized by NMU, FSU, EMU, and SVSU (except in 7th grade writing) are less
likely to be proficient on these MEAP tests. Students in DPS authorized schools exceed all other authorizers in both 5th
and 8th grade science.
Table 9 compares the proficiency rate on MEAP in selected grades in all tested subject by the percentage of students who
are Economically Disadvantaged (ED). Student proficiency is ranked based on the proficiency rate of Economically
Disadvantaged students.
Table 9: Comparison of MEAP Proficiency rates by Subject, Grade and Economically Disadvantaged
Math_G5
Math_G5
Math_G5
ED
Not ED
All
DPS
10%
12%
11%
FSU
16%
25%
17%
SVSU
17%
33%
21%
WRESA
17%
28%
23%
NMU
18%
28%
21%
CMU
20%
45%
29%
BMCC
21%
40%
27%
OU
22%
34%
25%
State
25%
53%
40%
EMU
26%
36%
28%
GVSU
28%
48%
36%
LSSU
31%
51%
38%
Math_G8
Math_G8
Math_G8
ED
Not ED
All
WRESA
5%
43%
23%
EMU
6%
25%
10%
SVSU
8%
25%
12%
FSU
8%
16%
10%
CMU
11%
38%
21%
BMCC
12%
31%
17%
NMU
12%
19%
14%
DPS
13%
23%
15%
OU
13%
18%
14%
State
15%
41%
30%
LSSU
17%
38%
26%
GVSU
20%
43%
29%
Reading_G5 ED
Reading_G5 Not ED
Reading_G5 All
DPS
40%
57%
45%
FSU
41%
66%
45%
EMU
44%
75%
50%
SVSU
46%
68%
52%
BMCC
49%
71%
56%
OU
50%
65%
53%
CMU
51%
76%
60%
NMU
54%
64%
57%
State
54%
80%
67%
GVSU
59%
79%
67%
LSSU
66%
76%
70%
WRESA
71%
77%
75%
Reading_G8 ED
Reading_G8 Not ED
Reading_G8 All
EMU
36%
55%
40%
FSU
36%
52%
39%
DPS
38%
63%
43%
SVSU
39%
59%
44%
NMU
43%
56%
46%
State
44%
70%
59%
CMU
45%
71%
54%
BMCC
45%
60%
49%
WRESA
47%
75%
61%
OU
49%
54%
50%
LSSU
50%
72%
59%
GVSU
54%
71%
61%
Writing_G4 ED
Writing_G4 Not ED
Writing_G4 All
NMU
25%
46%
30%
EMU
26%
32%
27%
FSU
28%
39%
30%
SVSU
28%
48%
33%
CMU
31%
59%
41%
BMCC
32%
54%
39%
State
33%
60%
46%
LSSU
33%
55%
42%
WRESA
36%
46%
42%
DPS
36%
52%
40%
OU
36%
50%
39%
GVSU
40%
60%
48%
Writing_G7 ED
Writing_G7 Not ED
Writing_G7 All
DPS
22%
25%
23%
EMU
23%
46%
28%
WRESA
25%
44%
37%
FSU
28%
46%
32%
NMU
29%
50%
35%
SVSU
32%
45%
35%
State
34%
61%
48%
BMCC
35%
51%
40%
CMU
36%
63%
46%
LSSU
41%
58%
48%
GVSU
43%
60%
50%
OU
44%
57%
47%
Science_G5 ED
Science_G5 Not ED
Science_G5 All
FSU
2%
12%
4%
EMU
2%
23%
6%
SVSU
3%
15%
6%
BMCC
4%
15%
7%
CMU
4%
21%
10%
OU
4%
11%
5%
NMU
4%
12%
6%
WRESA
5%
13%
10%
GVSU
7%
21%
13%
State
8%
25%
17%
DPS
8%
37%
16%
LSSU
11%
16%
13%
Science_G8 ED
Science_G8 Not ED
Science_G8 All
EMU
3%
25%
7%
SVSU
3%
15%
6%
FSU
4%
10%
5%
CMU
4%
19%
10%
NMU
5%
7%
5%
OU
5%
13%
7%
BMCC
6%
17%
10%
GVSU
7%
21%
13%
State
7%
23%
16%
LSSU
9%
19%
14%
DPS
13%
53%
21%
WRESA
N/A
11%
5%
Soc St_G6
Soc St_G6
Soc St_G6
ED
Not ED
All
FSU
5%
26%
8%
EMU
7%
35%
12%
DPS
9%
16%
11%
SVSU
10%
27%
14%
BMCC
10%
26%
15%
OU
10%
18%
12%
NMU
10%
31%
16%
CMU
11%
38%
20%
WRESA
12%
28%
20%
GVSU
14%
37%
24%
State
15%
40%
28%
LSSU
16%
27%
20%
Soc St_G9
Soc St_G9
Soc St_G9
ED
Not ED
All
DPS
5%
10%
6%
WRESA
6%
38%
20%
FSU
8%
19%
10%
EMU
8%
21%
12%
NMU
8%
14%
10%
SVSU
10%
25%
13%
CMU
12%
33%
21%
BMCC
12%
26%
17%
LSSU
13%
41%
24%
GVSU
15%
38%
25%
OU
15%
33%
19%
State
17%
43%
31%
In schools authorized by GVSU and LSSU Economically Disadvantaged students perform as well or better than the state
average on most MEAP tests.
9
Table 10 compares the proficiency on MEAP in selected grades in math by Limited English Proficiency. Student
proficiency is ranked based on the Limited English Proficiency rate.
Table 10: Comparison of MEAP Proficiency rates by Subject, Grade and Limited English Proficiency
Math_G5
Math_G5
Math_G5
LEP
Not LEP
All
NMU
7%
22%
21%
FSU
13%
18%
17%
LSSU
13%
39%
38%
CMU
15%
29%
29%
BMCC
16%
28%
27%
GVSU
16%
37%
36%
SVSU
18%
22%
21%
State
20%
40%
40%
OU
20%
25%
25%
EMU
55%
27%
28%
DPS
N/A
11%
11%
WRESA
N/A
23%
23%
Math_G8
Math_G8
Math_G8
LEP
Not LEP
All
SVSU
6%
13%
12%
BMCC
7%
18%
17%
CMU
8%
22%
21%
OU
8%
15%
14%
LSSU
10%
27%
26%
State
10%
30%
30%
FSU
11%
10%
10%
GVSU
14%
29%
29%
DPS
N/A
15%
15%
EMU
N/A
10%
10%
NMU
N/A
14%
14%
WRESA
N/A
24%
23%
Reading_G5 LEP
Reading_G5 Not LEP
Reading_G5 All
NMU
17%
60%
57%
FSU
17%
48%
45%
OU
21%
56%
53%
CMU
28%
61%
60%
SVSU
33%
55%
52%
State
34%
69%
67%
BMCC
40%
57%
56%
LSSU
43%
71%
70%
GVSU
45%
68%
67%
EMU
60%
50%
50%
DPS
N/A
45%
45%
WRESA
N/A
75%
75%
Reading_G8 LEP
Reading_G8 Not LEP
Reading_G8 All
BMCC
19%
51%
49%
OU
22%
55%
50%
State
22%
60%
59%
CMU
26%
55%
54%
FSU
27%
40%
39%
SVSU
28%
45%
44%
LSSU
30%
60%
59%
GVSU
33%
61%
61%
DPS
N/A
43%
43%
EMU
N/A
40%
40%
NMU
N/A
48%
46%
WRESA
N/A
61%
61%
Writing_G4 LEP
Writing_G4 Not LEP
Writing_G4 All
NMU
15%
32%
30%
SVSU
21%
35%
33%
CMU
22%
41%
41%
FSU
24%
31%
30%
BMCC
25%
39%
39%
State
25%
47%
46%
OU
28%
41%
39%
GVSU
30%
48%
48%
LSSU
31%
43%
42%
EMU
35%
27%
27%
DPS
N/A
40%
40%
WRESA
N/A
41%
42%
Writing_G7 LEP
Writing_G7 Not LEP
Writing_G7 All
NMU
7%
36%
35%
FSU
10%
34%
32%
LSSU
18%
49%
48%
State
18%
49%
48%
BMCC
19%
41%
40%
SVSU
23%
37%
35%
CMU
25%
47%
46%
GVSU
26%
51%
50%
OU
27%
50%
47%
DPS
N/A
23%
23%
EMU
N/A
28%
28%
WRESA
N/A
37%
37%
Science_G5
Science_G5
Science_G5
LEP
Not LEP
All
SVSU
0%
7%
6%
OU
1%
6%
5%
CMU
2%
10%
10%
State
2%
17%
17%
GVSU
2%
13%
13%
BMCC
3%
7%
7%
NMU
3%
7%
6%
EMU
5%
6%
6%
DPS
N/A
16%
16%
FSU
N/A
4%
4%
LSSU
N/A
14%
13%
WRESA
N/A
10%
10%
Science_G8
Science_G8
Science_G8
LEP
Not LEP
All
CMU
1%
10%
10%
OU
1%
8%
7%
BMCC
1%
10%
10%
State
2%
16%
16%
GVSU
3%
13%
13%
LSSU
5%
14%
14%
DPS
N/A
21%
21%
EMU
N/A
7%
7%
FSU
N/A
5%
5%
NMU
N/A
6%
5%
SVSU
N/A
7%
6%
WRESA
N/A
5%
5%
Soc St_G6
Soc St_G6
Soc St_G6
LEP
Not LEP
All
BMCC
2%
15%
15%
FSU
3%
9%
8%
CMU
4%
21%
20%
SVSU
5%
16%
14%
State
6%
29%
28%
LSSU
9%
21%
20%
GVSU
10%
24%
24%
EMU
18%
12%
12%
DPS
N/A
11%
11%
NMU
N/A
17%
16%
OU
N/A
13%
12%
WRESA
N/A
20%
20%
Soc St_G9
Soc St_G9
Soc St_G9
LEP
Not LEP
All
SVSU
4%
14%
13%
State
6%
32%
31%
NMU
6%
10%
10%
BMCC
7%
18%
17%
CMU
8%
21%
21%
OU
9%
21%
19%
FSU
10%
10%
10%
GVSU
13%
25%
25%
LSSU
15%
24%
24%
DPS
N/A
6%
6%
EMU
N/A
11%
12%
WRESA
N/A
20%
20%
BMCC, CMU and SVSU authorized school have the highest number of LEP students. LEP students in these schools
generally do not exceed the state average on performance for any of the MEAP tests.
10
Table 11 compares the proficiency rate on MEAP in selected grades in all tested subjects by Special Education status.
Student proficiency is ranked based on the proficiency rate of Special Education students.
Table 11: Comparison of MEAP Proficiency rates by Subject, Grade for Special Education students
Math_G5
Math_G5
Math_G5
SE
Not SE
All
NMU
7%
22%
21%
OU
7%
26%
25%
BMCC
7%
29%
27%
SVSU
8%
22%
21%
FSU
12%
18%
17%
CMU
13%
30%
29%
GVSU
14%
38%
36%
State
15%
43%
40%
LSSU
19%
40%
38%
EMU
21%
29%
28%
DPS
N/A
11%
11%
WRESA
N/A
25%
23%
Math_G8
Math_G8
Math_G8
SE
Not SE
All
FSU
1%
11%
10%
NMU
2%
15%
14%
OU
3%
15%
14%
BMCC
3%
19%
17%
SVSU
4%
13%
12%
CMU
4%
23%
21%
LSSU
5%
28%
26%
EMU
5%
11%
10%
State
5%
32%
30%
DPS
8%
15%
15%
GVSU
10%
31%
29%
WRESA
N/A
24%
23%
Reading_G5 SE
Reading_G5 Not SE
Reading_G5 All
NMU
18%
61%
57%
OU
18%
55%
53%
SVSU
21%
54%
52%
BMCC
23%
59%
56%
EMU
24%
53%
50%
FSU
25%
47%
45%
CMU
30%
63%
60%
GVSU
30%
71%
67%
State
31%
72%
67%
DPS
31%
46%
45%
LSSU
42%
72%
70%
WRESA
50%
76%
75%
Reading_G8 SE
Reading_G8 Not SE
Reading_G8 All
BMCC
10%
53%
49%
FSU
11%
42%
39%
CMU
14%
58%
54%
DPS
15%
45%
43%
SVSU
16%
46%
44%
OU
17%
52%
50%
LSSU
18%
63%
59%
State
18%
63%
59%
GVSU
20%
64%
61%
EMU
22%
42%
40%
NMU
28%
48%
46%
WRESA
N/A
64%
61%
Writing_G4 SE
Writing_G4 Not SE
Writing_G4 All
SVSU
6%
36%
33%
NMU
8%
33%
30%
LSSU
9%
45%
42%
OU
9%
41%
39%
BMCC
10%
41%
39%
FSU
10%
32%
30%
CMU
15%
43%
41%
EMU
16%
28%
27%
State
17%
50%
46%
WRESA
19%
43%
42%
GVSU
20%
50%
48%
DPS
44%
40%
40%
Writing_G7 SE
Writing_G7 Not SE
Writing_G7 All
FSU
1%
35%
32%
EMU
4%
31%
28%
BMCC
6%
43%
40%
NMU
7%
39%
35%
SVSU
9%
38%
35%
LSSU
9%
52%
48%
CMU
10%
50%
46%
State
10%
52%
48%
DPS
12%
24%
23%
OU
12%
50%
47%
GVSU
15%
54%
50%
WRESA
15%
39%
37%
Science_G5 SE
Science_G5 Not SE
Science_G5 All
LSSU
1%
14%
13%
FSU
2%
4%
4%
NMU
2%
7%
6%
SVSU
3%
6%
6%
BMCC
3%
8%
7%
OU
4%
6%
5%
EMU
4%
7%
6%
CMU
5%
11%
10%
State
6%
18%
17%
GVSU
7%
14%
13%
DPS
12%
16%
16%
WRESA
N/A
10%
10%
Science_G8 SE
Science_G8 Not SE
Science_G8 All
OU
2%
8%
7%
BMCC
3%
10%
10%
LSSU
3%
15%
14%
CMU
3%
11%
10%
SVSU
3%
6%
6%
State
3%
18%
16%
NMU
4%
6%
5%
GVSU
4%
13%
13%
DPS
8%
22%
21%
EMU
10%
7%
7%
FSU
N/A
5%
5%
WRESA
N/A
6%
5%
Soc St_G6
Soc St_G6
Soc St_G6
SE
Not SE
All
OU
2%
12%
12%
NMU
2%
17%
16%
BMCC
4%
16%
15%
SVSU
5%
15%
14%
DPS
6%
11%
11%
CMU
6%
22%
20%
LSSU
6%
22%
20%
FSU
7%
8%
8%
EMU
7%
13%
12%
GVSU
8%
26%
24%
State
9%
31%
28%
WRESA
N/A
21%
20%
Soc St_G9
Soc St_G9
Soc St_G9
SE
Not SE
All
FSU
3%
11%
10%
OU
3%
20%
19%
BMCC
4%
18%
17%
NMU
5%
11%
10%
LSSU
6%
26%
24%
SVSU
6%
14%
13%
GVSU
6%
26%
25%
WRESA
8%
21%
20%
State
8%
34%
31%
CMU
9%
22%
21%
EMU
11%
12%
12%
DPS
13%
5%
6%
The percentage of proficient Special Education students is consistently equal or better in schools authorized by DPS,
WRESA, and GVSU.
11
Detailed Methodology of Michigan’s ranking rules
From the website of the Bureau of Assessment and Accountability, 2011-2012 School Ranking Business Rules,
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/2011-12_School_Rankings_Business_Rules_393915_7.pdf
Datasets to be included (if available)



Most recent four years (2008-2012) of published data from fall MEAP, grades 03-08
Most recent four years (2008-2012) of published data from spring MME, grade 11
Most recent four years (2008-2012) of the four-year graduation rate (2008-2012)
Subjects to be included (if available)





Mathematics
Reading
Writing
Science
Social Studies
Definitions




Elementary/middle school = a school housing any of grades K-8
High school = a school housing any of grades 9-12
Secondary school = a school housing any of grades 7-12
A student with a performance level of 1 or 2 is considered proficient.
Authorizer and Student criteria for inclusion






The 11 large authorizers with at least 30 students considered full academic year (FAY) over the two most recent
years in at least two tested subjects will have the Top-to-Bottom ranking calculated.
Authorizers with fewer than 30 FAY tested students in any given subject will not have that subject included in
their ranking.
FAY tested rules are as follows:
o A student stays in the same authorizers for at least three count periods before taking the MEAP or MME
test.
o For example, a student took the MEAP test in 2011. This student is a FAY student only if this student
stays in the same authorizer in the 2011 End-Of-Year count, the 2011 Spring count, and the 2010 Fall
count.
All students with valid math, reading, writing, science, and social studies scores in the assessments were included.
Include fall scores in data for the current year’s authorizer and grade using feeder codes.
Only public school students were included (no home schooled or private school students).
Steps in Calculations
1. For each test, grade, content area (including graduation rate where applicable), and year, calculate a z-score for
each student based on their scale score, calculated as
𝑆𝑆𝑖 − 𝜇𝑆𝑆
𝑍𝑖 =
,
𝜎𝑆𝑆
where 𝑆𝑆𝑖 indicates the scale score for student i; 𝜇𝑆𝑆 indicates the mean of scale scores across all students for the
test, grade, content area, and year; 𝜎𝑆𝑆 indicates the standard deviation of scale scores across all students studying
in a charter school for the test, grade, content area, and year; and 𝑍𝑖 indicates the z-score for student i.
12
2. [Repeat steps 3-7 separately for mathematics, reading, science, social studies, and writing; and each grade range
(elementary/middle versus high school) for each authorizer with students tested in the grade and content area in
the year 2011 and 2010 for which data are available]
3. For each authorizer, calculate an achievement index for the most recent two years in which data are available:
a. Calculate the within- authorizer average (mean) z-scores for the most recent (year 3) and next most recent
(year 2) years tested for each authorizer j (𝜇𝑧𝑗3 and 𝜇𝑧𝑗2 , respectively)
b. Obtain the number of FAY students tested in authorizer j for the most recent year (year 3) and the next most
recent year (year 2) (𝑁𝑧𝑗3 and 𝑁𝑧𝑗2 for the most recent and previous year, respectively)
c. Calculated a weighted within- authorizer average (mean) z-score over the most recent two years as
𝑁𝑧𝑗3 𝜇𝑧𝑗3 + 𝑁𝑧𝑗2 𝜇𝑧𝑗2
𝜇𝑧𝑗 =
.
𝑁𝑧𝑗3 + 𝑁𝑧𝑗2
d. Calculate the achievement index for authorizer j as
𝜇𝑧𝑗 − 𝜇𝑧
𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑗 =
,
𝜎𝑧
e. where 𝜇𝑧 indicates the state wide mean of 𝜇𝑧𝑗 across all comparable authorizers, 𝜎𝑧 indicates the state wide
standard deviation of 𝜇𝑧𝑗 across all comparable authorizers, and 𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑗 is a z-score delineating how many
standard deviations above or below the mean of comparable authorizers authorizer j lies.
4. For each authorizer, calculate a percent change index:
a. Where adjacent year testing occurs (e.g., reading & mathematics in elementary/middle school), obtain the
numbers (in the table below) for the most recent year and for the previous year.
Previously
Proficient
No
Yes
Performance Level Change
Most recent year
Previous year
SD
D
M
I
SI
SD
D
M
I
SI
SD3n D3n M3n I3n SI3n
SD2n D2n M2n I2n SI2n
SD3y D3y M3y I3y SI3y
SD2y D2y M2y I2y SI2y
Where “SD” indicates a significant decline in performance level from one year to the next, “D” indicates
a decline in performance level, “M” indicates maintaining performance level, “I” indicates an
improvement in performance level, and “SI” indicates a significant improvement in performance level.
Previously proficient (yes/no) indicates whether the student was considered proficient on the test the year
before.
b. Calculate the total number of FAY students with performance level change scores for the most recent year
and the next most recent year as:
NPLC3 = SD3n+D3n+M3n+I3n+SI3n+ SD3y+D3y+M3y+I3y+SI3y, and
NPLC2 = SD2n+D2n+M2n+I2n+SI2n+ SD2y+D2y+M2y+I2y+SI2y.
c. Calculate weighted improvement scores for each authorizer using the weights given in the table below
Previously Performance Level Change
Proficient SD
D
M
I
SI
No
-2
-1
0
1
2
Yes
-2
-1
1
1
2
Such that the two-year weighted performance level change for authorizer j is calculated as the sum of the
weighted improvement scores, divided by the weighted number of full academic year students with
improvement scores.
13
d. The improvement index for authorizer j is calculated as
𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑗 =
𝑃𝐿𝐶𝑗 − 𝜇𝑃𝐿𝐶
,
𝜎𝑃𝐿𝐶
where 𝜇𝑃𝐿𝐶 indicates the mean of 𝑃𝐿𝐶𝑗 across all comparable authorizers, 𝜎𝑃𝐿𝐶 indicates the standard
deviation of 𝑃𝐿𝐶𝑗 across all comparable authorizers, and 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑗 is a z-score delineating how many standard
deviations above or below the statewide mean of comparable authorizers authorizer j lies.
e. Where adjacent grade testing does not occur (i.e., for all calculations in high school [including graduation
rate] and in science, social studies, and writing):
i. Obtain the authorizer mean z-score for a total of four years, including the present year and
previous year (𝜇𝑧𝑗3 and 𝜇𝑧𝑗2 , respectively), as well as the years two years and three years ago
(𝜇𝑧𝑗1 and 𝜇𝑧𝑗0 ,, respectively).
ii. Obtain the number of FAY students tested in the authorizer (j) for the four most recent years
(𝑁𝑧𝑗3 , 𝑁𝑧𝑗2 , 𝑁𝑧𝑗1 , and 𝑁𝑧𝑗0 )
iii. Calculate the slope (βj) of the simple regression of authorizer j mean z-scores on year
(representing the annual change in authorizer mean z-scores).
iv. Calculate the improvement index for each authorizer j as
𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑗 =
𝛽𝑗 − 𝜇𝛽
,
𝜎𝛽
where 𝜇𝛽 indicates the mean improvement slope across all comparable authorizers, and 𝜎𝛽
indicates the standard deviation of improvement slopes across all comparable authorizers.
v. Special situations: when there are only three years of data available for a given content area,
calculate 𝜇𝛽 as the three year simple regression of school mean z-scores one year.
5. Calculate an achievement gap index for each authorizer in each available subject using the following steps:
a. Identify the top 30% and the bottom 30% of student z-scores in each authorizer.
b. Calculate the average z-score of the top 30% of student z-scores, and the average z-score of the bottom 30%
of student z-scores.
c. Calculate (combining across both the most recent and next most recent years) the average z-scores of the
bottom 30% of z-scores in the authorizer and subtracting from that the average of the top 30% of z-scores in
the authorizer. This gives a negative number which when compared to all authorizers in the state assures
that authorizers with the highest achievement gap receive the lowest z-scores as intended.
d. Calculate the achievement gap index for authorizer j 𝑔𝑎𝑝𝑗 as the z-score of that gap as compared to the
statewide distribution across all comparable authorizers, such that the following quantities are produced by
𝑧𝑗 − 𝜇
𝑔𝑎𝑝𝑗 =
.
𝜎
e. Compute average of achievement gap index for all authorizers - for all available content areas.
6. Calculate the authorizer performance index for each content area as
𝑌𝑗 =
2𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑗 + 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑗 + 𝑔𝑎𝑝𝑗
,
4
14
where 𝑌𝑗 represents a given content area. The calculation described is to be carried out in all cases except in the
following special situations: when improvement indices are not available, calculate the overall school
performance index for each content area as
𝑌𝑗 =
2𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑗 + 𝑔𝑎𝑝𝑗
3
7. Calculate the statewide authorizer percentile rank on 𝑌𝑗 (for display purposes only), ranking within
elementary/middle schools and within high schools at this point. This provides a content-area specific rank
relative to other authorizers of the same level. This will be used only for display and will not figure into further
calculations.
8. For each content area, compare the content index (or grad rate index) to other elementary/middle schools or to
other high schools. This creates a z-score (𝑌𝑗𝑧 ) for each content/grad index that compares the authorizer’s index in
that content area or grad index to other authorizers of the same level.
9. Calculate the overall authorizer performance index (spi) across all content areas (including graduation rate where
applicable) in which the authorizer received a authorizer performance index z-score (spi is calculated as the
average of from 2 to 11 𝑌𝑗𝑧 ’s depending upon the grade configuration and enrollment). For authorizers without a
graduation rate index, spi is calculated as the straight average of all 𝑌𝑗𝑧 ’s calculated for the school. For authorizers
with a graduation rate index, the authorizer performance index on graduation rate must account for exactly 10
percent of the overall school performance index. This is accomplished by multiplying the straight average of all
other 𝑌𝑗𝑧 ’s calculated for the school by the value 0.9, and adding to that result the quantity multiplied by the value
0.1.
10. Rank the 11 authorizers by the value of spi.
Ranking Rules for Subgroup Proficiency
Students were selected according to the following rules:






All students with valid test scores in the assessments were included.
A student with a performance level of 1 or 2 is considered proficient.
All students with test scores who were present a full academic year (FAY) were included.
Include fall scores in 2011 and 2010 MEAP data using feeder codes. Two years of data had to be used because
some subgroups didn’t have sufficient students in a single grade to be statistically reliable.
Only public school students were included (no home schooled or private school students).
9th grade social studies reflects the feeder schools.
Datasets included
 Most recent two years (year 2011 and 2010) of data from fall MEAP received from BAA for individual students,
grades 03-08.
 The cut score for students on the MEAP 2010 was recreated using the new college ready rule used in 2011.
Steps in Calculations
1. Combined MEAP 2011 and 2010 datasets
2. Repeat steps 3 separately for reading, mathematics, writing, science, and social studies for each grade level and
each subject group for each authorizer with FAY students tested in the grade and subject in the combined data.
3. Calculate a percent proficiency index in which data are available.
15