date by June Key initiatives included: Paraprofessionals and Academic specialists

Transcription

1 April 22, 216 Dear Parents and Community Members: We are pleased to present you with the (AER) which provides key information on the educational progress for. The AER addresses the complex reporting information required by federal and state laws. The school s report contains information about student assessment, accountability and teacher quality. If you have any questions about the AER, please contact Kenya Morris for assistance. The AER is available for you to review electronically by visiting the following web site and clicking on the link at the top of the page or you may review a copy from the school s office at your child s school. You may also access the AER by clicking here: Based on a review of assessment data, the following goals were selected: 1. The IEP subgroup will increase 8% in math as measured by state assessment and NWEA MAP data by June 215. Key initiatives in this area included: Paraprofessionals and Academic specialists provided supplementary support, iready was used to differentiate in the regular classroom, and after-school tutoring was provided. 2. The female subgroup will increase 8% in reading as measured by state assessment and NWEA MAP assessment data by September 215. Key initiatives in this area included: Paraprofessionals and Academic specialists provided supplementary support, Accelerated Reader was used, after-school tutoring was provided, and the targeted Summer Success program was used. 3. The subgroup of students who receive reduced lunch will increase 8% in writing as measured by the state assessment data by June 215. Key initiatives included: Paraprofessionals and Academic specialists provided supplementary support, and Wordly Wise was used to increase written vocabulary. 4. The IEP subgroup will increase 8% in social studies as measured by state assessment data by June 215. Key initiatives included: Paraprofessionals and Academic specialists provided supplementary support, and a Social Studies themed family curriculum night was held. 5. The IEP subgroup will increase 5% in science as measured by the state assessment date by June 215. Key initiatives included: Paraprofessionals and Academic specialists provided supplementary support, and a themed family curriculum night was held. State law requires that we also report additional information.

2 1. PROCESS FOR ASSIGNING PUPILS TO THE SCHOOL Detroit Merit is a state-funded, public school academy. Therefore, there is no cost to attend the Academy. The school is open to any child wishing to attend. must be age-appropriate for their respective grade, and they must reside in the state of Michigan. By law, the school cannot restrict enrollment based on selection criteria. The school can, however, limit the total number of students who may attend the school. If the number of applications exceeds the number of offered seats, a random selection process will determine who attends the school. The school s Open Enrollment period begins on the first day of the current school year and ends at 5: p.m. on the last day of business in February of the current school year. During this Open Enrollment period, all applications receive equal consideration regardless of the date submitted. At the close of Open Enrollment, all applications received during the Open Enrollment period will be counted. If applications received are fewer than offered seats in each and every grade level, all applicants will be accepted and will receive a notice of acceptance into their respective grades. If the number of applications received exceeds the number of offered seats in any grade level, a random selection process will take place for all affected grade levels. Names are randomly selected until all offered seats have been filled. Any remaining names are selected to establish waiting list priority. Applications received after the Open Enrollment period will be accepted until the end of the current school year and available seats will be filled. Once students are Enrolled and remain Enrolled, they will remain eligible to be Re-Enrolled at the school for successive years without having to reenter the random selection process. However, they will be requested to complete a re-enrollment form by the end of the Open Enrollment period showing their intent to Re-Enroll for the subsequent school year. All applicants on a waiting list must submit an application for the following school year during the next Open Enrollment period. In an effort to accommodate parents who have more than one child eligible for enrollment, siblings of accepted and currently Enrolled students are given enrollment priority over children who have no such siblings. Siblings of currently Enrolled students at the school will be drawn first in the random selection process for offered seats. In addition, if a child is selected during the random selection process, that child s sibling will be offered an available offered seat or the next spot on the waiting list in his/her respective grade. Though siblings are afforded priority for offered seats, they are not given priority over a previously Enrolled student. In addition to sibling preference, children of staff members employed at the school working a minimum of 2 hours per week (at least.5 FTE) or children of current board members are

3 given enrollment priority. Though these children are afforded priority for offered seats, they are not given priority over a sibling, or a previously Enrolled student. All applications received after the Open Enrollment Period will not be eligible to participate in the random selection process, and will be added to the end of the accepted list if offered seats are still available after the random selection process, or to the resulting waiting list created at the time of the random selection process is a state-funded, public school academy. Therefore, there is no cost to attend the Academy. The school is open to any child wishing to attend. must be age-appropriate for their respective grade, and they must reside in the state of Michigan. By law, the school cannot restrict enrollment based on selection criteria. The school can, however, limit the total number of students who may attend the school. If the number of applications exceeds the number of offered seats, a random selection process will determine who attends the school. The school s Open Enrollment period begins on the first day of the current school year and ends at 5: p.m. on the last day of business in February of the current school year. During this Open Enrollment period, all applications receive equal consideration regardless of the date submitted. At the close of Open Enrollment, all applications received during the Open Enrollment period will be counted. If applications received are fewer than offered seats in each and every grade level, all applicants will be accepted and will receive a notice of acceptance into their respective grades. If the number of applications received exceeds the number of offered seats in any grade level, a random selection process will take place for all affected grade levels. Names are randomly selected until all offered seats have been filled. Any remaining names are selected to establish waiting list priority. Applications received after the Open Enrollment period will be accepted until the end of the current school year and available seats will be filled. Once students are Enrolled and remain Enrolled, they will remain eligible to be Re-Enrolled at the school for successive years without having to reenter the random selection process. However, they will be requested to complete a re-enrollment form by the end of the Open Enrollment period showing their intent to Re-Enroll for the subsequent school year. All applicants on a waiting list must submit an application for the following school year during the next Open Enrollment period. In an effort to accommodate parents who have more than one child eligible for enrollment, siblings of accepted and currently Enrolled students are given enrollment priority over children who have no such siblings. Siblings of currently Enrolled students at the school will be drawn first in the random selection process for offered seats. In addition, if a child is selected during the random selection process, that child s sibling will be offered an available offered seat or the next spot on the waiting list in his/her respective grade. Though siblings are afforded priority for offered seats, they are not given priority over a previously Enrolled student.

4 In addition to sibling preference, children of staff members employed at the school working a minimum of 2 hours per week (at least.5 FTE) or children of current board members are given enrollment priority. Though these children are afforded priority for offered seats, they are not given priority over a sibling, or a previously Enrolled student. Should offered seats remain available after the close of Open Enrollment, students will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis until offered seats are no longer available. Applications are date and time stamped upon submission, and students are admitted by grade in the order their application is received. Applications will be accepted after offered seats are filled and will be placed on a waiting list in the order received. 2. THE STATUS OF THE 3-5 YEAR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN etroit%2merit%2sip.pdf A. Describe how data led your School Improvement Team to select your school s improvement objectives in the core academic curriculum The school s School Improvement Team reviews data formally and informally throughout each school year as part of its continuous school improvement process. In Spring 215, the school reviewed school and student performance data and perceptual data aligned with the Michigan School Improvement Framework. This review included the following data, among others: Student achievement on norm-referenced assessments, including Northwest Evaluation Association s (NWEA) Primary Grades Assessment and Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), criterion-referenced assessments (state assessment), and classroom assessments Student demographics Discipline, tardy, truancy, and attendance rates Parent surveys Staff surveys and teacher quality information Programs and Processes Data As a result of the School Improvement Team s review of data, priority improvement objectives in the core academic curriculum were selected for the upcoming school year.

5 B. Describe your implementation plan for the core academic improvement objectives identified in your school improvement process. You may choose to describe your overall curricular implementation plan or you may choose to describe the plan in each content area The school s School Improvement Team, comprised of various committee chairs, leadership team members, and parents, reviews data formally and informally throughout each school year as part of its continuous school improvement process. In spring 215, the entire staff reviewed school and student performance data and perceptual data aligned with the Michigan School Improvement Framework. This review included the following data, among others: Student achievement on norm-referenced assessments, including Northwest Evaluation Association s (NWEA) Primary Grades Assessment and Measures of Academic Progress, criterionreferenced assessments, and classroom assessments Student demographics Discipline, tardy, truancy, and attendance rates Parent surveys Staff surveys and teacher quality information As a result of the staff, parents and School Improvement Team s review of data, priority improvement objectives in the core academic curriculum were selected for the upcoming school year. C. Did the SIP do what it set out to do? Describe the evaluation process that led you to this conclusion. The school improvement plan supported the academic goals and objectives developed by the team, although adjustments will need to be made along with continued close monitoring of the SIP goals, Our overall RaMP (reading and math proficiency) was 54.4% as measured by the MEAP test. Reading proficiency was 67.9% and math was 41.1%. According to NWEA-MAP results in the spring of 215, students in grades 2-8 were 59.5% proficient in reading, and 47.% proficient in math. in grades K-1 were 74.6% proficient in reading and 76.2% proficient in math. Of the students in grades 2-8, 7.6% in reading, and 66.9% in math made their typical growth targets. Student in grades K-1 had 73.7% in reading and 85.6% in math make their typical growth targets. Detroit Merit continues to strive for growth as a school. The School Improvement Team formally reviewed progress against its SIP goals and objectives in Spring 215, as part of its preparation for the school year. A review of student performance data and other data pertaining to the school s selected focus area was conducted in order to evaluate progress toward meeting its goals. Specific data evaluated includes that collected

6 through MEAP assessments, NWEA assessments, summative assessments, and formative assessments. The evaluation process includes ascertaining the degree to which each goal has been met or what progress has been made toward each goal. D. Describe how the evaluation of data and the current year s school improvement process led your school improvement team to select your school s improvement objectives in the core academic curriculum for the next school year See A and C above. Additionally, the School Improvement Team s evaluation of data, as part of its continuous school improvement process, revealed key focus areas for improvement. Identified through the process were specific student performance targets in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. E. How was this year s school improvement process similar or different from last year s process? On the whole, this year s school improvement process was similar to last year s process. The School Improvement Team met formally in the spring both to evaluate progress against the prior year s identified school improvement goals and to assess data and identify school improvement goals for the next year %2Detroit%2Merit%2SIP.pdf A. Describe how data led your School Improvement Team to select your school s improvement objectives in the core academic curriculum The school s School Improvement Team reviews data formally and informally throughout each school year as part of its continuous school improvement process. In Spring 214, the school reviewed school and student performance data and perceptual data aligned with the Michigan School Improvement Framework. This review included the following data, among others: Student achievement on norm-referenced assessments, including Northwest Evaluation Association s (NWEA) Primary Grades Assessment and Measures of Academic Progress, criterion-referenced assessments, and classroom assessments Student demographics Discipline, tardy, truancy, and attendance rates Parent surveys Staff surveys and teacher quality information Programs and Processes Data As a result of the School Improvement Team s review of data, priority improvement objectives in the core academic curriculum were selected for the upcoming school year.

7 Implementation of our core academics will continue to be driven through the committees that each staff member is assigned to as well as by our SIP s goals that are aligned to our 6 Critical Success Factors (Academic Proficiency, Academic Growth, Build and Develop and Strong Instructional Team, Enrollment, Manage Expenses, and Engage Stakeholders). Our academic committees are responsible for the academic objectives for each goal and report to the school improvement team monthly. They report how we are progressing with respect to our objectives and adjustments within committees are made as needed. Grade level teams have five common planning periods weekly and meet to examine student work, and assess the status of our goals in terms of academic proficiency and growth. NWEA- MAP and MEAP scores are used to review and asses if the established objectives helped us meet the goal of increasing test scores. The school improvement team completed a formal, comprehensive review of the data and goals/objectives in the spring to prepare for the school year. Each area was evaluated in order to determine if progress was being made toward the goals/objectives outlined in the school improvement plan. Specific data sources evaluated were obtained through NWEA-MAP assessments, MEAP assessments, summative and formative assessments. In addition, the staff and SIP team formally reviewed progress against its SIP goals and objectives in spring 214, as part of its preparation for the school year. A review of student performance data and other data pertaining to the school s selected focus area was conducted in order to evaluate progress toward meeting its goals. Specific data evaluated includes that collected through MEAP assessments, NWEA assessments, summative assessments, and formative assessments. The evaluation process includes ascertaining the degree to which each goal has been met or what progress has been made toward each goal. B. Describe your implementation plan for the core academic improvement objectives identified in your school improvement process. You may choose to describe your overall curricular implementation plan or you may choose to describe the plan in each content area The school s School Improvement Team, comprised of various committee chairs, leadership team members, and parents, reviews data formally and informally throughout each school year as part of its continuous school improvement process. In spring 214, the entire staff reviewed school and student performance data and perceptual data aligned with the Michigan School Improvement Framework. This review included the following data, among others: o Student achievement on norm-referenced assessments, including Northwest Evaluation Association s (NWEA) Primary Grades Assessment and Measures of Academic Progress, criterion-referenced assessments, and classroom assessments o Student demographics o Discipline, tardy, truancy, and attendance rates o Parent surveys o Staff surveys and teacher quality information

8 As a result of the staff, parents and School Improvement Team s review of data, priority improvement objectives in the core academic curriculum were selected for the upcoming school year. C. Did the SIP do what it set out to do? Describe the evaluation process that led you to this conclusion. The school improvement plan supported the academic goals and objectives developed by the team, although adjustments will need to be made along with continued close monitoring of the SIP goals, Our overall RaMP (reading and math proficiency) was 57.9% (an increase of 3.5%) as measured by the MEAP test. Reading proficiency was 67.9% and math was 41.1%. MEAP scores in general improved from the school year 2.8% in reading, 13.2% in writing, 6.8% science, and 2.5% in social studies. MEAP scores declined 3.5% in math. According to NWEA-MAP results in the spring of 214, students in grades 2-8 were 55.3% proficient in Reading, 48.% proficient in math, and 62.% proficient in language usage. in grades K-1 were 73.2% proficient in reading and 79.2% proficient in math. Of the students in grades 2-8, 65.7% in reading, 66.7% in math, and 64.4% in language usage made their typical growth targets. Student in grades K-1 had 86.% in reading and 94.1% in math make their typical growth targets. Detroit Merit continues to strive for growth as a school. The School Improvement Team formally reviewed progress against its SIP goals and objectives in Spring 214, as part of its preparation for the school year. A review of student performance data and other data pertaining to the school s selected focus area was conducted in order to evaluate progress toward meeting its goals. Specific data evaluated includes that collected through MEAP assessments, NWEA assessments, summative assessments, and formative assessments. The evaluation process includes ascertaining the degree to which each goal has been met or what progress has been made toward each goal. D. Describe how the evaluation of data and the current year s school improvement process led your school improvement team to select your school s improvement objectives in the core academic curriculum for the next school year See A and C above. Additionally, the School Improvement Team s evaluation of data, as part of its continuous school improvement process, revealed key focus areas for improvement. Identified through the process were specific student performance targets in English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies. E. How was this year s school improvement process similar or different from last year s process? On the whole, this year s school improvement process was similar to last year s process. The School Improvement Team met formally in the spring both to evaluate progress against the prior year s identified school improvement goals and to assess data and identify school improvement goals for the next year.

9 3. A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EACH SPECIALIZED SCHOOL At, our staff is committed to educating the students of Detroit based on four key values: Academic Excellence, Student Responsibility, Moral Focus and a Partnership with Parents. It is our mission to challenge each child of to achieve their full potential through our rigorous curriculum, values and individualized attention. We offer an excellent academic curriculum monitored by the leadership within the building, our governing board, our management company (NHA), and our authorizer (GVSU). Our teachers are held accountable to teaching the wellstructured curriculum set forth by the curriculum team at our service center, to ensure our students receive the best education. Our staff is committed to creating the best urban school in the country and believes this can be achieved through the hard work of all of our stakeholders. We strive to achieve academic excellence for each child in our school family, and thus it is important that we treat every child as an individual, who is expected to be his/her very best and nothing short. The school creates individualized instruction to meet all students at their level, giving extra support or challenge as needed. We believe students will be successful if they are held to high expectations. In setting high educational and behavioral expectations, we create an environment where each child will grow and learn. We are excited to offer parents in the Detroit area a tuition free, quality education alternative to Detroit City public schools for their children At, our staff is committed to educating the students of Detroit based on four key values: Academic Excellence, Student Responsibility, Moral Focus and a Partnership with Parents. It is our mission to challenge each child of Detroit Merit Charter Academy to achieve their full potential through our rigorous curriculum, values and individualized attention. We offer an excellent academic curriculum monitored by the leadership within the building, our governing board, our management company (NHA), and our authorizer (GVSU). Our teachers are held accountable to teaching the well-structured curriculum set forth by the curriculum team at our service center, to ensure our students receive the best education. Our staff is committed to creating the best urban school in the country and believes this can be achieved through the hard work of all of our stakeholders. We strive to achieve academic excellence for each child in our school family, and thus it is important that we treat every child as an individual who is expected to be his/her very best and nothing short. The school creates individualized instruction to meet all students at their level, giving extra support or challenge as needed.

10 We believe students will be successful if they are held to high expectations. In setting high educational and behavioral expectations, we create an environment where each child will grow and learn. We are excited to offer parents in the Detroit area a tuition free, quality education alternative to Detroit City public schools for their children. 4. IDENTIFY HOW TO ACCESS A COPY OF THE CORE CURRICULUM, A DESCRIPTION OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND AN EXPLANATION OF THE VARIANCES FROM THE STATE S MODEL Our goal of preparing students for college success has required us to take a unique view in terms of our curriculum. Our goal is to graduate students who have not only had the opportunity to experience academic excellence, but have acquired the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in high school and college. What makes our curriculum particularly unique is that it has been developed to support state standards with a college-bound approach. Our curriculum was developed based on the analysis of standards and assessment experts across the nation, including groups such as National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), ACT, Achieve, Inc., the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the National Council of Teachers of English, The National Advisory Panel, the Association for the Advancement of, and the National Council for Social Studies. This analysis, conducted by National Heritage Academies, comprehensively researched what students need to know to be successfully prepared for rigorous high school and college educational programming. NHA then worked backward to develop a curriculum that defines the expertise needed by students in kindergarten through eighth grade to enter high school on the path to college readiness. Since college readiness goes beyond academic preparedness, the curriculum not only includes learning goals in core academic and co-curricular areas, but also includes an integrated character development component. The curriculum s objectives are aligned to those identified by the Michigan Academic Standards: both the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Grade Level Expectations (GLCE). Moreover, all students are expected to reach the CCSS and GLCE goals. However, modifications/accommodations are sometimes necessary to ensure learning for all students. This support comes through classroom differentiation, in-class support services, targeted programmatic resources, out of class intervention, and out of school time opportunities all of which are designed to accelerate student growth trajectories. The only variance in our curriculum when compared to the Michigan Academic Standards is the addition of a Moral Focus component. We believe great schools develop both a student s heart and mind, and the Moral Focus program is designed to support parents' efforts to teach

11 character at home by reinforcing and modeling universal human virtues, such as compassion, respect, and integrity. This Moral Focus program is explicit and integrated with the school s core curriculum. A different virtue is featured each month of the school year. Teachers model behavior that exemplifies the virtue and recognize and praise students when they do the same. A copy of the core curriculum can be obtained by parents via written request submitted to the school administration. In , our curriculum is fully aligned and implemented using the Common Core State Standards and the Michigan Grade Level Expectations (GLCE) as the foundation Our goal of preparing students for college success has required us to take a unique view in terms of our curriculum. Our goal is to graduate students who have not only had the opportunity to experience academic excellence, but have acquired the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in high school and college. What makes our curriculum particularly unique is that it has been developed to support state standards with a college-bound approach. Our curriculum was developed based on the analysis of standards and assessment experts across the nation, including groups such as National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), ACT, Achieve, Inc., the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the National Council of Teachers of English, The National Advisory Panel, the Association for the Advancement of, and the National Council for Social Studies. This analysis, conducted by National Heritage Academies, comprehensively researched what students need to know to be successfully prepared for rigorous high school and college educational programming. NHA then worked backward to develop a curriculum that defines the expertise needed by students in kindergarten through eighth grade to enter high school on the path to college readiness. Since college readiness goes beyond academic preparedness, the curriculum not only includes learning goals in core academic and co-curricular areas, but also includes an integrated character development component. The curriculum s objectives are aligned to those identified by the Michigan Academic Standards: both the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Grade Level Expectations (GLCE). Moreover, all students are expected to reach the CCSS and GLCE goals. However, modifications/accommodations are sometimes necessary to ensure learning for all students. This support comes through classroom differentiation, in-class support services, targeted programmatic resources, out of class intervention, and out of school time opportunities all of which are designed to accelerate student growth trajectories. The only variance in our curriculum when compared to the Michigan Academic Standards is the addition of a Moral Focus component. We believe great schools develop both a student s heart and mind, and the Moral Focus program is designed to support parents' efforts to teach character at home by reinforcing and modeling universal human virtues, such as compassion, respect, and integrity. This Moral Focus program is explicit and integrated with the school s core

12 curriculum. A different virtue is featured each month of the school year. Teachers model behavior that exemplifies the virtue and recognize and praise students when they do the same. A copy of the core curriculum can be obtained by parents via written request submitted to the school administration. In , our curriculum is fully aligned and implemented using the Common Core State Standards and the Michigan Grade Level Expectations (GLCE) as the foundation.

13 5. THE AGGREGATE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS FOR ANY LOCAL COMPETENCY TESTS OR NATIONALLY NORMED ACHIEVEMENT TESTS Detailed below is a graph depicting the percentage of students in our school meeting growth targets from fall 214 to spring % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% Math Reading 3% 2% 1% % Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 All Grades Detailed below are the percentages of students performing at or above the 5th percentile on the spring 215 administration of the NWEA MAP assessment. 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% Math Reading 3% 2% 1% % Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 All Grades

14 Detailed below is a graph depicting the percentage of students in our school meeting growth targets from fall 213 to spring % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% Language Usage Math Reading 2% 1% % Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 All Grades Detailed below are the percentages of students performing at or above the 5th percentile on the spring 214 administration of the NWEA MAP assessment. 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% Language Usage Math Reading 2% 1% % Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 All Grades

15 6. IDENTIFY THE NUMBER AND PERCENT OF STUDENTS REPRESENTED BY PARENTS AT PARENT-TEACHER CONFERENCES Parent-Teacher Conferences Grades # of Represented % of Represented Fall 214 K % Spring 215 K % Parent-Teacher Conferences Grades # of Represented % of Represented Fall 213 K % Spring 214 K %

16 7. SCHOOL YEAR HIGHLIGHTS 1% of all graduating eighth graders were placed into their high school of choice with 38 academic scholarships given to elite private high schools 75% of parents are highly likely and 18% likely to recommend our school to others according to parent loyalty survey data, with 1% of parents attending fall and spring conferences 34% of staff is highly satisfied and 49% satisfied overall according to employee loyalty survey results Offered a free after school tutoring program and club program for all students, along with athletics for grades four and up Congratulations on a great school year and thank you to everyone for all of their hard work. We look forward to another rewarding and successful school year! Sincerely, Sandra Terry-Martin School Principal 191 Alter Road Detroit, MI BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Robert Farhat President William Beddoes Vice President/Secretary Janis Ramsey Treasurer Paul Schaap Director Bill Triplett Director

17 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not 2nd Grade All % 51.9% 51.9% 5.2% 46.8% 37.7% 1.4% 2nd Grade 2nd Grade 2nd Grade Hispanic of Any Race Two or More Races % 52.1% 52.1% 5.5% 46.6% 38.4% 9.6% % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2nd Grade 2nd Grade 2nd Grade 2nd Grade White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % 52.4% 52.4% 7.1% 45.2% 42.9% 4.8% Male % 51.4% 51.4% 2.9% 48.6% 31.4% 17.1% % 52.1% 52.1% 5.6% 46.5% 36.6% 11.3% 2nd Grade With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 1 of 46

18 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not All % 32.5% 32.5% 11.7% 2.8% 32.5% 35.1% All % 74.3% 74.3% 4.1% 7.3% 18.9% 6.8% Indian % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < % 32.5% 32.5% 11.7% 2.8% 32.5% 35.1% % 74% 74% 4.1% 69.9% 19.2% 6.8% Female % 37.2% 37.2% 14% 23.3% 32.6% 3.2% Female % 82.5% 82.5% 5% 77.5% 12.5% 5% Male % 26.5% 26.5% 8.8% 17.6% 32.4% 41.2% Male % 64.7% 64.7% 2.9% 61.8% 26.5% 8.8% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 2 of 46

19 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not % 23.8% 23.8% 4.8% 19% 34.9% 41.3% % 71.2% 71.2% 1.5% 69.7% 21.2% 7.6% With With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % 2% 2% 4% 16% 22.7% 57.3% All % 71.1% 71.1% 9.2% 61.8% 22.4% 6.6% Hispanic of Any Race % 19.2% 19.2% 4.1% 15.1% 21.9% 58.9% % 7.7% 7.7% 8% 62.7% 22.7% 6.7% % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 3 of 46

20 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not Two or More Races Two or More Races % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % 29.4% 29.4% 8.8% 2.6% 23.5% 47.1% Female % 8.6% 8.6% 11.1% 69.4% 16.7% 2.8% Male % 12.2% 12.2% % 12.2% 22% 65.9% Male % 62.5% 62.5% 7.5% 55% 27.5% 1% % 2.9% 2.9% 3% 17.9% 22.4% 56.7% % 71.4% 71.4% 1% 61.4% 21.4% 7.1% With % % % % % 16.7% 83.3% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 4 of 46

21 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % 44.3% 44.3% 17.7% 26.6% 25.3% 3.4% All % 79.7% 79.7% 2.3% 59.5% 13.5% 6.8% Indian Two or More Races % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < % 44.2% 44.2% 18.2% 26% 26% 29.9% % 8.6% 8.6% 2.8% 59.7% 12.5% 6.9% % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 5 of 46

22 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not Female % 57.1% 57.1% 26.2% 31% 23.8% 19% Female % 72.5% 72.5% 15% 57.5% 2% 7.5% Male % 29.7% 29.7% 8.1% 21.6% 27% 43.2% Male % 88.2% 88.2% 26.5% 61.8% 5.9% 5.9% % 38.6% 38.6% 12.9% 25.7% 27.1% 34.3% % 76.9% 76.9% 2% 56.9% 15.4% 7.7% With With % 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% % 8.3% 83.3% % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % 52% 52% 2% 32% 21.3% 26.7% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 6 of 46

23 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not All % 58.1% 58.1% 1.8% 47.3% 32.4% 9.5% Two or More Races % 51.4% 51.4% 18.9% 32.4% 21.6% 27% % 58.1% 58.1% 1.8% 47.3% 32.4% 9.5% % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % 57.6% 57.6% 3.3% 27.3% 24.2% 18.2% Female % 63.2% 63.2% 1.5% 52.6% 26.3% 1.5% Male % 47.6% 47.6% 11.9% 35.7% 19% 33.3% Male % 52.8% 52.8% 11.1% 41.7% 38.9% 8.3% % 5% 5% 15.7% 34.3% 21.4% 28.6% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 7 of 46

24 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not % 58.1% 58.1% 8.1% 5% 32.3% 9.7% With With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % 57.7% 57.7% 9.9% 47.9% 25.4% 16.9% All % 73.8% 73.8% 23% 5.8% 18% 8.2% Two or More Races % 58.6% 58.6% 1% 48.6% 24.3% 17.1% % 73.8% 73.8% 23% 5.8% 18% 8.2% % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % 51.4% 51.4% 8.1% 43.2% 32.4% 16.2% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 8 of 46

25 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not Female % 67.6% 67.6% 29.4% 38.2% 29.4% 2.9% Male % 64.7% 64.7% 11.8% 52.9% 17.6% 17.6% Male % 81.5% 81.5% 14.8% 66.7% 3.7% 14.8% % 54.2% 54.2% 1.2% 44.1% 27.1% 18.6% % 71.7% 71.7% 24.5% 47.2% 18.9% 9.4% With With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 8th Grade All % 49.2% 49.2% 6.3% 42.9% 34.9% 15.9% 8th Grade % 49.2% 49.2% 6.3% 42.9% 34.9% 15.9% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 9 of 46

26 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not 8th Grade 8th Grade 8th Grade Female % 58.3% 58.3% 2.8% 55.6% 3.6% 11.1% Male % 37% 37% 11.1% 25.9% 4.7% 22.2% % 46.2% 46.2% 1.9% 44.2% 38.5% 15.4% 8th Grade With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2nd Grade All % 38.5% 38.5% 6.4% 32.1% 26.9% 34.6% 2nd Grade % 39.2% 39.2% 6.8% 32.4% 27% 33.8% 2nd Grade Hispanic of Any Race % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2nd Grade Two or More Races % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2nd Grade 2nd Grade 2nd Grade White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % 41.9% 41.9% 11.6% 3.2% 32.6% 25.6% Male % 34.3% 34.3% % 34.3% 2% 45.7% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 1 of 46

27 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not 2nd Grade % 39.4% 39.4% 5.6% 33.8% 26.8% 33.8% 2nd Grade With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % 34.2% 34.2% 1.5% 23.7% 35.5% 3.3% All % 48.7% 48.7% 5.3% 43.4% 15.8% 35.5% Indian % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < % 34.2% 34.2% 1.5% 23.7% 35.5% 3.3% % 48% 48% 5.3% 42.7% 16% 36% Female % 33.3% 33.3% 9.5% 23.8% 35.7% 31% Female % 43.9% 43.9% % 43.9% 26.8% 29.3% Male % 35.3% 35.3% 11.8% 23.5% 35.3% 29.4% Male % 54.3% 54.3% 11.4% 42.9% 2.9% 42.9% % 22.6% 22.6% 4.8% 17.7% 4.3% 37.1% % 47.1% 47.1% 5.9% 41.2% 13.2% 39.7% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 11 of 46

28 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 With % 2% 2% % 2% % 8% All % 9.1% 9.1% 3.9% 5.2% 31.2% 59.7% All % 46.1% 46.1% 2.6% 43.4% 21.1% 32.9% % 9.6% 9.6% 4.1% 5.5% 31.5% 58.9% % 45.3% 45.3% 1.3% 44% 21.3% 33.3% Hispanic of Any Race % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Two or More Races % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Two or More Races % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % 18.9% 18.9% 8.1% 1.8% 27% 54.1% Female % 5% 5% % 5% 13.2% 36.8% Male % % % % % 35% 65% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 12 of 46

29 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not Male % 42.1% 42.1% 5.3% 36.8% 28.9% 28.9% % 8.7% 8.7% 2.9% 5.8% 31.9% 59.4% % 45.7% 45.7% 2.9% 42.9% 21.4% 32.9% With % % % % % 16.7% 83.3% With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % 32.9% 32.9% 12.7% 2.3% 35.4% 31.6% All % 37.8% 37.8% 5.4% 32.4% 25.7% 36.5% Indian % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < % 32.5% 32.5% 13% 19.5% 36.4% 31.2% % 38.9% 38.9% 5.6% 33.3% 23.6% 37.5% Two or More Races % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 13 of 46

30 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not Female % 31% 31% 9.5% 21.4% 45.2% 23.8% Female % 33.3% 33.3% 2.6% 3.8% 25.6% 41% Male % 35.1% 35.1% 16.2% 18.9% 24.3% 4.5% Male % 42.9% 42.9% 8.6% 34.3% 25.7% 31.4% % 3% 3% 1% 2% 34.3% 35.7% % 35.4% 35.4% 6.2% 29.2% 26.2% 38.5% With % 8.3% 8.3% % 8.3% 25% 66.7% With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % 27% 27% 8.1% 18.9% 36.5% 36.5% All % 44.2% 44.2% 5.2% 39% 27.3% 28.6% % 26% 26% 6.8% 19.2% 37% 37% % 43.4% 43.4% 5.3% 38.2% 27.6% 28.9% Two or More Races % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 14 of 46

31 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % 39.4% 39.4% 6.1% 33.3% 24.2% 36.4% Female % 51.3% 51.3% 5.1% 46.2% 28.2% 2.5% Male % 17.1% 17.1% 9.8% 7.3% 46.3% 36.6% Male % 36.8% 36.8% 5.3% 31.6% 26.3% 36.8% % 23.2% 23.2% 8.7% 14.5% 37.7% 39.1% % 45.3% 45.3% 1.6% 43.8% 28.1% 26.6% With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % 26.8% 26.8% 12.7% 14.1% 47.9% 25.4% All % 29% 29% 3.2% 25.8% 32.3% 38.7% % 27.1% 27.1% 12.9% 14.3% 48.6% 24.3% % 29% 29% 3.2% 25.8% 32.3% 38.7% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 15 of 46

32 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not Two or More Races % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % 18.9% 18.9% 2.7% 16.2% 54.1% 27% Female % 28.6% 28.6% 2.9% 25.7% 31.4% 4% Male % 35.3% 35.3% 23.5% 11.8% 41.2% 23.5% Male % 29.6% 29.6% 3.7% 25.9% 33.3% 37% % 23.7% 23.7% 1.2% 13.6% 47.5% 28.8% % 25.9% 25.9% 1.9% 24.1% 33.3% 4.7% With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 8th Grade All % 19% 19% 4.8% 14.3% 38.1% 42.9% 8th Grade % 19% 19% 4.8% 14.3% 38.1% 42.9% 8th Grade 8th Grade Female % 22.2% 22.2% 2.8% 19.4% 47.2% 3.6% Male % 14.8% 14.8% 7.4% 7.4% 25.9% 59.3% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 16 of 46

33 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not 8th Grade % 17.3% 17.3% 1.9% 15.4% 38.5% 44.2% 8th Grade With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % 1.3% 1.3% % 1.3% 13% 85.7% All % 1% 1% 5% 5% 31.3% 58.8% % 1.4% 1.4% % 1.4% 11% 87.7% % 8.9% 8.9% 3.8% 5.1% 31.6% 59.5% Hispanic of Any Race % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Two or More Races % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Two or More Races % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % 2.8% 2.8% % 2.8% 13.9% 83.3% Female % 1.5% 1.5% 5.3% 5.3% 34.2% 55.3% Male % % % % % 12.2% 87.8% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 17 of 46

34 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not Male % 9.5% 9.5% 4.8% 4.8% 28.6% 61.9% % 1.4% 1.4% % 1.4% 13% 85.5% % 1.8% 1.8% 5.4% 5.4% 31.1% 58.1% With % % % % % % 1% With % % % % % 2% 8% All % 1% 1% 4.3% 5.7% 21.4% 68.6% All % 6.1% 6.1% % 6.1% 22.7% 71.2% % 1.1% 1.1% 4.3% 5.8% 21.7% 68.1% % 6.1% 6.1% % 6.1% 22.7% 71.2% Two or More Races % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % 5.6% 5.6% 2.8% 2.8% 11.1% 83.3% Female % 8.3% 8.3% % 8.3% 22.2% 69.4% Male % 14.7% 14.7% 5.9% 8.8% 32.4% 52.9% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 18 of 46

35 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not Male % 3.3% 3.3% % 3.3% 23.3% 73.3% % 1.3% 1.3% 5.2% 5.2% 2.7% 69% % 3.4% 3.4% % 3.4% 22.4% 74.1% With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Social Studies Social Studies All % 16.5% 16.5% 1.3% 15.2% 63.3% 2.3% All % 19.2% 19.2% % 19.2% 64.1% 16.7% Social Studies Indian % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Social Studies % 15.6% 15.6% 1.3% 14.3% 63.6% 2.8% Social Studies % 19.7% 19.7% % 19.7% 63.2% 17.1% Social Studies Two or More Races % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Social Studies Social Studies White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 19 of 46

36 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not Social Studies Social Studies Social Studies Social Studies Social Studies Social Studies Female % 16.7% 16.7% % 16.7% 69% 14.3% Female % 15% 15% % 15% 7% 15% Male % 16.2% 16.2% 2.7% 13.5% 56.8% 27% Male % 23.7% 23.7% % 23.7% 57.9% 18.4% % 12.9% 12.9% 1.4% 11.4% 64.3% 22.9% % 18.8% 18.8% % 18.8% 62.3% 18.8% Social Studies With % 8.3% 8.3% % 8.3% 58.3% 33.3% Social Studies With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Social Studies 8th Grade All % 19% 19% 1.6% 17.5% 52.4% 28.6% Social Studies 8th Grade % 19% 19% 1.6% 17.5% 52.4% 28.6% Social Studies Social Studies Social Studies 8th Grade 8th Grade 8th Grade Female % 8.3% 8.3% % 8.3% 58.3% 33.3% Male % 33.3% 33.3% 3.7% 29.6% 44.4% 22.2% % 17.3% 17.3% % 17.3% 51.9% 3.8% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 2 of 46

37 4/5/216 M-STEP Grades 3-8 Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not Social Studies 8th Grade With % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 21 of 46

38 4/5/216 MME Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Advanced Partially Not No Data to Display A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 22 of 46

39 4/5/216 Michigan Educational Assessment Program Access (MEAP - Access) Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Exceeded Met Progressing 3rd All % 33.3% 33.3% % 33.3% 66.7% 3rd % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 3rd White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 3rd Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 3rd Male % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 3rd % 33.3% 33.3% % 33.3% 66.7% 4th All % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4th % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4th Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4th Male % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4th % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 5th All % 75% 75% % 75% 25% 5th % 75% 75% % 75% 25% 5th Male % 75% 75% % 75% 25% 5th % 75% 75% % 75% 25% 6th All % 75% 75% 5% 25% 25% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 23 of 46

40 4/5/216 Michigan Educational Assessment Program Access (MEAP - Access) Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Exceeded Met Progressing 6th % 75% 75% 5% 25% 25% 6th Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 6th Male % 1% 1% 66.7% 33.3% % 6th % 75% 75% 5% 25% 25% 7th All % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 7th % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 7th Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 7th Male % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 7th % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 8th All % 5% 5% % 5% 5% 8th % 5% 5% % 5% 5% 8th Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 8th Male % 66.7% 66.7% % 66.7% 33.3% 8th % 5% 5% % 5% 5% Reading 3rd All % 5% 5% 25% 25% 5% Reading 3rd % 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% % 66.7% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 24 of 46

41 4/5/216 Michigan Educational Assessment Program Access (MEAP - Access) Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Exceeded Met Progressing Reading 3rd White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading 3rd Female % 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% % 66.7% Reading 3rd Male % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading 3rd % 66.7% 66.7% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Reading 4th All % % % % % 1% Reading 4th % % % % % 1% Reading 4th Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading 4th Male % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading 4th % % % % % 1% Reading 5th All % 25% 25% % 25% 75% Reading 5th % 25% 25% % 25% 75% Reading 5th Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading 5th Male % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading 5th % 25% 25% % 25% 75% Reading 6th All % 75% 75% 5% 25% 25% Reading 6th % 75% 75% 5% 25% 25% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 25 of 46

42 4/5/216 Michigan Educational Assessment Program Access (MEAP - Access) Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Exceeded Met Progressing Reading 6th Male % 75% 75% 5% 25% 25% Reading 6th % 75% 75% 5% 25% 25% Reading 7th All % 8% 8% 6% 2% 2% Reading 7th % 75% 75% 5% 25% 25% Reading 7th White % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading 7th Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading 7th Male % 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% % 33.3% Reading 7th % 75% 75% 5% 25% 25% Reading 8th All % 8% 8% 8% % 2% Reading 8th % 8% 8% 8% % 2% Reading 8th Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading 8th Male % 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% % 33.3% Reading 8th % 8% 8% 8% % 2% A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 26 of 46

43 4/5/216 MI-Access Functional Independence Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Surpassed Attained Emerging ELA All % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % <1 <1 <1 <1 < % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ELA % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ELA Male % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Male % <1 <1 <1 <1 < % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ELA % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading All % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % <1 <1 <1 <1 < % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 27 of 46

44 4/5/216 MI-Access Functional Independence Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Surpassed Attained Emerging % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 < % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading % <1 <1 <1 <1 < % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading All % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % <1 <1 <1 <1 < % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 28 of 46

45 4/5/216 MI-Access Functional Independence Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Surpassed Attained Emerging % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Reading % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ELA All % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All % <1 <1 <1 <1 < % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ELA % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ELA ELA Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Female % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Male % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Male % <1 <1 <1 <1 < % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ELA % <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 29 of 46

46 4/5/216 MI-Access Supported Independence Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Surpassed Attained Emerging No Data to Display A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 3 of 46

47 4/5/216 MI-Access Participation Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State School Surpassed Attained Emerging No Data to Display A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 31 of 46

48 4/5/216 Accountability Details Subject Data Testing Group Subject State Tested Total State Tested Total * School Tested Total School ** All 98.1% 36.5% 99.1% N/A 99.1% N/A All ELA 98.1% 48.5% 99.1% N/A 99.1% N/A All 97.5% 22.2% 98.7% N/A 98.7% N/A All Social Studies 97.4% 31.8% 99.3% N/A 99.3% N/A Indian Indian Indian Indian 98.2% 27.8% <3 N/A <3 N/A ELA 98% 41.5% <3 N/A <3 N/A 97.8% 17.7% N/A N/A N/A N/A Social Studies 97.2% 25.2% <3 N/A <3 N/A 96.5% 13.5% 99.1% N/A 99.1% N/A ELA 96.5% 24.5% 99.5% N/A 99.5% N/A 95.4% 6.1% 98.6% N/A 98.6% N/A Social Studies 95.2% 11% 99.3% N/A 99.3% N/A Asian 99.1% 66.3% N/A N/A N/A N/A Asian ELA 98.7% 7.2% N/A N/A N/A N/A Asian 99% 38% N/A N/A N/A N/A Asian Social Studies 98.8% 49.6% N/A N/A N/A N/A Hispanic of Any Race Hispanic of Any Race Hispanic of Any Race Hispanic of Any Race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 98.3% 23.7% <3 N/A <3 N/A ELA 98.3% 36.1% <3 N/A <3 N/A 97.9% 11.7% <3 N/A <3 N/A Social Studies 97.5% 2.2% N/A N/A N/A N/A 99.8% 4.8% N/A N/A N/A N/A A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 32 of 46

49 4/5/216 Accountability Details Subject Data Testing Group Subject State Tested Total State Tested Total * School Tested Total School ** Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Two or More Races Two or More Races Two or More Races Two or More Races ELA 99.3% 53.3% N/A N/A N/A N/A 99.6% 21.9% N/A N/A N/A N/A Social Studies 99.3% 33% N/A N/A N/A N/A 98.5% 33.6% <3 N/A <3 N/A ELA 98.5% 46.9% <3 N/A <3 N/A 98.5% 2.1% <3 N/A <3 N/A Social Studies 98.1% 28.3% N/A N/A N/A N/A White 98.5% 42.5% <3 N/A <3 N/A White ELA 98.5% 55% <3 N/A <3 N/A White 98.1% 26.6% <3 N/A <3 N/A White Social Studies 98% 37.3% <3 N/A <3 N/A English Language Learners English Language Learners English Language Learners 97.6% 22.5% 99% N/A 99% N/A ELA 97.6% 33.7% 99% N/A 99% N/A 96.8% 11.7% 98.4% N/A 98.4% N/A Social Studies 96.5% 17.8% 99.2% N/A 99.2% N/A 98.6% 2.3% N/A N/A N/A N/A ELA 98.2% 24% N/A N/A N/A N/A 98.2% 3.9% N/A N/A N/A N/A A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 33 of 46

50 4/5/216 Accountability Details Subject Data Testing Group Subject State Tested Total State Tested Total * School Tested Total School ** English Language Learners With With With With Social Studies 97.9% 8.1% N/A N/A N/A N/A 97.2% 21.8% 98% N/A 98% N/A ELA 96.6% 24.7% 98% N/A 98% N/A 96.5% 15.4% <3 N/A <3 N/A Social Studies 95% 13.9% <3 N/A <3 N/A A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 34 of 46

51 4/5/216 Accountability Details Graduation Data Student Group Statewide School All 78.6% N/A N/A Indian 64.8% N/A N/A 64.5% N/A N/A Asian 89.1% N/A N/A Hispanic of Any Race 68.8% N/A N/A Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 78.9% N/A N/A Two or More Races 74.2% N/A N/A White 82.9% N/A N/A Female 82.9% N/A N/A Male 74.4% N/A N/A 65.6% N/A N/A English Language Learners 68.2% N/A N/A With 55.1% N/A N/A Bottom 3% N/A N/A N/A * All data based on students enrolled for a full academic year. A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 35 of 46

52 4/5/216 Accountability Details Attendance Data Student Group Statewide School All 94.7% 92.4% 92.4% * All data based on students enrolled for a full academic year. A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 36 of 46

53 4/5/216 Accountability Status Data Name Reading Status Reading Score Writing Status Writing Score Math Status Math Score Status Score Social Studies Status Social Studies Score Overall Status Overall Score No Data to Display A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 37 of 46

54 4/5/216 Accountability Status School Data Name School Name Title 1 Status Reading Status Reading Score Writing Status Writing Score Math Status Math Score Status Score Social Studies Status Social Studies Score Overall Status Overall Score No Data to Display A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 38 of 46

55 4/5/216 Teacher Quality - Qualification Professional Qualifications of All Public Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in the School Other B.A. M.A. P.H.D Professional Qualifications are defined by the State and may include information such as the degrees of public school teachers (e.g., percentage of teachers with Bachelors Degrees or Masters Degrees) or the percentage of fully certified teachers Teacher Quality - Class School Aggregate High-Poverty Schools Low-Poverty Schools age of Core Academic Subject Elementary and Secondary School Classes not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers.%.%.% Teacher Quality - Provisional Certification age of Public Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in the School with Emergency Certification % A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 39 of 46

56 4/5/216 NAEP Grade 4 Math of below Basic Basic Advanced All Male Female National Lunch Program Eligibility Eligible Not Eligible Info not available # Race/Ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian Indian/Alaska Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Two or More Races # &# &#8225 Student classified as having a disability SD Not SD Student is an English Language Learner ELL Not ELL Reporting Standards not met. Note: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. Institute for Education s. National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 215 Achievement. A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 4 of 46

57 4/5/216 NAEP Grade 8 Math of below Basic Basic Advanced All Male Female National Lunch Program Eligibility Eligible Not Eligible Info not available # Race/Ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian Indian/Alaska Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Two or More Races # # 4 32 Student classified as having a disability SD Not SD # 7 Student is an English Language Learner ELL Not ELL Reporting Standards not met. NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. Institute for Education s. National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 215 Achievement. A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 41 of 46

58 4/5/216 NAEP Grade 12 Math of below Basic Basic Advanced All Male Female National Lunch Program Eligibility Eligible Not Eligible Info not available Race/Ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Two or More Races Student classified as having a disability SD Not SD Student is an English Language Learner ELL Not ELL Reporting Standards not met. NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. Institute for Education s. National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 215 Achievement. A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 42 of 46

59 4/5/216 NAEP Grade 4 Reading of below Basic Basic Advanced All Male Female National Lunch Program Eligibility Eligible Not Eligible Info not available # Race/Ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian Indian/Alaska Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Two or More Races # Student classified as having a disability SD Not SD # 6 Student is an English Language Learner ELL Not ELL # Rounds to zero Reporting Standards not met. NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education s, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 215 Reading Assessment. A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 43 of 46

60 4/5/216 NAEP Grade 8 Reading of below Basic Basic Advanced All Male Female National Lunch Program Eligibility Eligible Not Eligible Info not available # Race/Ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Indian/Alaska Native Two or More Races &# Student classified as having a disability SD Not SD # 3 Student is an English Language Learner ELL Not ELL # 3 # Rounds to zero Reporting Standards not met. NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education s, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 215 Reading Assessment. A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 44 of 46

61 4/5/216 NAEP Grade 12 Reading of below Basic Basic Advanced All Male Female National Lunch Program Eligibility Eligible Not Eligible Info not available Race/Ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Two or More Races Student classified as having a disability SD Not SD Student is an English Language Learner ELL Not ELL # Rounds to zero Reporting Standards not met. NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education s, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 215 Reading Assessment. A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 45 of 46

62 4/5/216 NAEP Participation Data Grade Subject Participation Rate for with Standard Error Participation Rate for Limited English Standard Error 4 Math Reading Math Reading A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 46 of 46