Michigan

Michigan
http://www.mde.state.mi.us

School and Teacher Demographics
Per pupil expenditures
(CCD, 2000-01)

$8,278 561 202

Number of Districts
(CCD, 2001-02)

Number Schools

of

Charter

(CCD, 2001-02)

Number of Public Schools
(CCD)

Elementary Middle High Combined Total Number of FTE Teachers
(CCD)

1993-94 1,878 535 544 53 3,010

2001-02 2,153 652 678 143 3,626

Elementary Middle High Combined Total
(SASS)

1993-94 35,271 15,166 20,569 1,058 72,064

2001-02 44,910 20,642 25,578 2,793 93,923

Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject taught, grades 7-12 1994 67% 61 73 88 2000 64% 68 72 66

English Math Science Social Studies

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Michigan

Sources of Funding District Average
(CCD, 2000-01)

Student Demographics
Public school enrollment
(CCD)

Pre-K K-8 9-12 Total (K-12) Race/ethnicity
(CCD)

1993-94 11,704 1,106,414 423,081 1,529,495

2001-02 16,192 1,180,154 494,673 1,674,827

1993-94 American Indian/Alaskan Natives Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic White Other Students with disabilities
(OSEP)

2001-02 1% 2 20 4 73 2001-02 11% 2000-01 3%

1% 1 17 2 78 1993-94 9% 1993-94 3%

Students with limited English proficiency
(ED/NCBE)

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Michigan

Migratory students
(OME)

1993-94 2001-02 1% 1% All schools by percent of students eligible to participate in the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program† (CCD, 2001-02)

†406 schools did not report.

Statewide Accountability Information
(Collected from states, January 2002 for 2001-02 school year.)

Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment All students will read independently and use math to solve problems at grade level; experience a year of growth for a year of instruction; have an educational plan leading them to being prepared for success. Expected School Improvement on Assessment Each school is required to develop a school improvement plan including goals based on academic objectives for all students and strategies to accomplish these goals. In development: all schools will be assigned an improvement target. Title I Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Schools Close gap for each school 10 percent between high and low performers.

Title I 2001-02

(ED Consolidated Report, 2001-02)

Number of schools Schools meeting AYP Goal

Schoolwide Programs 848 40% 501 32%

Targeted Assistance 1,295 28% 1,041 68%

Total 2,143 100% 1,542 72%

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Michigan

Schools identified for Improvement

460 54%

391 46%

851 40%

Title I Allocation

$377,065,119

(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start, Migrant Education, and Neglected and Delinquent, ED, 2000-2001)

NAEP State Results
Grade 4 Reading, 2003 Proficient level and above Basic level and above Math, 2003 Proficient level and above Basic level and above 32% 64 35% 78 Grade 8 33% 76 28% 68

Michigan
Student Achievement 2001-02 Assessment: Michigan Educational Assessment Program of Essential Skills. State Definition of Proficient: Reading: Satisfactory: at or above 300; Math: Met standard: at or above 520 Elementary School Grade 4 Reading Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency
Key * — = Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable n/a # High Poverty Schools = Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Low

Moderate

Satisfactory

20%

23%

57%

Michigan

Migratory students Students with Disabilities

Grade 4 Mathematics Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities Student Achievement Trend Reading 4th grade meets or exceeds Satisfactory
Apprentice Basic Met Exceeded

10%

25%

40%

25%

Middle School Grade 7 Reading Students in:
Key

Low

Moderate

Satisfactory

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Michigan

All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities

23%

27%

51%

Grade 8 Mathematics Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities High School Grade 11 Reading Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students
Apprentice Basic Met Exceeded Apprentice Basic Met Exceeded

24%

23%

24%

29%

18%

11%

52%

19%

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Michigan

Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities Grade 11 Mathematics Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities High School Indicators High school dropout rate (CCD, event) Postsecondary enrollment 1993-94
n/a%
Apprentice Basic Met Exceeded

19%

14%

46%

21%

2000-01
n/a%

1994-95
60%
(NCES, High school grads enrolled in college)

2000-01
55%

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies