Based on available data and using statewide averages as a benchmark:

What are this district’s comparative strengths?

·        Well above-average MEAP passing rate

·        Moderately above-average MEAP participation

·        Well above-average MEAP grade 11 excelling rate

·        Well above-average MEAP passing rate for the Class of 2001 cohort

·        Well above-average proportion of the Class of 2001 cohort receiving Michigan Merit Awards

·        Well above-average ACT participation

·        Exceptionally above-average graduation rate

·        Exceptionally below-average dropout rate

What other key factors characterize this district?

·        Average ACT scores

·        Average operating expenditures per student

·        Well above-average operations and maintenance expenditures per student

·        Well above-average proportion of special education students

·        Well above-average state-source revenue per student

·        Well below-average local-source revenue per student

·        Well below-average taxable property value per student

·        Average proportion of economically disadvantaged students

What issues merit further consideration for this district?

·        The district’s above-average operations and maintenance spending, coupled with below-average debt, may indicate a deferment of capital needs.

·        The district’s declining enrollment trend, if continued, could adversely impact revenues and lead to a potential shortfall of resources in the future, unless expenditures can be proportionately reduced.

Do students meet performance standards on the state test?
The district’s MEAP passing rate⁵ is 69.6%, which is well above the state average of 50.4%, and higher than the peer group average. Statewide, only 3.4% of Michigan’s school districts report a greater proportion of MEAP test scores that meet or exceed state standards. 

How has performance on the state test changed over time?  
The district’s passing rate among MEAP tests that have existed in the same grades and subjects over five years⁶ has increased by an average of 3.3 percentage points per year. This is greater than the average annual state increase, but comparable to the average annual peer increase over the same time period.

How many students take the state test?
The district’s MEAP participation rate⁵ is 89.6%, which is moderately above the state average of 87.7%, but comparable to the peer group average. 

How has participation on the state test changed over time?  
The district’s participation rate among MEAP tests that have existed in the same grades and subjects over five years⁸ has shown little net change. This is comparable to the state and peer trends over the same time period.

Why is it important to consider participation rates when studying test results?
Standard & Poor’s examines participation rates when evaluating standardized test scores because doing so provides a more complete review of performance than test scores alone. When the average score for a school or district is derived from comparatively low participation on the test, the results may not provide useful insights because general and reliable conclusions about the school or district as a whole cannot be made with an insufficient number of test takers. Information on the proportion of students taking exams also indicates the degree to which students are excluded or opt out of taking the exam, or are absent from the exam for other reasons.

To what extent do students excel on the state test?
The district’s percentage of all MEAP high school tests taken in grade 11 that receive an excelling score⁹ is 15.4%. This is well above the state average of 8.4%, and higher than the peer group average. Statewide, 10.3% of Michigan’s school districts report higher MEAP grade 11 excelling rates. 

How does the graduating class perform as a cohort?
When reported on a graduating class cohort basis, the district’s MEAP High School Test passing rate¹⁰ for all subjects is 65.2%, which is well above the state average of 53.6%, and higher than the peer group average. Statewide, 15.3% of Michigan’s school districts report a higher MEAP High School Test passing rate for the class of 2001. 

How many graduating students received Michigan Merit Award scholarships?
Under the Michigan Merit Award¹¹ program, 56.2% of the district’s graduating class received financial scholarships based on academic achievement. This is well above the state average of 44.8%, and higher than the peer group average. Statewide, 18.2% of Michigan’s school districts report a higher proportion of graduating seniors receiving Michigan Merit Awards. 

What are achievement gaps, and why are they important?
Achievement gaps¹² represent disparate performance levels among different student groups, such as those who are economically disadvantaged. Such disparities are a matter of concern when all students are expected to attain rigorous academic standards. Identification of these disparities can help districts establish school improvement priorities and focus resources on closing the gaps.

Achievement gap data should be interpreted carefully because there is considerable inconsistency in how or whether MEAP test records are marked by schools to indicate students with special circumstances, and marked by students to indicate their race/ethnicity. For example, Standard & Poor’s analysis of these data shows that the proportion of MEAP test takers reporting their race varies significantly by test and often varies even within the same grade in the same school district. Nevertheless, this is the only available source of this information in Michigan that can shed light on the important issue of gaps in student achievement. Also, where the number of test takers in a student group is very small, this information is omitted from the SES data and analysis.

Do significant achievement gaps exist among student groups?

The proportion of MEAP scores reported for economically disadvantaged students that meet state standards is 62.4%, compared with 71.8% for non-disadvantaged students. However, this achievement gap of 9.4 percentage points is comparable to the state average, but higher than the peer group average. As a point of reference, the average Michigan district’s proportion of MEAP scores reported for economically disadvantaged students that meet state standards is 41.4%, compared with 51.3% for non-disadvantaged students. 

How do students perform on the ACT?
The district’s ACT mean score¹⁴ of 21.5 is comparable to the state and peer group averages. 

How many students take the ACT?
The district’s ACT participation rate¹⁵ is 72.6%, which is well above the state average of 59.0%, and higher than the peer group average. Statewide, 15.9% of Michigan’s school districts report a higher percentage of students participating in the ACT. During the period examined, the district’s ACT participation rate has shown little net change. This is comparable to the state and peer trends over the same time period.

How do students perform on Advanced Placement (AP) exams?
The district’s proportion of AP exams receiving scores of 3 or higher is 30.0%. This is well below the state average of 50.7%, and lower than the peer group average. (A score of 3 or higher often enables students to receive college credit or to be placed in higher-level courses when entering college).

How many students take AP exams?
The AP test participation rate is 13.7%—moderately above the state average of 9.2%, and higher than the peer group average. During the period examined, the district’s AP test participation rate has increased by an average of 1.8 percentage points per year. This is counter to the state and peer trends, which show relatively little change over the same time period.

What is the graduation rate?
At 100.0%, the district’s graduation rate¹⁸ is exceptionally above the state average of 87.8%, and higher than the peer group average. Statewide, only 7.1% of Michigan’s school districts post perfect graduation rates. During the period examined, the district’s graduation rate has increased by an average of 1.8 percentage points per year. This is counter to the state trend, which shows relatively little change, but comparable to the average annual peer increase over the same time period.

What is the high school dropout rate?
The district reports no dropouts¹⁹ for the most recent year observed. This contrasts with the state average of 3.3%. During the period examined, the district’s dropout rate has shown little net change. This is comparable to the state trend, but counter to the peer trend, which shows an average annual decrease over the same time period.

How much money is spent on day-to-day operations?
The district’s operating expenditures²⁰ of $7,634 per student are comparable to the state average, but higher than the peer group average. During the period examined, the district’s per-student operating expenditures have increased by an average of 9.4% per year, which is greater than the average annual state and peer increases. The district’s trend reflects an average increase in total operating expenditures of 3.6% per year coupled with a 5.1% average annual decrease in full-time equivalent enrollment over the same time period.

How much is spent on instruction?
The district spends $4,947 per student on instruction, placing it moderately above the state average of $4,396, and higher than the peer group average. As a percentage of instructional dollars, the district spends 69.4% on basic K-12 programs and 18.1% on special education, compared with the state averages of 78.4% and 11.8%, respectively. During the period examined, the district’s per-student instructional expenditures have increased by an average of 8.2% per year. This is greater than the average annual state and peer increases over the same time period.

How much is spent on administration?
The district’s per-student administrative expenditures²¹ of $823 are moderately below the state average of $918, but comparable to the peer group average. Spending on administration constitutes 10.8% of the district’s operating expenditures, compared with the state average of 12.4%. During the period examined, the district’s per-student administrative expenditures have increased by an average of 9.7% per year. This is greater than the average annual state and peer increases over the same time period.

How much is spent on operations and maintenance?
Operations and maintenance expenditures per student of $1,008 are well above the state average of $747, and higher than the peer group average. Statewide, 10.7% of Michigan’s school districts spend more per student on operations and maintenance than the district. Spending on operations and maintenance represents 13.2% of the district’s operating expenditures, compared with the state average of 10.0%. During the period examined, the district’s per-student operations and maintenance expenditures have increased by an average of 12.2% per year. This is greater than the average annual state and peer increases over the same time period.

How much is spent on transportation?
The district’s per-student transportation expenditures of $177 are well below the state average of $333, and lower than the peer group average. Statewide, only 9.4% of Michigan’s school districts spend less per student on transportation than the district. Spending on transportation represents 2.3% of the district’s operating expenditures, compared with the state average of 4.6%. During the period examined, the district’s per-student transportation expenditures have increased by an average of 16.7% per year. This is greater than the average annual state and peer increases over the same time period.

How much is spent on food services?
The district’s per-student food services expenditures of $241 are comparable to the state average, but lower than the peer group average. Spending on food services represents 3.2% of the district’s operating expenditures, compared with the state average of 3.8%. During the period examined, the district’s per-student food services expenditures have increased by an average of 18.6% per year. This is greater than the average annual state and peer increases over the same time period.

Based on its reported average number of daily meals served, the district’s average food service expenditure of $2.36 per meal served is moderately below the state average of $2.79, but comparable to the peer group average. During the period examined, the district’s food service expenditure per daily meal served has increased by an average of 9.3% per year. This is counter to the state trend, which shows relatively little change, but greater than the average annual peer increase over the same time period. It is important to note that some schools and districts serve only lunch, while others serve both breakfast and lunch. In the most recent year observed, this district serves breakfast and lunch.

What is the average teacher salary?
The district’s average teacher salary²² is $47,217—comparable to the state and peer group averages. During the period examined, the district’s average teacher salary has increased by an average of 8.0% per year. This is greater than the average annual state increase, but counter to the peer trend, which shows relatively little change over the same time period.

What is the Performance Cost Indexä, and why is it important?

The Performance Cost Index (PCI™) is an indicator of educational “return on resources.” It reflects the average amount of money spent per unit of measured achievement. For example, when derived using MEAP results, the PCI represents the average expenditure per percentage point of the MEAP Passing Rate (adjustments are made for test participation). Since the PCI is a cost measure, higher PCI values are generally less desirable (there are exceptions). On its own, the PCI reveals little about a district's overall return on resources. However, when a district's PCIs are compared with those of other school districts, a better understanding of the relationship between spending and student results emerges. PCIs can be adjusted to account for the higher cost of educating students who are disabled, economically disadvantaged, or limited English proficient. PCIs can also be adjusted to account for geographic differences in the purchasing power of the dollar.

What is the relationship between spending and student performance on the state test?
The district’s PCI for the MEAP passing rate²³ of $125, which is well below (more favorable than) the state average of $174, and lower than the peer group average. Statewide, 13.6% of Michigan’s school districts have a more favorable PCI for MEAP passing rate than the district. During the period examined, this PCI has increased by an average of 6.7% per year. This is counter to the state and peer trends, which show relatively little change over the same time period.

How do student circumstances affect the relationship between spending and student performance?
When costs are adjusted for student circumstances, the PCI for the MEAP passing rate²⁴ is $109. This is well below (more favorable than) the adjusted state average of $156, and lower than the peer group average. During the period examined, this adjusted PCI has increased by an average of 6.8% per year. This is counter to the state and peer trends, which show relatively little change over the same time period.

What is the average number of students per teacher?
At 15.7-to-1, the ratio of students per teacher²⁶ is moderately below the state average of 17.0-to-1, and lower than the peer group average. During the period examined, the district’s student-teacher ratio has shown little net change. This is comparable to the state and peer trends. The district’s trend reflects an average decrease in headcount enrollment of 66 students per year that is offset by a six teacher average annual decline in staffing levels over the same time period.

How many students are enrolled in special education programs?
Of the district’s 1,012 students, 18.9% receive special education instruction. On a full-time equivalent basis, the district’s special education enrollment is 6.5% of total enrollment, which is well above the state average of 3.6%, and higher than the peer group average. Statewide, only 5.6% of Michigan’s school districts serve proportionally more special education students. During the period examined, the district’s proportion of full-time equivalent special education students has shown little net change. This is counter to the state trend, which shows an average annual increase, but comparable to the peer trend over the same time period.

How much revenue comes from the state?
The district’s state-source operating revenue²⁸ of $6,546 per student is well above the state average of $5,630, and higher than the peer group average. Statewide, only 7.4% of Michigan’s school districts receive more per-student revenue from state sources than the district. Revenue from state sources constitutes 82.6% of the district’s operating revenue, compared with the state average of 73.1%. During the period examined, the district’s per-student revenue from state sources has increased by an average of 6.5% per year. This is greater than the average annual state and peer increases over the same time period.

How much revenue comes from local sources?
The district’s local-source operating revenue of $873 per student is well below the state average of $1,726, and lower than the peer group average. Statewide, 21.9% of Michigan’s school districts receive less per-student revenue from local sources than the district. Revenue from local sources constitutes 11.0% of the district’s operating revenue, compared with the state average of 21.0%. During the period examined, the district’s per-student revenue from local sources has increased by an average of 11.8% per year. This is greater than the average annual state and peer increases over the same time period.

What is the level of available financial reserves?
The district’s available financial reserves²⁹ of $1,772,291 equates to 22.7% of current spending. This ratio is above the state average of 14.6%, and higher than the peer group average. During the period examined, the district’s ratio of available financial reserves to current spending has increased by an average of 2.1 percentage points per year. This is counter to the state and peer trends, which show relatively little change over the same time period.

How large is the property tax base?
The district’s taxable property value of $59,710 per student is well below the state average of $148,781, and lower than the peer group average. During the period examined, the district’s per-student taxable property value has increased by an average of 6.1% per year. This is comparable to the average annual state and peer increases over the same time period.

How much long-term debt is outstanding?
On a per-student basis, the district’s long-term debt stands at $3,870, which is well below the state average of $7,379, and lower than the peer group average. 

How large are the debt payments?
The district’s debt service³¹ equates to 3.7% of operating expenditures. This is well below the state average of 9.1%, and lower than the peer group average. During the period examined, the district’s ratio of debt service to operating expenditures has shown little net change. This is comparable to the state and peer trends over the same time period.

How many students attend the district’s schools?
With a headcount enrollment³² of 1,012 students, the district is one of Michigan’s smaller school districts. During the period examined, the district’s headcount enrollment has decreased by an average of 5.6% (66 students) per year. This is counter to the state and peer trends, which show relatively little change over the same time period.

How many students are enrolled in pre-kindergarten?
The district operates a pre-kindergarten program, which serves a reported 26 students. 

How many students are classified as economically disadvantaged?
The district’s proportion of students who receive free or reduced-price lunch³⁴ is 33.1%, which is comparable to the state average. During the period examined, the district’s proportion of economically disadvantaged students has shown little net change. This is comparable to the state and peer trends over the same time period.

What is the median household income for the community?
The local community’s median household income of $32,117 is well below the state average of $42,110, and lower than the peer group average. Statewide, 20.9% of Michigan’s school district communities have lower median household incomes. 

How many households are headed by single parents?
The local community’s proportion of lone-parent households with children³⁷ is estimated to be 10.0%. This is comparable to the estimated state and peer group averages. 

How many adults in the community hold a bachelor’s degree?
The proportion of adult residents in the community with at least a bachelor’s degree³⁸ is estimated to be 18.4%. This is moderately above the estimated state average of 16.2%, and higher than the peer group average. 

Important Data Issues

Standard & Poor's cautions readers not to use School Evaluation Services (SES) as the sole source of information when making decisions regarding this school district. Readers are encouraged to view School District Perspectives, which was authored by the school district’s administrative leadership and offers qualitative context to supplement this report. Readers can also access the websites for this school district and various Michigan education agencies and organizations by clicking on Related Sites.

Data Timing:

This SES report is based on Standard & Poor’s independent analysis of five years of publicly available data. This round of SES analysis uses data for the 2000-2001, 1999-2000, 1998-1999, 1997-1998, and 1996-1997 school years. As a result, Standard & Poor’s analytical findings do not capture information that is more recent and should not be interpreted as necessarily reflecting this school district’s current circumstances or performance.

Data Content:

Any serious analysis of school systems must consider numerous factors related to educational performance and the need for resources. SES assembles hundreds of different data points for each school system. It should be noted that certain important data, including, but not limited to, school facility conditions, student and teacher attendance rates, and parental involvement, are not available from the state of Michigan. Moreover, there are many important aspects of schooling that are difficult to measure or are not well documented. While these factors should be considered when a community or its leaders are determining the overall value and return of its schools, such factors fall outside the SES framework because they are not readily or uniformly available, and because their criteria vary from one community to another. SES is not an all-encompassing “final word” on schools, but rather one means of school evaluation to be considered together with other measures, including those of a more qualitative nature.

Data Sources:

Standard & Poor’s SES analysis and observations are based on publicly available data from a variety of sources that provide measures of a school system’s academic, financial, and economic profile. Sources of data used in SES include state standardized test records, financial records, enrollment and staffing records, and other school system information collected by the state. Other sources include state revenue and finance agencies; the U.S. Department of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics; The College Board; ACT, Inc.; the U.S. Department of Commerce; and DRI-WEFA. Because topics such as non-standardized student assessments, co-curricular and community activities, attitudes toward learning, perceptions of school climate, parental involvement, and certain other means of gauging school performance fall outside the SES framework, Standard & Poor’s has invited school administrators to provide supplemental commentary on such topics in School District Perspectives.

Data Quality:

In the course of its SES analysis, Standard & Poor’s has identified data inconsistencies and omissions and has raised such issues with the sources of those data. Where able, Standard & Poor’s has enhanced the integrity of the data by correcting errors, anomalies, and misclassifications. Certain data used in SES are self-reported and as a result should be interpreted with care. Standard & Poor’s believes there is value in reporting some data despite flaws, because this information should be made more accurate over time in order to heighten the public’s awareness of and ability to improve school performance. In instances where the quality of the data is known to be significantly flawed and there is no significant benefit to bringing greater transparency and awareness to the flawed information, such data are not included in the SES analysis.

Comparative Analytical Methodology

Standard & Poor’s uses a series of benchmark comparisons in its SES reports to provide insight into variations between the data for each school system and corresponding state and peer comparison group averages. This methodology is based on a statistical analysis of the ranges of each data point.

The terms listed below are used in S&P Observations to describe a school system’s data relative to key benchmarks. These descriptive terms are applied consistently across school systems based on the distribution of each data point considered.

State comparisons: 1) exceptionally above average, 2) well above average, 3) moderately above average, 4) average, 5) moderately below average, 6) well below average, 7) exceptionally below average.

Peer comparisons: 1) above (or higher than) the peer group average, 2) comparable to the peer group average, 3) below (or lower than) the peer group average.

Trend comparisons: 1) greater than comparison group trends, 2) comparable to comparison group trends, 3) less than comparison group trends, 4) counter to comparison group trends.

Educational Return Summary bulleted highlights, including noteworthy strengths, challenges, other key factors, and issues that merit further consideration, are determined using state averages as the comparative benchmark.

Summary Glossary

Key terminology and data items used in S&P Observations are defined below. In addition, all terms found in the data pages on the SES website are linked directly to the SES Glossary, where detailed definitions, formulas, applications, and data sources are provided.

Significant instances of errors or inconsistencies in the data provided to Standard & Poor’s that may limit the analysis of Michigan’s public school systems are highlighted in italics following the applicable definitions.

Absence of certain information may also limit this analysis. Data not available in Michigan include student and teacher attendance rates, class sizes, safety and discipline measures, post-graduation transitions, technology resources, and facilities. In addition, teacher profile data for the period examined were deemed unusable and not included in this round of analysis due to quality concerns reported by Michigan.

General

¹Peer Average—A school district’s peers are determined by the SES system based on grades served, enrollment size, proportions of economically disadvantaged students and special education students, and “locale type” as determined by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. Averages are computed by adding the data values for each peer district, and dividing the sum by the number of peer districts. The district being compared is not included in the peer comparison group.

²State Average—State data represent unweighted averages of all school districts in Michigan that serve the same grade levels as the district being compared. Averages are computed by adding the data values for each district in the state, and dividing the sum by the number of districts in the state. The district being compared is included in the state comparison group.

³Average Annual Change—The average change in a data value reported over five consecutive academic years. Numeric and percentage-point changes are calculated by averaging the annual changes from 1997 to 1998, 1998 to 1999, 1999 to 2000, and 2000 to 2001. Percent changes are calculated by averaging the annual percentage changes from 1997 to 1998, 1998 to 1999, 1999 to 2000, and 2000 to 2001.

⁴Beating the Odds—Schools are cited as meriting special mention in this report if their MEAP passing rates exceed the state average while serving a proportion of economically disadvantaged students at or above the state average and demonstrating MEAP participation rates that meet or exceed the state average. School data are compared to state averages for school types (i.e., elementary, middle, high). Because the ability not only to achieve but also to sustain this pattern merits further consideration, the duration of the trend is also indicated.

Student Performance

⁵MEAP Passing Rate (%)—The percentage of all MEAP tests taken in grades 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11 that meet or exceed state standards. Michigan classifies as “meeting state standards" those test results that (a) fall in the highest tier of test scores when two or three scoring tiers are used, or (b) fall within the highest two tiers of test scores when four scoring tiers are used. The MEAP passing rate excludes MEAP High School Tests taken in grades 10 and 12. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

While the MEAP High School Test is typically taken by students in grade 11, some Michigan districts offer dual enrollment programs and encourage their students to take the MEAP High School Test in grade 10. For these districts, the MEAP Passing Rate may be understated. As a point of reference, the average Michigan school district reports less than 5% of students in grade 10 take the MEAP High School Test, whereas over 70% of grade 11 students do so.

⁶MEAP Passing Rate—Trendable (%)—A subset of the MEAP Passing Rate used to display achievement trends. This rate includes only the MEAP grade and subject tests that were in continuous use during the five academic years from 1997 to 2001, as follows: Grade 4 Reading and Math; Grade 5 Science and Writing; Grade 7 Reading; Grade 8 Science and Writing; and Grade 11 Reading, Math, Science, and Writing. Calculated by dividing the total number of included scores that met state standards in applicable subject area and grade level tests by the total number of scores included for each grade and subject tested.

⁷MEAP Participation (%)—The proportion of students in grades 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11 who took MEAP tests, calculated by using a weighted average. The calculation is weighted more heavily in grade levels in which more subject area tests are administered. Participation rate calculations include students who took MEAP tests but whose scores are excluded by the state from school, district, and state summary reports. Enrollment for grades in which MEAP tests are administered includes special education students. Because Michigan does not longitudinally track individual students who take the High School Test more than once, grade 11 is used as a proxy for MEAP High School Test eligible enrollment. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

MEAP Participation rates exceed 100% for 16 school districts and approximately 10% of schools. This anomaly is due in part to timing differences between the reporting of headcount enrollment and the administration of MEAP tests. In addition, certain data elements used to derive MEAP participation rates are missing for approximately 8% of individual schools. SES does not report MEAP participation data disaggregated by race/ethnicity or economic status due to data quality concerns. Additionally, while the MEAP High School Test is typically taken by students in grade 11, some Michigan districts offer dual enrollment programs and encourage their students to take the MEAP High School Test in grade 10. For these districts, MEAP Participation may be understated. As a point of reference, the average Michigan school district reports less than 5% of students in grade 10 take the MEAP High School Test, whereas over 70% of grade 11 students do so.

⁸MEAP Participation—Trendable (%)—The proportion of students who took MEAP grade and subject tests that were in continuous use during the five academic years from 1997 to 2001, as follows: Grade 4 Reading and Math; Grade 5 Science and Writing; Grade 7 Reading; Grade 8 Science and Writing; and Grade 11 Reading, Math, Science, and Writing. The calculation is weighted more heavily in grade levels in which more subject area tests are administered. Participation rate calculations include students who took MEAP tests but whose scores are excluded by the state from school, district, and state summary reports. Enrollment for grades in which MEAP tests are administered includes special education students. Because Michigan does not longitudinally track individual students who take the High School Test more than once, grade 11 is used as a proxy for MEAP High School Test eligible enrollment. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

⁹MEAP Grade 11 Excelling (%)—The percentage of MEAP High School Tests taken in grade 11 that received excelling scores. The designation “excelling” is used to categorize test results that fall in the highest of the four test scoring tiers (Level I). Michigan began using four scoring tiers for the MEAP High School Test in 1998 and plans to shift all MEAP tests to four scoring tiers over the next several years. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

¹⁰MEAP Passing Rate by Graduating Class Cohort (%)—The percentage of graduating high school seniors that received Level I or Level II scores on any MEAP subject test at any point during their high school career. Beginning in the 1999-2000 academic year, MEAP High School Test results reported by Michigan represent tests taken by students in the graduating class, regardless of the grade in which the student was enrolled (10, 11, or 12) when the student took the test. If a student in the graduating class took a MEAP High School Test more than once, the state’s MEAP reports reflect the student's highest score. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

¹¹Michigan Merit Award Recipients (%)—The percentage of grade 12 students who received a Michigan Merit Award. Merit Awards are college scholarships awarded to graduating seniors for achievement on the MEAP tests. To be eligible for a Michigan Merit Award, a student must take the MEAP High School Tests in mathematics, reading, science, and writing. Students who achieve Level I (“Exceeded Michigan Standards”) or Level II (“Met Michigan Standards”) on all four tests, and who meet all other eligibility requirements, qualify for a Michigan Merit Award. Alternatively, if a student takes all four tests and achieves Level I or II on two of the four tests, he or she may qualify by receiving high scores on the ACT, SAT, or ACT WorkKeys tests. ACT and SAT qualifying scores vary from year to year based on national norms. Source: Michigan Merit Award

¹²Achievement Gap—A measure of the difference in an educational indicator (such as MEAP Passing Rate) between two subsets of the student population. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

MEAP achievement gap calculations should be interpreted with caution due to a variety of data inconsistencies within each of these student groups—for example, data concerning race/ethnicity and gender are self-reported by test takers; in many instances these items appear to have been left blank on test forms.

¹³MEAP Summary Exceptions Rate (%)—The proportion of students in grades 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11 who either did not participate in MEAP tests (due to absence from school, parental exemption, or home schooling) or whose test scores were excluded by the state from school, district, and state summary reports (by meeting certain criteria related to special education or limited English proficiency). Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

¹⁴ACT Mean Score—The overall average score of all ACT Assessments taken by students in the school district, with the exception of any students who did not identify their school district on the ACT test form. The ACT Assessment is intended to measure educational development and readiness to pursue college-level coursework in English, mathematics, natural sciences, and social sciences. If a student takes the assessment more than one time, only the most recent score is used in calculating the mean. It is important to note that not all students in a high school, school district, or state take the ACT, and therefore interpretation of ACT scores for subgroups requires unique considerations, such as the proportion of students taking the test. Source: ACT 

If the number of students in a school system who took the ACT Assessment is less than five, no data are displayed for this indicator.

¹⁵ACT Participation (%)—The percentage of grade 12 students who have taken the ACT Assessment. Source: ACT

¹⁶SAT Mean Combined Score—The overall average score of all SAT I tests taken by students in the school district. The SAT I is a three-hour test, primarily multiple-choice, that measures verbal and mathematical reasoning abilities. Results are used as admissions criteria by many colleges. It is important to note that not all students in a high school, school district, or state take the SAT I, and therefore interpretation of SAT I scores for subgroups requires unique considerations, such as the proportion of students taking the test. Source: The College Board

If the number of students in a school system who took the SAT I is less than five, no data are displayed for this indicator.

¹⁷SAT Participation (%)—The percentage of grade 12 students who have taken the SAT I. Source: The College Board

¹⁸Graduation Rate (%)—An estimate of the percentage of grade 9 students who will complete their senior year of school and graduate. Michigan calculates graduation rates by multiplying together the four retention rates for grades 9, 10, 11, and 12. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

¹⁹Dropout Rate (%)—The percentage of students who left school and did not return during the following school year. In Michigan, students who “cannot be accounted for” are considered dropouts, and the dropout rate is calculated by subtracting the retention rate from 100%. The dropout rate is a single-year rate that applies to grades 9 through 12. Students who leave secondary school to enroll in adult education programs for General Educational Development (GED) preparation, home schools, private/parochial schools, or charter schools are considered transfers, not dropouts. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

Spending

²⁰Operating Expenditures ($ Per Student)—The amount spent on instruction, administration, operations and maintenance, transportation, food services, compensation, purchased services, supplies and materials, and other day-to-day purposes. Operating expenditures exclude capital- and debt-related expenditures, adult education, community service, as well as trust and agency funds and internal service funds. Operating expenditures per student are calculated by dividing operating expenditures by full-time equivalent enrollment. Enrollment includes special education students, but excludes pre-kindergarten and adult education students. Source: Michigan Department of Education Form B

Operating expenditures include special education center program expenditures if the school district operates a center program but has not elected to report center program expenditures separately.

²¹Administrative Expenditures ($ Per Student)—The amount spent on administration, including school administration (e.g., principals), central or general administration (e.g., superintendents), and business services, divided by the district’s full-time equivalent enrollment. Source: Michigan Department of Education Form B

²²Average Teacher Salary ($)—The amount of instructional salary expenditures divided by the total number of professional instructional staff. Analysis of salaries is important because it may give insight into the district’s ability to attract and retain a high quality staff. Since salary schedules are frequently tied to teacher experience, average salary may be reflective of the experience level of the teaching staff. Source: Michigan Department of Education Form B

Return on Resources™

²³Performance Cost Index™ (PCI™)—MEAP Passing Rate ($)—A quantitative measure of the relationship between MEAP test results, MEAP participation, and per-student operating expenditures. This PCI (expressed in dollars) represents the average amount of money spent for each percentage point in the MEAP Passing Rate. In other words, the PCI reflects how much a school district spends for what it gets in the way of student achievement, as reflected by MEAP results. Although it is not specifically a measure of marginal costs, it is a proxy for gauging the proportional relationship between incremental spending and academic improvement; thus, the higher the number, the less favorable the relative return. On its own, the PCI reveals little about a district’s overall return on resources. However, when a district’s PCIs are compared with the PCIs of comparison groups, a better understanding of the relationship between spending and results emerges. This PCI is calculated by dividing per-student operating expenditures by the MEAP Passing Rate value, with the result divided by the MEAP participation rate. Source: Michigan Department of Education Form B, Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

²⁴Performance Cost Index™ (PCI™)—MEAP Passing Rate—Adjusted for Student Circumstances ($)—A quantitative measure of the relationship between MEAP test results, MEAP participation, and adjusted per-student operating expenditures. This PCI calculation uses adjustments to reflect educational costs that may vary from district to district due to enrollments of special education, economically disadvantaged, and limited English proficient students. Such adjustments are made to the per-student operating expenditures component of the PCI based on the proportions of students in these three categories enrolled in the school district. Although not perfect, these adjustments are a valuable proxy for the impact of these environmental factors on district costs. Source: Michigan Department of Education Form B, Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database, NCES, National Data Resource Center

Learning Environment

²⁵Special Education Center Programs—Some local school districts operate regional special education center programs open to out-of-district students. Michigan does not maintain a comprehensive list of school districts with center programs. SES has identified 28 districts that operate center programs based on their choice to report their center programs’ financial operations separately. Given the current nature and limited availability of special education enrollment and financial data in Michigan, it is not possible to separate the financial operations for in-district students from out-of-district students who are served by center programs. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

²⁶Students Per Teacher—The number of students divided by the number of teachers. Both students and teachers are represented on a headcount basis, including those associated with special education programs, but excluding those associated with pre-kindergarten and adult education programs. Optimal student-teacher ratios have long been debated in the education community. While this issue has yet to be fully resolved, research points to the benefits of smaller ratios in elementary schools and in classrooms serving economically disadvantaged and disabled students. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

²⁷Median School Size—The mid-point in a distribution of school sizes, measured in terms of headcount enrollment. Education research has indicated that large elementary schools, especially those serving large proportions of economically disadvantaged students, may create a more challenging learning environment. Some research, however, suggests that organizational or programmatic adjustments can lead to an atmosphere of a smaller school within large school buildings. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

Financing

²⁸State-Source Revenue Per Student ($)—Revenue received by the school district from the state for operating purposes. Such revenue includes funding allocated according to a state-determined foundation allowance. Revenue per student is calculated by dividing revenue by full-time equivalent enrollment. Source: Michigan Department of Education Form B

²⁹Available Financial Reserves ($)—The unreserved general fund balance, or cumulative difference between general fund revenue and expenditures, net of reservations. The available financial reserves balance represents surplus funds that are not set aside or earmarked for any particular purpose and can thus provide a financial cushion against unforeseen losses or expenditures. The total general fund balance includes funds reserved for specific purposes that are not available for general appropriation. Source: Michigan Department of Education Form B

³⁰School Tax on $100,000 of Residential Property ($)—The amount of property tax levied for school purposes on residential property valued at $100,000. For Michigan, homestead property tax rates are used to represent the tax burden on residential property. This indicator is calculated by multiplying the total school property tax rate (in mills) levied on homestead property by 100. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

³¹Debt Payments as % of Operating Expenditures (%)—Calculated by dividing debt service expenditures by operating expenditures. Debt service consists of principal and interest payments on outstanding bonds and other debt obligations and includes all expenditures accounted for in the debt service fund plus other expenditures classified as debt service in other funds. Source: Michigan Department of Education Form B

In Michigan, reported debt service amounts may be inflated in any given year as a result of bond refundings or refinancings. Michigan's Form B does not enable districts to segregate refinancings, which can represent large amounts, from regular annual debt service payments.

Demographics

³²Headcount Enrollment—The number of individual students enrolled in the school district. Headcount enrollment includes special education and alternative education students, but excludes pre-kindergarten and adult education students. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database.

For districts that operate shared-time programs, Headcount Enrollment may be inflated, due to the inclusion for reporting purposes of students from other school systems that attend the districts' schools on a part-time basis and receive non-core academic instruction.

³³Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Enrollment—The total number of students for whom the district provides services on a full-time equivalent basis. Standard & Poor’s uses FTE enrollment when calculating per-student financial indicators. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

For approximately 65% of Michigan districts, full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment exceeds headcount enrollment. Typically, headcount figures can be expected to be larger than FTE figures, due to the pro-rated and part-time status of certain students. Michigan officials have been unable to explain this anomaly. This may be due to students in alternative education and juvenile detention programs. If these students are not considered to be in a specific grade, they may not be reported by districts as part of headcount enrollment, and yet may be reported as part of FTE enrollment. Michigan officials are currently researching this anomaly.

³⁴Economically Disadvantaged (%)—The percentage of students who receive free or reduced-price lunch under the National School Lunch Program as a result of low family income. This measure of economically disadvantaged students is an important indicator, due to the frequent relationship between household income and student achievement. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

³⁵Limited English Proficient (%)—The proportion of students who speak a language other than English and are limited in their ability to use English. These students may be immigrants or children born in the United States. They typically receive bilingual education or English-as-a-second-language (ESL) instructional services. Education research has indicated that limited English proficient (LEP) students may experience greater difficulty in school and may be more likely to drop out. Source: Michigan Department of Education K-12 Database

In Michigan, enrollment data for LEP students is available only for those districts that operate a federal or state bilingual education program. Moreover, LEP enrollment represents both bilingual and LEP students, as Michigan reporting does not distinguish between the two classifications. Limited English Proficiency data were only provided for 2001, 2000, and 1999, and for only 15% of Michigan’s school districts. As a result, the comparison group averages for this indicator must be interpreted with caution.

³⁶Community Profile—Community-level demographic data, including population, household characteristics, and income, for the total population residing within the school district. Source: DRI-WEFA

These data are estimates derived from U.S. Census Bureau data mapped to school district boundaries, and projected to current levels.

³⁷Lone-Parent Households with Children (%)—The proportion of households in the district that are occupied by a single adult and one or more children. Source: DRI-WEFA

³⁸Adults with at Least a Bachelor’s Degree (%)—The percentage of adults residing within the school district with at least a bachelor’s degree. Education research has indicated that the educational attainment levels of parents can be a significant factor in influencing student achievement. Source: DRI-WEFA

Copyright © 2002 by Standard & Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.