TAC Growth Update Deck, April 2026
“Update on Michigan Student Growth Metrics.” Created by Chad Bailey, last modified by Kelley Holcomb (OEAA), on the MDE Logo and Blue Bars template. 26 slides, eight of them hidden, three carrying speaker notes. Title slide dated 4/24/2026, though the session ran on 4/23. Presented in Session 3 — Accountability Growth Methodology Targets.
Stated problem and purpose
Michigan’s current growth model results in far more aggressive growth targets for high school students. Introduce possible modifications to make high school growth targets more equitable. Discuss current vs possible modifications.
Structure
Problem and purpose (2–4) → hidden refresher on the current model (5–12) → DRC explorations (13–16) → MDE Nearest Grade Average (17–20) → four scatterplot slides (21–24) → NGA application summary (25) → discussion questions (26).
Content found only in speaker notes
Neither of these appears in the minutes or on any visible slide.
On slide 6, concerning state-level uses of growth:
Educator Evaluations were repealed from state law. Districts may now conduct those however based solely on local policy and do not report them to the state. School grades were also repealed from state law.
This changes the stakes picture materially. Two of the uses that historically justified the growth model’s precision requirements no longer exist in statute.
On slide 20, concerning the WIDA application timeline:
By 2026-27 WIDA NGA AGPs would be applied to grades 8-12. However, we are choosing to limit to data post covid (i.e., 2021-22 and forward). Meaning as of 2024-25, the most we can project out is 3 years.
This is the operational reason the English Learner impact is expected to grow — the deck’s summary slide asserts the growth without giving the mechanism, and the mechanism is here.
The four scatterplots
Slides 21–24 are images with no extractable text: content-area model alignment, content-area model application, English Learner model alignment, English Learner model application, each a Growth Index scatter comparing R SGP package AGPs against Nearest Grade Average AGPs. The minutes characterise them as showing “precision between the two is pretty close” for alignment and “meaningful impact on overall rating” for application.
Discussion questions posed
What concerns do you have with these methods? Are there ways we could mitigate those concerns for these methods? Ideas for other methods to extend years projected for high school grades? (Balancing complexity and the need for transparency and accessibility)
A contradiction with the minutes
Slide 14 lists predictors SGP 2024 and SGP 2025 and outcome SGP 2025. That is self-contradictory. The minutes’ SGP 2023 and SGP 2024 predicting SGP 2025 is coherent and is what this corpus follows. See TAC Meeting Notes, April 2026.