Adequate Growth Targets
State as of April 2026: OEAA has an identified problem, a failed vendor exploration, a candidate replacement method, committee endorsement to pursue it, and a federal-plan blocker.
The issue
An Adequate Growth Percentile is the Student Growth Percentile a student must consistently meet or exceed to reach proficiency within a set timeframe. Michigan’s content-area timeframe is one to three years, capped at three for reliability reasons and Michigan legislative policy. English Learner proficiency runs one to five years, capped at five on research and federal policy grounds.
The cap is where the trouble is. A grade 11 student has one year of runway. The same proficiency gap that yields a modest target in grade 4 yields an extreme one in grade 11 — and ELA shows a larger average AGP gap than mathematics.
The consequence is that Michigan’s accountability index overwhelmingly identifies high schools. OEAA’s read is that this reflects a K–12 district-wide instructional problem surfacing late, not a high-school-specific failure. Current research holds that a school needs five to seven years to meet growth; Michigan allows three at most.
The model is working as designed. OEAA is questioning the design.
Where the committee landed
The committee accepted the technical fix and then argued with the premise.
On method it endorsed the Nearest Grade Average Method — Pursue the Nearest Grade Average approach.
On the target itself it pushed up, not down. Adequate growth should be set above the 65th percentile (Set adequate growth above the 65th percentile), on the reasoning that a student behind grade level needs more than a year’s learning in a year. For low-achieving schools it noted that the 60th percentile is already adequate and — more pointedly — that “the norm actually tells you more than the growth.”
OEAA’s stated reluctance is that raw numbers discourage, because the growth they imply cannot be achieved. The committee’s answer was that a target which cannot be achieved is a reporting problem, not a reason to lower the bar.
Underneath sits a disagreement about purpose. The AGP was, in OEAA’s own account, “an attempt to communicate the urgency to make improvements.” The committee would “rather see a system that supports all kids” (Build a growth system that supports all students) and holds that “schools should not be focusing on proficiency; their goal is to produce and maximize growth.”
What is not known
Whether AGPs are used, and used well. The committee asked for research (Research whether AGPs are actually used, and used effectively) and for a survey of whether elementary and high schools interpret the same data the same way (Survey whether elementary and high schools interpret growth data the same way). Neither exists.
Blockers
History
| Meeting | What moved |
|---|---|
| Session 3 — Accountability Growth Methodology Targets | Problem framed; DRC exploration reported as failed; NGA proposed; committee endorsed pursuing NGA and raising the adequacy bar above the 65th percentile |