Michigan’s plan proposes three potential accountability systems.


The state proposes (1) an A-F rating system that combines measures into one overall rating for each school, (2) an A-F rating system that reports component grades of each of six measures, but does not compile those into one overall grade; or (3) a “dashboard” that merely reports raw data, but does not attempt to rate schools on any of the components or overall. Michigan states that all three of these options would include data on growth and proficiency, but only the first option would potentially meet ESSA’s requirements that states use their academic indicators to identify schools in need of additional support.


Still, because Michigan has not settled on which of the three options it plans to pursue, it remains unclear if it would create sufficient incentives for schools to care about both proficiency and growth.




Arizona’s plan places a strong weight on student achievement and growth by combining a clear measure of student achievement with two different measures of student growth; one that compares students to each other and one that compares them to a common benchmark.


Choose a state to see their plans around academic progress: