View
217
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting
August 10, 2010NH DOE
1Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010
Overview of Key Policy Decisions• Which subgroups? • Minimum n?• How to account for ELL performance• Participation rate versus “zeros”• K-1 Schools (Level 2)• High school indicators• Content areas for inclusion in the performance
system• Proposed cutscores for growth, achievement,
and total system
2Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010
Groups recommended by AYP Task Force
• Special education students • Economically disadvantaged/not special ed or
ELL• “all others”, i.e., not special ed, not low SES,
not ELL• And whole school?
3Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010
Minimum-n
• AYP uses minimum n > 10• Many small schools, so there is little reason to
worry about using a min. n as small as 5 or so
Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 4
ELL Performance
• Many question the federal policy of requiring all ELL students to fully participate in the content area assessments after only one year of instruction in U.S. schools
• Suggest using the ELP assessment results in place of the ELA assessment results for X years?
• Current ELL accountability uses both achievement and progress/growth
• Math?Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10,
2010 5
Review of Proposal #1• We and the various advisory groups suggested
using the 4-quadrant approach to classify schools in the lower left as not providing an opportunity for an adequate education
• We faced challenges in…– Trying to aggregate across content areas and
subgroups– Incorporating other performance indicators such
as participation, attendance, and graduation (for HS)
Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 6
A potential way to award “points”
Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 8
3
4
2
1
Median Student Growth Percentile -- Whole School or Subgroup
00
20
35
60
50
80
67
100
99
Some concerns• We really tried to make the approach depicted
on the previous slide work because we like the visual nature of the approach
• However, we cannot get away from the arbitrariness of both the slopes and the intercepts
• This approach is really trying to evaluate growth in the context of average achievement (status)– If that’s the case, why not use a more defensible
criterion-based measure?
Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 9
Individual Targets• As we discussed in May, individual targets
should (must) be created, evaluated, and reported– The group decided to establish individual student
targets for students currently below proficient to reach proficient in 3 years or less or by 8th grade (whichever is first), while proficient/advanced students stay above proficient
– The target is based on a defined and meaningful criterion (proficient) and can be used in the aggregate to establish school and subgroup targets
Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 10
Aggregate Criterion Targets• Similar to aggregating the observed student
growth percentiles, we can aggregate the targets for all of the students in the school/subgroup and find the median– We can then compare the median of all of the
observed growth percentiles with the median of the targets
Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 12
Norm-referenced growth still counts
• Schools with a lot of high achieving students will have relatively low aggregate targets so that low observed median growth percentiles could still allow schools to meet targets
• Colorado required schools, in order to be classified in one of the higher rubric categories, to still have a relatively modest median growth percentile
Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 13
A rubric-based approach• As seen on the following slide, a rubric is used to
“score” growth• We would also establish rubrics for the other
indicators, such as status, attendance, graduation, etc.– Would also do these rubric ratings for subgroups
• We could then aggregate these rubric scores into the major classifications of inclusion, status, “gaps”, and “readiness”
• We could, but not sure if we would want to, aggregate across all rubric scores into a single composite– Or we could make adequacy decisions without creating a
single composite?
Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 15
Growth Rubric with Cut Scores for Median SGPs (based on CO, but slightly different)
4 (rubric score)
3
2
1
Yes No
55-69
Did median SGP exceed target SGP?
45-55
56-9970-99
40-54
30-44
1-391-29
16Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010
Group Definitions
• 1 = Special education students• 2 = Economically disadvantages/not special ed• 3 = “all others”, i.e., not special ed, not low
SES
• Analyses restricted to:– Elementary/middle schools only– Subgroups, n > 5
17Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010
Relationship of Medians to Targets• The following histograms portray the
distribution of observed median growth percentiles and target median growth percentiles– Note the inverse relationship between targets and
observed– Also note how the special education subgroup
follows a pattern essentially opposite of the other two groups
Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 19
Using averages instead of totals for any available groups (math)
Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 33
Using averages instead of totals for any available groups (reading)
Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 34
What’s Adequate?• Does a “1” in any subgroup/content area mean
that the school is not providing an opportunity for an adequate education?
• If not, what is the appropriate cutscore for determining “adequacy”?
• What about the other indicators?• Remember, these are unweighted averages and
totals. – Should the aggregations be weighted by the number
of students in each group?– If so, would that minimize the value of the
subgroups?Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10,
2010 35
Recommended