NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting September 21, 2010 NH DOE 1 Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting

September 21, 2010NH DOE

1Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

Overview of Key Policy Decisions• Subgroups—SWD, Low SES, Whole School • Minimum n—5 • How to account for ELL performance—TBD • Participation rate versus “zeros”—TBD • K-2 Schools—Must participate in Level 2• High school indicators—today’s presentation• Content areas for inclusion in the performance

system—reading, math, writing, science• Proposed cutscores for growth, achievement, and

total system


Groups recommended by AYP Task Force

• Special education students• Economically disadvantages/not special ed• “all others”, i.e., not special ed, not low SES• And whole school


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 Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010 4

Review of Subgroup Performance

• Switch to PDF slides


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


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


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


Switch to PDF Median and Target Chart


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?


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


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


Examining min-n > 4

• No min-n

• Min-n > 4


School-level growth scores (other)


School-level growth scores (low SES)


School-level growth scores (SWD)

AYP Task Force Meeting: September 28, 2010 16

School-level growth scores (total-math, for schools meeting min-n>5 for all subgroups)


School-level growth scores (total-math, for schools meeting min-n>5 for all subgroups)


School-level growth scores (total-reading, for schools meeting min-n>5 for all subgroups)


School-level growth scores (total-reading, for schools meeting min-n>5 for all subgroups)


Switching to average points instead of total points

• This will allow all schools to be on relatively equal footing—at least in terms of score ranges (i.e., 1-4)—so that all can be included in the overall evaluation


School-level mean growth scores (mean-math, for schools meeting min-n>5 for any subgroup counted)


School-level mean growth scores (mean-math, for schools meeting min-n>5 for any subgroup counted)


School-level mean growth scores (mean-reading, for schools meeting min-n>5 for any subgroup counted)


School-level mean growth scores (mean-reading, for schools meeting min-n>5 for any subgroup counted)


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?


Documents

NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting September 21, 2010 NH DOE 1 Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010