NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting

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

2. 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 Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

3. 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 Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

4. 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

5. Review of Subgroup Performance • Switch to PDF slides Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

6. 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 Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

7. 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 Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

8. 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 Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

9. Switch to PDF Median and Target Chart Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

10. 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 Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

11. Did median SGP exceed target SGP? Yes No 70-99 56-99 55-69 45-55 40-54 30-44 1-39 1-29 Growth Rubric with Cut Scores for Median SGPs (based on CO, but slightly different) 4 (rubric score) 3 2 1 Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

12. 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 Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

13. Examining min-n > 4 • No min-n • Min-n > 4 Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

14. School-level growth scores (other) Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

15. School-level growth scores (low SES) Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

16. School-level growth scores (SWD) AYP Task Force Meeting: September 28, 2010

17. School-level growth scores (total-math, for schools meeting min-n>5 for all subgroups) AYP Task Force Meeting: September 28, 2010

18. School-level growth scores (total-math, for schools meeting min-n>5 for all subgroups) AYP Task Force Meeting: September 28, 2010

19. School-level growth scores (total-reading, for schools meeting min-n>5 for all subgroups) Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

20. School-level growth scores (total-reading, for schools meeting min-n>5 for all subgroups) Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

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

22. School-level mean growth scores (mean-math, for schools meeting min-n>5 for any subgroup counted) AYP Task Force Meeting: September 28, 2010

23. School-level mean growth scores (mean-math, for schools meeting min-n>5 for any subgroup counted) AYP Task Force Meeting: September 28, 2010

24. School-level mean growth scores (mean-reading, for schools meeting min-n>5 for any subgroup counted) Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

25. School-level mean growth scores (mean-reading, for schools meeting min-n>5 for any subgroup counted) Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010

26. 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 Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010