Every Student Succeeds Act in New Jersey Date: December 1, 2016

Agenda December 1, 2016 ESSA Accountability Refresher Chronic Absenteeism as one “Other Measure” N-Size the goal is to create as much of a general consensus as possible and walk away with concrete recommendations for bottom three. We anticipate that these conversations will flow a bit differently than the school success conversation as for some of these decisions, there are not infinite number of possibilities.

Indicators of School and Student Success What are the required indicators for accountability? Elementary and Middle School Indicators Academic Achievement (proficiency) Academic Progress All indicators must: be supported by research that performance and/or progress are likely to increase; and allow for meaningful differentiation of schools (i.e. help to determine which schools are excelling and which may need support). High School Indicators Academic Achievement (may also include progress) 4-year Graduation Rate (may include extended-year) All School Indicators Progress Toward English Language Proficiency (may also include proficiency rates) At Least One ADDITIONAL Indicator of School Quality or Student Success ESEA: 1111(c)(4)(B), Proposed: 34 CFR 200.14

Additional Indicators of School Quality and Student Success What is the additional indicators requirement? Each state has the opportunity to include one or more indicators of school quality and/or student success as part of the accountability system. These indicators must be: Valid, reliable, and comparable across all schools; Able to be disaggregated by subgroup (according to proposed regulations); Research–based and correlated with positive student outcomes; and Initially, based on available data (collected in the 16-17 school year) Note on this slide: The Department recognizes any consideration of repurposing this money must include what the money will be used for, if it is repurposed While the “additional indicator” requirement is part of the accountability system, they COULD also be used as part of the performance reports Section 1111(c)(4)(b)

How has this measure developed over time? Chronic Absenteeism How has this measure developed over time? Definition: A student is chronically absent if he or she is not present for more than 10% of possible school days. History in New Jersey: First reported on the School Performance Reports for the 2011-2012 school year. Note on this slide: The Department recognizes any consideration of repurposing this money must include what the money will be used for, if it is repurposed While the “additional indicator” requirement is part of the accountability system, they COULD also be used as part of the performance reports National focus: Multi-agency push for improved data and coordinated action ED data shows that 13% of all students miss 3 weeks of school Section 1111(c)(4)(b)

Current State in New Jersey Note on this slide: The Department recognizes any consideration of repurposing this money must include what the money will be used for, if it is repurposed While the “additional indicator” requirement is part of the accountability system, they COULD also be used as part of the performance reports Section 1111(c)(4)(b)

Table Conversations: Part I What are the benefits of including chronic absenteeism as a measure of school quality or student success? What are the potential practical considerations that may arise? If included, should chronic absenteeism account for more, equal, or less weight in the accountability system than other accountability measures such as proficiency, growth, and graduation rate? ], except that a State must set more rigorous long‐term goals for such graduation rate, as compared to the long‐term goals for the four year adjusted cohort graduation rate.” (emphasis added)   

What is N-Size? “N-size” is the minimum number of students in a particular subgroup (e.g. English learners) needed to track their performance as a separate category for accountability purposes and report cards. New Jersey currently uses an N-size of 10 for reporting New Jersey currently uses an N-size of 30 for accountability under the ESEA waiver Some voice-over/additional context 17 is n-size for when mSGP becomes unreliable All metrics must have same n-size

A Multiple Measure System Under the AYP system, in which a separate judgment was made for every subgroup on every measure, a large n-size was more important because any one mis-categorization caused the whole school to fail. Hill and DePascale (2003) http://www.nciea.org/publication_PDFs/NCME_RHCD03.pdf Under a multiple measures system, mis-categorization in one instance is mitigated by proper categorization in other measures, and a lower n-size is appropriate. Rockoff State Board Presentation (2013) http://www.state.nj.us/education/sboe/meetings/2013/June/public/Measuring%20Effective%20Teaching%20through%20Student%20Growth_June_2013.pdf

Choosing a Valid and Reliable N-size Large N-Size Small N-Size Pros Less potential for harm in AYP system More reliable year-to-year Viable option in a multiple measures system Includes more students Better represents students statewide Captures diversity of smaller schools Cons Fewer students represented If too large, subgroup exclusion will lead to an incomplete look at school performance. If too small, misidentification will occur False positives False negatives - Hill (2003) http://www.nciea.org/publication_PDFs/RILS2003_RH03.pdf

Proposed Standard for One Measure When developing the AchieveNJ evaluation system, the Department’s Technical Advisory Committee recommended 0.35 as the standard year-to-year stability for Student Growth Percentiles. For Student Growth Percentiles, the least stable of the considered measures on a year-to-year basis, this suggests that an n-size of at least 17 should be chosen. (Table below based on Monte Carlo simulation of results using data generated in 2012-13 through 2015-16.) N-size Year-to-Year Stability for SGP 15 0.33 20 0.41 25 0.43 30 0.45

Example: Students with Disabilities 4 Year Graduation Rate (2015-16) Schools Attending Average School Rate State Total 16,176 78.68 % 395 80.08 %

Example: Students with Disabilities 4 Year Graduation Rate (2015-16) Schools Attending Average School Rate State Total 16,176 78.68 % 395 80.08 % 15 15,664 78.54 % 321 76.97 % * N-Size 15 excludes 512 students (3.16%)

Example: Students with Disabilities 4 Year Graduation Rate (2015-16) Schools Attending Average School Rate State Total 16,176 78.68 % 395 80.08 % 15 15,664 78.54 % 321 76.97 % 20 15,241 78.62 % 296 77.18 % * N-Size 20 excludes 935 students (5.78%)

Example: Students with Disabilities 4 Year Graduation Rate (2015-16) Schools Attending Average School Rate State Total 16,176 78.68 % 395 80.08 % 15 15,664 78.54 % 321 76.97 % 20 15,241 78.62 % 296 77.18 % 25 14,517 78.42 % 263 76.82 % * N-Size 25 excludes 1,659 students (10.26%)

Example: Students with Disabilities 4 Year Graduation Rate (2015-16) Schools Attending Average School Rate State Total 16,176 78.68 % 395 80.08 % 15 15,664 78.54 % 321 76.97 % 20 15,241 78.62 % 296 77.18 % 25 14,517 78.42 % 263 76.82 % 30 13,686 78.12 % 232 * N-Size 30 excludes 2,490 students (15.39%)

Example: Students with Disabilities 4 Year Graduation Rate (2015-16) Schools Attending Average School Rate State Total 16,176 78.68 % 395 80.08 % 15 15,664 78.54 % 321 76.97 % 20 15,241 78.62 % 296 77.18 % 25 14,517 78.42 % 263 76.82 % 30 13,686 78.12 % 232

Example: 4 Year Graduation Rate (2015-16)

Example: 4 Year Graduation Rate (2015-16)

Table Conversations: Part II What benefits do you see in lowering the N-size from 30 to 20? What tradeoffs or drawbacks do you see? What are practical considerations with the current accountability n-size and why?