Joint Meeting of the Commissioner’s and AYP Task Force November 1, 2010 NH DOE 1 Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
School Grades Model and Historical Background
Advertisements

College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) The NEW Report Card in Georgia.
Rules and Legislation Regarding A-F Report Cards June 2013 Jennifer Stegman, Program Manager CTB.
AMOs 101 Understanding Annual Measurable Objectives Office of Educational Accountability Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction November 2012.
Changes To Florida’s School Grades Calculations Adopted By The State Board Of Education On February 28, 2012 Prepared by Research, Evaluation & Accountability.
Index 4 Description: Postsecondary Readiness Index 4 is : the Post-secondary Readiness index, which is used to show the readiness of students on campus.
+ Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS) 1 Hal Sanderson, Ph.D. Research and Assessment August 21,
Accountability Policy Update (Schools) Changes to Bulletin 111 From Sept 2003 – June 2004 Louisiana Department of Education.
Rule Development Workshop: School Grades Rule 6A , Florida Administrative Code August 13, 2013 Florida Department of Education Division of Accountability,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Small/ASAM Schools and PI Categorical Program Director’s.
The best and most sought-after school district where every student is future ready: ready for college, ready for the global workplace, ready for personal.
A ccountability R esearch and M easurement 1 Overview of Proposed School Grading Formula for :
Minnesota Assessment System Update Jennifer Dugan “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
AZ Learns and A-F Letter Grades Arizona Department of Education Presentation to the NCAASE Committee ASU Washington Center, Washington D.C. March 7, 2012.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
LOUISIANA STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION JOHN WHITE Tracking Readiness: Measuring High School Effectiveness in Louisiana National Conference on Student.
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE RANKING IS CALCULATED Top-to-Bottom (TTB) Ranking
School Performance Index School Performance Index (SPI): A Comprehensive Measurement System for All Schools Student Achievement (e.g. PSSA) Student Progress.
Arizona LEARNS: Overview of the Achievement Profiles.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
1 School Grades & AMO Overview Paul Houchens Director Student Assessment & Research.
ESEA ACCOUNTABILITY JAMESVILLE-DEWITT
Joint Meeting of the Commissioner’s and AYP Task Force October 14, 2010 NH DOE 1Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 2010.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
Making Demonstrable Improvement: Request for Feedback (Updated) July 2015 Presented by: Ira Schwartz Assistant Commissioner of Accountability.
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated 2011 TOP TO BOTTOM RANKING.
1 School Grades Paul Houchens Director Student Assessment & Research.
Commissioner’s Performance-Based Accountability Task Force: A Proposal for a Multi-level System Deb Wiswell & Scott Marion January 29, 2010.
ESEA Flexibility: Gap Reduction Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 5 of 8.
ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE Accountability Services.
Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting September 21, 2010 NH DOE 1 Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010.
Melrose High School 2014 MCAS Presentation October 6, 2014.
NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting August 10, 2010 NH DOE 1 Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
Overview “School Grading Rule” 6A Proposed CS/SB 1522 ESEA Waiver CAO March 2012.
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.
Introduction to the New Washington State Achievement Index Jack B. Monpas-Huber, Ph.D. Director of Assessment & Student Information Board of Directors.
Assigns one of three ratings:  Met Standard – indicates campus/district met the targets in all required indexes. All campuses must meet Index 1 or 2.
1 Getting Up to Speed on Value-Added - An Accountability Perspective Presentation by the Ohio Department of Education.
1 Accountability Systems.  Do RFEPs count in the EL subgroup for API?  How many “points” is a proficient score worth?  Does a passing score on the.
Understanding our 2012 High School Grade 1Spruce Creek High.
AYP and Report Card. Big Picture Objectives – Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. – Understand the purpose and role of the Report.
Commissioner’s Performance-Based Accountability Task Force: A Proposal for a Multi-level System Deb Wiswell & Scott Marion February 19, 2010.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
Arizona LEARNS: Overview of the Achievement Profiles.
Minnesota’s Proposed Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
Operationalizing the General Assembly’s School Performance Grades (Senate Bill 795, Excellent Public Schools Act) October 2012 Superintendents’ Feedback.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
2012 Accountability Determinations
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
FY12 Accountability Updates
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Madison Elementary / Middle School and the New Accountability System
Presented by Joseph P. Stern
AYP and Report Card.
Understanding How the Ranking is Calculated
Accountability Presentation
OVERVIEW OF THE 2019 STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Presentation transcript:

Joint Meeting of the Commissioner’s and AYP Task Force November 1, 2010 NH DOE 1 Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

Performance-Achievement After much deliberation, feedback from the two Task Forces and others, and trying to maintain consistency with the AYP system, we propose using Index scores for all “status” indicators set to the following rubric values: 4= Index value = Index value = Index value = Index value less than 60 Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Index Rubric Scores These rubric values will be used for all content areas and all school levels – If we believe that these are the criteria (established through a deliberative standard setting process) then it does not seem defensible to change the values according the distributions – However, the weighting system for the full performance-based accountability system can address the differences in performance Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Attendance/Truancy At the last meeting, we discussed using the percent of students absent 10% of the school days as a more appropriate indicator than simply average daily membership While we had known that research supported this 10% threshold, the day after the last meeting, EdWeek reported on a set of recent studies documenting the importance of this as an indicator even for elementary schools Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Elementary--% of students absent “18 days” or more Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Middle--% of students absent “18 days” or more Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

HS--% of students absent “18 days” or more Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Proposed Rubric Scores for Truancy (% of students absent “18 days” or more) 4 = 5% or less 3 = 6-10% 2 = 11-20% 1 = 21%+ Minimum n = 20 Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Truancy Results-Elementary Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Truancy Results-Middle School Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Truancy Results-High School Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Graduation & Dropout Dropout—includes GED and college enrollment Graduation rate—new federal cohort-based graduation rate Used a minimum n of 20 to include in the calculations Clearly, the most, or at least two of the most, important indicators for high schools Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

2009 Graduation & Dropout Rates Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Graduation Rate Distribution by School 2009 Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Dropout Rate Distribution by School 2009 Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Proposed Cutscores for Graduation & Dropout Rates Graduation Rate 1 = Less than 70% 2 = 70-79% 3 = 80-89% 4 = % Dropout Rate 1 = 21% or higher 2 = 11-20% 3 = 6-10% 4 = 0-5% Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Graduation Rate Rubric Scores Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Dropout Rate Rubric Scores Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Participation As noted previously, essentially all schools/subgroups meet the 95% threshold We will still include participation as both a signal and reward School are awarded one point for each subgroup that meets the participation target. Proposal: – For each subgroup meeting 95% criterion = 1 point – For each subgroup not meeting 95%=0 points Revised Proposal: – Only compute for Reading and Math – Used minimum n = 40 Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Computing HS Composites 1.Compute average (across subgroups) index rubric for each content area (reading, math, science, writing) 2.Compute average (across subgroups) participation rate for reading and math 3.Multiply grad rate and dropout rate rubric scores by 2. 4.Compute Total Score=(Reading Index + Math Index + Science Index + Writing Index + Reading Participation + Math Participation + Truancy + Grad Rate x 2 + Dropout rate x 2). – Limited analyses to schools with valid scores in all 9 indicators Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Distribution of HS Performance Scores Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Distribution of HS Performance Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Computing Elementary-Middle Composites 1.Compute average (across subgroups) index rubric for science and writing. 2.Compute average (across subgroups) participation rate for reading and math 3.Compute average (across subgroups) reading and math growth rubric scores and multiply by 3. 4.Compute Total Score=(Reading x 3) + (Math x 3) + (Science Index + Writing Index + Reading Participation + Math Participation + Truancy). – Limited analyses to schools with valid scores in all 7 indicators Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Distribution of Elementary-Middle Performance Scores Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Distribution of Elementary-Middle Performance Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,

Next Steps Check everything really carefully! Figure out how to best include ELL Figure out how to fairly deal with schools when subgroups are missing Look at schools in different parts of the distribution more closely to see if orderings make sense “Set standards” for adequacy Gather feedback from the field Other…. Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1,