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

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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 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)

5. 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 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)

6. 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)

7. 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)   

8. 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

9. 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) 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)

10. 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)

11. 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 through )
N-size
Year-to-Year Stability for SGP 15
0.33 20
0.41 25
0.43 30
0.45

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

13. 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%)

14. 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%)

15. 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%)

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 % 25
14,517
78.42 %
263
76.82 % 30
13,686
78.12 %
232
* N-Size 30 excludes 2,490 students (15.39%)

17. 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

18. Example: 4 Year Graduation Rate (2015-16)

19. Example: 4 Year Graduation Rate (2015-16)

20. 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?