1. Joint Meeting of the Commissioner’s and AYP Task Force October 14, 2010 NH DOE 1Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 2010

2. Overview of Key Policy Decisions Subgroups—SWD, Low SES, “other”, & Whole School Minimum n—5 ELL performance – Reading—progress towards English language proficiency as determined by ACCESS scores (AMAO 1) – Math—use NECAP scores Participation rate—rated as “met” or “not met” for every subgroup (above) and every test. “Met” = 95% K, K-1,K-2 Schools—Must participate in Level 2 High school indicators Content areas for inclusion in the performance system— reading, math, writing, science Proposed cutscores for growth, achievement, and total system 2Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 2010

3. Participation The distributions we looked at two weeks ago indicate that essentially all schools/subgroups meet the 95% threshold However, both groups felt strongly that it still be included as both a signal and reward Therefore, we suggest awarding each school points for each subgroup that meets the participation target and not giving any points for subgroups not meeting the target. Proposal: For each subgroup meeting 95% criterion = 1 point For each subgroup not meeting 95%=0 points Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 20103

4. Review of Subgroup Performance Switch to PDF slides/ bubble charts Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 20104

5. 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 8 th 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 Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 20105

6. 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 Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 20106

7. 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 Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 20107

8. 8

9. 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. – We 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 Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 20109

10. Growth Rubric with Cut Scores for Median SGPs (based on CO, but slightly different) 4 (rubric score) 3 2 1 YesNo 55-69 Did median SGP exceed target SGP? 45-55 56-99 70-99 40-54 30-44 1-39 1-29 10Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 2010

11. Checking the values But, how do we know the growth percentiles demarking each rubric category are the right ones? Well, there is no “right”, but it needs to make sense and appear fair…. Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 201011

12. Percentages of schools in each rubric category: Math Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 201012 Whole SchoolLow SESSWDAll Other Rubric Score Did Not Meet Met Target Did Not Meet Met Target Did Not Meet Met Target Did Not Meet Met Target 42.9432.810.0034.160.7951.280.0039.76 30.0039.382.7833.6612.7035.900.0038.28 232.3526.5633.3329.7038.8912.820.0021.36 164.711.2563.892.4847.620.00100.000.59

13. Percentages of schools in each rubric category: Reading Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 201013 Whole SchoolLow SESSWDAll Other Rubric Score Did Not Meet Met Target Did Not Meet Met Target Did Not Meet Met Target Did Not Meet Met Target 40.0027.170.0027.490.0050.000.0039.48 30.0045.090.0028.296.3636.110.0037.46 29.0926.885.0038.6539.0913.890.0021.04 190.910.8795.005.5854.550.00100.002.02

14. How about Science & Writing? We’ll look at some data and proposed cutscores for science and writing for elementary-middle school Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 201014

15. Elementary-Middle School Science Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 201015 Percent Proficient & Advanced in Science Whole SchoolELLSWDLow SESAll Other NValid369146355331348 Missing16239305437 Mean40.4918.5320.4534.1551.11 Median41.000.0014.3033.3052.55 Std. Deviation20.9332.9021.6824.7621.38 Minimum0.00 Maximum100.00 Percentiles 2524.450.002.5014.3033.30 5041.000.0014.3033.3052.55 7555.8029.7833.3050.0067.45

16. Elementary-Middle School Science What’s the lowest percent proficient/advanced we can tolerate for “level 3”? 40%, 50%? Suggest as a starting point: – Level 1-0-20% – Level 2 -21-40% – Level 3 -41-65% – Level 4 -66-100% Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 201016

17. Elementary-Middle School Science Rubric Score Distributions Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 201017 Rubric Score Whole SchoolELLLow SESSWDAll Other 412.54.610.04.127.1 339.23.322.29.837.4 229.83.027.424.722.7 118.589.240.461.412.7

18. Elementary-Middle School Writing Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 201018 Percent Proficient & Advanced in Writing Whole SchoolELLSWDLow SESAll Other NValid350121337283305 Missing352644810280 Mean50.6826.9416.8953.0266.46 Median53.450.0011.4050.0068.40 Std. Deviation21.4237.3219.3324.5116.42 Minimum0.00 14.30 Maximum100.00 Percentile2539.030.00 39.2057.00 5053.450.0011.4050.0068.40 7565.5350.0025.0066.7077.80

19. Elementary-Middle School Writing Suggest as a starting point: – Level 1-0-30% – Level 2 -31-50% – Level 3 -51-65% – Level 4 -66-100% Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 201019

20. Elementary-Middle School Writing Rubric Score Distributions Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 201020 Rubric Score Whole SchoolELLLow SESSWDAll Other 414.45.716.92.339.2 341.21.421.81.733.4 228.24.629.812.411.8 116.288.331.583.615.6

21. Let’s look at some actual school results to evaluate the rubric cutscores (see Word doc—an excerpt below) Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 201021 School Name Bakersville School Bicentennial Elementary School Campton Elementary School Dr. Norman W. Crisp School Math_Whole Sch MEDIAN_SGP59.561.061.528.0 Math_Whole Sch Target MED_SGP51.016.037.041.5 Math_”Met Target?”WS1110 Math_Growth_Level_WS4441 Math Whole School %prof& adv53.590.363.051.2 Read_Whole Sch MEDIAN_SGP50.058.055.026.0 Read_Whole Sch Target MED_SGP43.016.023.032.0 Read_”Met Target?”WS1110 Read_Growth_Level_WS3431 Read Whole Sch %prof& adv58.390.877.554.8

22. Points Reading “growth” – Whole school = 4 – Econ Disadvantaged = 4 – SWD = 4 – All Others = 4 Math “growth” – Whole school = 4 – Econ Disadvantaged = 4 – SWD = 4 – All Others = 4 Science “status” – Whole school = 4 – Econ Disadvantaged = 4 – SWD = 4 – All Others = 4 Writing “status” – Whole school = 4 – Econ Disadvantaged = 4 – SWD = 4 – All Others = 4 Participation rate Attendance Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 201022

23. Weights Reading and math indicators include both growth and status – Should they then count twice as much as science & writing? Reading and math are tested 3x more than science and writing – Should they count 3x more than science & writing? So should reading and math count 6x more than science and writing? – Should growth count more than status? What about attendance and participation? Joint Task Force Meeting: October 14, 201023