1. NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting September 21, 2010 NH DOE 1 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 2 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 3 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 4

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

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 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 Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010 6

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 7

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 8

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

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 10

11. 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 11 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 12 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 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 21

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 22

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 23

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 24

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 25

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 26