1. NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting August 10, 2010 NH DOE 1 Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010

2. Overview of Key Policy Decisions Which subgroups? Minimum n? How to account for ELL performance Participation rate versus “zeros” K-1 Schools (Level 2) High school indicators Content areas for inclusion in the performance system Proposed cutscores for growth, achievement, and total system 2 Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010

3. Groups recommended by AYP Task Force Special education students Economically disadvantaged/not special ed or ELL “all others”, i.e., not special ed, not low SES, not ELL And whole school? 3 Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 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 Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 4

5. ELL Performance Many question the federal policy of requiring all ELL students to fully participate in the content area assessments after only one year of instruction in U.S. schools Suggest using the ELP assessment results in place of the ELA assessment results for X years? Current ELL accountability uses both achievement and progress/growth Math? Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 5

6. Review of Proposal #1 We and the various advisory groups suggested using the 4-quadrant approach to classify schools in the lower left as not providing an opportunity for an adequate education We faced challenges in… – Trying to aggregate across content areas and subgroups – Incorporating other performance indicators such as participation, attendance, and graduation (for HS) Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 6

7. 7

8. A potential way to award “points” Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 8 3 4 2 1 Achievement Status Median Student Growth Percentile -- Whole School or Subgroup 0 0 20 35 60 50 80 67 100 99

9. Some concerns We really tried to make the approach depicted on the previous slide work because we like the visual nature of the approach However, we cannot get away from the arbitrariness of both the slopes and the intercepts This approach is really trying to evaluate growth in the context of average achievement (status) – If that’s the case, why not use a more defensible criterion-based measure? Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 9

10. 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 Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 10

11. Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 11

12. 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 Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 12

13. 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 Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 13

14. Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 14

15. 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 Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 15

16. 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 16 Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010

17. 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 17 Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010

18. Examining min-n > 4 No min-n Min-n > 4 Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 18

19. Relationship of Medians to Targets The following histograms portray the distribution of observed median growth percentiles and target median growth percentiles – Note the inverse relationship between targets and observed – Also note how the special education subgroup follows a pattern essentially opposite of the other two groups Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 19

20. Observed Median (Math) for “other” Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 20

21. Target Median (Math) for “other” Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 21

22. Observed Median (Math) for “low SES” Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 22

23. Target Median (Math) for “low SES” Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 23

24. Observed Median (Math) for “SWD” Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 24

25. Target Median (Math) for “SWD” Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 25

26. School-level growth scores (other) Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 26

27. School-level growth scores (low SES) Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 27

28. School-level growth scores (SWD) Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 28

29. School-level growth scores (total-math) Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 29

30. School-level growth scores (total-math) Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 30

31. School-level growth scores (total-reading) Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 31

32. School-level growth scores (total-reading) Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 32

33. Using averages instead of totals for any available groups (math) Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 33

34. Using averages instead of totals for any available groups (reading) Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 34

35. 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 Force Meeting: August 10, 2010 35