joint meeting of the commissioner’s and ayp task force november 1, 2010 nh doe 1 joint task force...
TRANSCRIPT
Joint Meeting of the Commissioner’s and AYP Task Force
November 1, 2010NH DOE
1Joint 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 90-100• 3= Index value 80-89• 2= Index value 60-79• 1= Index value less than 60
Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010 2
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, 2010 3
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, 2010 4
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, 2010 8
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, 2010 12
Proposed Cutscores for Graduation & Dropout Rates
Graduation Rate• 1 = Less than 70%• 2 = 70-79%• 3 = 80-89%• 4 = 90-100%
Dropout Rate• 1 = 21% or higher• 2 = 11-20%• 3 = 6-10%• 4 = 0-5%
Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010 16
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, 2010 19
Computing HS Composites1. 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, 2010 20
Computing Elementary-Middle Composites1. Compute average (across subgroups) index
rubric for science and writing.2. Compute average (across subgroups)
participation rate for reading and math3. 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
indicatorsJoint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010 23
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, 2010 26