new hampshire’s 2007 ayp status reports & follow the child growth reports august 20, 2007

New Hampshire’s 2007 AYP Status Reports

& Follow The Child Growth

Reports August 20, 2007

August 20, 2007 NH Department of Education 2

Table of Contents What is an accountability

system? 2007 AYP Status Results

p.4 release schedule p.5 2006/2007 Comparison p.6 Basic Calculation P.7 Gr. 3-8 NECAP Achievement Levels P.8 Taskforce Recommendations P.9 Minimum n definition P.10-11 Index Definition and example P.12-13 NECAP and NH-Alt conversions P.14-15 Starting Points and AMOs P16-18 Confidence Intervals and chart P.19 Safe Harbor and example P.20-22 Sample Report Shells P.23 Special Notes on Data P.24 Results and Resources P.25 Future work

NH Follow The Child Growth Reports P.26 History of the NH Growth Model P.27 Why did NH submit a proposal for a

growth model? P.28 What is the NH Follow The Child

Growth Model? P.29 NH Follow The Child Growth

Expectations P.30 Growth Groups by NECAP Scaled

Score P.31 Reading Growth Targets P.32-33 Sample Report Shells P.34 What has changed now that the

Growth Model is New Hampshire’s? P. 35 Why Use Two Models? P.36 So What Does All This Mean? P.37 Who created NH Model? P.38 Timeline for AYP and Growth Release P.39 Contact Information


What is an Accountability System? State Standards

- Curriculum Frameworks

- Standards for School Approval Valid & Reliable Assessment

System- state assessment

- local formative, benchmark & competency based assessments

Data Analysis Tools- Performance Pathways

Accountability Reporting - Assessment Reports

- NCLB AYP Status Reports

- NH Growth Reports

Statewide System of Support-School Improvement Coaches (content, data, special education, leadership, NH-Alt)- Leadership Institute- Literacy Action Plan- Numeracy Plan- Ongoing PD - DINI support- High School Vision Statement- High School Redesign- PD Master Plans- Special Education Focused Monitoring- Root Cause Analysis program


2007 AYP Status Results – release schedule(impacts school year 2007-2008)

AYP Definition Grades Testing Data with dates

Report Issued

School

District

State

Index based on NECAP and NH-Alt

(since 2006)

Elementary and Middle Grades

Gr. 3-8 NECAP (Oct 2006)

Gr. 2-7 NH-Alt (2005-2006)

Aug. 28

2007

10:00 AM

District % Basic or above based on NHEIAP

and NH-Alt (no information included In this ppt)

High School Gr. 10 NHEIAP (May 2006)

Gr. 10 NH-Alt (2005-2006)

Aug. 28

2007

10:00 AM

School

State

High School Graduation Rate Only

Aug. 28

2007

10:00 AM


2007 AYP Status Results – 2006/2007 Comparison

What’s the Same as in 2006 ?

Factors included (participation, other indicator, performance)

Index values (20, 40, 60, 80, 100)

AMOs (Annual Measurable Objective)

Report shell (mostly)

What’s Different?

Calculating Safe Harbor Cleaning up the

demographic data Report Shell (2%

calculation & overall determination)


•Calculate “Other Indicator” for the school (attendance rate at 3-8; graduation rate at high school)

•Calculate Participation rate for the school and each subgroup (based on testing year)

•Calculate Performance for the school and each subgroup (based on teaching year)

–Calculate Index (Compare to AMO target)

–If not OK, check confidence interval (99%)

–If still not OK, check safe harbor

–Check 2% in case of Special Education subgroup

2007 AYP Status Results – Basic Calculation


Grades 3-8 NECAPAchievement LevelsNECAP Cut points Commissioners from VT, RI, and NH adopted cut points on January 20, 2006 Proficiency at the student level includes performance at achievement levels 3 and 4.

Achievement Levels: Level 1: Substantially Below Proficient Level 2: Partially Proficient Level 3: Proficient Level 4: Proficient with Distinction

Scaled Scores will be reported as a 3-digit number where the first digit is the grade level and the other part will be a score 00 to 80 (reported as whole numbers at the student level). X40 is the reported cut point for Proficient.

Grade 3: 300-380Grade 4: 400-480Grade 5: 500-580Grade 6: 600-680Grade 7: 700-780Grade 8: 800-880


2007 AYP Status Results – Taskforce Recommendations

An External AYP Task Force met to make recommendations to the Department. After review by the Internal AYP Task Force, we have arrived at the following decisions: Racial categories (no change)

Defined by Beginning of Year (BOY) submissions Other Indicator (no change)

Attendance Rate (90% or improvement over previous year) Calculated from End of Year (EOY) submissions

Participation assigned to testing school Performance assigned to teaching school Full Academic Year (FAY) for performance calculations

Continuous enrollment from October 1 to the end of the teaching year


2007 AYP Status Results – Minimum “n” definition(Minimum number of students in a group required in order to perform calculation) 95% Participation rate: 40 for each group within

testing grades in school or district 75% Graduation rate: 40 within school or district 90% Attendance rate: 40 within school or district

Includes all grades 1-8 in the school or district Performance targets:11 for each group within

testing grades in school or district


2007 AYP Status Results - Index DefinitionIndex System provides partial credit for scores below

Proficient. A school’s index score will be the average of all student index points assigned to the school.

Proficiency Level Index Points

Level 1: Substantially below Proficient

X00 0

1a 20

1b 40

Level 2: Partially Proficient2a 60

2b 80

Level 3: Proficient

Level 4: Proficient with Distinction100


An Index Example: Two schools

Two schools, both with 180 students tested and 61.1% of their students scoring proficient or better in reading.

READING Maple Street CS Pine Street MS

Level points # of students

total # of students

total

X00 0 30 0 5 0

Level 1a 20 20 400 5 100

Level 1b 40 10 400 10 400

Level 2a 60 5 300 20 1200

Level 2b 80 5 400 30 2400

Level 3 100 60 6000 60 6000

Level 4 100 50 5000 50 5000

Sum 180 12500 180 15100

Index 69.4 83.9


Scaled Scores for each Index NECAP Reading

0 1a 1b 2a 2b 3 and 4

300 301 to 321 322 to 330 331 to 335 336 to 339 340 to 380

400 401 to 421 422 to 430 431 to 435 436 to 439 440 to 480

500 501 to 519 520 to 529 530 to 534 535 to 539 540 to 580

600 601 to 617 618 to 628 629 to 634 635 to 639 640 to 680

700 701 to 717 718 to 728 729 to 734 735 to 739 740 to 780

800 801 to 815 816 to 827 828 to 833 834 to 839 840 to 880

Mathematics

0 1a 1b 2a 2b 3 and 4

300 301 to 323 324 to 331 332 to 335 336 to 339 340 to 380

400 401 to 421 422 to 430 431 to 435 436 to 439 440 to 480

500 501 to 525 526 to 532 533 to 536 537 to 539 540 to 580

600 601 to 625 626 to 632 633 to 636 637 to 639 640 to 680

700 701 to 727 728 to 733 734 to 736 737 to 739 740 to 780

800 801 to 827 828 to 833 834 to 836 837 to 839 840 to 880


Raw Score to Performance IndexConversion table for NH-Alt

* The lowest score any scoreable portfolio can earn is 13 raw score points.

** A raw score of 0 is only possible if the portfolio submitted was judged to be unscoreable by two trained and independent scorers.

Portfolio Raw Score Points Earned

Proficiency Level Performance Index Level

Performance Index Points Assigned

47-52 Proficient with Distinction 4 100

38-46 Proficient 3 100

34-37 Partially Proficient 2b 80

29-33 Partially Proficient 2a 60

21-28 Substantially Below Proficient 1b 40

13*-20 Substantially Below Proficient 1a 20

0** Un-scoreable (SBP) 0 0


AYP Status Def: Starting PointsStarting Points: For each content area separately, a

baseline was created via the 20% method outlined in NCLB: Determine index for each school Rank schools by each index Identify at “20th percentile” school

“20th percentile” school: the school where 20% of the students in the whole list attend that school or a school with a lower index.

That school’s index is the starting point

Starting points: Reading 82, Mathematics 76


AYP Status Def: AMOsAnnual Measurable Objectives

2 year intervals, equally spaced to 100

Grades 3-8 Index

Reading Mathematics

Starting Point (2005-2006) 82 76

2006 – 2007 82 76

2007 – 2008 86 82

2008 – 2009 86 82

2009 – 2010 91 88

2010 – 2011 91 88

2011 – 2012 95 94

2012 – 2013 95 94

2013 – 2014 100 100

So, Pine St. MS met the AMO since their index (83.9) is greater than or equal to 82 in reading, but Maple St. CS did not.


AYP Status Def: Confidence Intervals

1. Calculate the within-school variance for each school.

2. Calculate the average within-school variance for the state.

3. Calculate the standard error for each group

4. Calculate the 99% confidence interval for each group

1)_(

var2

studentindex

schoolstudentschool n

indexmeanindex

schools

school

naverage var

var

groupnaverage

groupSE var

groupgroup SECI *333.2

Where:indexstudent = index score for the student

mean_indexschool = average index score for the school to which the student belongs

nindexstudent= the number of student index scores for the school of interest

nschools = the number of schools, and ngroup = number of students in the group

For each subject separately:

For NHReading: 603.38615Math: 800.72625

The smallest index allowed with the CI is: AMO – CIgroup


Same as last year since AMOs are the same.


Maple St. CS still did not meet AMO with the confidence interval since their index (69.4) is not greater than or equal to 77.7


AYP Status Def: Safe Harbor (with an example)Even though a group does not make performance expectations, it

may have improved enough to be okay. To make Safe Harbor a group must meet the 10% rule and the additional indicator. The 10% rule requires that the “complement” of the group’s Index (100-Index) be at least 10% lower than the previous year. In addition, the percent of students scoring proficient or better must increase.

October 2005 NECAP &

2004-05 NH-Alt

October 2006 NECAP &

2005-06 NH-Alt

Reduction SH Goal

(’05 100-Index) x (.10)

Safe Harbor?

Is reduction

> or =

(SH Goal)?

Index 100-Index Index 100-Index

Maple Street CS

61 39 69.4 30.6 39-30.6 = 8.4

39 x .10

= 3.9

Is 8.4>3.9

Yes

Gould School

61 39 63 37 39-37 = 2 39 x .10

= 3.9

Is 2>3.9

NoMaple St. CS, however, improved enough to meet performance expectations by meeting safe harbor requirements.


2007AYP Status Results - Special Notes on Data

Reports are based on student demographic and program participation data reported by districts EOY (End of Year) files BOY (Beginning of Year) files SPEDIS/NHSEIS, ESL, F&R systems

Assessment reports were released in January 2007 and districts/schools had about a month to review and report and correct discrepancies in student demographic data.


2007 AYP Status Results and Resources www.ed.state.nh.us/education/ayp

AYP Status Reports at grades 3-8 AYP Status support material CSV file of all results New Hampshire’s AYP Status Reports

& Follow The Child Growth Reports (ppt) Separate HS District Reports (old AYP def) Separate HS School Reports (graduation rate

only)


AYP Status – Future work

Out of District Students in Private Placements How to include students placed in out-of-district

private placements?

Writing and Science Neither Writing nor Science is scheduled to be a

part of AYP at this time


History of the NH Growth Model Growth Model being considered by Accountability Task Force Lyonel Tracy becomes NH Commissioner Follow The Child Initiative Begins Spellings invitation to states to submit growth model proposals NH submits Growth proposal in February 2006 USED defers NH proposal until two years of assessment data NH revises and resubmits in November 2006 USED asks for clarifications in December 2006 NH submits revisions in January 2007 Peer Review #1 in March 2007 Peers ask for compilation of all revisions and clarifications (Task Force

reviews and refines proposal) Peer Review #2 in May 2007 May 22 – conference call informing us that the peers voted to not approve

our model – but, we could come to DC in June to work toward approval June 4, 2007 – AYP Task Force advises Commissioner to run the NH

Growth Model as our own pilot this year


Why did NH submit a proposal for a growth model?

The Accountability Task Force had been considering growth for a while and the idea reflected the goals of Follow The Child

To build on the NH philosophy of continuous improvement and longitudinal student growth

To allow us to determine individual growth targets for students that accelerate progress & close the achievement gap

To include individual targets as part of a larger system that includes interim testing, personalization, and remediation, if necessary


What is the NH Follow The Child Growth Model? (www.ed.state.nh.us/education/FTC/growth_model.pdf) We calculate growth targets for EVERY student, and tally the number of students meeting or exceeding their target

The targets are based on the previous year’s NECAP score – and if no NECAP score is available, the target is proficiency

Targets are based on the distance to proficiency – closing the gap (as measured by the number of standard deviations below proficiency) This ensures comparability between grades

If students are already proficient, the target is designed to encourage a level that exceeds proficiency


NH Follow The Child Growth Expectations

>1 SD below

½ to 1 SD below

0 to ½ SD below

0 to ¼ SD above

¼ to 1¼ SD above

> 1 ¼ SD above

Narrow gap to prof. by one third of the # of SD below

Narrow gap to prof. by one half of the # of SD below

Proficiency

Drop by no more than ¼ SD

Stay at least 1 SD above prof.

Previous NECAP scaled score.

Targets for next testing cycle.


Growth Groups by NECAP Scaled Score

Group 1 2 3 4 5

Math >1SDbelow

1SD – ½SDBelow

Proficient-½SD to Proficient + ¼SD

¼SD – 1¼SDabove

>1¼SDabove

Grade 3 300-329 330-334 335-342 343-353 354-380

Grade 4 400-428 429-434 435-442 443-454 455-480

Grade 5 500-528 529-534 535-542 543-554 555-580

Grade 6 600-628 629-634 635-642 643-654 655-680

Grade 7 700-729 730-734 735-742 743-753 754-780


Reading Growth Targets

Grades 3 to 4 Grades 4 to 5 Grades 5 to 6 Grades 6 to 7 Grades 7 to 8

Score Target Score Target Score Target Score Target Score Target

300 416 400 513 500 612 600 713 700 814

301 416 401 514 501 612 601 714 701 814

302 417 402 514 502 613 602 714 702 815

303 417 403 515 503 614 603 715 703 816

304 418 404 516 504 614 604 716 704 816

305 419 405 516 505 615 605 716 705 817

306 419 406 517 506 616 606 717 706 818

307 420 407 518 507 617 607 718 707 818

308 420 408 518 508 617 608 718 708 819

309 421 409 519 509 618 609 719 709 820

310 422 410 520 510 619 610 720 710 820

Complete reading and mathematics growth targets charts available at:www.ed.state.nh.us\education\FTC\growth\reading_growth_targets.pdf www.ed.state.nh.us\education\FTC\growth\math_growth_targets.pdf


Confidential list of students with scores from 2005 and 2006, and targets for 2006 and 2007.


Public report. Growth targets have been set at the school level (listed next to each content area heading). The school and each group may meet the school growth targets directly or with the use of confidence interval.


What has changed now that the Growth Model is New Hampshire’s? Confidence Interval based on growth targets

and group size (99%) to identify groups not reaching growth targets with more confidence

AMO Targets for future years to be determined after reviewing pilot results

Can we/do we include growth reports for high school?


Why Use Two Models?

The FTC growth model encourages schools to focus on all students, not just the students that scored just below the performance level cuts.

In contrast, the status/index model rewards schools for improvement that crosses achievement levels, regardless of the amount of growth.

New Hampshire feels that a valid accountability system should incorporate both status and growth and public reporting of other assessments throughout the year.


So What Does All This Mean?

NCLB Accountability is based on the Index The FTC Growth Report is a NH Pilot The school growth reports are for

informational purposes to inform teachers, administrators, and the public

The student roster information is for teacher instructional use and student goal setting

Growth targets give us “one more picture” of student performance


Who created NH Model?

The New Hampshire Accountability Task Force made up of: District and school personnel NHDOE staff Representatives from university system,

school boards, parents Technical advisors from National Center for

the Improvement of Educational Assessment (NCIEA) and Measured Progress


Timeline for AYP and Growth Release

Tuesday, August 28 at 10:00 AM – public release of index reports and school, district, & state growth reports

2007-08 school year: review & work with districts on growth targets and growth reports

Use growth results to determine AMOs and future use in NH Accountability System


Contact Information

Deb Wiswell (Accountability)

[email protected]

603-271-3828

Tim Kurtz (Curriculum and Assessment)

[email protected]

603-271-3846

Gary Guzouskas (School Improvement and Appeals)

[email protected]

603-271-5873

new hampshire’s 2007 ayp status reports & follow the child growth reports august 20, 2007

Documents

nh growth modelp

nh model

child growth model

growth releasep

growth groups

child growth reportsp

child growth expectationsp

ayp status resultsp