nh commissioner’s task force meeting august 10, 2010 nh doe 1 commissioner's force meeting:...

NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting

August 10, 2010NH DOE

1Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010

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


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?


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

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

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)


A potential way to award “points”


3

4

2

1

Median Student Growth Percentile -- Whole School or Subgroup

00

20

35

60

50

80

67

100

99

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?


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 8th 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


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


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


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?


Growth Rubric with Cut Scores for Median SGPs (based on CO, but slightly different)

4 (rubric score)

3

2

1

Yes No

55-69

Did median SGP exceed target SGP?

45-55

56-9970-99

40-54

30-44

1-391-29


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


Examining min-n > 4

• No min-n

• Min-n > 4


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


Observed Median (Math) for “other”


Target Median (Math) for “other”


Observed Median (Math) for “low SES”


Target Median (Math) for “low SES”


Observed Median (Math) for “SWD”


Target Median (Math) for “SWD”


School-level growth scores (other)


School-level growth scores (low SES)


School-level growth scores (SWD)


School-level growth scores (total-math)


School-level growth scores (total-reading)


Using averages instead of totals for any available groups (math)


Using averages instead of totals for any available groups (reading)


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

nh commissioner’s task force meeting august 10, 2010 nh doe 1 commissioner's force meeting:...

Documents