Joint Meeting of the Commissioner’s and AYP Task Force

1. Joint Meeting of the Commissioner’s and AYP Task Force November 1, 2010 NH DOE Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Elementary--% of students absent “18 days” or more Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

6. Middle--% of students absent “18 days” or more Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

7. HS--% of students absent “18 days” or more Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

8. 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

9. Truancy Results-Elementary Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

10. Truancy Results-Middle School Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

11. Truancy Results-High School Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

12. 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

13. 2009 Graduation & Dropout Rates Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

14. Graduation Rate Distribution by School 2009 Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

15. Dropout Rate Distribution by School 2009 Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

16. Proposed Cutscores for Graduation & Dropout Rates Graduation Rate Dropout Rate 1 = 21% or higher 2 = 11-20% 3 = 6-10% 4 = 0-5% • 1 = Less than 70% • 2 = 70-79% • 3 = 80-89% • 4 = 90-100% Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

17. Graduation Rate Rubric Scores Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

18. Dropout Rate Rubric Scores Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

19. 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

20. Computing HS Composites • Compute average (across subgroups) index rubric for each content area (reading, math, science, writing) • Compute average (across subgroups) participation rate for reading and math • Multiply grad rate and dropout rate rubric scores by 2. • 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

21. Distribution of HS Performance Scores Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

22. Distribution of HS Performance Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

23. Computing Elementary-Middle Composites • Compute average (across subgroups) index rubric for science and writing. • Compute average (across subgroups) participation rate for reading and math • Compute average (across subgroups) reading and math growth rubric scores and multiply by 3. • 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 indicators Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

24. Distribution of Elementary-Middle Performance Scores Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

25. Distribution of Elementary-Middle Performance Joint Task Force Meeting: November 1, 2010

26. 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