1 / 13

Joint Meeting of the Commissioner’s and AYP Task Force

Joint Meeting of the Commissioner’s and AYP Task Force. November 29, 2010 NH DOE. Elementary-Middle Indicators. Reading Growth rubric x 3 AMAO (folded into reading score) Math Growth rubric x 3 Science index rubric Writing index rubric Participation rate (reading & math)

alexa
Télécharger la présentation

Joint Meeting of the Commissioner’s and AYP Task Force

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Joint Meeting of the Commissioner’s and AYP Task Force November 29, 2010 NH DOE Joint Task Force Meeting: November 29, 2010

  2. Elementary-Middle Indicators • Reading Growth rubric x 3 • AMAO (folded into reading score) • Math Growth rubric x 3 • Science index rubric • Writing index rubric • Participation rate (reading & math) • Excessive absence Joint Task Force Meeting: November 29, 2010

  3. High School Indicators • Reading Index rubric • AMAO folded into reading score • Math Index rubric • Science index rubric • Writing index rubric • Participation rate (reading & math) • Excessive absence • Dropout x 2 • Grad rate x 2 Joint Task Force Meeting: November 29, 2010

  4. 1-4 Scale • All indicators have been placed on a 1 through 4 scale • Participation rate has been rescaled so that all schools/subgroups meeting or exceeding the 95% threshold are awarded 4 points and all those not meeting the 95% threshold are given 1 point Joint Task Force Meeting: November 29, 2010

  5. LEP Students • We were able to get the appropriate data to essentially replicate the AMAO-1 (progress) calculation • Students making any progress (A, B, C) divided by the total number of LEP students in the program for at least 2 years • % of students making progress rated according the following rubric • = < 55% • = 55 - 59 • = 60 – 79 • = 80 – 100 • Folded into the “reading” average score Joint Task Force Meeting: November 29, 2010

  6. AMAO Results—All Levels Joint Task Force Meeting: November 29, 2010

  7. “Excessive Absence” • Excessive absence (not truancy!!) was calculated for each subgroup, using the following rubric for the % of students absent “18 days” or more per year 1 = 21% + 2 = 11-20% 3 = 6-10% 4 = 5% or less • Note, min-n raised to 40 to match participation rate Joint Task Force Meeting: November 29, 2010

  8. 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 75% • 2 = 75-79% • 3 = 80-89% • 4 = 90-100% Joint Task Force Meeting: November 29, 2010

  9. HS “Adequacy” Distribution— “listwise” Joint Task Force Meeting: November 29, 2010

  10. HS “Adequacy” Distribution— All Joint Task Force Meeting: November 29, 2010

  11. Elementary-Middle “Adequacy” Distribution— “listwise” Note-low n Joint Task Force Meeting: November 29, 2010

  12. Elementary-Middle “Adequacy” Distribution— All Joint Task Force Meeting: November 29, 2010

  13. Review DRAFT Scores Do these school-level scores make sense? What are the implications for “standard setting”? Joint Task Force Meeting: November 29, 2010

More Related