1. Commissioner’s Performance-Based Accountability Task Force: Decision Time! Deb Wiswell, Scott Marion, and Karen Laba April 2, 2010

2. Legislative Presentation  NH DOE must present to the NH Legislature on April 20 th about the progress being made on the development of the input and performance-based accountability systems  We will return to some specific questions about the presentation later this morning, but for now, we need your input on several key decisions  First, a very brief review… Commissioner's Performance Based Accountability System Task Force. 4/2/10 2

3. A Multi-Level Performance Accountability System for NH Commissioner's Performance Based Accountability System Task Force. 4/2/10  Level One  A very limited set of common (across the state) indicators and metrics  Applied consistently across all schools in the state  Focused on unarguable outcomes, e.g., NECAP, graduation rate, postsecondary assessments, attendance  Level Two  Locally determined goals, targets, and indicators 3

4. Level One: Indicators  K-8  Inclusion Factors  Status Measures  Growth Measures  Gap Analyses  High School  Inclusion Factors  Status Measures  Gap Analyses  Postsecondary Indicators Commissioner's Performance Based Accountability System Task Force. 4/2/10 4

5. Level 2: Locally-determined system Commissioner's Performance Based Accountability System Task Force. 4/2/10  A very limited set (e.g., 2-5) of district/school-determined goals, targets, and indicators  For example, “increase the % of students achieving their NWEA growth targets to 90% by 2015”  The school results related to such goals and targets would count in the performance-based accountability system  The following set of slides describes a simple proposal based on our previous discussions 5

6. Level 2: Establishing the Goals & Targets  Schools will be required to identify at least one goal for which they want to be held accountable  Goals must relate to the opportunity for an adequate education  Goals must be tied to identifiable measurement approaches  Goals could (should) stretch over several years, but yearly measureable targets must be established  Committee could require that the goals could be:  Academic only  A mix of academic, social, emotional, and physical, but requiring at least one academic  Any goals that the school chooses that can be measured Commissioner's Performance Based Accountability System Task Force. 4/2/10 6

7. Decision Time 1. Should we continue to pursue this “shared” two-level system as the framework for the performance system? 2. Should we require all schools to participate in Level 1? 3. Should we require all schools to participate in Level 2?  If “no” to #2 or #3, which schools should be required to participate in either Level 1 or Level 2?  If yes, do we have to worry about unfunded mandate issues? 4. Should we phase-in Level 2 after Level 1 is established?  If so, how long should before Level 2 gets phased in? Commissioner's Performance Based Accountability System Task Force. 4/2/10 7

8. Level 2: Approving the goals  The school will be required to have the goals approved by the district leadership and the board  Questions  Should NH DOE be responsible for approving: 1. The goals? 2. The process for setting the goals? Commissioner's Performance Based Accountability System Task Force. 4/2/10 8

9. Level 2: Measuring the goals and targets  Questions  Should NH DOE make determinations about… 1. whether the yearly targets ambitious enough? 2. whether the measures/indicators appropriate for the purpose? 3. how/why were these measures chosen? 4. the technical quality of the measures?  E.g., is the measurement error larger than the yearly target? Commissioner's Performance Based Accountability System Task Force. 4/2/10 9

10. Level 2: Evaluating the results  The local school, with district sign-off will have to document whether or not the school has met or exceeded their goal(s)  Question 1. Shall NH DOE have the responsibility (power) to approve, disapprove, or overturn the district’s evaluation/conclusions regarding attainment of the school’s goals? Commissioner's Performance Based Accountability System Task Force. 4/2/10 10

11. Integrating Levels 1 & 2 Commissioner's Performance Based Accountability System Task Force. 4/2/10  Combining evaluations from Level One and Two?  Questions 1. Should the evaluations from Level 1 and 2 be combined into a single judgment and report? 2. Without getting into specific combination rules, what is your general opinion of the following: a. Does Level 2 have the credibility/validity/etc to “overrule” Level 1? b. Should Level 2 be used as “extra credit” or “tie-breaker”? c. Should ratings from both Levels somehow be averaged? 11