AFWG Meeting #8 Summary and Decisions
Uploaded by
KevinOhlandtAFWG Meeting #8 Summary and Decisions
Uploaded by
KevinOhlandtNOTES: AFWG MEETING #8
January 28, 2015
8:00 11:00 a.m.
ITEM
NOTES
Welcome
Members present: Jeff Klein, Ed Emmett, Kevin Fitzgerald, Sally Maldonado, Heath Chasanov, Joe Jones,
Donna Johnson, Jason Conway, Bill Doolittle, Ken Hutchins, Jay Owens, Gerri Marshall, Chantel
Janiszewski, Penny Schwinn, Ryan Reyna. Members absent: Sharon DiGirolamo, David Ring, Theodore
Boyer. Member-at-large: Mark Holodick.
Survey Results
Ryan led a recap of the January 14th discussion regarding survey results. Bill Doolittle added that he
received additional feedback around the proposed rating system.
Part A metrics
On-track metrics
CCR metrics
DOE will include Part A of the accountability system in its ESEA renewal application. The State Board of
Education is expected to take action on the entire application at its March 19, 2015 meeting. The AFWG
was reminded that they will need to finalize their recommendations on metrics and weighting prior to
the March SBE meeting.
Ryan facilitated a discussion around the proposed On-track measure (reported for high schools only)
and presented the AFWG with a variety of metrics to explore. Options included considering students
prior performance in 8th grade, or considering student performance beginning in 9 th grade which would
not take prior performance into account. A summary of the discussion is as follows:
Concernso Students transferring mid-year to a school with a different schedule (i.e. transferring
from a school with a traditional year-round schedule to a school that uses block
schedules).
o Unintended consequences such as schools changing scheduling to focus credit recovery
during night classes versus summer school (because data would not be lagged)
o Identification of students at risk of dropping out- what data points would be used and
when?
At the conclusion of the discussion, the majority of the team preferred Option 4, which includes
students prior performance, however the team felt that Options 1 or 2 were the safer bets given
concerns around the data sources. It was requested that a trial run using DCAS data to illustrate
Option 4 be completed and shared with the team. (On-track options document attached.)
Four decision points based on the AFWGs prior recommendations for the College and Career Readiness
metric were shared. Overall, the AFWG recommended that students receive credit for demonstrating
success in both areas of college and career readiness.
Growth Methodology
Next Steps
Feedback from the community through Town Halls and meetings with individual stakeholder groups
indicated strong support for Delaware to request a one year pause with regard to school accountability
ratings through its ESEA renewal application. The AFWG also indicated strong support for this option.
Andrew, Peter and Brad from Education Analytics facilitated a discussion via GoToMeeting around the
following decision points for the AFWG to consider:
General growth model style (target stetting or end of year review)
Inclusion of years of history in growth metric
Adjusting for student characteristics (such as Special Education or EL)
The slide deck is attached.
Homework:
DOE will provide potential business rules for Option 4 for the On-track measure (see attached).
Continue to think about and discuss with your colleagues the ratings and how Delaware should
identify levels of growth.
Continue to think about using multiple years scenario data will be provided and the AFWG will
discuss at the next meeting.
Upcoming meetings:
February 11 12:30-4:30 p.m., Townsend Building, Cabinet Room
February 18 1:00-4:00 p.m., Townsend Building, Cabinet Room (likely to become a 60
minute check-in phone call; details will follow)
February 25 9 a.m. 2 p.m., Townsend Building, Library Conference Room (likely to change
to 9-12:30; details will follow)
