NOTES: AFWG MEETING #11 revised

March 12, 2015

10:30 4:00 p.m.
ITEM

NOTES

Welcome

Members present: Ed Emmett, Joe Jones, Sharon DiGirolamo, Jeff Klein, Kevin Fitzgerald, Donna
Johnson, Jason Conway, Deb Stevens, Ken Hutchins, Jay Owens, Gerri Marshall, Chantel Janiszewski,
Penny Schwinn, Melissa Froemming, Ryan Reyna. Members absent: Bill Doolittle, Sally Maldonado,
Heath Chasanov, David Ring, Theodore Boyer. Member-at-large: Mark Holodick.

AFWG Progress
Review

Chantel opened the meeting by highlighting the progress made by the AFWG since its first meeting on
June 30, 2014. She revisited the two major goals of the AFWG: to develop a framework recommendation
for Delawares accountability system, and to develop and lead a strategy to ensure comprehensive
stakeholder engagement. The accomplishments of the group in meeting both of those goals were
recognized, as the purpose of this meeting was to finalize the framework recommendation. Comparisons
were made between the original Part A metrics and the current Part A metrics recommendations,
indicating the areas where direct input and feedback from the AFWG resulted in significant revisions and
refinements over time. In addition, Chantel highlighted the AFWGs review of the survey results, which
has led to the recommendations for Part B metrics.
The timeline moving forward through the fall of 2015 includes meeting with community focus groups to
finalize the accountability system rating system and report card esthetics, as well as future meetings of
the AFWG to finalize Part B as well as review results of the beta test using SY 14-15 data and make
adjustments to the business rules of the accountability system. For the focus groups, we will select a
statewide representative sample of stakeholders. We will be reaching out to the AFWG for support in
parent and teacher recruitment at selected schools.
Dr. Jason Conway made a statement on behalf of the Chiefs on the AFWG that while they appreciate being
engaged in the development of the new accountability system, they will not offer formal support for the
accountability system until it has been fully beta tested and ratings do not show bias toward socioeconomic status.
Donna Johnson recommended that a review of 14 Del Admin Code 103 be included in the timeline.

Weighting

Penny led a discussion around the weighting of the Delaware School Success Framework. A draft
weighting document was provided to the AFWG after the last meeting as a starting point for
conversation. The AFWG provided mostly holistic feedback via email, and only one member provided
feedback that identified specific changes to the draft. The weights were revisited in total during todays
meeting.
General weighting requirements to meet USED approval include:
At least 20% Academic Achievement
At least 10% 4-year graduation rate
No more than 50% growth
Groups of 3 created weights for each metric of the accountability system (High school and
elementary/middle school) and shared out as a whole group. The summary results of the preliminary
discussion are as follows:
High School
Academic Achievement 25%
Proficiency ELA 7.5%
Proficiency Math 7.5%
Proficiency Science 5%
Proficiency Social Studies 5%
Growth 45%

Growth in ELA 22.5%

Growth in Math 22.5%
On-Track 20%
On Track in 9th grade 5%
4-year Cohort Grad Rate 10%
5-year Cohort Grad Rate 3%
6-year Cohort Grad Rate 2%
College and Career Preparation 10%
CCR Success in High School 10%
Elementary/Middle School
Academic Achievement - 30%
Proficiency ELA adjusted for Participation 10%
Proficiency Math adjusted for Participation 10%
Proficiency Science adjusted for Participation 5%
Proficiency Social Studies adjusted for Participation 5%
Growth - 40%
Growth in ELA 20%
Growth in Math 20%
On Track to Graduation - 10%
Average Daily Attendance 10%
College and Career Preparation - 20%
Growth to Proficiency in ELA
10%
Growth to Proficiency in Math
10%
Note: Weighting will not be included in the ESEA Flexibility Renewal application submitted this month.
After the release of the Smarter Balanced assessment data, the DDOE and the AFWG will work through
Fall 2015 to analyze the data and make recommendations to the Secretary to ensure that the weighting
appropriately reflects Delawares stated college- and career-ready goals. In addition, through the data
analysis process the State will ensure that no school will receive the highest rating category if there are
significant achievement or graduation gaps that are not closing in the school.
Part A Metrics
finalize
recommendations

Ryan facilitated discussion around Part A and Part B metrics, and the following are the final
recommendations for the Delaware School Success Framework in each area. Work remains to develop the
full business rules for the metrics. This summary also includes recommendations the AFWG made on
specific business rules to incorporate into the system.
Academic Achievement
1. Proficiency in ELA adjusted for Participation rate Proficiency of full academic year students
in grades 3-8 and 11 on Smarter ELA multiplied by the school/district participation rate on that
assessment
2. Proficiency in Mathematics adjusted for Participation rate Proficiency of full academic
year students in grades 3-8 and 11 on Smarter Mathematics multiplied by the school/district
participation rate on that assessment
3. Proficiency in Science adjusted for Participation rate Proficiency of full academic year
students in grades 5, 8 and 10 on DCAS Science multiplied by the school/district participation
rate on that assessment
4. Proficiency in Social Studies adjusted for Participation rate Proficiency of full academic
year students in grades 4, 7 and in high school on DCAS Social Studies and the high school social
studies assessment (per the 5-year assessment plan) multiplied by the school/district
participation rate on that assessment
Schools and districts will be held accountable for closing achievement gaps through the use of an
aggregate, unduplicated count Student Gap Group. The group will consist of students in subgroups that

have historically demonstrated achievement gaps. DDOE will continue to report performance of all
subgroups.
Growth
1. Growth in ELA Amount of growth in ELA demonstrated at the school level from full academic
year students.
2. Growth in Mathematics Amount of growth in ELA demonstrated at the school level from full
academic year students.
The model will use a retrospective analysis of observationally similar students to calculate growth. The
model will: (1) control for multiple prior assessments in the specific subject area; (2) control for English
Language Learners and Special Education students; and, (3) incorporate a weighted average of three
years of growth data.
On Track to Graduation
1. Average Daily Attendance (ES/MS) - Total number of days of attendance for all students
divided by the total number of school days in a given year.
2. On Track in 9th Grade (HS) - Percent of 9th grade students that have earned at least 4 credits
by July 31 in four of the following areas: ELA, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies and/or
Foreign Language.
Schools will receive a bonus in the calculation for at risk students that earn 4 credits
by the end of 9th grade. At risk is defined as a student that scores in lowest quartile of
the 8th grade statewide summative assessment in either ELA or Mathematics
Any student with an IEP that targets graduation in more than four years will be
considered to have met the credit expectation that corresponds with their specific IEP
for 9th grade. This will be determined through an appeals process window
3. Four year Cohort Graduation Rate (HS) - The percentage of students who graduate from a
secondary school with a regular high school diploma within four years.
4. Five year Cohort Graduation Rate (HS) - The percentage of students who graduate from a
secondary school with a regular high school diploma within five years.
5. Six year Cohort Graduation Rate (HS) - The percentage of students who graduate from a
secondary school with a regular high school diploma within six years.
College and Career Readiness
1. Growth to Proficiency in ELA (ES/MS) - Percent of full academic year students on track to be
proficient in ELA in less than three assessment periods or by 11th grade
2. Growth to Proficiency in Mathematics (ES/MS) - Percent of full academic year students on
track to be proficient in Mathematics in less than three assessment periods or by 11 th grade
3. College and Career Preparation (HS) Percent of graduating students who have
demonstrated success on one or more examples of college and career preparation in high school
Options for demonstrating success on the College and Career Preparation metric include:
3+ on both Smarter ELA and Mathematics
1550+ on SAT (or equivalent on the new SAT)
3+ on AP (excluding AP Seminar)
4+ on IB
B or higher grade in a Department approved non-elective course in the state course transfer
matrix
B or higher grade in a Department approved articulated course
CTE certification with a 6+ (combined) on Smarter ELA and Mathematics
CTE certification with completion of a co-op job training opportunity
Other Recommendations from the AFWG
Kindergarten only schools should be exempt from accountability
Study whether to include a requirement that any school that demonstrates an assessment
participation rate below 95% is not be able to earn the states highest accountability rating. If
this requirement is included in the business rules, then incorporate a small school size
exemption so that small schools (N size TBD) are not adversely penalized.
Prorate growth based on the time a student spent in a specific high school

Report Card
Esthetics

Given the robust discussion regarding Part A metrics, this agenda item was tabled until a later date.

Growth Model
Communications

Andrew and Brad from Education Analytics presented a slide deck that illustrates the growth model
methodology. This slide deck was developed specifically for the AFWG to use with stakeholders. Andrew
facilitated a discussion regarding any necessary revisions to the slide deck for ease of use. Feedback will
be incorporated and the refined slide deck will be provided to the AFWG.

Next Steps

The accountability system will be presented as part of the ESEA Renewal Application at the 3/19/15 SBE
meeting for action.
No AFWG meeting in April.
May 2015 meeting TBA. A calendar invite will be sent within the next week.