You are on page 1of 2


July 29, 2014

9:30-11:00 a.m.



Members present: Heath Chasanov, Kevin Fitzgerald, Ken Hutchins, Donna Johnson, Chantel Janiszewski, Gerri
Marshall, Sandy Smith, David, Ring, Penny Schwinn. Members absent: Mark Holodick, Theodore Boyer, Sally
Maldonado, Joe Jones, Jeff Klein, Sharon Digirolamo.

Update of
ESEA Waiver

The Academic Framework will not be used to determine Reward, Recognition, or Priority Schools as originally
requested in the ESEA waiver submitted to the USDOE. Individual school reports for the 13-14 school year will still
be sent to each district between late August and mid-September, however these data are for informational
purposes only. A letter with more details discussing SY14-15 as a transition year will be sent to the Chiefs in the
next couple of days. It is also anticipated that the methodology to identify SY 14-15 Priority Schools, consistent
with the feedback and requests of the USDOE, will be posted on the DOE website by August 10th.
Chantel revisited the current indicators of the Academic Framework: Growth, Proficiency, AYP, Post-Secondary
Readiness and Mission Specific Goals. While there is general consensus around the inclusion of most of these
indicators in an accountability system, there is acknowledgement that revisiting these indicators is necessary.
Based upon the feedback the AFWG provided at the June meeting around what worked and what didnt work
with the current Academic Framework, and given the federal requirements for Part A of ESEA, Penny reviewed the
following non-negotiable metrics and provided the rationale for each (these would be the measures used for
accountability in 2014-15):

System Part A

1. Academic Achievement
o As measured by Proficiency and Growth: ELA, Math, Science, Social Studies
2. College and Career Readiness
o High School - As measured by % of students who have demonstrated CCR by senior year as
measured by SBAC proficiency or the new SAT (school/district choice)
o Middle School - TBD
o Elementary School - TBD
3. Chronic Absenteeism
o As measured by (ideas)
1. % students who have missed 10 days or more, OR
2. Reduction in the % of students who have missed 10 days or more, OR
3. Average days missed of the bottom 10% of attendance (cutoff at 10 days), OR
4. Reduction in the average days missed of the bottom 10% attendance (cutoff at 10 days)
4. Drop Out Percentage
o As measured by 8th grade drop-out rate (students present for unit count in 8 th grade who
complete high school within 5 years)
While growth is not a federal requirement, we believe that we can make a good case around keeping growth in our
accountability system. Penny reiterated that it is the role of the AFWG to develop the methodology
recommendations for each of the non-negotiable metrics (Part A). In addition, Part B metrics were also discussed;
these would include other data points that Delaware stakeholders identify as critical and actionable, but not
required by USDOE. Therefore, it is expected that Part A + Part B = school rating.

The following considerations were shared during the meeting:

1. Academic Achievement
o The implications of using both proficiency and growth needs to be discussed
o Will achievement data be disaggregated by demographic subgroups? If so, which subgroups? Will
there be an all students data point?
o Need to understand growth in terms of the Smarter Balanced assessment
o What assessments would we use to determine growth in Science? In Social Studies? These would
need to be annual assessments in order to appropriately show growth.
o Need to message now that Science and Social Studies will become part of the accountability
system as recently adopted standards are implemented.
o Currently, we are expecting only certain grade levels to carry the load of Science and Social
Studies proficiency. Moving forward, we plan to include the Science and Social Studies data on the
report card, but not make it part of the rating until we are able to pilot and further discuss annual

testing implications.
Need to consider how the new standards around participation rate + achievement will affect
school accountability
o Current Proposal: Proficiency for all 4 content areas included in accountability and the
report card. Growth is only considered for ELA and Math. Science and Social Studies annual
assessments being cost out, researched, and piloted.
o Group Homework: Please send additional feedback as well as proposed methodology to
discuss at the next meeting.
College and Career Readiness
o Need to ensure that a seniors best SAT score of all attempts is utilized (DOE currently has this
o We should look into following our DE students through college once the new SAT is piloted to
determine an in-state CCR measure. In essence, what score, specific to our own students,
determines likelihood for CCR?
o Could growth to proficiency over three years be considered for ES and MS? (Measure 1c of the
current Academic Framework)
o Need to ensure that high schools are not carrying the burden of CCR
o Current Proposal: SBAC 11th grade proficiency and new SAT; growth to proficiency over
three years in ES and MS.
o Group Homework: What can be used in lieu of the new SAT to give schools options? Please
send methodology and feedback (same as #1)
Chronic Absenteeism
o This is truly a shift in how we look at attendance data
o Would prefer a more positive connotation than chronic absenteeism
o The statutory requirement is for the number of instructional hours, not days would we count
o At ES/MS levels, chronic absenteeism is typically a function of family life; at HS, its typically a
function of motivation and self-efficacy, transient populations, etc. should we make a distinction
between ES, MS and HS?
o Do 10 absences truly qualify as chronic absenteeism?
o What is the difference between excused absences versus unexcused absences?
o Measuring the reduction in absences seems acceptable, either by idea #2 or #4
o Current Proposal: None on the table. We liked the idea of reduction in the rate of chronic
absenteeism, but no clarity around hours vs days and whether we adjust for grade-bands
o Group Homework: Methodology and feedback




Plan for
Next Steps


Drop Out Percentage

o Does Delaware have a problem with 8th grade drop-outs?
o What would this mean for ES and MS?
o How would charter schools with varying grade configurations be held accountable for this
o Could % of on-track to graduate be considered here instead? Would need to define on-track.
What is measurable at ES and MS?
o Need this to be a consistent measure across all schools
o Could % of off-track to graduate be considered here as well?
o Current Proposal: Measure reduction in the percent of students who are not on-track (to
ensure that we look at cohort data) based on a statewide expectation. This may be the only
measure that is high-school only, but we will investigate ES and MS options.
o Group Homework: Methodology and feedback suggestions; ideas around how to measure
on track in ES and MS.
This agenda item was tabled due to the rich discussion around the non-negotiable metrics and will be discussed at
the August 7th meeting.
Members were encouraged to share the non-negotiable metrics and methodology ideas with district colleagues to
solicit additional feedback. Please send any additional considerations regarding the non-negotiable metrics and/or
the methodology to Chantel by the close of business on August 6.
Next Meeting Scheduled: August 7th
August 12th - We will NOT be meeting on this date as originally planned. Please look for a new
proposed date for this final summer meeting