Adult Education PMF Task Force - November 13, 2014 - Meeting Notes

Sep 14, 2026

Uploaded by Mali

Adult Education PMF Task Force meeting notes for November 13, 2014, covering task force norms, voting versus discussion items, and updates to technical guidance. Key focus includes National External Diploma Program (NEDP) calculations, defining numerator and denominator, and tracking students across assessment and exit timelines. The group also reviews tiering methodology, floor/target setting, indicator weighting, response-rate validity concerns, and reporting comparability to GED outcomes, addressing fairness and operational constraints for participating schools.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages4

Reading Time10 min

AccessFree to download

Agenda

Task force norms

Voting vs. discussion items

Technical Guide updates

Tiers

Mission Specific Goals

Notes and discussion

NEDP inclusion in PMF calculations

Tiering method and indicator requirements

Floors and targets update process

Data validity, response rates, and reporting comparability

Adult Education PMF Task Force November 13, 2014 Meeting Notes | LEA/Agency | Attendees | | --- | --- | | Academy of Hope | Marco Panelli, Patricia DeFerrari | | Briya | Lorie Preheim, Karen Hertzler (phone), Cara Sklar | | Carlos Rosario | Patricio Sanchez, Ryan Monroe | | Community College Prep | Connie Spinner | | LAYC Career Academy | Andrew Schwabb | | Maya Angelou YALC | Sarah Navarro, Sarah-Jaine Szekeresh, Mario Jackson | | Next Step | Melvin Freeman | | YouthBuild | Andrea Hinson | | PCSB | Rashida Tyler, Erin Kupferberg, Sareeta Schmitt, Taunya Nesin, Naomi DeVeaux | Agenda: 􀁸 Task force norms 􀁸 Today’s voting items vs. discussion items 􀁸 Technical Guide Updates: o NEDP o Floors and targets o ESL Level 6 􀁸 Tiers 􀁸 Mission Specific Goals Notes: 􀁸 Rashida clarified what things are voting versus discussion items 􀁸 National External Diploma Program (NEDP) o Rashida shared a proposal for how to include NEDP results in the PMF o Briya asked about the denominator; will only students who exit be in the denominator? 􀂃 Rashida noted that she can updated the language to include students who exit o There was some discussion about when a student would be included if she earns a diploma in SY 2014-15 and exits in SY 2015-16 o Students in the assessment phase have to be tracked regardless of when they exit, so we would need to begin collecting data on this annually 􀂃 This is so we can keep track of who is in the assessment phase even if a student does not exit o Is this similar to how it is done for the GED? 􀂃 The group mentioned that currently schools report students earning a GED only in the program year, not when they exit 􀂃 Rashida noted that it might be useful to look at the same period of time o The group expressed a preference for how to include NEDP in the PMF 􀂃 Numerator: Students earning the diploma in that program year 􀂃 Denominator: Students who get the NEDP diploma plus any student in the assessment phase who exited without getting the diploma 􀁸 Tiering o Rashida discussed how the Adult Education PMF is distinct from the Elementary, Middle, and High School PMFs o Rashida recapped how the floor and targets were calculated o Rather than using an PMF overall score to determine tiers, PCSB is proposing something very different (see PPT slide 12) 􀂃 Schools expressed concerns about how missing the 65% in one indicator makes a school automatically Tier 2 􀂃 Schools asked why this big change 􀁸 This shows that each indicator is very important 􀁸 Rashida shared that she spent a lot of time looking at the data and questions arose about whether the targets were too low for certain measures (e.g., Mission Specific) 􀁸 PCSB has concerns about the message it sends when that schools who scored highly overall, but did not score well in very key areas (i.e., Student Progress) are labeled Tier 1 􀁸 It would not be fair to change the floors and targets at this stage 􀁸 PCSB did not make this decision based on wanting to see a certain number of schools in any particular tier 􀂃 Maya: Would any schools would not be Tier 3 using this? 􀁸 Rashida shared that there would be two Tier 1 schools, one Tier 3 school, one new school that wouldn’t have been tiered, and the rest Tier 2 􀂃 Briya share a concern that a handful of students who exit before earning the NEDP, for example, might end up determining the tier of a school 􀂃 Rashida clarified the distinction between needing to earn at least 65% for each indicator (e.g., Student Progress), not each measure (e.g., ABE 1) 􀂃 Maya: Can a school with an N/A still be a Tier 1 school? 􀁸 If a school had an N/A in Student Achievement, then it can still be counted as Tier 1 􀁸 An N/A in any other indicator would take a school out of the running for Tier 1 􀂃 There was some discussion about allowing schools to omit Student Achievement and whether this stays true to the philosophy of the PMF 􀂃 LAYC expressed concern that a lot of

FAQs

How is NEDP incorporated into the PMF numerator and denominator?

The group proposed using the numerator as students earning the NEDP diploma in the program year. The denominator includes students who receive the NEDP diploma plus students in the assessment phase who exited without earning the diploma.

What concerns were raised about tiering when indicator targets or missing data affect Tier 2/1 placement?

Schools expressed concern that missing 65% on one indicator could automatically place a school in Tier 2, and PCSB raised messaging concerns when high overall scores still produce Tier 1 labels despite weak performance in key areas like Student Progress.

Why were response-rate thresholds and follow-up tracking considered important for validity?

Participants discussed whether thresholds are operational versus reflecting student outcomes, and noted that requirements to contact exited students may be beyond schools’ control. Rashida highlighted potential validity issues in the data being reported if alternative response-rate approaches change the measurement basis.

Sep 14, 2026

Uploaded by Mali