Post on 02-Jan-2016
1
Assessment of the Common Core State
Standards
CCCOE Curriculum Council
January, 2011
2
Assessment Consortia Beginnings During 1st Round of RTTT Application
There were 7 Assessment Consortia CA joined 3-5 Consortia (no cost for membership)
By the 2nd Round of RTTT Application the assessment consortia coalesced resulting in 2
remaining consortia
3
Two Funded Assessment Consortia Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for
College & Careers (PARCC) http://www.fldoe.org/parcc/ http://www.achieve.org/files/CCSS&Assessments.
SMARTER Balanced Consortium (SBAC) http://www.k12.wa.us/smarter/ http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs_press/100
4
Next Generation Assessments
PARCC and SMARTER will usher in a new and different approach to assessment design
5
Comparing the Two Consortia
CA joined PARCC A consortium of 26 states Procurement state is
Florida Achieve (American
Diploma Project) is the managing partner
Received $170 million
SBAC Consortium of 31 (many
Western) states Procurement state is
Washington WestEd is the managing
partner Received $160 million
6
A 3rd Grant Award
$10 million was earmarked for the development of high school (end of course) assessments
ED did not fund the group that applied to develop the high school assessments
PARCC was granted the additional funding to develop high school assessments
7
PARCC States
SMARTER States
8
Current ESEA Requirements
ELA and math in grades 3-8 In CA CSTs, CMA, & CAPA
ELA and math at least once in grades 10-12 In CA CAHSEE grade 10
Science at least once during each of three specified grade spans: 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 In CA grades
5 & 8 science CSTS, CMA & CAPA 10th grade Life Science, CMA & CAPA
9
PARCC Assessment System Design
Distributed Summative Assessment
10
Achieve – PARCC’s Managing Partner
Created in 1996 by the nation's governors and corporate leaders
an independent, bipartisan, nonprofit education reform organization
based in Washington D.C. leads the effort to make college and career
readiness a national priority
11
Assessment System Design: Distributed Summative Assessment
11
START OF
SCHOOL YEAR
END OF
SCHOOL YEARThrough-
Course 1
Through-Course 2
25% 50%
Through-Course 3
75%
Through-Course 4
90%
End-Of-Year
Source: Graphic adapted from a representation prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management (www.k12center.org)
Key components:
Three through-course components distributed throughout the year in ELA and mathematics, grades 3-11.
One Speaking/Listening assessment administered after students complete the third through course component in ELA; required but not part of summative score – could be used for course grades.
One end-of-year assessment
12
Assessment System Design: Distributed Summative Assessment
12
START OF
SCHOOL YEAR
END OF
SCHOOL YEARThrough-
Course 1
Through-Course 2
25% 50%
Through-Course 1 and 2:
ELA-1 and ELA-2: One or two tasks involving reading texts, drawing conclusions, and presenting analysis in writing.
Math-1 and Math-2: One to three tasks that assess one or two essential topics in mathematics (standards or clusters of standards).
Source: Graphic adapted from a representation prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management (www.k12center.org)
1313
Through-Course 3 and Through-Course 4 (ELA only):
ELA-3: Performance task(s) that require evaluating information from within a set of digital resources, evaluating their quality, selecting sources, and composing an essay or research paper.
ELA-4 (speaking and listening): Students will present their work from ELA-3 to classmates and respond to questions. Teachers will score, using a standardized rubric, and can use results in determining students’ class grades.
Math-3: Performance task(s) that require conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and application of mathematical tools and reasoning.
START OF
SCHOOL YEAR
END OF
SCHOOL YEARThrough-
Course 1
25%
Through-Course 2
50%
Through-Course 3
75%
Through-Course 4
Assessment System Design: Distributed Summative Assessment
Source: Graphic adapted from a representation prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management (www.k12center.org)
1414
START OF
SCHOOL YEAR
END OF
SCHOOL YEARThrough-
Course 1
Through-Course 2
25% 50%
Through-Course 3
75%
Through-Course 4
90%
End-Of-Year
End-of-Year:
EOY: Comprehensive, computer-scored assessment that includes a range of item types, including innovative, technology-enhanced items. Enables quick turnaround of student scores.
A student’s summative score—used for accountability purposes—will include his/her performance on Through-Courses 1, 2, and 3
as well as the End-of-Year assessment.
Assessment System Design: Distributed Summative Assessment
Source: Graphic adapted from a representation prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management (www.k12center.org)
15
Summative Score for Accountability
A student’s summative score (used for accountability purposes) will include his/her performance on Through Course1, 2 and 3 as well as end of year assessment.
1616
Overall assessment system will include a mix of constructed response items,
performance tasks, and computer enhanced, computer-scored items.
Assessments for grades 6-12 will be administered via computer
while 3-5 will be administered via paper and pencil (in the short term).
Combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and human scoring will be
employed; states will individually determine the extent to which teachers will be involved in scoring.
Administration and Scoring:
17
SMARTER BALANCED ASSESSMENT Consortium (SBAC)
18
SBAC Assessment Characteristics
State-of-the-art adaptive online exams The online system will provide information to teachers
and others on the progress of all students including students with disabilities, English language learners
and low- and high-performing students. The system will include:
the required summative exams (offered twice each school year);
optional formative, or benchmark, exams; and a variety of tools, processes and practices that will
assist teachers in understanding what students are and are not learning on a daily basis
19
Assessment Design
The Consortium will provide the following by the 2014-15 school year:3. Formative tools and resources
4. Responsible flexibility
5. Distributed summative assessment
a. Content clusters throughout a course
b. Most appropriate time for each student
c. Scores rolled up
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
20
Assessment Design
Type of Component
Type of Data produced
Frequency Number of items
Administration Mode
Scoring Method
Summative assessing Common Core
Scale score for achievement and growth
Once annually 1-2 opportunities
30 Selected response3 Extended constructed response7 Technology enhanced1 Performance event
Computer Adaptive, SR, ECR, TE
Computer Delivered: teacher administered performance event
Computer Adaptive: automated computer scoring
Performance EventCombination of AI and teacher
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
21
Examples of Internationally Benchmarked Assessments NAEP Released Items
22
Existing Internationally Benchmarked Assessments National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) http://nces.ed.gov/timss/
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls/
NCES: National Center for Educational Statistics
Part of US Department of Education (ED)
23
Features of NAEP Items
4th, 8th and 12th Grades Multiple Choice, Short Constructed
Response, Extended Constructed Response Levels of Difficulty: Easy, Medium, and Hard Primarily Math and ELA, but also given in
various subject matter domains (typically in 12th grade)
24
Multiple Choice 4th Grade NAEP, Medium Difficulty
15. Which picture shows that is the same as
A.
B.
C.
D.
25
Short Constructed Response4th Grade NAEP, Medium Difficulty
26
Extended Constructed Response 4th Grade NAEP, Medium Difficulty
27
Extended Constructed Response 4th Grade NAEP, Hard Difficulty
28
29
30
31
Next Steps and Timelines
Assessment and Textbook Adoption
32
PARCC’s Timeline Oct. 2010: Launch and design phase begins Sept. 2011: Development phase begins Sept. 2012: 1st year field testing and related
research and data collection begins Sept. 2013: 2nd year field testing and related
research and data collection continues Sept. 2014: Full administration of PARCC
assessment begins.
33
Textbook Adoption Timeline
Milestones Mathematics Implementation Timeline
Reading/Language Arts Implementation Timeline
Adoption of Framework/ Evaluation Criteria May 2015 May 2017 Curriculum Commission approves timeline, reviewer application
January 2016 January 2018
SBE approves timeline, reviewer application
March 2016 March 2018
Recruitment of reviewers (at least 90 days per §9513)
April - August 2016 April - August 2018
Curriculum Commission recommends reviewers to SBE
September 2016 September 2018
SBE appoints reviewers November 2016 November 2018
Invitation to Submit Meeting January 2017 January 2019
Submission Date March 2017 March 2019
Reviewer Training April 2017 April 2019
Independent Review April - July 2017 April - July 2019
Reviewer Deliberations July 2017 July 2019
Curriculum Commission holds public meeting to receive comment (§9524)
August 2017 August 2019
Curriculum Commission makes recommendation
September 2017 September 2019
SBE takes action on Commission recommendation
November 2017 November 2019
Elapsed time since previous adoption 10 years 11 years
34
CaCCSS Collaboration and Implementation California Mathematics Project (CMP) Curriculum and Instruction Steering
Committee (CISC) Mathematics Subcommittee
California Mathematics Council (CMC) California Association of Mathematics
Teacher Educators (CAMTE)
1st Meeting on January 19, 2011
35
Pamela Tyson, PhDDirector, Educational Services
Contra Costa County
Office of Education
Ptyson@cccoe.k12.ca.us