Post on 19-Jan-2016
description
1
Assessments of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
Curriculum and Instruction Leadership Council (CILC)
November, 2010
2
Presentation Outline
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Overview
Next Steps: Transitioning to New Standards and Assessments
Assessment Consortia: The beginnings Examples of Internationally Benchmarked
Assessment Released Items
3
the same for everyone fundament
al knowledge needed to be college & career
ready
adopted statewide; not federal
Shared, rigorous
academic content
with clear expectation
s for students
4
CCSS Development Timeline
National Deliberation over & Development of Drafts of CCSS
– Sponsored by CCSSO and NGA (2009)– Voluntary participation of 48 states– to develop CCSS & deliberation over possible state
adoption– Multiple drafts were reviewed and vetted by tens of
thousands (including unions and professional math and ELA organizations)
5
California’s Adoption Process
California to Adopt CCSS? (Jan. ‘10)– SB X5 1 created Academic Content Standards Commission
(ACSC) (January 2010)– ACSCs goal was to “ensure that the rigor” of CA’s
standards are maintained by the CCSS– ACSC recommends CCSS adoption with Additions – 85%
Rule (July ‘10) SBE Unanimously Adopts CCSS “Plus” (August ’10)
– at the last possible moment to remain a contender for the 2nd round of RTTT funds
6
One or Two Sets of Standards?
Common Core California Standards (CCCS)
Which standards are more important to us?
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
7
CCSS Characteristics
Alignment with college and work expectations– Knowledge and skills needed for success after high school
Rigorous content Application of higher-order thinking skills International benchmarking
– Informed by curriculum and assessments from top-performing countries to insure success in our global economy (e.g., NAEP, TIMSS, PIRLS)
Evidence and/or research-based.
8
Next Steps: Transitioning to New Standards and Assessments
Curriculum, Assessment, and Professional Development
9
Proposed Next Steps for CCCS
California Department of Education (CDE) charged with proposing next steps for adoption of California Content California Standards (CCCS) to the State Board of Education (SBE)
10
SBE is Prohibited by Law
from taking actions related to developing curriculum frameworks and adopting instructional materials until 7/1/13 (Ed Code 60200.7)
Reversal of this requires the legislature to authorize and fund implementation-related activities, to amend this
– If no action is taken, an instructional framework can not be presented to SBE for action until 2015 (followed by a 2017 textbook adoption).
11
CDE’s Proposal for Next Steps
CTC and SBE will hold a joint meeting to provide information only on possible implementation scenarios for CCSS (11/8/10)– CDE will present a plan for next steps in (1)
frameworks and textbook adoption, (2) professional development for administrators, teachers, and educators (including teacher educators), and (3) development of new assessments.
Current text materials will be in use until these dates!
12
Accelerated Frameworks, Textbook & Assessment Development Timelines
Frameworks and Textbook Adoption
13
Current Assessment Practices
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires assessing
– 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
14
Assessment Development Timelines
New Common Core Assessments to– be developed and pilot tested in 2011-12– be field tested in 2012-13 & 2013-14– “go live” and conduct standards setting in 2014-15
15
Assessment Consortia
The beginnings
16
The Assessment Consortia Beginnings
During 1st Round of RTTT Application– There were 7 Assessment Consortia – CA joined 3-5 Consortia (no cost for membership)
During 2nd Round of RTTT Application– 7 assessment consortia joined/coalesced to which
resulted in 2 remaining consortia
17
Request for Applications (RFA’s)Consortia Goals
Competitive grants for consortia to develop comprehensive assessment systems that
– Align to CCSS– Are designed to measure and documents students’ readiness for
college and careers by the time they graduate from high school. Then work backward to measure students’ progress toward that goal.
Measure longitudinal growth results have to be comparable across states at the student level (not at the aggregate level)
Meet rigorous, internationally benchmarked assessments To be fully implemented by the 2014-15 school year
18
Assessment System Must Develop
Common assessments, policies, procedures and definitions, for example– Test administration conditions– Release of test items– Test security– Accommodations allowed– Definition of English learners
19
Assessments Must
Allow for multiple measures across a full range of performance
Consist of formative assessments administered multiple times a year so teachers can use results to adjust instruction
Allow for in-depth assessment of writing and mathematics problem-solving (higher order thinking)
Be computer enhanced and scored
20
Must Produce Data to Inform
Evaluation of school effectiveness Evaluation of principal and teacher
effectiveness Determinations of principal and teacher
professional development and support needs Teaching, learning and program
improvement Student promotion and graduation decisions
21
Assessment Consortia Awarded
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College & Careers (PARCC)– http://www.achieve.org/files/CCSS&Assessments.
SMARTER Balanced Consortium– http://www.k12.wa.us/smarter/
22
Comparing Consortia
CA joined PARCC – A consortium of 26
states– Procurement state is
Florida– Achieve (American
Diploma Project) is the managing partner
– Received $170 million
SMARTER Balanced Consortium
– Consortium of 31 states (many Western states)
– Procurement state is Washington
– WestEd is the managing partner
– Received $160 million
$75 million is CA’s combined budget for STAR and CAHSEE
23
A 3rd Grant Award RFA
$10 million earmarked for high school assessment development (specifically end of course assessment)
ED did not fund the group that applied ED gave PARCC some additional funding
that will probably be used for the high school assessment system.
24
PARCC Assessment Characteristics
3 “through-course” assessments given during the year (after 35%, 50%, and 75% of year)
– Allow assessment of full breadth of standards– Provide frequent feedback to teachers and educators (formative
assessment) Culminating assessment after 90% of instruction (current CA is
after 85% of instruction) Likely that the assessments won’t be as long as current CSTs Proposal required many types of items: multiple choice,
constructed response, computer enhanced and computer scored
25
Examples of Internationally Benchmarked Assessments
NAEP Released Items
26
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)
27
NAEP - Multiple Choice (MC) Grade 4, Medium Difficulty
15. Which picture shows that is the same as
A.
B.
C.
D.
28
NAEP - Short Constructed Response (SCR) Grade 4, Medium Difficulty
29
NAEP - Extended Constructed Response (ECR) Grade 4, Medium Difficulty
30
NAEP - Extended Constructed Response (ECR) Grade 4, Hard Difficulty
31
NAEP - Extended Constructed Response (ECR) Grade 8, Medium
Describe what happens to the speaker of the poem and explain what this experience makes the speaker realize.
32
Pamela Tyson, PhD
Director of Educational Services
Contra Costa County Office of Education
Ptyson@cccoe.k12.ca.us