1

COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS

Assessments based on the Common Core State Standards

Vince Dean, Ph.D.Office of Educational Assessment &

Accountability

Race to the Top Assessment Competition

Assessments based on the Common Core State Standards RTTT Assessment Competition

350 million total 320 million for at least 3-8 and one H.S. grade 30 million for H.S. solution, likely end-of-course

Alternate Assessments based on Alternate Achievement Standards Grant Competition

English Language Proficiency Grant Competition (next federal fiscal year)

Race to the Top Assessment Competition

Assessment ConsortiaDevelopment of an infrastructure and content

for a common assessment in measuring CCSS in English Language Arts and Mathematics

Two consortiaSMARTER/Balanced Assessment Consortium

(SBAC)Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness

for College and Career (PARCC)

Race to the Top Assessment Competition

U.S. Education Department Requirements Measure the full breadth of the Common

Core State Standards Extend the range of high quality

measurement in both directions Assessments operational by 2014-15 Consortia must offer an online version Must take advantage of technology for

reporting speed and be instructionally relevant

Race to the Top Assessment Competition

The consortia:SMARTER/Balanced

31 states 17 governing states CAT beginning in 2014-2015

PARCC 26 states 11 governing states CBT beginning in 2014-15

Introduction to theSMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium(SBAC)

History

Smarter BalancedAssessment Consortium

Governing States

Advisory States

CT, HI, ID, KS, ME, MI,MO, MT, NC, NM, NV, OR, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV

17

AL, CO, DE,GA, IA, KY, NH, NJ, ND, OH,OK, PA SC, SD

14

Theory of ActionGoal

To ensure that all students leave high school prepared for postsecondary success in college or a career through increased student learning and improved teaching

Theory of Action

SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium shaped by the following principles:

1. Integrated system

2. Evidence of student performance

3. Teachers integrally involved

4. State-led, transparent and inclusive

governance structure

Theory of Action

SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium shaped by the following principles:

5. Continuously improve teaching and learning

6. Useful information on multiple measures

7. Design and implementation adhere to established professional standards

Theory of Action

Creating a policy environment that supports: a. innovation systems,b. high expectations and c. increased opportunities for students

Aligned to the Common Core Standards:a. clearly defined college and career expectations, b. learning progressions c. content/curricular frameworks, d. test maps, ande. instructional processes

Theory of Action

SBAC policies and standards are effectively communicated to districts and schools:

a. Multi-media communications plan

b. Score reports

SBAC Specific Priorities

Ensure all students have access to the technology needed to participate in each component (summative, interim/benchmark, formative)

Support research on how to use technology to increase access for all students, in particular those needing accommodations

SBAC Specific Priorities

Use technology to efficiently deliver training, resources, reports and data; social networks for teachers to develop and disseminate effective CCSS curriculum and instructional tools

Create innovative item types that utilize technology and represent real-world contexts

SBAC Specific Priorities

Use Computer Adaptive Testing engine to maximize accuracy for individual students across the CCSS

Standardized accommodations policy and administration practices across states to ensure comparability

SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

Summative Assessment Measure full range of CCSS Computer Adaptive Testing for precision Timely results Engage Institutions of Higher Education

to ensure achievement standards reflect college and career readiness

Scale scores help inform growth model

SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

Interim Benchmark Assessment Allow for finer grain of measurement

(e.g., end of unit) Inform teachers if students on track to be

proficient on summative assessments Multiple opportunities for students to

participate Scale scores help inform growth model

SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

Formative Assessment Repository of tools available to teachers

to support quick adjustment and differentiated instruction

Help define student performance along the CCSS learning progressions

Concrete strategies for immediate feedback loops

SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

Teacher Engagement Integral role in developing test maps for

each grade and content area Item writing, specifications, reviewing,

and range-finding for all test types Teacher-moderated scoring of

performance events to inform professional development

Technology Enhanced Item

Prototype items courtesy of the Minnesota and Utah Departments of Education

Technology Enhanced Item

Minnesota Science Item

SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

Assessment window vs. single day administration

Multiple opportunities to assess Quick results available to support

instruction Emphasis on problem-solving and

critical thinking

Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment

Consortium

Alternate Assessments Based on the Common Core State Standards

State Participants

IowaKansasMichiganMississippiMissouriNew JerseyNorth CarolinaOklahomaUtahWest VirginiaWisconsin

Other Participants

University of Kansas Center for Educational

Testing and Evaluation Center for Research

Methods and Data Analysis

Center for Research on Learning

Special Education Department

AbleLink Technologies The ARC The Center for Literacy

and Disability Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Edvantia

Feature Overview

Learning maps Dynamic assessment Inclusion of instructionally relevant tasks Instructionally embedded and stand-alone versions Advanced feedback and reporting systems (including

growth modeling) Technology platform Universal design Evidence centered design including cognitive labs Scaffolding Development of over 14,000 tasks/items Professional development

Major Changes

Include Moving Online Scoring Reporting

Moving to Online Assessment

Survey of state testing directors (+D.C.)41 responses5 of 41 states have no CBT initiatives36 of 41 states have current CBT initiatives,

including: Operational online assessment Pilot online assessment Plans for moving online

Moving to Online Assessment

Survey of state testing directors (+D.C.)Of 36 states with some initiative

21 states currently administer large-scale general populations assessments online

9 states have plans to begin (or expand) online administration of large-scale general populations assessments

8 states currently administer special populations assessments online

2 states have plans to begin (or expand) online administration of special populations assessments

Moving to Online Assessment

Survey of state testing directors (+D.C.) Of 36 states with some initiative

5 states currently use Artificial Intelligence (AI) scoring of constructed response items

4 states currently use Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) technology for general populations assessment

0 states currently use CAT technology for special populations assessment

7 states offer online interim/benchmark assessments 7 states offer online item banks accessible to teachers for

creating “formative”/interim/benchmark assessments tailored to unique curricular units

Online Assessment -The Online Assessment -The Michigan StageMichigan Stage

Michigan’s online initiativesPilot in 2006Pilot in 2011 (English Language Proficiency)Pilot in 2012 (Alternate Assessments)Pilots leading up to operational adoption of

SMARTER/Balanced Assessment Consortium products in 2014/15

Constitutional amendment barring unfunded mandates

ScoringScoring Maximize objective scoring by

Automated scoring of objective items

AI scoring of extended written response items, technology enhanced items, and performance tasks wherever possible

Distributed hand-scoring of tasks not scorable using AI

Scoring(maximize objective, distribute

subjective)

Scoring as Professional Scoring as Professional DevelopmentDevelopment

Human scorers taken from ranks of teachersOnline training on hand-scoringOnline certification as a hand-scorerOnline monitoring of rater performanceValidation hand-scoring of samples of AI-scored

tasks Our experience with teacher-led scoring and

rangefinding indicates that it is some of the best professional development that we provide to educators

ReportingReporting

Current reports can be difficult to read and poorly used

Need online reporting of all scores for all stakeholders, including:Policymakers (aggregate)Administrators (aggregate and individual)Teachers (aggregate and individual)Parents (aggregate and individual)Students (individual)

Reporting PortalReporting Portal

Reporting portal needs to be able to integrate reports from classroom metrics all the way to large-scale secure assessment metrics

Overall achievement & growth scores

Unit achievement scores

Classroomachievement scores

Growth scores based on learning progressions

Challenges

LEA capacity for online assessment Bandwidth issues, especially in rural

areas Minnesota challenge Utah example USED working with FCC on National

Broadband Initiative

Challenges

Item development for computer-adaptive testing

Field-testing Item types Demographic coverage

AI Scoring validation

Challenges

Psychometrics Comparability across years and student

populations Equating from year to year

Accommodated versions for SWD and ELL Contrast, read aloud, enlarged print Braille

All challenges will be resolved by 2014-15

Timeline for Transition

2010-2011 Getting to know the CCSS/Alignment work 2010 MEAP/2011MME remain the same State focus will be on technical assistance

2011-2012 Implementation of CCSS in classrooms 2011 MEAP/2012 MME remain the same State focus will be on

instruction/professional development

Timeline for Transition2012-2013 2012 MEAP minimally modified as necessary to

reflect the CCSS 2013 MME remains the same State focus will be on student learning

2013-2014 2013 MEAP based on 2012 model 2014 MME remains the same State focus will be on preparing for new

assessments from SMARTER Consortium

2014-2015 Full implementation - Instruction and assessment

based on CCSS

DRAFT 471

Contact Information

Office of Educational Assessment & Accountability www.michigan.gov/oeaa

SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium http://smarter.k12partners.org/