1 Assessment of the Common Core State Standards CCCOE Curriculum Council January, 2011.

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.

pdf

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


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).


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



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.



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

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

[email protected]

1 Assessment of the Common Core State Standards CCCOE Curriculum Council January, 2011.

Documents

Transcript of 1 Assessment of the Common Core State Standards CCCOE Curriculum Council January, 2011.