Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

36
Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update Joseph A. Martineau, Interim Director Office of General Assessment & Accountability Michigan Department of Education Presentation to the School Improvement Facilitators’ Network At Clinton County RESA, October 11, 2007

description

Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update. Joseph A. Martineau, Interim Director Office of General Assessment & Accountability Michigan Department of Education Presentation to the School Improvement Facilitators’ Network At Clinton County RESA, October 11, 2007. Agenda. Assessments MEAP - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

Page 1: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

Joseph A. Martineau, Interim DirectorOffice of General Assessment & AccountabilityMichigan Department of Education

Presentation to the School Improvement Facilitators’ NetworkAt Clinton County RESA, October 11, 2007

Page 2: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

2

Agenda Assessments

MEAP MME Secondary Credit Assessments

(End of Course Assessments) Formative Assessment Initiatives

Accountability AYP EducationYES!

Curriculum Activities State Legislative Horizon Federal Legislative Horizon Q & A

Page 3: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

3

Performance Level Labels Goes into effect with Fall 2007 MEAP

and Spring 2008 MME

State Board renamed performance levels Level 1: Not proficient Level 2: Partially proficient Level 3: Proficient Level 4: Advanced

Definitions transfer Apprentice Not Proficient Basic Partially Proficient Met Proficient Exceeds Advanced

Page 4: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

4

Performance Level Labels Action statement added to

definitions Not Proficient

Needs intensive intervention and support to improve achievement

Partially Proficient Needs assistance to improve achievement

Proficient Needs continued support to maintain and

increase proficiency

Advanced Needs support to continue to excel

Page 5: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

5

MEAP Changes For Fall 2007

Linking Items EliminatedReadingMathematicsShorter Assessments

Page 6: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

6

MEAP Changes For Fall 2007

Writing changes, continued… Writing scale is accurate, but too

discrete Students do achieve the nearest

observable score to their demonstrated achievement

Writing assessment is shorter than all others

But in Fall 2005 and Fall 2006 there were only 16 possible observable scores

Statewide percents proficient were less stable than other subjects with longer assessments

Page 7: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

7

MEAP Changes For Fall 2007

Writing changes, continued… Addressing the issue

Add 5 writing (Multiple Choice) MC items Adds more observable raw score points

Use psychometric model used for MME Adds more observable scale score points Different ways to achieve same raw score, e.g. 13:

student 1: 0+0+1+1+1+0+0+0+1+1+3+5 student 2: 0+0+1+0+0+1+1+0+1+1+3+5 1st two red items are easier & less informative 2nd two are harder & more informative

Student 2 gets a slightly higher scale score Review & approved by State TAC

Page 8: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

8

MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Reporting on Math and ELA Change

in Achievement relative to grade level expectations Performance Levels divided into three,

e.g., Low Advanced Mid Proficient High Partially Proficient

Both years’ Performance Levels Presented differently on parent reports

and all other reports Change in Performance Level category

Page 9: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

9

MEAP Changes For Fall 2007

Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid HighLow N I I SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SIMid D N I I SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SIHigh D D N I I SI SI SI SI SI SI SILow SD D D N I I SI SI SI SI SI SIMid SD SD D D N I I SI SI SI SI SIHigh SD SD SD D D N I I SI SI SI SILow SD SD SD SD D D N I I SI SI SIMid SD SD SD SD SD D D N I I SI SIHigh SD SD SD SD SD SD D D N I I SILow SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D D N I IMid SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D D N IHigh SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D D N

Not Proficient

Partially Proficient

Advanced

Proficient

Proficient

Fall 2006 Achievement

Fall 2007 AchievementNot

ProficientPartially

Proficient Advanced

SD = Significant Decline D = Decline N = No Change I = Improvement SI = Significant Improvement

Page 10: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

10

MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Parent Report (chart on outside)

Parent Report (textual report on inside for reading, math)

Last fall, Jane scored near the high end of the advanced performance level. This fall, she scored near the middle of the advanced performance level.

From last fall to this fall, Jane showed a decline in performance level. Because your student scored at or very near the highest possible level in both years, this decline should not be a serious concern.

Page 11: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

11

MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Individual Student Reports

Low (L) Mid (M) High (H)

Page 12: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

12

MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Individual Student Reports

Low (L) Mid (M) High (H)

Page 13: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

13

MEAP Changes for Fall 2007 Student Rosters

Number of PL 1 = Advanced 2 = Proficient 3 = Partially Proficient 4 = Not Proficient

Portion of PL range L = Low L = Middle H = High

For example 1H

High portion of Advanced range

4M Middle portion of the Not

Proficient range

305

285

356

2L

4H

1H

1L

4L

1H

SD

I

N

Page 14: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

14

MEAP Changes for Fall 2007 Student Labels

Page 15: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

15

MEAP Changes for Fall 2007 Summary Reports

Page 16: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

16

MME What is the Michigan Merit

Examination? Day 1

ACT + Writing Day 2

WorkKeys + MI developed Mathematics

Day 3 MI developed Science & Social Studies Can occur on either afternoon of day

2 OR morning of day 3

Page 17: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

17

MME Why the Three-Part Assessment?

State MME legislation requires1. College Entrance examination2. Work Skills examination3. Social Studies component4. Compliance with NCLB

NCLB legislation requires alignment of overall assessment to State content standards

Therefore Requirement 1: ACT Requirement 2: WorkKeys Requirement 3: MI Social Studies Requirement 4: MI Math, Science and

Writing Constructed response

Page 18: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

18

MME Differences from MEAP

Timed, stricter administration rules 3 days initial or makeup: no more

“window” Staff training required Counting toward NCLB 95%

participation All contributing components of

reading, writing, and mathematics must be completed

Extension of previous MEAP participation rule to all components of MME

Page 19: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

19

MME Differences from MEAP

Spring Assessment Accommodations ACT-approved

For Students with Disabilities and section 504 ONLY!

ACT is college reportable Counts toward AYP participation and proficiency

Standard State-allowed Standard English Language Learner

accommodations Other state-allowed for SWD and 504 ACT is not college reportable Counts toward AYP participation and proficiency

Non-standard Not allowed on the ACT Allowed on Days 2 and 3 if IEP specifies Not participating for AYP purposes!

Page 20: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

20

MME Differences from MEAP

Re-testing Must meet re-test eligibility criteria

Non-valid score on reading, writing, math, or science

Performance level 3 or 4 on reading, writing, math, or science

Must re-take the entire MME Components from each day

One re-test per school year Fall OR Spring, not both MEAP had six possible test

opportunities

Page 21: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

21

MME

Differences from MEAP Fall Re-take

Day 1 ACT in a national testing site on a

Saturday No ELL accommodations No other State-allowed

accommodations Days 2 and 3

Same as Spring administration On Tuesday and Wednesday

Page 22: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

22

MME

Contributing Components ELA

Reading ACT Reading WorkKeys Reading

Writing ACT English ACT Writing Prompt Social Studies Prompt (scored for persuasive writing)

Page 23: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

23

MME

Contributing Components Mathematics

ACT Mathematics ACT Science Data Analysis items

WorkKeys Mathematics MI developed Mathematics

Page 24: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

24

MME Contributing Components

Science ACT Science

Covers scientific process Covers scientific reasoning

MI developed Science Covers specific discipline content (e.g.

biology)

Social Studies MI developed Social Studies

MC items and CR item scored for civic writing

Page 25: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

25

Secondary Credit Assessments (SCA)

A.K.A “End of Course Assessments” Requirements

Districts Must use “an approved” SCA to give

credit to students who have not taken a course

Must use “an approved” SCA as an End of Course assessment

“An approved” is undefined in legislation Assume approval by School Board

Not required to use State-developed test State

Must develop SCAs if feasible

Page 26: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

26

Secondary Credit Assessments (SCA) No funding for development Current limited development of “prototypes” of SCAs

under existing contracts Algebra I, Geometry posted Spring 2007 (new forms to be

posted Spring 2008) English 9, Biology to be posted Spring 2008 Recommended standards

Not required 70% correct

Use for final course grades An End of Course Assessment (EOCA) must be given An EOC assessment must be a part of the final grade State-developed SCA prototypes may be used for this purpose Recommend no more than 25% of final grade

Current initiatives in Professional Development (PD) for classroom (formative) assessment

Current initiative under no funding Develop prototypes as current contracts allow Identify most urgent needs, develop one or two at a time

Page 27: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

27

Secondary Credit Assessments (SCA) Plans if fully funded

Develop all subjects simultaneously if feasible Develop statewide PD in formative

assessment Develop interim benchmark assessments

based on Curriculum units Achievement on different interim benchmark

assessments can be pieced together to demonstrate achievement on the course content as a whole

Online delivery and scoring for rapid feedback to inform instruction (e.g. continue review or move to the next unit)

Develop full end of course assessments Online deliver and scoring

Formally set achievement standards on SCAs

Page 28: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

28

Adequate Yearly Progress No changes in AYP as of yet Possibility of asking for changes

through accountability workbook submission to USDOE

Reauthorization of NCLB may mean substantial changes in AYP

Page 29: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

29

EducationYES! Existing three-pronged structure

Achievement Cross-sectional Multi-year average

Change Change in grade 3 achievement this year

versus grade three achievement last year Cross-sectional non-cohort change

Growth Future implementation when longitudinal

data are available To be individual student level growth

Page 30: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

30

EducationYES! Proposal for new three-

pronged structure Achievement

All grades and subjects Change in PL (Growth)

ELA and Mathematics Longitudinal data are now available

Change Only where change in PL is not

feasible Science, Social Studies High School

Page 31: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

31

EducationYES! Indicators

Report on rubrics through AdvancED (NCA)

Will not be scored Will be reported

External data to be added and scored Highly Qualified Attendance Graduation Curricular reform?

Extra credit TBD

Page 32: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

32

Curriculum Activities Social Studies Standards recently

approved Science Standards expected to be

approved before year end Means…

New social studies and science assessments

New standards on science and social studies assessments

Page 33: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

33

State Legislative Horizon Senate Bills introduced

Add social studies as a Promise Grant eligibility requirement

Eliminate social studies from MME Eliminate social studies from MEAP Eliminate State-developed secondary credit

assessments Eliminate WorkKeys portion of MME Eliminate ACT Writing prompt as required part of MME Limit statewide assessments to Reading, Writing,

Mathematics, and Science Make cost of ACT writing prompt payable by student Make all MME re-take costs payable by the student

Additional lobbying Eliminate the MME fall re-take Add third part of WorkKeys (Locating Information) to

MME

Page 34: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

34

Federal Legislative Horizon NCLB reauthorization

Discussion draft requirements Limited growth model Significantly greater data gathering Longitudinal data systems Teacher-student data links Monitor the closure of achievement gaps Limits on use of large confidence

intervals AND safe harbor simultaneously Limits on size of confidence intervals Nationwide group size of 30 for reporting

on AYP

Page 35: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

35

Questions & (hopefully) Answers

Page 36: Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

36

Contact Information

Joseph Martineau, Interim DirectorOffice of General Assessment &

AccountabilityMichigan Department of EducationP.O. Box 30008Lansing, MI 48909

[email protected]