• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Implications of the Common Core of State Standards for School Assessment In Michigan
 

Implications of the Common Core of State Standards for School Assessment In Michigan

on

  • 2,468 views

Presentation by Joseph Martineau, Ph.D., Director of Assessment & Accountability, Michigan Department of Education

Presentation by Joseph Martineau, Ph.D., Director of Assessment & Accountability, Michigan Department of Education

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,468
Views on SlideShare
2,291
Embed Views
177

Actions

Likes
5
Downloads
0
Comments
0

6 Embeds 177

http://www.michiganreading.org 121
http://elpslitnews.blogspot.com 21
http://michiganreading.org 17
http://k12go.wikispaces.com 14
http://moodle.muskegonisd.org 2
http://miteacherlitnews.blogspot.com 2

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Good starting point: ACT study was a conglomeration of all universities and community colleges for which there were data across the U.S.Will need to refine: Cut scores we identify here will likely be slightly different in the final analysis. In early spring we will receive data from Universities that we can tie to MME scores. This will allow us to create college ready benchmarks specific to Michigan universities, on an assessment fully aligned to the HSCEs.
  • You can see that there have been significant increases in proficiency rates since the base year. The dip in proficiency rates would be large, but we expect that schools will step up to the task and we will continue to see increases in proficiency rates year over year.
  • Reminder: SBE made the decision to delay raising cut scores. This is the next step in the trajectory of education reforms enacted by the Board.
  • Reminder: SBE made the decision to delay raising cut scores. This is the next step in the trajectory of education reforms enacted by the Board.

Implications of the Common Core of State Standards for School Assessment In Michigan Implications of the Common Core of State Standards for School Assessment In Michigan Presentation Transcript

  • Implications of the Common Core of State Standards for School Assessment In Michigan
    Presentation to the Michigan Reading Association
    March 11, 2011
  • Impacts of CCSS on School Assessment in Michigan
    Common Assessments Across States (in English Language Arts and Mathematics)
    Career and College Ready Cut Scores
    Interim Assessment for K-2 and 9-12
  • Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
    As part of the larger Race to the Top competition, there was also a competition for consortia of states to propose a system of assessment that is common across all states in the consortium
    Two consortia funded nationwide
    Smarter/Balanced Assessment Consortium (31 states)
    Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (25)
    Only 6 states are not a part of one of the consortia
    Michigan joined the Smarter/Balanced Assessment Consortium as a Governing state
    New tests in English Language Arts and Mathematics
    Grade 3-8
    Grade 11
    Optional grade 9-10 for growth models (extra cost)
    Optional end of course assessments (extra cost)
  • The consortia:
    SBAC
    31 states
    17 Governing states (including Michigan)
    Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) beginning in 2014-15
    PARCC
    26 states
    11 Governing states
    Computer Based Testing (CBT) beginning in 2014-15
    Large difference in CBT and CAT
    CBT = Existing form by computer (with some enhancements)
    CAT = Test tailored to individual student achievement level
    Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
  • Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
  • Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
  • Two Content Areas:
    English Language Arts
    Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking
    Mathematics
    Two Content Areas:
    3-8 and High School
    Moving all testing online
    First operational assessment 2014-15 school year
    Paper & pencil offered the first few years
    Hope to be paperless (except for accommodations) by 2017
    Challenges!
    Infrastructure
    Headlee Amendment
    Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
  • A Balanced Assessment System
    Summative Assessments
    End of year
    Interim Assessments
    Throughout the year for tracking student progress
    Formative Assessment processes and tools
    For tracking daily student learning
    An Adaptive Assessment System
    Adapts the difficulty of the tests to the achievement level of the students
    Results generally in shorter tests
    Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
  • A Multi-Mode Assessment System
    Multiple Choice
    Short Answer
    Essay
    Technology Enhanced Items (e.g. simulations, tools)
    Performance Events (short projects)
    Performance Tasks (long projects)
    An Online Assessment System
    Results returned quickly (within hours or days depending on the type of task included)
    Initial Implementation in 2014-15
    Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
  • Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
    SBAC Org Chart
  • Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
    Michigan on the SBAC Org Chart
  • Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
    SBAC Workgroups
    Transition to Common Core
    Technology Approach
    Assessment Design: Item Development
    Assessment Design: Performance Tasks
    Assessment Design: Test Design
    Reporting
    Formative Processes and Tools/Professional Development
    Accessibility and Accommodations
    Research & Evaluation
  • Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
    SBAC Workgroups
    Transition to Common Core
    Technology Approach
    Assessment Design: Item Development
    Assessment Design: Performance Tasks
    Assessment Design: Test Design
    Reporting
    Formative Processes and Tools/Professional Development
    Accessibility and Accommodations
    Research & Evaluation
  • Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
    SBAC Workgroups
    Transition to Common Core
    Technology Approach
    Assessment Design: Item Development
    Assessment Design: Performance Tasks
    Assessment Design: Test Design
    Reporting
    Formative Processes and Tools/Professional Development
    Accessibility and Accommodations
    Research & Evaluation
  • Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
    SBAC Workgroups
    Transition to Common Core
    Technology Approach
    Assessment Design: Item Development
    Assessment Design: Performance Tasks
    Assessment Design: Test Design
    Reporting
    Formative Processes and Tools/Professional Development
    Accessibility and Accommodations
    Research & Evaluation
  • Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments
    English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3–8 and High School
    BEGINNING OF YEAR
    END OF YEAR
    Last 12 weeks of year*
    DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE of formative tools, processes and exemplars; released items and tasks; model curriculum units; educator training; professional development tools and resources; scorer training modules; and teacher collaboration tools.
    INTERIM ASSESSMENT
    INTERIM ASSESSMENT
    Computer Adaptive
    Assessment and
    Performance Tasks
    Computer Adaptive
    Assessment and
    Performance Tasks
    PERFORMANCE
    TASKS
    • Reading
    • Writing
    • Math
    END OF YEAR
    ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENT
    Scope, sequence, number, and timing of interim assessments locally determined
    Re-take option
    Optional Interim assessment system—
    Summative assessment for accountability
    * Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions.
    Source: http://www.ets.org
  • Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations
    Cut Scores
    Career and College Ready for grade 11
    On track in lower grades
    Represents a considerable change
    MME cut scores were adopted in 2006 knowing they did not represent college and career readiness, but basic skills
    Asked to return later to adjust the MME cut scores upward to represent college and career readiness
    MEAP cut scores will also need to be adjusted upward to maintain consistency of expectations from one tested grade to the next
    A philosophical shift:
    Career and college readiness as the ultimate outcome of K-12 education
    Already there on content expectations
    Moving there on performance expectations
  • Considerable Change
    Current Cut Scores (or performance expectations)
    Students have mastered basic skills
    Based on federal and state statute
    New Cut Scores
    Approved to move forward in defining new cut scores by the State Board of Education in February, 2011
    Need to redefine basic high school skills to mean students are ready for success in college and technical career training without remediation by the end of K-12 education
    Need to redefine basic elementary and middle schools skills to mean students are on track for the next level of education
    Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations
  • Considerable changes
    Increasing rigor of performance expectations
    Consistency of performance expectations across all grades
    Empirically-based cut scores
    Validated against external criteria
    Being considered “proficient” in one grade indicates that with learning reflecting what is average means the student would continue to be proficient in the next grade
    Connects not only K-12 cut scores, but K-12 with post-secondary success
    Will result in temporary drops in percent proficient measures
    E.g. New York and Tennessee where some schools saw drops as large as 60%
    Most schools saw smaller, but still significant, drops
    Likely to be similar in Michigan
    A new focus for K-12 education in Michigan: college and career readiness as the ultimate goal of K-12 Michigan education
    Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations
  • Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations
    • Preliminary Study Identifying Career and College Ready Cut Scores
    • Reading and Mathematics only
    • AYP subjects
    • Based on ACT College Readiness Benchmarks
    • 21 in Reading
    • 22 in Mathematics
    • Percent of Michigan 11th grade public school students who met ACT College Readiness Benchmarks in Spring 2010
    • 38 percent in Reading (65 percent “proficient” on MME)
    • 30 percent in Mathematics (50 percent “proficient” on MME)
  • Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations
    • Identifying Career and College Ready Cut Scores
    • What about Career Readiness?
    • National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) study
    • Intend to use NAGB methodology for Smarter/Balanced Assessment Consortium definitions
    • 4-year university readiness tends to also indicate readiness for technical career training or two-year community college readiness
    • Limiting the Current Discussion to College Readiness
  • Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations
    • Basic strategy
    Start with ACT college readiness benchmarks
    Good starting point
    Will need to refine the study
    What we have for now
    Work backward toward grade three, matching students from current grades to previous grades
    Identify cut scores with approximately equal rigor across all grade levels
    Final methodology
    Being designed in conjunction with ACT, National Center for Education Achievement, and the Michigan Technical Advisory Committee
    Data from Michigan universities and community colleges arriving in May-June, 2011
    New cut scores taken for final approval in August-September timeframe
  • Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations
    • Projected cut scores based on preliminary study
    • Final cut scores will differ based on final methodology used
  • Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations
    • Projected impact on percent proficient based on preliminary study
    • Final impact will differ based on final methodology used
  • Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations
    • Projected impact on percent proficient based on preliminary study
    • Final impact will differ based on final methodology used
  • Impacts on School Assessment3: Interim Assessment for K-2 and 9-12
    K-2 Interim Assessment
    Before people panic…
    Funded
    Optional
    Online
    Developed in conjunction with experts in early childhood assessment
    9-12 Interim Assessment
    Funded
    Optional
    Online
    Likely to be built around course expectations
    Just starting the process
    Hiring for two formative / interim assessment positions
    K-2 and 9-12
    Get to design from the ground up to develop high quality solutions
  • Contact Information
    Joseph Martineau, Ph.D.
    Director of Assessment & Accountability
    Michigan Department of Education
    martineauj@michigan.gov
    517-241-4710