Implications of the Common Core of State Standards for School Assessment In Michigan<br />Presentation to the Michigan Rea...
Impacts of CCSS on School Assessment in Michigan<br />Common Assessments Across States (in English Language Arts and Mathe...
Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />As part of the larger Race to the Top competition...
The consortia:<br />SBAC<br />31 states<br />17 Governing states (including Michigan)<br />Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT)...
Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />
Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />
Two Content Areas:<br />English Language Arts<br />Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking<br />Mathematics<br />Two Content...
A Balanced Assessment System<br />Summative Assessments<br />End of year<br />Interim Assessments<br />Throughout the year...
A Multi-Mode Assessment System<br />Multiple Choice<br />Short Answer<br />Essay<br />Technology Enhanced Items (e.g. simu...
Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />SBAC Org Chart<br />
Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />Michigan on the SBAC Org Chart<br />
Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />SBAC Workgroups<br />Transition to Common Core<br...
Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />SBAC Workgroups<br />Transition to Common Core<br...
Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />SBAC Workgroups<br />Transition to Common Core<br...
Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />SBAC Workgroups<br />Transition to Common Core<br...
Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3–8...
  Writing
  Math</li></ul>END OF YEAR<br />ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENT<br />Scope, sequence, number, and timing of interim assessments local...
Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations<br />Cut Scores<br />Career and College Rea...
Considerable Change<br />Current Cut Scores (or performance expectations)<br />Students have mastered basic skills<br />Ba...
Considerable changes<br />Increasing rigor of performance expectations<br />Consistency of performance expectations across...
Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations<br /><ul><li>Preliminary Study Identifying ...
Reading and Mathematics only
AYP subjects
Based on ACT College Readiness Benchmarks
21 in Reading
22 in Mathematics
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

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

2,291

Published on

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

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,291
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 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

    1. 1. Implications of the Common Core of State Standards for School Assessment In Michigan<br />Presentation to the Michigan Reading Association<br />March 11, 2011<br />
    2. 2. Impacts of CCSS on School Assessment in Michigan<br />Common Assessments Across States (in English Language Arts and Mathematics)<br />Career and College Ready Cut Scores<br />Interim Assessment for K-2 and 9-12<br />
    3. 3. Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />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<br />Two consortia funded nationwide<br />Smarter/Balanced Assessment Consortium (31 states)<br />Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (25)<br />Only 6 states are not a part of one of the consortia<br />Michigan joined the Smarter/Balanced Assessment Consortium as a Governing state<br />New tests in English Language Arts and Mathematics<br />Grade 3-8<br />Grade 11<br />Optional grade 9-10 for growth models (extra cost)<br />Optional end of course assessments (extra cost)<br />
    4. 4. The consortia:<br />SBAC<br />31 states<br />17 Governing states (including Michigan)<br />Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) beginning in 2014-15<br />PARCC<br />26 states<br />11 Governing states<br />Computer Based Testing (CBT) beginning in 2014-15<br />Large difference in CBT and CAT<br />CBT = Existing form by computer (with some enhancements)<br />CAT = Test tailored to individual student achievement level<br />Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />
    5. 5. Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />
    6. 6. Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />
    7. 7. Two Content Areas:<br />English Language Arts<br />Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking<br />Mathematics<br />Two Content Areas:<br />3-8 and High School<br />Moving all testing online<br />First operational assessment 2014-15 school year<br />Paper & pencil offered the first few years<br />Hope to be paperless (except for accommodations) by 2017<br />Challenges!<br />Infrastructure<br />Headlee Amendment<br />Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />
    8. 8. A Balanced Assessment System<br />Summative Assessments<br />End of year<br />Interim Assessments<br />Throughout the year for tracking student progress<br />Formative Assessment processes and tools<br />For tracking daily student learning<br />An Adaptive Assessment System<br />Adapts the difficulty of the tests to the achievement level of the students<br />Results generally in shorter tests<br />Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />
    9. 9. A Multi-Mode Assessment System<br />Multiple Choice<br />Short Answer<br />Essay<br />Technology Enhanced Items (e.g. simulations, tools)<br />Performance Events (short projects)<br />Performance Tasks (long projects)<br />An Online Assessment System<br />Results returned quickly (within hours or days depending on the type of task included)<br />Initial Implementation in 2014-15<br />Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />
    10. 10. Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />SBAC Org Chart<br />
    11. 11. Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />Michigan on the SBAC Org Chart<br />
    12. 12. Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />SBAC Workgroups<br />Transition to Common Core<br />Technology Approach<br />Assessment Design: Item Development<br />Assessment Design: Performance Tasks<br />Assessment Design: Test Design<br />Reporting<br />Formative Processes and Tools/Professional Development<br />Accessibility and Accommodations<br />Research & Evaluation<br />
    13. 13. Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />SBAC Workgroups<br />Transition to Common Core<br />Technology Approach<br />Assessment Design: Item Development<br />Assessment Design: Performance Tasks<br />Assessment Design: Test Design<br />Reporting<br />Formative Processes and Tools/Professional Development<br />Accessibility and Accommodations<br />Research & Evaluation<br />
    14. 14. Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />SBAC Workgroups<br />Transition to Common Core<br />Technology Approach<br />Assessment Design: Item Development<br />Assessment Design: Performance Tasks<br />Assessment Design: Test Design<br />Reporting<br />Formative Processes and Tools/Professional Development<br />Accessibility and Accommodations<br />Research & Evaluation<br />
    15. 15. Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />SBAC Workgroups<br />Transition to Common Core<br />Technology Approach<br />Assessment Design: Item Development<br />Assessment Design: Performance Tasks<br />Assessment Design: Test Design<br />Reporting<br />Formative Processes and Tools/Professional Development<br />Accessibility and Accommodations<br />Research & Evaluation<br />
    16. 16. Impacts on School Assessment1: Common State Achievement Assessments<br />English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3–8 and High School<br />BEGINNING OF YEAR<br />END OF YEAR<br />Last 12 weeks of year*<br />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.<br />INTERIM ASSESSMENT<br />INTERIM ASSESSMENT<br />Computer Adaptive<br />Assessment and<br />Performance Tasks<br />Computer Adaptive<br />Assessment and<br />Performance Tasks<br />PERFORMANCE<br />TASKS<br /><ul><li>Reading
    17. 17. Writing
    18. 18. Math</li></ul>END OF YEAR<br />ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENT<br />Scope, sequence, number, and timing of interim assessments locally determined<br />Re-take option<br />Optional Interim assessment system— <br />Summative assessment for accountability<br />* Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions.<br />Source: http://www.ets.org<br />
    19. 19. Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations<br />Cut Scores<br />Career and College Ready for grade 11<br />On track in lower grades<br />Represents a considerable change<br />MME cut scores were adopted in 2006 knowing they did not represent college and career readiness, but basic skills<br />Asked to return later to adjust the MME cut scores upward to represent college and career readiness<br />MEAP cut scores will also need to be adjusted upward to maintain consistency of expectations from one tested grade to the next<br />A philosophical shift:<br />Career and college readiness as the ultimate outcome of K-12 education<br />Already there on content expectations<br />Moving there on performance expectations<br />
    20. 20. Considerable Change<br />Current Cut Scores (or performance expectations)<br />Students have mastered basic skills<br />Based on federal and state statute<br />New Cut Scores<br />Approved to move forward in defining new cut scores by the State Board of Education in February, 2011<br />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<br />Need to redefine basic elementary and middle schools skills to mean students are on track for the next level of education<br />Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations<br />
    21. 21. Considerable changes<br />Increasing rigor of performance expectations<br />Consistency of performance expectations across all grades<br />Empirically-based cut scores<br />Validated against external criteria<br />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<br />Connects not only K-12 cut scores, but K-12 with post-secondary success<br />Will result in temporary drops in percent proficient measures<br />E.g. New York and Tennessee where some schools saw drops as large as 60%<br />Most schools saw smaller, but still significant, drops<br />Likely to be similar in Michigan<br />A new focus for K-12 education in Michigan: college and career readiness as the ultimate goal of K-12 Michigan education<br />Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations<br />
    22. 22. Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations<br /><ul><li>Preliminary Study Identifying Career and College Ready Cut Scores
    23. 23. Reading and Mathematics only
    24. 24. AYP subjects
    25. 25. Based on ACT College Readiness Benchmarks
    26. 26. 21 in Reading
    27. 27. 22 in Mathematics
    28. 28. Percent of Michigan 11th grade public school students who met ACT College Readiness Benchmarks in Spring 2010
    29. 29. 38 percent in Reading (65 percent “proficient” on MME)
    30. 30. 30 percent in Mathematics (50 percent “proficient” on MME)</li></li></ul><li>Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations<br /><ul><li>Identifying Career and College Ready Cut Scores
    31. 31. What about Career Readiness?
    32. 32. National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) study
    33. 33. Intend to use NAGB methodology for Smarter/Balanced Assessment Consortium definitions
    34. 34. 4-year university readiness tends to also indicate readiness for technical career training or two-year community college readiness
    35. 35. Limiting the Current Discussion to College Readiness</li></li></ul><li>Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations<br /><ul><li>Basic strategy</li></ul>Start with ACT college readiness benchmarks<br />Good starting point<br />Will need to refine the study<br />What we have for now<br />Work backward toward grade three, matching students from current grades to previous grades<br />Identify cut scores with approximately equal rigor across all grade levels<br />Final methodology<br />Being designed in conjunction with ACT, National Center for Education Achievement, and the Michigan Technical Advisory Committee<br />Data from Michigan universities and community colleges arriving in May-June, 2011<br />New cut scores taken for final approval in August-September timeframe<br />
    36. 36. Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations<br /><ul><li>Projected cut scores based on preliminary study
    37. 37. Final cut scores will differ based on final methodology used</li></li></ul><li>Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations<br /><ul><li>Projected impact on percent proficient based on preliminary study
    38. 38. Final impact will differ based on final methodology used</li></li></ul><li>Impacts on School Assessment2: Career & College Ready Performance Expectations<br /><ul><li>Projected impact on percent proficient based on preliminary study
    39. 39. Final impact will differ based on final methodology used</li></li></ul><li>Impacts on School Assessment3: Interim Assessment for K-2 and 9-12<br />K-2 Interim Assessment<br />Before people panic…<br />Funded<br />Optional<br />Online<br />Developed in conjunction with experts in early childhood assessment<br />9-12 Interim Assessment<br />Funded<br />Optional<br />Online<br />Likely to be built around course expectations<br />Just starting the process<br />Hiring for two formative / interim assessment positions<br />K-2 and 9-12<br />Get to design from the ground up to develop high quality solutions<br />
    40. 40. Contact Information<br />Joseph Martineau, Ph.D.<br />Director of Assessment & Accountability<br />Michigan Department of Education<br />martineauj@michigan.gov<br />517-241-4710<br />

    ×