Recent Major Developments3December 2011 Item Development RFPJune 2012 Minimum Technology Specifications, version 1.0July 2012 Calculator PolicyAugust 2012 Item and Task PrototypesSeptember 2012 Principles for Comparability with SBAC Mathematics Reference Sheets for Grades 3-8 and HSOctober 2012 College- and Career-Ready Determination PolicyNovember 2012 Item Tryout and Field Testing RFP High School Mathematics Model Content FrameworksDecember 2012 College- and Career-Ready Assessments in Mathematics Retest Policy Minimum Technology Specifications, version 2.0
Recent Major Developments4September 2012 Principles for Comparability with SBAC Mathematics Reference Sheets for Grades 3-8 and HS• One key decision was to approve a set of principles forestablishing comparable assessment results with the SmarterBalanced Assessment Consortium.• Mobile student populations – students will move from PARCC statesto SBAC states and vice versa. These principles will allow PARCCstates to use data from new students’ prior assessments in an SBACstate.• Comparing performance state-to-state – governors, state chiefs,business leaders, higher education leaders and other policymakerswant to know how well their students and school systems stack up toother states.• These principles will inform the development work of bothconsortia over the next two years to help ensure that results onboth tests can be compared.
Recent Major Developments5October 2012 College- and Career-Ready Determination PolicyThe CCR Determination policy also included important informationabout the performance levels on the PARCC assessment for everygrade level:• The PARCC assessments will have 5 performance levels – 1,2, 3, 4 and 5• PARCC approved “policy-level performance leveldescriptors” that describe (at a high level) what studentsscoring at each level know and can do relative to the CCSS.• The PLDs are an important tool for the PARCC assessmentdevelopment process and will be used to set performancelevels on the assessments in summer 2015.
Recent Major Developments6November 2012 Item Tryout and Field Testing RFP High School Mathematics Model ContentFrameworks• The HS Math MCF lay out how the HS math CCSS might bearticulated over two different course pathways (traditional– Alg I, Geometry, Alg II; or integrated – Math I, II, III).• This was an important step for finalizing the testspecifications for the end-of-course HS math assessments,which will be offered for both course sequences.November 2012 Model Content Frameworks for Mathematics
Recent Major Developments7December 2012 College- and Career-Ready Assessments inMathematics Retest Policy Minimum Technology Specifications, version 2.0• Algebra II is very important to student success after highschool, postsecondary clearly said it is also important thatstudents have command of content from earliergrades/courses.• PARCC’s approach will include on the final assessment ineach sequence (Alg II or Math III) some performance taskson those tests that draw on content from previousgrades/courses. This is NOT a comprehensive math exam;rather, students will be asked to draw on that content andapply it in the context of Algebra II or Math III.
Recent Major Developments8December 2012 College- and Career-Ready Assessments in Mathematics Retest Policy Minimum Technology Specifications, version 2.0• PARCC will make available retests to member states• In grades 3-8, PARCC will offer 1 retest opportunity peryear• In high school, PARCC will offer a max of 3 retestopportunities per year• Individual states will determine whether to offerretests. If they do offer them, the state will determinehow many times per year and at what grade levels theyare provided.
Looking Ahead: The Next Six Months9March 2013 • Assessment Scheduling GuidanceApril 2013• Draft English Language Learner (ELL) policies and participationguidelines for public review• Draft Accommodations Manual for public review• Draft Subject- and Grade-Level Performance Level Descriptors forpublic reviewSpring 2013• Guidance on Participation in Item Tryouts, Field Test, and PracticeTests• Design of Diagnostic and K-1 Tools• Design of Speaking and Listening AssessmentJune 2013• Final Subject- and Grade-Level Performance Level Descriptors• Final Accommodations Manual for Students with Disabilities• Final Accommodations Policies and Participation Guidelines forELL
Looking Ahead: 6 – 18 Months10Summer 2013• Design of Assessment Professional DevelopmentModulesFall 2013• Design of Student Score Reports• Minimum Technology Specifications, version 3.0Spring 2014• Field Testing Administration and Practice Test• Methodologies for Standard SettingFall 2014 • Operational Assessment Administration ManualThroughout2013-14• Release of Additional Sample Items, ItemTryouts/Cognitive Labs, and Additional Guidanceto Districts on Assessment Administration
ECD is a deliberate and systematic approach to assessment development thatwill help to establish the validity of the assessments, increase thecomparability of year-to year results, and increase efficiencies/reduce costs.Evidence-Centered Design (ECD)ClaimsDesign begins withthe inferences(claims) we want tomake aboutstudentsEvidenceIn order to supportclaims, we mustgather evidenceTask ModelsTasks are designedto elicit specificevidence fromstudents in supportof claims
Master Claim: On-Track for college and career readiness. The degree to which a student is college and career ready(or “on-track” to being ready) in mathematics. The student solves grade-level /course-level problems inmathematics as set forth in the Standards for Mathematical Content with connections to the Standards forMathematical Practice.Sub-Claim A: Major Content1 withConnections to PracticesThe student solves problemsinvolving the Major Content1 for hergrade/course with connections tothe Standards for MathematicalPractice.Sub-Claim B: Additional & SupportingContent2 with Connections toPracticesThe student solves problems involvingthe Additional and SupportingContent2 for her grade/course withconnections to the Standards forMathematical Practice.Sub-Claim E: Fluency in applicablegrades (3-6)The student demonstrates fluency as setforth in the Standards for MathematicalContent in her grade.Claims Structure: MathematicsSub-Claim C: Highlighted PracticesMP.3,6 with Connections to Content3(expressing mathematical reasoning)The student expresses grade/course-level appropriate mathematicalreasoning by constructing viablearguments, critiquing the reasoning ofothers, and/or attending to precisionwhen making mathematical statements.Sub-Claim D: Highlighted Practice MP.4 with Connections to Content(modeling/application)The student solves real-world problems with a degree of difficulty appropriate to thegrade/course by applying knowledge and skills articulated in the standards for thecurrent grade/course (or for more complex problems, knowledge and skills articulatedin the standards for previous grades/courses), engaging particularly in the Modelingpractice, and where helpful making sense of problems and persevering to solve them(MP. 1),reasoning abstractly and quantitatively (MP. 2), using appropriate toolsstrategically (MP.5), looking for and making use of structure (MP.7), and/or looking forand expressing regularity in repeated reasoning (MP.8).Total Exam score – 107 points (PBA and EOY)50 pts25 pts14 pts PBA only18 pts PBA only
PARCC High Level Blueprints
Overview of PARCC Mathematics TaskTypes14Task Type Description of Task TypeI. Tasks assessingconcepts, skills andprocedures• Balance of conceptual understanding, fluency, and application• Can involve any or all mathematical practice standards• Machine scoreable including innovative, computer-based formats• Will appear on the End of Year and Performance Based Assessment components• Sub-claims A, B and EII. Tasks assessingexpressingmathematicalreasoning• Each task calls for written arguments / justifications, critique of reasoning, or precision inmathematical statements (MP.3, 6).• Can involve other mathematical practice standards• May include a mix of machine scored and hand scored responses• Included on the Performance Based Assessment component• Sub-claim CIII. Tasks assessingmodeling /applications• Each task calls for modeling/application in a real-world context or scenario (MP.4)• Can involve other mathematical practice standards• May include a mix of machine scored and hand scored responses• Included on the Performance Based Assessment component• Sub-claim DFor more information see PARCC Task Development ITN Appendix D.
Assessment DesignEnglish Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3-112 Optional Assessments/Flexible AdministrationDiagnostic AssessmentEarly indicator ofstudent knowledge andskills to informinstruction, supports,and PDNon-summativeMid-Year AssessmentPerformance-basedEmphasis on hard-to-measure standardsPotentiallysummativePerformance-Based Assessment(PBA)Extended tasksApplications ofconcepts and skillsRequiredEnd-of-YearAssessmentInnovative,computer-baseditemsRequiredSpeaking And Listening AssessmentLocally scoredNon-summative, required13
Arizona Department of Education
Arizona Department of Education
Assessment Evidence Tables RELEASED19 For more information see PARCC Task Development ITN Appendix D.
Instructional Uses20• To see ways to combine standards naturallywhen designing instructional tasks• To determine and create instructionalscaffolding (to think through whichindividual, simpler skills can be taught firstto build to more complex skills)• To develop rubrics and scoring tools forinstructional tasks
Factors that determine the performancelevels (Cognitive Complexity)CognitiveComplexityMathematicalContentMathematicalPracticesStimulusMaterialResponseModeProcessingDemand1. Mathematical Content2. Mathematical Practices3. Stimulus Material4. Response Mode5. Processing Demand22
23Questions?AZ PARCC to AIMS transitionhttp://www.azed.gov/standards-development-assessment/aimsparcctransition/AZ Latest News with PARCChttp://www.azed.gov/standards-development-assessment/2013/01/18/parcc-whats-new/Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careerswww.parcconline.org