Testing and
Accountability

January 15, 2014
100

1992-93 to 2011-12 EOG General Test Multiple Choice Test
Results Statewide Percent of Student at or above Level III in
BOTH Reading and Mathematics

90
80.8 81.3 80.9

80

74.7

70
60

66.3

52.9

55.5

58.1

60.0

69.1 69.9

71.7
65.8
62.5

61.7

60.6
58.1 59.4
52.6

55.1

50
40
30
20
10

0

Beginning of
ABCs K-8
Accountability
Model

Implementation of
More Rigorous
Mathematics
Standards

Implementation of
More Rigorous
Reading Standards

2


Decline in percent proficient is more pronounced
than previously
◦ Previously 13 to 15 percentage point decrease
◦ For 2012-13, decreases in percent proficient
range from:
 16 to 25 percentage points in reading
 27 to 44 percentage points in mathematics
 9 to 33 percentage points in science

3
Indicator

Percent Proficient/
Meeting Benchmark

Performance Composite

44.7 %

ACT (UNC minimum of 17)

58.5 %

Math Course Rigor

>95 %

ACT WorkKeys

67.3 %

4-Year Graduation Rate

82.5 %

5-Year Graduation Rate

83.1 %

4
Subgroup

Percent Proficient

American Indian

29.4 %

Asian

66.9 %

Black

25.2 %

Hispanic

32.4 %

Two or More Races

45.5 %

White

56.8 %

Economically Disadvantaged

29.5 %

Limited English Proficient

13.3 %

Students with Disabilities

13.6 %

Academically Intelligently Gifted

90.6 %
5
What does this mean?
Students have not learned less; the content
is more rigorous and there were significant
changes to the content standards.
Reading requires more careful analysis to
comprehend the information/ideas
Mathematics requires understanding and
application of mathematical processes; not just
arithmetic

6
Observations
• Math: More difficult across grade levels
Grade 3 = 46.8; Grade 6 = 38.9; Grade 8 = 34.2
• ELA/Reading: Ranges from high of 47.8 at grade 7 to a
low of 39.5 at grade 5
• Science: Grade 8 = 59.1
• Biology: Requirement to test by the end of 11th grade
not being met
• ACT WorkKeys: difficulty identifying completers
• Math Course Rigor: Not consistent with other measures

7
Growth

Accountability Includes Proficiency,
Growth and Progress Targets
But not
increase the
number of
proficient
students

Proficiency

A school may
increase
students’
learning;
meet/exceed
expected
growth,

8
Now What?

Communication

Data Review

1. Increased rigor
2. College and Career
Readiness
3. Students are
learning and
growing, but there
is a new
expectation
1.
2.
3.
4.

Performance
Growth
Targets
Participation

9
Assessment Going Forward
 State Board of Education Discussions: December and January
 Recommending an Advisory Group to study options
 Smarter Balanced
 PARCC
 Vendor-developed assessments
 Advisory group make a recommendation to State Board in Fall
2014
 Continue with current assessments through 2015-16
 Possible implementation of a new assessment in 2016-17

10
Every Student READY

Questions

Accountability update

  • 1.
  • 2.
    100 1992-93 to 2011-12EOG General Test Multiple Choice Test Results Statewide Percent of Student at or above Level III in BOTH Reading and Mathematics 90 80.8 81.3 80.9 80 74.7 70 60 66.3 52.9 55.5 58.1 60.0 69.1 69.9 71.7 65.8 62.5 61.7 60.6 58.1 59.4 52.6 55.1 50 40 30 20 10 0 Beginning of ABCs K-8 Accountability Model Implementation of More Rigorous Mathematics Standards Implementation of More Rigorous Reading Standards 2
  • 3.
     Decline in percentproficient is more pronounced than previously ◦ Previously 13 to 15 percentage point decrease ◦ For 2012-13, decreases in percent proficient range from:  16 to 25 percentage points in reading  27 to 44 percentage points in mathematics  9 to 33 percentage points in science 3
  • 4.
    Indicator Percent Proficient/ Meeting Benchmark PerformanceComposite 44.7 % ACT (UNC minimum of 17) 58.5 % Math Course Rigor >95 % ACT WorkKeys 67.3 % 4-Year Graduation Rate 82.5 % 5-Year Graduation Rate 83.1 % 4
  • 5.
    Subgroup Percent Proficient American Indian 29.4% Asian 66.9 % Black 25.2 % Hispanic 32.4 % Two or More Races 45.5 % White 56.8 % Economically Disadvantaged 29.5 % Limited English Proficient 13.3 % Students with Disabilities 13.6 % Academically Intelligently Gifted 90.6 % 5
  • 6.
    What does thismean? Students have not learned less; the content is more rigorous and there were significant changes to the content standards. Reading requires more careful analysis to comprehend the information/ideas Mathematics requires understanding and application of mathematical processes; not just arithmetic 6
  • 7.
    Observations • Math: Moredifficult across grade levels Grade 3 = 46.8; Grade 6 = 38.9; Grade 8 = 34.2 • ELA/Reading: Ranges from high of 47.8 at grade 7 to a low of 39.5 at grade 5 • Science: Grade 8 = 59.1 • Biology: Requirement to test by the end of 11th grade not being met • ACT WorkKeys: difficulty identifying completers • Math Course Rigor: Not consistent with other measures 7
  • 8.
    Growth Accountability Includes Proficiency, Growthand Progress Targets But not increase the number of proficient students Proficiency A school may increase students’ learning; meet/exceed expected growth, 8
  • 9.
    Now What? Communication Data Review 1.Increased rigor 2. College and Career Readiness 3. Students are learning and growing, but there is a new expectation 1. 2. 3. 4. Performance Growth Targets Participation 9
  • 10.
    Assessment Going Forward State Board of Education Discussions: December and January  Recommending an Advisory Group to study options  Smarter Balanced  PARCC  Vendor-developed assessments  Advisory group make a recommendation to State Board in Fall 2014  Continue with current assessments through 2015-16  Possible implementation of a new assessment in 2016-17 10
  • 11.