1

Comprehensive Assessment System: Process, Progress, Recommendations

September 9, 2014

2

Goals• Share comprehensive assessment system goals

and scope of work

• Review context and process for the comprehensive assessment system work

• Share K-5 assessment portfolio changes

3

Purpose of the Comprehensive Assessment System Work

• Develop a portfolio of purposeful assessments

• Provide assessments that drive student learning

• Establish assessments as instructional tools and resources

• Change culture of the perception of the purpose of assessments

• Gauge student learning more efficiently and authentically

• Reduce time spent testing students

Assessment Portfolio Timeline

March-August 2014

October 2014-April 2015

• Development of 6-12 assessment portfolio recommendations and non Math and ELA content areas

March 2014-August 2015

4

• Review of current system

• K-5 Assessment Recommendations

• Analysis and refinement of K-5 assessment portfolio and structures for data reporting and use

Continued Stakeholder Engagement and Communication

The Curriculum and Assessment team is working with Dr. Jeri Thompson from the Center for Assessment from January 2014-

July 2015

5

Theory of ActionA well-constructed comprehensive assessment system provides continuous, coherent, high-quality, and actionable information on student performance that teachers, school leaders, and district and state administrators could use to improve teaching and learning and meet their decision-making needs.

At the heart of a comprehensive assessment system is a clear understanding of and alignment to the knowledge and skills and their range of complexity as required by the standards and grade level curriculum.

CURRICULUM INSTRUCTION

EQUITY

ASSESSMENT

6

Based on our work, we have developed the following overall recommendations for K-5 ELA and Math:

• Minimize the number of curriculum-based assessments

• Incorporate constructed response/performance tasks

• Structure curriculum-based assessments as formative

• Identify interim/diagnostic that complements

• Ensure that the assessments are aligned to the PSSA

• Give teachers more options

We are recommending reductions in time spent testing at all grade levels

7

Grade Current Proposed Change in Testing Periods

Kdg 13 11 -2

1 45 26 -19

2 45 26 -19

3 85.5 41.5 -44

4 85.5 41.5 -44

5 85.5 41.5 -44

APPENDIX

8

Changes to K-5 Math Assessment PortfolioAssessment

Type What We Had 2013-2014 Proposed for 14-15Change by Number of

AssessmentsChange by

Periods

Benchmark Kindergarten Assessment 3x/year 3x/year 0 0

Formative / Summative

Math Unit Assessments

8x/year; grades 1 & 2

7/year grades 3-5

Gr. 1-2:2 District reported6 School reported

0 0

Gr. 3-5:2 District reported5 School reported

0 -1

Summative Gr 1-2 Math CBA 3x/year Eliminate -1 -6

Benchmark Gr 3-5 Math CBA 4x/year Eliminate -1 -8

Summative TerraNova 1x/year grades K-2 Eliminate -1 -4

Diagnostic Math Scholastic Inventory (SMI) -- Gr. K-5: 2x/year (NEW) 1 2

Formative Checkpoint Quizzes 16x/year 16

(negotiable) -1 -16

Diagnostic Math CDT 3-5x/year gr. 3-5(negotiable) N/A N/A

Summative PSSA 1x/year 1x/year 0 0TOTAL REDUCTIONS -4 -33

Changes to K-5 Literacy Assessment Portfolio Assessment

Type What We Had 2013-2014 Proposed for 14-15Change by Number of

Assessments

Change by Number of

Periods

Benchmark Kindergarten Assessment 3x/year 3x/year 0 0

Diagnostic DIBELS* 3x/year; grades K-5 3x/year; Grades K-5 0 0

Summative TerraNova 1x/year; grades K-2 Eliminate -1 -4

Formative / Summative

Reading Unit Assessment

6x/year gr. 1-25x/year gr.3-5

Gr. 1-2: 2 District reported4 School reported

0 0

Gr. 3-5: 2 District reported3 School reported

0 -10

Formative Module Assessments 12-15x/year 12-15x/year ** 0 -11.25

Diagnostic Literacy CDT Literacy CDT (negotiable) N/A N/A

Summative GRADE 3x/year; grades 3-5 3x/year; grades 3-5 0 0

Summative PSSA 1x/year 1x/year 0 0 TOTAL REDUCTIONS -1 -25.25

* Students in grades 3-5 who benchmark on first administration do not retest* *Flexibility in teacher choice of centrally developed vs. teacher developed assessments