Cal TAC Assessment Symposium - University of … DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Cal TAC Assessment Symposium October 21, 2010

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Cal TAC Assessment Symposium

October 21, 2010

A Look into the Future: California’s Summative Assessment

System

JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction

2

Presentation Topics

•  Setting the Context: –  California’s process for test development

•  California – what’s ahead: –  Common core standards

–  Common assessments

•  California’s Readiness for Computerized Testing


3

CA Test Development •  Legislation authorizing test

development •  Budget authority and sufficient funding •  Primarily designed as accountability

measure •  Contract for development •  Annual cost

–  76 million for development and administration

–  25 million for apportionment


4

Responsibilities of Test Developers

•  Validity – accuracy for intended purpose

•  Reliability – consistency •  Fairness – free from bias and

equal treatment


5

Current Types of Test Items and Administration

•  Paper & Pencil •  Multiple-Choice •  Constructed Response/

Performance – Essays


6

The Common Core State Standards Initiative

•  In 2009, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) committed to developing a set of standards that would help prepare students for success in college and career.

•  In September 2009, College and Career Readiness standards were released.

•  A voluntary state-led effort coordinated by the CCSSO and NGA

•  Included parents, educators, content experts, researchers, national organizations and community groups from 48 states, 2 territories and the District of Columbia


7

The Common Core State Standards

•  Rigorous, research-based standards for English-language arts and mathematics for grades K-12

•  Designed to prepare the nation’s students with the knowledge and skills needed for success in college and the workforce

•  Internationally benchmarked to ensure that students will be globally competitive

•  A clear and consistent educational framework •  A collaborative effort that builds on the best of

current state standards


8

California and the Common Core State Standards

•  Senate Bill 1 from the Fifth Extraordinary Session (SB X5 1): –  established an Academic Content

Standards Commission (ACSC) to develop standards in mathematics and English–language arts

–  stated that 85 percent of the standards were to consist of the CCSS with up to 15 percent additional material

–  directed the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt or reject recommendations of the ACSC


9

The Academic Content Standards Commission

•  Under the direction of the Sacramento Country Office of Education, the ACSC convened during the summer of 2010 to evaluate the CCSS for rigor and alignment to California standards.

•  Appointed members (21) by the Governor (11), Speaker (5), and Senate Pro Tem (5).

•  Words, phrases, and select California standards were inserted in their entirety to maintain California’s high expectations for students.

•  On July 15, 2010, the commission recommended that the SBE adopt the CCSS as amended.

•  The SBE voted unanimously to adopt the recommendations of the ACSC on August 2, 2010.


10

Grade 8 Mathematics

•  The K-7 CCSS prepare students for Algebra 1 in grade 8.

•  However, the CCSS also include a set of challenging grade 8 standards to prepare students for success in higher math, including Algebra 1.

•  Assessment will be key


11

Next Steps

•  Frameworks and instructional materials •  Assessments •  Professional development

The California Department of Education is currently working on implementation plans for the common core and will bring this plan initially to the SBE in November, 2010.


12

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

Assessment Requirements •  Reading/language arts in grades 3–8 and at

least once in grades 10–12

•  Mathematics in grades 3–8 and at least once in grades 10–12

•  Science at least once during each of three specified grade spans: grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–12

•  Race to the Top Assessment Program Competition


13

Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and

Careers •  Consortium of 26 states

–  California has signed on as a participating state

–  Governor, State Superintendent of Public Instruction and State Board of Education President required to sign MOU

•  Florida is fiscal agent

•  ACHIEVE is Project Manager

•  Assess grades 3 through 8 and once in grades 10-12

•  Possible high school end-of-course


14

PARCC Awarded Race to the Top Assessment

Funds

•  On September 2, 2010, PARCC awarded 169.9 million

•  An additional 15.9 million awarded for the purpose to help all participating states with the transition to common core and common assessments


15

PARCC States

Governing •  Arizona •  Arkansas •  District of Columbia •  Florida •  Illinois •  Indiana •  Louisiana •  Maryland •  Massachusetts •  New York •  Rhode Island •  Tennessee

Participating •  Alabama •  California •  Colorado •  Delaware •  Georgia •  Kentucky •  Mississippi •  New Hampshire •  New Jersey •  North Dakota •  Ohio •  Oklahoma •  Pennsylvania •  South Carolina


16

PARCC Theory of Action •  More Meaningful Standards: The Partnership’s assessment

system will be anchored in the Common Core State Standards which are consistent across states, clear to the public, and provide an on-ramp to college and careers.

•  Higher Quality Tests: PARCC assessments will include sophisticated items and performance tasks to measure critical thinking, strategic problem solving, research and writing.

•  Through-Course Testing: Students will take parts of the assessment at key times during the school year, closer to when they learn the material.

•  Maximize Technology: PARCC assessments in most grades will be computer based.

•  Cross-State Comparability: States in PARCC will adopt common assessments and common performance standards.


17

PARCC Intended Purposes

•  Report achievement results based on a clear definition of college and career readiness, so students will know if they are on track early enough to make adjustments.

•  Compare results against a common high standard because readiness shouldn’t differ across states or income levels.

•  Help make accountability policies better drivers of improvement by basing them on more sophisticated and meaningful assessments.

•  Promote good instruction by providing teachers useful, meaningful and timely information, which will help them adjust instruction, individualize interventions, and fine-tune lessons throughout the school year.


18

PARCC Accountability Outcomes

•  To support multiple levels and forms of accountability including: –  Decisions about promotion and graduation for

individual students –  Teacher and leader evaluations –  School accountability determinations –  Determinations of principal and teacher professional

development and support needs –  Teaching, learning, and program improvement

•  To assess all students, including English learners and students with disabilities.


19

PARCC Key Actions

•  By Spring 2011 adopt: –  common assessment administration procedures

–  a common set of item release policies

–  a test security policy

–  a common definition of "English learner" and common policies and procedures for student participation and accommodations for English learners

•  By December 31, 2011 –  each consortium state adopt a common set of

college-and career-ready standards


20

PARCC Summative Assessments

•  Overall assessment system will include a mix of constructed response items, performance tasks, and computer-enhanced, computer-scored items

ELA/literacy

•  3 “through-course” components

–  administered after 25%, 50%, and 75% of instruction •  Speaking & listening components

–  administered after 75% of instruction (not part of summative score)

•  End-of-year component –  administered after 90% of instruction

Mathematics •  3 “through-course” components

–  administered after 25%, 50%, and 75% of instruction •  End-of-year component

–  administered after 90% of instruction


21

Assessment Component Advantages

•  Through-course approach will focus instruction throughout the year and nearer to the assessment

•  The sum of the components address the full range of the common core

•  Allows for multiple measures across the full range of performance

•  Allows for in-depth assessment of writing and mathematics problem-solving

•  Both through-course and end-of-year components provide data that teachers can use to adjust instruction


22

PARCC Timeline

Sept. 2011

Development phase begins

Sept. 2012

First year field tes6ng and

related research and data collec6on begins

Sept. 2013

Second year field tes6ng begins and

related research and data collec6on con6nues

Sept. 2014

Full administra6on

of PARCC assessments

begins

Oct. 2010

Launch and design phase

begins

Summer 2015

Set achievement

levels, including

college-‐ready performance

levels


23

California Readiness for Computer-Based Testing

•  California’s assessment vendor conducted a survey and in-person site visits

•  Conclusions: –  Feasible but expensive –  Need multi-year rollout –  District/school environment difficult for

administering fair, standard & secure test –  Budget commitment


24

Readiness – cont.

•  Education Week – CA ranked lowest quintile in overall

technology leadership among states – Average of 3.8 students to one

computer in U.S. – Average of 5 students to one

computer in CA


25

Resources •  Full text of the Common Core California

Standards: http://www.scoe.net/castandards/index.html (Outside Source)

•  Information about the Common Core: http://www.corestandards.org/ (Outside Source)

•  PARCC proposal: http://www.fldoe.org/parcc/ (Outside Source)

Documents

Cal TAC Assessment Symposium - University of … DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Cal TAC Assessment Symposium October 21, 2010