Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Paul Gray, Ed.D.President, CAMT Board of Directors
Gary CosenzaIPSI UT Austin
CAMT 58th Annual Conference© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFAM2‐kWz1c© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Ever Wonder… How did we find ourselves in this mess? Oh, I miss those good ol’ days… If I’m having this much fun now, what happens in 2012?(Or, I’m rooting for the Mayan Apocalypse Theory)
Let’s look back at the road we’ve come down!
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
In the Beginning……and on the 8th day, there was created TABS
1st administered in 1980 No state‐mandated curriculum
Learning objectives defined by committee
Grades 3, 5, 9 Math, reading, writing Not a diploma‐denial test Results were made public
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
A Nation At Risk In 1983, Secretary of Education William Bennett led a commission that published the now infamous report, A Nation At Risk.
This report cited failings of American public schools as a national security issue
Imperative: Economic Competition in a global marketplace
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Texas Responds! H. Ross Perot was appointed by Governor Mark White to head a commission to study Texas public schools.
Result: HB72 passed in 1984
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Let’s Measure Minimum Skills!Curriculum Essential Elements
First state‐defined curriculum
Approved by SBOE in 1984
Assessment TEAMS: 1985‐86
Math, reading, writing Odd grades Grade 11 = Exit Level Class of 1987: first with testing requirement to receive a diploma
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Next Road Stop:Let’s Get Academic! 1990: TAAS More rigorous, comprehensive assessment of EE’s
1992‐93: shifted from fall administration to spring administration
1993‐94: change in focus of assessment
Math and reading: Grades 3‐8
Writing: Grades 4, 7 Exit Level: Grade 10 (math, reading, writing)
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Beginnings of School Accountability 1993 was also first year that test scores were used in the new, statewide integrated accountability system
1994: SBOE aligned the passing standard to Exit Level standards Texas Learning Index Measures yearly progress
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
How’d that work for us?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Student Performance, TAAS Math (Grade 5)
All African‐American Hispanic White Low SES
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
How’d that work for us?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Student Performance, TAAS Math (Grade 8)
All African‐American Hispanic White Low SES
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
How’d that work for us?
0102030405060708090100
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Student Performance, TAAS Math (Exit Level)
All African‐American Hispanic White Low SES
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
The Next Superhighway…Curriculum 1997: EE’s replaced with TEKS
Assessment 1999: Student Success Initiative Began with 3rd graders in 2003 (Class of 2012)
2000: TAAS transition to TEKS‐based TAAS
Begin planning for “Son of TAAS” or “TAAS II”
2003: TAKS replaces TAAS
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
How was TAKS different from TAAS?TAAS TAKS Aligned to EE’s Passing Standard: TLI = 70
Aligned to Exit Level to mark “yearly progress”
Exit Level: Grade 10 Diploma: Math, Reading,
Writing
Aligned to TEKS Passing Standard: Scale Score
= 2100 (Panel Recommendation) Established by independent
grade‐level committees Exit Level: Grade 11 Diploma: Math, ELA (Science
and Social Studies added for Class of 2005)
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
How’d that work for us?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Student Performance, TAKS Math (Grade 5)
All African‐American Hispanic White Low SES
1st Admin only
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
How’d that work for us?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Student Performance, TAKS Math (Grade 8)
All African‐American Hispanic White Low SES
1st Admin only
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
How’d that work for us?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Student Performance, TAKS Math (Grade 11)
All African‐American Hispanic White Low SES
Primary Admin only
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
But What About College Readiness?
Comic strip © Andrews and McMeel and Universal Press Syndicate
But What About College Readiness?College ReadinessCollege readiness means the level of preparation a student must attain in English language arts and mathematics courses to enroll and succeed, without remediation in an entry‐level general education course for credit in that same content area for a baccalaureate degree or associate degree program (House Bill 3, Section 39.024a).
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
But What About College Readiness?
800
820
840
860
880
900
920
940
960
980
1000
1990 1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
State Average SAT Total Score
SAT
SAT was redesigned in 1997 – became SAT I
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
But What About Algebra 1?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cent of S
tude
nts W
ho M
et Stand
ard
Algebra 1 End‐Of‐Course Test Scores
Voluntary sample – not representative of all students
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
But What About Algebra 1?Statewide summary reports for 2008–2010 are available on the TEA student assessment website at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=5155&menu_id=793.
Statewide summary reports include “All Students”; this refers only to those students who participated in the EOC assessments.
Texas Education AgencyStudent Assessment Division
But What About Algebra 1?
Texas Education Agency Student Assessment Division
YEAR MET STANDARD
COMMENDED PERFORMANCE
NUMBER TESTED
2005 49% 6% 20,8442006 50% 7% 21,2062007 53% 8% 32,8122008 56% 11% 52,4622009 57% 11% 78,4192010 57% 12% 101,8872011* Average Score: 54% 70,000±
But What About Geometry?YEAR 2009 2010 2011*
MEAN RAW SCORE 23/44 23/44 23/44
MEAN PERCENT CORRECT 52% 52% 48%
NUMBER TESTED 47,271 137,617 70,000±
PASS RATE IF STANDARD = 70% OF
ITEMS CORRECT29% 23%
Texas Education Agency Student Assessment Division
Road Construction: TAKS to STAAR 2011: Mathematics TEKS Revision process begins 2012: STAAR and STAAR EOC assessments begin
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
STAAR New assessment program for
Grades 3–8 High school
Begins in 2011–2012
Texas Education Agency Student Assessment Division
TAKS to STAAR2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 2015–2016
GR 3–8 TAKS STAAR STAAR STAAR STAAR STAAR
GR 9 TAKS STAAR STAAR STAAR STAAR STAAR
GR 10 TAKS TAKS STAAR STAAR STAAR STAAR
GR 11 TAKS TAKS TAKS STAAR STAAR STAARGR 12 &
Out-of-School Students
TAKS TAKS TAKS TAKS STAARor TAKS
STAARor TAKS
Texas Education Agency Student Assessment Division
What Happens to Curriculum? Readiness Readiness Readiness
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
What Happens to Curriculum? NCTM: 2008 – Clarified focal points of curriculum for K‐8
Texas Response to the Curriculum Focal Points: 2009
Blueprint for STAAR What do students need
to know to be algebra ready in high school?
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
What Happens to Curriculum?
Are essential for success in the current grade or course.
Are important for preparedness for the next grade or course.
Support college and career readiness. Necessitate in‐depth instruction. Address broad and deep ideas.
Readiness Standards
Texas Education Agency Student Assessment Division
What Happens to Curriculum?
Although introduced in the current grade or course, they may be emphasized in a subsequent year.
Although reinforced in the current grade or course, they may be emphasized in a previous year.
They play a role in preparing students for the next grade or course but not a central role.
They address more narrowly defined ideas.
Supporting Standards
Texas Education Agency Student Assessment Division
What Happens to Assessment?STAARTests will contain a greater number of items that have a higher cognitive complexity level.
Items will be developed to more closely match the cognitive complexity level evident in the TEKS.
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
What Happens to Assessment?TAKS STAAR 3‐8: 6 objectives Aligned to TEKS Not all TEKS tested, so… Goal: Assess student
understanding of grade‐level curriculum (TEKS)
3‐8: 5 reporting categories Aligned to TEKS Most TEKS will be embedded
or tested Readiness TEKS Supporting TEKS 3‐8 Goal: Assess students’
algebra readiness HS Goal: Assess students’
college readiness
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
What Happens to Assessment? STAAR Blueprints and Assessed Curriculum now available
~33% of TEKS for given course are “readiness” and will make up ~65% of the assessment
“fewer, clearer, deeper” will be driving the assessment Major focus for Grades 3‐5: Number and Operation Major shift in Grades 4 and 8 to Measurement
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
TAKS to STAAR – Math 3‐8
Grade
RC1: Num
ber a
nd
Ope
ratio
n
RC2: Patterns an
d Algebraic Re
ason
ing
RC3: Geo
metric
and
Spatial R
easoning
RC4: M
easuremen
t
RC5: Proba
bility &
Statistic
s
Old Obj. 6
(TAK
S on
ly)
TAKS STAAR TAKS STAAR TAKS STAAR TAKS STAAR TAKS STAAR
310 15 6 8 6 9 6 8 4 6 8
25.0% 34.9% 15.0% 18.6% 15.0% 20.9% 15.0% 18.6% 10.0% 14.0% 20
411 17 7 6 6 12 6 8 4 5 8
26.2% 37.8% 16.7% 13.3% 14.3% 26.7% 14.3% 17.8% 9.5% 11.1% 19.0%
511 18 7 6 7 7 7 8 4 11 8
25.0% 36.0% 15.9% 12.0% 15.9% 14.0% 15.9% 16.0% 9.1% 22.0% 18.2%
610 16 9 12 7 8 5 8 6 8 9
21.7% 30.8% 19.6% 23.1% 15.2% 15.4% 10.9% 15.4% 13.0% 15.4% 19.6%
710 13 10 13 7 10 5 8 7 10 9
20.8% 24.1% 20.8% 24.1% 14.6% 18.5% 10.4% 14.8% 14.6% 18.5% 18.8%
810 11 10 14 7 8 5 13 8 10 10
20.0% 19.6% 20.0% 25.0% 14.0% 14.3% 10.0% 23.2% 16.0% 17.9% 20.0%
Chart courtesy of Pearland Independent School District
65%
35%
Assessment Blueprint
Readiness StandardsSupporting Standards
STAAR
30%
70%
Eligible Content Standards From TEKS
Readiness StandardsSupporting Standards
Texas Education Agency Student Assessment Division
STAARGrade 3 Mathematics Blueprint
Texas Education Agency Student Assessment Division
STAARGrade 6 Mathematics Blueprint
Texas Education Agency Student Assessment Division
STAARGeometry Blueprint
Texas Education Agency Student Assessment Division
STAAR
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Underlying Processes and Mathematical Tools (Process Skills)
Will be assessed differently
Will be assessed in context, not in isolation
Will be assessed in a more integrated and authentic manner
STAAR
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Underlying Processes and Mathematical Tools (Process Skills)
Will not be listed under a separate reporting category
Will be incorporated into at least 75% of the test questions
Will be reported along with the content skills under the other reporting categories
STAAR
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Examples of Underlying Processes and Mathematical Tools (Process Skills)
3.15B, relate informal language to mathematical language and symbols
4.14A, identify the mathematics in everyday situations
7.13B, use a problem‐solving model that incorporates understanding the problem, making a plan, carrying out the plan, and evaluating the solution for reasonableness
What Happens to Instruction? Shift from print textbooks toward “instructional resources” 2011 Legislative session: changes “textbook” to “instructional resources” greater flexibility
Project Share Innovative online project to connect Texas teachers and students
Piloted 2010‐11 Fully implemented 2011‐12
$4 billion cut for 2011‐2013 biennium
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
What Happens to Instruction?Instruction must match the cognitive complexity of the TEKS.Questioning must match the cognitive complexity of the TEKS.
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Cognitive Process Dimensions Remember‐Retrieve relevant knowledge.
Recognizing Recalling Identifying Understand–Construct meaning from instructional messages.Interpreting Exemplifying ClassifyingInferring Comparing ExplainingSummarizing
Apply–Carry out or use a procedure in a given situation.Executing Implementing
Descriptions for the cognitive process dimensions are taken from A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, edited by Lorin W. Anderson and David R. Krathwol (2001).
Summary courtesy of Region 4 ESC
Analyze‐Break material into parts to determine the relationship between the parts and the overall structure.Organizing Attributing Differentiating
Evaluate‐Make judgments based on criteria and standards.Checking Critiquing Monitoring
Create‐Put elements together to form a coherent or functional whole.Generating Planning Producing
Descriptions for the cognitive process dimensions are taken from A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, edited by Lorin W. Anderson and David R. Krathwol (2001).
Summary courtesy of Region 4 ESC
Examine the verbs in the TEKS 3.7B Patterns, relationships, and algebraic thinking The student uses lists, tables, and charts to express patterns and relationships.
The student is expected to identify and describe patterns in a table of related number pairs based on a meaningful problem and extend the table.
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Examine the Rigor in the Released TAKS Item
2008 Released Grade 3 TAKS© Texas Education Agency
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Examine the verbs in the TEKS 5.5A Patterns, relationships, and algebraic thinking The student makes generalizations based on observed patterns and relationships.
The student is expected to describe the relationship between sets of data in graphic organizers such as lists, tables, charts, and diagrams
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Examine the Rigor the Released TAKS Item
2008 Released Grade 5 TAKS© Texas Education Agency
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Examine the verbs in the TEKS 8.5A Patterns, relationships, and algebraic thinking. The student uses graphs, tables, and algebraic representations to make predictions and solve problems.The student is expected to predict, find, and justify solutions to application problems using appropriate tables, graphs, and algebraic equations.
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Examine the Rigor in the Released TAKS Item
2006 Released Grade 8 TAKS© Texas Education Agency
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Examine the Rigor in the Released TIMSS (2007, Grade 8)Item
What does Instruction Need to Look Like?What instructional strategies might be helpful to enable kids to be successful on released items such as those on TIMSS and STAAR?
Metacognition Student engagement Higher‐order thinking Cooperative learning
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
What Students Say High school students in a focus group mentioned the following when asked what motivates them to learn and participate in school:
Good relationship with the teacher Clear expectations Hands‐on activities Assignments related to real life
Source: Walsh & Sattes, 2000
© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Bottom Line
We will need to rethink our approach to curriculum, assessment, and instructional resources
Shoe comic strip © Tribune Media Services© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC
Thank You!Paul Gray, Ed.D.President, CAMT Board of [email protected]
Gary CosenzaProject Manager, OnTRACK for College [email protected]
Unless otherwise noted, all content is © 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC. Individual slides contain exceptions to this copyright notice.© 2011 Cosenza & Associates, LLC