Upload
john-cronin
View
80
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
John Cronin's presentation " The Common Core Assessment and the Early Results from the fransition
Citation preview
John Cronin, Ph.D.
Director
The Kingsbury Center @ NWEA
Common Core Assessment and the Early Results from the Transition
This presentation is available on Slideshare at the
address below
http://www.slideshare.net/JohnCronin4/colorado-
presentation-final
Priority purposes of the PARCC assessment
• Determine whether students are college and career ready
• Assess the full range of Common Core standards, including those that are difficult to measure
• Measure the full range of student performance
• Provide data to inform instruction, interventions, and professional development
• Provide data for accountability, including measurement of growth.
• Incorporate innovative approaches into the assessment system
Source: http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-assessment-design
PARCC sample ELA Grades 3, 7 & 10
• Grade 3 ELA sample
• Grade 7 ELA
• Grade 10 ELA
PARCC sample tasks mathematics grade 3, 7, & 10
Grades 3, 7, & 10 Mathematics
NWEA Item Pool
Colorado Standards
Colorado Item Pool
Nevada Standards
Nevada Item Pool
Results on the Colorado and Nevada tests can be compared because:1. Both tests are children of the same
parent item pool, and report results on a single scale.
2. Both tests are aligned to the curriculum the students are taught.
Why NWEA Test Results are Comparable
Across States
NWEA Item Pool
Colorado Standards
Colorado Item Pool
Common Core Standards
Common Core Item
Pool
Results on the Colorado and Common Core tests can be compared because:1. Both tests are children of the same
parent item pool, and report results on a single scale.
2. Both tests are aligned to the curriculum the students are taught.
Why NWEA Common Core Test Results are
Comparable to the Prior Colorado Test
300
150
Colorado Item Pool
Common Core Item Pool
The Colorado and Common Core Item
Pools should not Differ in Difficulty
300
150
Colorado Item Pool
Common Core Item Pool
..but a student may perform differently
based on the differences in what’s taught.
Robert - 230
Robert - 227
Possible causes of a performance change
• Change in curriculum emphasis
– Mathematics – More depth and less breadth
– Reading – More non-fiction reading
• Less alignment…
– Instruction to Curriculum
– Instructional Materials to Curriculum
• Poor match of curriculum to student’s instructional level
• Implementation dip
In states that have transitioned to the MAP/Common Core, student performance declined slightly in the term when the school transitioned tests.
If the transition occurred during the fall term students’ fall to spring growth was unaffected.
Mathematics Growth – Kentucky and New Hampshire
Math Student Count
Fall and Spring –Non CC
Student Count
Non CC –FallCC –Spring
Student Count
CC – Fall and Spring
2011-2012
77181 47.9% 63222 42.5%
2012-2013
30758 45.0% 72306 38.5% 159967 42.4%
Reading Growth – Kentucky and New Hampshire
Math Student Count
Fall and Spring –Non CC
Student Count
Non CC –FallCC –Spring
Student Count
CC – Fall and Spring
2011-2012
76331 48.6% 149146 42.3%
2012-2013
29005 47.2% 19836 39.2% 160859 48.0%
In states that have transitioned to the MAP/Common Core, student performance declined slightly in the term when the school transitioned tests.
If the transition occurred during the fall term students’ fall to spring growth was unaffected.
Mathematics Growth – Kentucky and New Hampshire
Math Student Count
Fall and Spring –Non CC
Student Count
Non CC –FallCC –Spring
Student Count
CC – Fall and Spring
2011-2012
77181 47.9% 63222 42.5%
2012-2013
30758 45.0% 72306 38.5% 159967 42.4%
Reading Growth – Kentucky and New Hampshire
Math Student Count
Fall and Spring –Non CC
Student Count
Non CC –FallCC –Spring
Student Count
CC – Fall and Spring
2011-2012
76331 48.6% 149146 42.3%
2012-2013
29005 47.2% 19836 39.2% 160859 48.0%
Mathematics Grade 3
Category Num Item
Response
s
Percent Mean
Calib
Mean
Score on
these
Items
Mean
Score for
Entire
Test
% Correct
Multiple
Choice
Both 851172 54.9% 205.0 206.1 205.7 51.9
Multiple
Choice CC 639120 41.2% 205.8 206.2 206.1 50.7
Enhanced
Both 59130 3.8% 200.0 202.2 201.9 53.0
Enhanced
CC 1873 0.1% 203.2 206.2 204.4 58.1
Totals 1551295 205.1 206.0 205.7 51.4
Mathematics Grade 3
Category Num Item
Response
s
Percent Mean
Calib
Mean
Score on
these
Items
Mean
Score for
Entire
Test
% Correct
Multiple
Choice
Both 851172 54.9% 205.0 206.1 205.7 51.9
Multiple
Choice CC 639120 41.2% 205.8 206.2 206.1 50.7
Enhanced
Both 59130 3.8% 200.0 202.2 201.9 53.0
Enhanced
CC 1873 0.1% 203.2 206.2 204.4 58.1
Totals 1551295 205.1 206.0 205.7 51.4
Mathematics Grade 3
Category Num Item
Response
s
Percent Mean
Calib
Mean
Score on
these
Items
Mean
Score for
Entire
Test
% Correct
Multiple
Choice
Both 851172 54.9% 205.0 206.1 205.7 51.9
Multiple
Choice CC 639120 41.2% 205.8 206.2 206.1 50.7
Enhanced
Both 59130 3.8% 200.0 202.2 201.9 53.0
Enhanced
CC 1873 0.1% 203.2 206.2 204.4 58.1
Totals 1551295 205.1 206.0 205.7 51.4
Category Num Item
Responses
Percent Mean
Calib
Mean
Score on
these
Items
Mean
Score for
Entire Test
% Correct
Multiple
Choice
Both 928780 61.0% 235.0 236.0 235.8 50.6
Multiple
Choice CC 577238 37.9% 233.4 234.8 234.0 51.5
Enhanced
Both 14339 0.9% 230.1 234.9 231.3 57.0
Enhanced
CC 1331 0.1% 245.0 236.6 243.2 30.5
Totals 1521688 235.9 235.5 235.1 51.0
Grade 8 Mathematics
Category Num Item
Responses
Percent Mean
Calib
Mean
Score on
these
Items
Mean
Score for
Entire Test
% Correct
Multiple
Choice
Both 928780 61.0% 235.0 236.0 235.8 50.6
Multiple
Choice CC 577238 37.9% 233.4 234.8 234.0 51.5
Enhanced
Both 14339 0.9% 230.1 234.9 231.3 57.0
Enhanced
CC 1331 0.1% 245.0 236.6 243.2 30.5
Totals 1521688 235.9 235.5 235.1 51.0
Grade 3 Reading
Category Num Item
Responses
Percent Mean
Calib
Mean
Score on
these
Items
Mean
Score for
Entire Test
% Correct
Multiple
Choice
Both 756060 59.2% 200.7 201.9 201.0 51.2
Multiple
Choice CC
508894 39.8% 202.1 202.4 202.1 49.8
Enhanced
Both 11709 0.9% 211.0 207.8 209.1 43.4
Enhanced
CC 434 0.0% 189.0 190.0 192.3 52.5
Totals 1277097 201.3 202.1 201.5 50.6
Grade 8 Reading
Category Num Item
Responses
Percent Mean
Calib
Mean
Score on
these
Items
Mean
Score for
Entire Test
% Correct
Multiple
Choice
Both 770020 61.6% 225.1 226.7 225.6 51.0
Multiple
Choice CC 464101 37.1% 220.4 222.6 221.8 53.2
Enhanced
Both 16303 1.3% 229.3 229.2 229.0 49.7
Enhanced
CC 66 0.0% 189.0 192.0 195.5 57.1
Totals 1250490 223.4 225.2 224.2 51.8
Grade 3 Language Usage
Category Num Item
Responses
Percent Mean
Calib
Mean
Score on
these
Items
Mean
Score for
Entire Test
% Correct
Multiple
Choice
Both 408966 42.5% 201.0 201.7 201.1 50.2
Multiple
Choice CC 477264 49.5% 202.4 203.0 202.5 50.6
Enhanced
Both 68801 7.1% 207.6 207.2 206.6 48.2
Enhanced
CC 8220 0.9% 199.2 201.8 199.9 51.8
Totals 963251 202.1 202.7 202.2 50.3
Grade 8 Language Usage
Category Num Item
Responses
Percent Mean
Calib
Mean
Score on
these
Items
Mean
Score for
Entire Test
% Correct
Multiple
Choice
Both 443136 47.8% 223.7 224.8 224.0 50.6
Multiple
Choice CC 377942 40.8% 218.9 220.7 220.6 52.4
Enhanced
Both 91297 9.8% 224.6 227.4 224.7 54.9
Enhanced
CC 14908 1.6% 233.0 230.1 229.9 43.1
Totals
927283 223.5 223.5 222.7 51.6
Most change in student achievement will be attributable to changes in the proficiency cut scores.
Preliminary estimates of NY proficiency cut scores relative to the NWEA scale
Grade Mathematics Reading
Current Prior Current Prior
3 209 199 207 198
4 220 207 214 205
5 234 214 220 212
6 233 221 223 216
7 241 224 227 220
8 245 235 229 223
Preliminary estimate of the change in proficiency level on the New York state mathematics assessment.
3936
33
4037
52
6972
82
6975 73
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Prior test
Current Test
Preliminary estimate of the change in proficiency level on the New York state ELAassessment
48 4651 51 53 53
72 7174
71 7369
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Prior test
Current Test
In New York student performance on MAP commonly increased slightly between 2012 and 2013.
Some of this increase may be attributable to
the increased stakes associated with MAP’s
use for APPR in some districts.
MAP Mathematics Grade 4 Means Spring 2012- Spring 2013
Spring 2012 Spring 2013
District 1 218.1 219.6
District 2 219.4 221.8
District 3 210.9 224.8
District 4 215.3 219.8
District 5 218.1 221.3
District 6 201.4 204.6
Estimated 4th grade cut score = 220
Estimated change in MAP Grade 4 estimated proficiency rates in math – based on old and new cut scores
Estimated Proficiency based on 2012 cut scores
Estimated Proficiency based on 2013 cut scores
Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2012 Spring 2013
District 1 89.1% 87.3% 45.5% 54.9%
District 2 87.9% 90.7% 46.6% 56.1%
District 3 95.5% 94.1% 53.2% 65.1%
District 4 82.6% 91.9% 32.6% 53.0%
District 5 85.6% 87.5% 46.3% 58.9%
District 6 36.8% 47.6% 5.5% 13.5%
MAP Reading Grade 4 Means Spring 2012-Spring 2013
Spring 2012 Spring 2013
District 1 213.6 212.3
District 2 211.0 212.8
District 3 215.0 216.4
District 4 212.5 212.2
District 5 209.9 211.0
District 6 198.9 198.1
Estimated 4th grade cut score = 214
Estimated change in MAP Grade 4 estimated proficiency rates in math – based on old and new cut scores
Estimated Proficiency based on 2012 cut scores
Estimated Proficiency based on 2013 cut scores
Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2012 Spring 2013
District 1 89.1% 87.3% 45.5% 54.9%
District 2 87.9% 90.7% 46.6% 56.1%
District 3 95.5% 94.1% 53.2% 65.1%
District 4 82.6% 91.9% 32.6% 53.0%
District 5 85.6% 87.5% 46.3% 58.9%
District 6 36.8% 47.6% 5.5% 13.5%
Mathematics Grade 7 Means Spring 2012- Spring 2013
Spring 2012 Spring 2013
District 1 232.6 234.8
District 2 241.0 238.6
District 3 242.7 243.1
District 4 212.2 212.1
District 5 231.8 233.0
Estimated 7th grade cut score = 241
Estimated change in MAP Grade 4 estimated proficiency rates in math – based on old and new cut scores
Estimated Proficiency based on 2012 cut scores
Estimated Proficiency based on 2013 cut scores
Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2012 Spring 2013
District 1 73.3% 87.6% 27.1% 32.2%
District 2 86.6% 87.4% 58.4% 51.0%
District 3 91.6% 89.8% 58.4% 60.6%
District 4 23.4% 28.2% 5.2% 2.7%
District 5 73.0% 75.6% 28.0% 32.9%
Presenter - John Cronin, Ph.D.
Contacting us:
NWEA Main Number: 503-624-1951
E-mail: [email protected]
The presentation and recommended resources are
available at our SlideShare site:
http://www.slideshare.net/JohnCronin4/colorado-
presentation-final
Thank you for attending