Common core state standards
Download
1 / 47

COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 164 Views
  • Uploaded on

COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS. Assessments based on the Common Core State Standards Vince Dean, Ph.D. Office of Educational Assessment & Accountability . Race to the Top Assessment Competition. Assessments based on the Common Core State Standards RTTT Assessment Competition

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS' - Mia_John


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Common core state standards l.jpg

COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS

Assessments based on the Common Core State Standards

Vince Dean, Ph.D.

Office of Educational Assessment & Accountability


Race to the top assessment competition l.jpg
Race to the Top Assessment Competition

Assessments based on the Common Core State Standards

  • RTTT Assessment Competition

    • 350 million total

    • 320 million for at least 3-8 and one H.S. grade

    • 30 million for H.S. solution, likely end-of-course

  • Alternate Assessments based on Alternate Achievement Standards Grant Competition

  • English Language Proficiency Grant Competition (next federal fiscal year)


Race to the top assessment competition3 l.jpg
Race to the Top Assessment Competition

Assessment Consortia

  • Development of an infrastructure and content for a common assessment in measuring CCSS in English Language Arts and Mathematics

    Two consortia

  • SMARTER/Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)

  • Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC)


Race to the top assessment competition4 l.jpg
Race to the Top Assessment Competition

U.S. Education Department Requirements

Measure the full breadth of the Common Core State Standards

Extend the range of high quality measurement in both directions

Assessments operational by 2014-15

Consortia must offer an online version

Must take advantage of technology for reporting speed and be instructionally relevant


Race to the top assessment competition5 l.jpg
Race to the Top Assessment Competition

The consortia:

  • SMARTER/Balanced

    • 31 states

    • 17 governing states

    • CAT beginning in 2014-2015

  • PARCC

    • 26 states

    • 11 governing states

    • CBT beginning in 2014-15


Introduction to the smarter balanced assessment consortium sbac l.jpg

Introduction to theSMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium(SBAC)



Smarter balanced assessment consortium l.jpg
Smarter BalancedAssessment Consortium


Theory of action goal l.jpg
Theory of ActionGoal

To ensure that all students leave high school prepared for postsecondary success in college or a career through increased student learning and improved teaching


Theory of action l.jpg
Theory of Action

SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium shaped by the following principles:

1. Integrated system

2. Evidence of student performance

3. Teachers integrally involved

4. State-led, transparent and inclusive

governance structure


Theory of action12 l.jpg
Theory of Action

SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium shaped by the following principles:

5. Continuously improve teaching and learning

6. Useful information on multiple measures

7. Design and implementation adhere to established professional standards


Theory of action13 l.jpg
Theory of Action

Creating a policy environment that supports:

  • innovation systems,

  • high expectations and

  • increased opportunities for students

    Aligned to the Common Core Standards:

  • clearly defined college and career expectations,

  • learning progressions

  • content/curricular frameworks,

  • test maps, and

  • instructional processes


Theory of action14 l.jpg
Theory of Action

SBAC policies and standards are effectively communicated to districts and schools:

Multi-media communications plan

Score reports


Sbac specific priorities l.jpg
SBAC Specific Priorities

Ensure all students have access to the technology needed to participate in each component (summative, interim/benchmark, formative)

Support research on how to use technology to increase access for all students, in particular those needing accommodations


Sbac specific priorities16 l.jpg
SBAC Specific Priorities

Use technology to efficiently deliver training, resources, reports and data; social networks for teachers to develop and disseminate effective CCSS curriculum and instructional tools

Create innovative item types that utilize technology and represent real-world contexts


Sbac specific priorities17 l.jpg
SBAC Specific Priorities

Use Computer Adaptive Testing engine to maximize accuracy for individual students across the CCSS

Standardized accommodations policy and administration practices across states to ensure comparability



Sbac assessment design proposal19 l.jpg
SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

Summative Assessment

Measure full range of CCSS

Computer Adaptive Testing for precision

Timely results

Engage Institutions of Higher Education to ensure achievement standards reflect college and career readiness

Scale scores help inform growth model


Sbac assessment design proposal20 l.jpg
SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

Interim Benchmark Assessment

Allow for finer grain of measurement (e.g., end of unit)

Inform teachers if students on track to be proficient on summative assessments

Multiple opportunities for students to participate

Scale scores help inform growth model


Sbac assessment design proposal21 l.jpg
SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

Formative Assessment

Repository of tools available to teachers to support quick adjustment and differentiated instruction

Help define student performance along the CCSS learning progressions

Concrete strategies for immediate feedback loops


Sbac assessment design proposal22 l.jpg
SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

Teacher Engagement

Integral role in developing test maps for each grade and content area

Item writing, specifications, reviewing, and range-finding for all test types

Teacher-moderated scoring of performance events to inform professional development


Technology enhanced item l.jpg
Technology Enhanced Item

Prototype items courtesy of the Minnesota and Utah Departments of Education


Technology enhanced item27 l.jpg
Technology Enhanced Item

Minnesota Science Item


Sbac assessment design proposal28 l.jpg
SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

Assessment window vs. single day administration

Multiple opportunities to assess

Quick results available to support instruction

Emphasis on problem-solving and critical thinking


Dynamic learning maps alternate assessment consortium l.jpg

Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Consortium

Alternate Assessments Based on the Common Core State Standards


State participants l.jpg
State Participants

Iowa

Kansas

Michigan

Mississippi

Missouri

New Jersey

North Carolina

Oklahoma

Utah

West Virginia

Wisconsin


Other participants l.jpg
Other Participants

University of Kansas

  • Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation

  • Center for Research Methods and Data Analysis

  • Center for Research on Learning

  • Special Education Department

AbleLink Technologies

The ARC

The Center for Literacy and Disability Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Edvantia


Feature overview l.jpg
Feature Overview

Learning maps

Dynamic assessment

Inclusion of instructionally relevant tasks

Instructionally embedded and stand-alone versions

Advanced feedback and reporting systems (including growth modeling)

Technology platform

Universal design

Evidence centered design including cognitive labs

Scaffolding

Development of over 14,000 tasks/items

Professional development


Major changes l.jpg
Major Changes

Include

Moving Online

Scoring

Reporting


Moving to online assessment l.jpg
Moving to Online Assessment

Survey of state testing directors (+D.C.)

  • 41 responses

  • 5 of 41 states have no CBT initiatives

  • 36 of 41 states have current CBT initiatives, including:

    • Operational online assessment

    • Pilot online assessment

    • Plans for moving online


Moving to online assessment35 l.jpg
Moving to Online Assessment

Survey of state testing directors (+D.C.)

  • Of 36 states with some initiative

    • 21 states currently administer large-scale general populations assessments online

    • 9 states have plans to begin (or expand) online administration of large-scale general populations assessments

    • 8 states currently administer special populations assessments online

    • 2 states have plans to begin (or expand) online administration of special populations assessments


Moving to online assessment36 l.jpg
Moving to Online Assessment

Survey of state testing directors (+D.C.)

  • Of 36 states with some initiative

    • 5 states currently use Artificial Intelligence (AI) scoring of constructed response items

    • 4 states currently use Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) technology for general populations assessment

    • 0 states currently use CAT technology for special populations assessment

    • 7 states offer online interim/benchmark assessments

    • 7 states offer online item banks accessible to teachers for creating “formative”/interim/benchmark assessments tailored to unique curricular units


Online assessment the michigan stage l.jpg
Online Assessment -The Michigan Stage

Michigan’s online initiatives

  • Pilot in 2006

  • Pilot in 2011 (English Language Proficiency)

  • Pilot in 2012 (Alternate Assessments)

  • Pilots leading up to operational adoption of SMARTER/Balanced Assessment Consortium products in 2014/15

  • Constitutional amendment barring unfunded mandates


Scoring l.jpg
Scoring

Maximize objective scoring by

  • Automated scoring of objective items

  • AI scoring of extended written response items, technology enhanced items, and performance tasks wherever possible

  • Distributed hand-scoring of tasks not scorable using AI


Scoring as professional development l.jpg
Scoring as Professional Development

Human scorers taken from ranks of teachers

  • Online training on hand-scoring

  • Online certification as a hand-scorer

  • Online monitoring of rater performance

  • Validation hand-scoring of samples of AI-scored tasks

    Our experience with teacher-led scoring and rangefinding indicates that it is some of the best professional development that we provide to educators


Reporting l.jpg
Reporting

Current reports can be difficult to read and poorly used

Need online reporting of all scores for all stakeholders, including:

  • Policymakers (aggregate)

  • Administrators (aggregate and individual)

  • Teachers (aggregate and individual)

  • Parents (aggregate and individual)

  • Students (individual)


Reporting portal l.jpg
Reporting Portal

Reporting portal needs to be able to integrate reports from classroom metrics all the way to large-scale secure assessment metrics


Challenges l.jpg
Challenges

LEA capacity for online assessment

Bandwidth issues, especially in rural areas

Minnesota challenge

Utah example

USED working with FCC on National Broadband Initiative


Challenges43 l.jpg
Challenges

Item development for computer-adaptive testing

Field-testing

Item types

Demographic coverage

AI Scoring validation


Challenges44 l.jpg
Challenges

Psychometrics

Comparability across years and student populations

Equating from year to year

Accommodated versions for SWD and ELL

Contrast, read aloud, enlarged print

Braille

All challenges will be resolved by 2014-15


Timeline for transition l.jpg
Timeline for Transition

2010-2011

Getting to know the CCSS/Alignment work

2010 MEAP/2011MME remain the same

State focus will be on technical assistance

2011-2012

Implementation of CCSS in classrooms

2011 MEAP/2012 MME remain the same

State focus will be on instruction/professional development


Timeline for transition46 l.jpg
Timeline for Transition

2012-2013

2012 MEAP minimally modified as necessary to reflect the CCSS

2013 MME remains the same

State focus will be on student learning

2013-2014

2013 MEAP based on 2012 model

2014 MME remains the same

State focus will be on preparing for new assessments from SMARTER Consortium

2014-2015

Full implementation - Instruction and assessment based on CCSS


Contact information l.jpg
Contact Information

  • Office of Educational Assessment & Accountability

    • www.michigan.gov/oeaa

  • SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium

    • http://smarter.k12partners.org/

DRAFT


ad