Assessment and Accountability in Michigan 2005-2006 and Beyond Edward Roeber

1. Assessment and Accountability in Michigan 2005-2006 and Beyond Edward Roeber Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability

2. Guiding Principles • Predictable - Advance notice/warning • Reliable - Redundancy in key systems • Stable - Change is minimized • Input - Advisory committees and other mechanisms for educator input • Accurate - Trustworthiness of data

3. Elementary and Middle School • Fall testing (October 3-21, 2005) • English Language Arts and Mathematics in grade 3-8 • Science in grades 5 and 8 • Social Studies in grades 6 and 9

4. Mathematics Tests • Each test is comprised of five components: • Core assessment (up to 24 GLCE’s) • Extended core (other GLCE’s at each level) • Future core (GLCE’s formerly at higher grade levels) • Replacement items (to replace the above) • Linking items (from higher/lower grade) • Each test will take students about 2 hours

5. Composition of the Math Tests

6. Mathematics Reports • Core GLCE’s, Extended Core and Future Core • Individual student - test items, strand and total score, and level of performance • Parent Reports • Classroom Reports • School and District - item analysis by GLCE, number correct on each GLCE, percent of students at each level of performance • Replacement and Linking items - not reported

7. English Language Arts Design • Continue use of authentic texts • Increase number of texts and test items • Maximum total number of words per grade-level test pre-set • Discontinue use of single theme across entire ELA assessment; use theme for one pair of passages • Second, shorter Writing item and MC items added • Sections administered in any order

8. Total Length of Reading Passages

9. ELA Assessments Grades 3-8 Reading

10. ELA Assessments Grades 3-8 Writing

11. English Language Arts Test Reports • Reports by strand, not GLCE (the same GLCE’s may not be assessed each year) • Reading, Writing, and English Language Arts reported separately • Core GLCE’s, Extended Core and Future Core • Individual student - test items, strand and total score, and level of performance • Parent Reports • Classroom Reports • School and District - item analysis by GLCE, number correct on each GLCE, percent of students at each level of performance

12. Science and Social Studies • Standards and Benchmarks are being “unpacked” in Science • Science test design to be used yet to be finalized • GLCE’s have been created in Social Studies • Core and matrix sampling design being considered for Social Studies

13. New Item Development Plans • MEAP plans to return to Michigan teacher-developed test items - previously used in the MEAP “old days” • This will assure that MEAP assessments are relevant to our schools • Will provide a valuable of professional development opportunity for Michigan educators • Will use Michigan’s professional subject-matter groups to assist the item development projects

14. New High School Assessment Design • Grade 10: College entrance readiness test • Grades 11 and 12: Michigan Merit Examination • College entrance tests - ELA and Mathematics • Science - College entrance test or Michigan-developed • Social Studies - Michigan-developed • Assessment Administration • Grade 10 - Schedule locally determined • Grades 11 and 12 - Fall (November) Spring (March) • Two days set by State • Day 1 College entrance tests • Day 2 Michigan-developed tests

15. New High School Assessment Design • 2004-2005 • Fall - Completed and reports on the way • Spring - MEAP HST (mid-March to mid-April) • 2005-2006 • Fall - MEAP HST (grades 10, 11, 12) • Spring - MEAP HST plus statistical linking to college entrance test (grade 11 only) • Small sample (several thousand students) participate • Scale college-entrance tests and state-developed tests together to create the Michigan Merit Examination (MME) • Set standards on MME equivalent to current MEAP HST passing scores

16. New High School Assessment Design • 2006-2007 • Grade 10 - use PLAN or PSAT for dual enrollment • Local district selects test; state sets qualification score(s) • Student or school district pays the testing cost (no state reimbursement) • Grade 11 - Offer MME (ACT or SAT plus Science and Social Studies) in the Spring for Merit Award • Grade 12 - Offer MEAP HST to complete Merit Award (one year only) OR MME (ACT or SAT plus Science and Social Studies)

17. New High School Assessment Design • 2007-08 • Grade 10 - use PLAN or PSAT for dual enrollment • Local district selects test; state sets qualification score(s) • Student or school district pays the testing cost (no state reimbursement) • Grade 11 - Offer MME (ACT or SAT plus Science and Social Studies) in the Spring for Merit Award • Grade 12 - Offer MME (ACT or SAT plus Science and Social Studies) in the Fall and Spring • Students get one free (state-paid) re-take • Students in poverty may receive one re-take on ACT/SAT from those vendors

18. Merit Award • Now through 2005-06 • MEAP ELA, M, and S at grade 7 OR grade 8 ($500) • HST ELA, M, S at grades 10, 11 or 12 ($2,500) • 2006-2007 • MEAP ELA, M, and S at grades 7 AND 8 ($500) • Michigan Merit Examination ELA, M, S, and SS (?) • MEAP HST ELA, M, and S (grade 12 ONLY) • 2007-2008 and Beyond • MEAP ELA, M, and S at grades 7 AND 8 ($500) • Michigan Merit Examination ELA, M, S, and SS (?)

19. English Language Learners • Two types of assessments required • English language proficiency assessment (ELPA) starting in 2005-2006 • Annually while in program plus two more years • Reading, writing, listening, speaking, and comprehension • MEAP and Michigan Merit Examination (MME) • No ELA tests and Mathematics tested but does not count in first year in the United States if ELPA given • Second year and beyond - MEAP or MME with accommodations (native language if necessary) • Assessed in English after three years • Implications for migrant students

20. How ELL’s Might Participate in Academic Assessments • Native language versions • Live oral translations of tests • Taped oral translations of tests • Streamlined English-version tests • Side-by-side translations • Other?

21. Assessment of Students with Disabilities • Administer MI-Access at roughly same times as MEAP (fall, winter, and spring this year; fall and spring in the future) • MI-Access - Interim Participation and MI-Access - Supported Independence • MI-Access - Functional Independence • Continue development work and pilot-testing on MI-Access Functional Independence for the future

22. Assessment of Students with Disabilities • Examine the MI-Access for higher participation of students in alternate assessments: • Michigan participation rate is about 3+% • Federal cap was 1% who can be reported with “alternate” achievement standards as “proficient” • New added level is an additional 2% with “modified” achievement standards as “proficient” for students with “persistent academic disabilities” • Exception from 1% and 2% caps are possible, but may not be granted - at the state or district levels.

23. Assessment of Students with Disabilities • Determine how students above will be reported at the state & district levels for NCLB AYP. • Last year, top 1% placed in proficient category • This year, bottom 1% counted as proficient based on alternate achievement standards • Possibly, 2% more place in proficient category based on modified achievement standards • Federal guidance not yet available • Use of non-standard MEAP accommodations equals non-proficiency and non-participation.

24. Assessment of Students with Disabilities • Assessment development needed • Complete the pilot testing of the MI-Access Functional Independence • New MI-Access - Functional Independence assessment measures • Science • Social Studies? • Redevelop MI-Access Participation and Support Independence assessments • Create direct student measures • Based on extended GLCE’s

25. Education YES! • School Performance Indicators (33 points) • Through 2004-2005, use existing Indicators • New Indicators proposed for use • MEAP measures (67 points) • Status • Change • Growth (in 2006-2007) • Weighting in Education YES! may or may not change • Annual reports before following school year

26. Measuring “Growth” • Reasons for reporting growth • A year of growth for a year in school …. • Accountability - teacher, school, and/or district • Educator evaluation - rewards and sanctions • Sample of methods • Vertical equating - place all items on the same scale • Fix scores at levels of performance at grades currently assessed and extrapolate/interpolate standards for other grades • Pair-wise links (e.g., grade 3 to 4, grade 4 to 5, etc.)

27. Challenges in Measuring Growth • Different GLCE’s measured at each grade level - no overlap of content • Concepts differ substantially from grades 3 to 8 • Not all strands measured at each grade level • No items used at two or more grade levels (hence, the linking items from upper and lower grade levels embedded in MEAP tests)

28. Proposed School Performance Indicators • New indicators focused totally on effective school improvement and performance, based on • Research • Policy • Practice • Revisions developed by small group of school improvement facilitators

29. Proposed School Performance Indicators • I. Leadership • A. Instructional Leadership • B. Operational/Resource Management • C. Distributed Leadership • II. Teaching and Learning • A. Curriculum • B. Instruction • C. Assessment • III. Personnel and Professional Development • A. Personnel Qualifications • B. Professional Development

30. Proposed School Performance Indicators • IV. School and Community Relations • A. Parent/Family Involvement • B. Community Involvement • V. Data Knowledge Management • A. Data Management • B. Knowledge Management

31. Tentative Schedule of Activities • School Improvement Framework presented to State Board of Education (for review) in February, 2005 • Field review - January through March • Develop measures for each indicator - January through April • Pilot test indicator measures - May? • Revise indicator measures - June-July • Prepare for statewide data collection - July through September • Collect indicator data - October through November • Analyze indicator results • Report Education YES! data January or February

32. For Questions and Comments • Dr. Edward Roeber Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment & Accountability P.O. Box 30008 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373-0739 voice RoeberE@michigan.gov