Transcript CMT and CAPT Science - Home

Elizabeth Buttner, Science Education Consultant
Jeff Greig, Assessment Consultant
Connecticut State Department of Education
August 2012
7/7/2015
1

Change is the law of life and those who look only to
the past or present are certain to miss the future. ~
John F. Kennedy

People are always telling me that change is good.
But all that means is that something you didn't
want to happen has happened. ~ Meg Ryan
7/7/2015
2

NRC Framework– key “shifts”

Next Gen Science Standards May 2012 Draft
◦ Format, Feedback and Forecast


Science matters
Enhanced system of assessments
7/7/2015
3
A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas
7/7/2015
4

Phase1: National Research Council develops a
K-12 Framework. Published 7-18-11
◦ Project description - http://nas.edu/BOSE
◦ NRC Framework download:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165


Phase 2: Achieve Inc. coordinates standards
writing; Completion early 2013
NOT called “Common Core”
◦ Standards written first; then states choose to adopt
◦ No federal money to entice adoption
7/7/2015
5





INTEGRATION: Content, Practice and Crosscutting Concepts are
always integrated
ENGINEERING: Engineering Design, Technology and Applications
of Science are integrated within science lessons
PRACTICES: Shift from “inquiry” to “practices” :
◦ More emphasis on higher order thinking (e.g., modeling,
designing, making evidence-based claims, critiquing
arguments);
◦ Less emphasis on experimenting, naming variables, process
skills
COHERENCE:
DEEPER UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION OF CONTENT:
7/7/2015
6
7/7/2015
7

26 Lead States provide guidance; critique early drafts

40 writers from different states (mostly educators)


Spring 2012 – 1st public draft review; feedback to
writers.
Fall 2012 – 2nd public draft review; feedback to
writers.

Feedback will be published

PROJECTED COMPLETION EARLY 2013
7/7/2015
8





Performance expectations linking PRACTICES, CORE IDEAS,
and CROSSCUTTING CONCEPTS
Performance expectations as the “assessable component” of
the Standard
Connections within the grade; to earlier and later grades; to
Common Core ELA and Math
Engineering performance expectations for every grade
New content introduced at different grades, especially in
physical science
7/7/2015
9
Grade and Topic
Performance
Expectations
Framework
Foundations
Directly from
Framework
Science
Connections
The Perf.
Expectation
it supports
Common Core
Connections
7/7/2015
10





Too much content
Lack of clarity
Learning progressions not evident
Some science inaccuracies
Beyond what every high school grad must
know
7/7/2015
11
7/7/2015
12
Now and the future …
7/7/2015
13
TENTATIVE PROJECTIONS: DEPENDENT ON STATE LEADERSHIP,
BUDGET, ESEA REAUTHORIZATION, NCLB WAIVER APPLICATION
STANDARDS:

2004 CT Science Framework, GLCs & GLEs in effect until at least 2013

2013: CT may adopt NGSS
CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION:

Too early to rewrite district curriculum now; wait until NGSS published

2013-15: Districts transition to NGSS
ASSESSMENTS:

CMT and CAPT Science assessments stable through at least March 2015

2013-15: Development of new NGSS assessments

2016: New science assessments? Funding source and developer to be
determined

End-of-Course tests? Task Force studying issues; recommendations due
Jan 2013
7/7/2015
14
Grade 5
Grade 8
Grade 10
Below Basic
100-187
100-201
100-189
Basic
188-212
202-220
190-214
Proficient
213-247
221-243
215-264
Goal
248-299
244-298
265-294
Advanced
300-400
299-400
295-400
Score Range = 100 – 400
Raw scores also reported for content strands and two
dimensions
Refer to CMT and CAPT Science Results handout
7/7/2015
15





Scale scores are equated from year to year within a
generation of the CMT and CAPT.
Raw scores for content strands and dimensions in science are
not fully equated.
Valid comparisons can be made regarding average scale
scores and performance levels within a grade, content area
and generation of the test.
Making comparisons across grades or content areas will
result in invalid interpretations.
Making comparisons using raw scores may result in invalid
interpretations.
7/7/2015
16
“On the CAPT Science, the overall trend shows an improvement in student
performance from 2007 to 2012.”
How would a similar statement about the CMT Grade 5 Science results
(2008-2012) be viewed? What trends are shown?
“In Science, students in CT are performing better at Grade 5 than in grades 8
or 10.”
“On the CMT Grade 5 Science test, students are performing better in the
Content Knowledge dimension than in Scientific Inquiry, Literacy and
Numeracy.”
“On the CMT Grade 5 Science test, students are performing better in Life
Science than in Physical or Earth Science”
How might a school or district interpret how their students are performing on
the content strands or dimensions?
7/7/2015
17
Step 1: Calculate Subject-Specific SPI
SPI (Subject) = (%Below Basic x 0.0) + (%Basic x 0.33) + (%Proficient x 0.67) + (%Goal or
Advanced x 1.0)
Step 2: Calculate Aggregate SPI Across Subjects
SPI for high schools:
SPI = (SPIMathematics + SPIReading + SPIWriting + SPIScience)/4
SPI for elementary or middle schools with grades in which science is tested:
SPI = (SPIMathematics x 0.3)+ (SPIReading x 0.3) + (SPIWriting x 0.3) + (SPIScience x 0.1)
SPI for elementary or middle schools with grades in which science is NOT tested:
SPI = (SPIMathematics + SPIReading + SPIWriting)/3
7/7/2015
18
Science
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Target
CMT
75.9
76.8
77.6
78.5
79.4
80.2
81.1
82.0
88.0
CAPT
70.7
71.9
73.1
74.4
75.6
76.9
78.1
79.3
88.0
7/7/2015
19

Designed as:
◦ Summative, criterion-referenced assessments
◦ Periodic checkpoints of student progress after multiple
years of instruction
◦ Provide “big picture” view of school, district, and state
performance

NOT designed to inform timely curricular and
instructional decisions, diagnose student learning
difficulties or evaluate teacher quality.
7/7/2015
Future unclear…many possibilities:
1.
CT could continue to develop its own state science
assessments; make improvements.
2.
CT could purchase or modify “ready-made” science
assessments from testing contractors.
3.
CT could join an existing or newly-formed science
assessment consortium.
7/7/2015
21
No Child Left Behind Waiver:
 Transition to Next Generation Science Standards
 Inclusion of science assessment results in school and district
accountability
 Development of a more comprehensive assessment system
(end-of-grade and end-of-standard benchmark science
assessments)
PEAC Guidelines:
 Inclusion of results from student assessments in teacher
evaluation
7/7/2015
22
How will the transition to NGSS affect curriculum &
instruction, teacher PD & evaluation and district &
state assessments?
What science assessment needs do districts have?
What district assessment practices are currently in
place to meet these needs?
How do we develop and use a more comprehensive
assessment system to serve multiple purposes?
7/7/2015
23

Elizabeth Buttner, K-8 Science Standards
Phone: 860-713-6849
E-mail: [email protected]

Jeff Greig, CMT/CAPT Science Assessment
Phone: 860-713-6854
E-mail: [email protected]
7/7/2015