Transcript Slide 1

MDE Update:
CCSSM and PARCC Assessment
2013 Making Connections Conference
MS Gulf Coast Coliseum and Convention Center
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Marla Davis, Ph.D., NBCT, Office Director for Mathematics
Office of Curriculum and Instruction
Agenda
• CCSSM Guidance from the MDE (July 2012 – June 2013)
• MDE CCSS High School Mathematics Transition
Task Force
• PARCC Math Assessment Update
• Accountability and Assessment
2
CCSSM Guidance from
the MDE
(July 2012 - June 2013)
3
Suggested Implementation Timeline
2011 - 2012 Grades K-2
2012 - 2013 Grades 3-8
2013 - 2014 Grades 9-12
2014 - 2015 Live Assessments
4
5
CCSSM Guidance from the MDE
July 2012: Grades 9-12 Initial Training (Regional
Training of the Trainers, Face-to-Face)
– Design and structure of the CCSSM
– MS Mathematics Frameworks content strands vs.
CCSSM conceptual categories
– Standards for Mathematical Practice
– Instructional support for particular standards
(A-REI.II, F-BF.1a, and G-SRT.2a)
– PARCC Model Content Frameworks
– Planning at the district level
6
CCSSM Guidance from the MDE
•
October 2012: Successful Integration of the Standards for
Mathematical Practice (SMPs)
– Close Reading
– Instructional support
– Evaluating student work for evidence of the SMP
– Activities, manipulatives, questioning strategies, and
resources for immediate classroom use
•
November 2012: The CCSSM Trilogy
– Reviewed the SMPs, Progression Documents (PDs) and the
PARCC Model Content Frameworks (MCF)
– Designing in-class assessments and activities using the
SMPs, PDs, and the MCF
7
CCSSM Guidance from the MDE
• December 2012: Preparing for the PARCC Math Assessment
(vol. 1)
– PARCC Assessment Design
– Mathematical Task Types (Type I, II, and III)
– Virtual Toolbox (Calculator Policy, Reference Sheet, and
Virtual Manipulatives)
– Instructional Support for the Virtual Toolbox
• January 2013: Administrative Support for the CCSSM
– Tri-State Quality Review Rubric
– Classroom observations
– “Book Studies” using the Progression Documents
8
CCSSM Guidance from the MDE
• February 2013: Frequently Asked Questions from the Field
– Language within individual standards (e.g. “includes”)
– SMP #7 vs. SMP #8
– Algebra I at the 8th grade
– PARCC assessment
– MDE Future Training
• March 2013: Preparing for the PARCC Math Assessment (vol. 2)
– Number of sessions
– Number of items by grade
– Estimated testing time on task
– Assessment/testing “window”
– PARCC timeline for future guidance
9
CCSSM Guidance from the MDE
• April 2013: Evaluating the CCSS for High School
Mathematics
– Linked the Grade 3-8 domains to the HS conceptual
categories
– Demonstrated effective use of the Modeling
conceptual category (using A-REI.11)
– Evaluating student work for evidence of the SMPs
– PARCC Assessment Blueprints/Evidence Tables (new, clean
version)
10
CCSSM Guidance from the MDE
• May 2013: Grades 9-12 Follow-up Training
– Reviewed MDE CCSSM trainings and webinars provided
by the MDE Office of Curriculum and Instruction
– Instructional support for cross-cutting standard (A.REI.4b)
– Instructional support for plus standard (G-SRT.9)
– Suggested next steps at the local level
11
CCSSM Guidance from the MDE
• June 3, 2013: Preparing for the PARCC Math Assessment
(vol. 3)
– provided districts/schools with a template for aligning
all of the resources and documents needed to develop
unit/lesson plans
– assisted participants with developing professional
development and training materials for mathematics
teachers (Grades K-12) during the summer and fall of
2013
12
MDE CCSS High School
Mathematics Transition
Task Force
13
MDE CCSS High School
Mathematics Transition Task Force
• Consisted of 15 select administrators, mathematics teachers,
and IHL/CJC representatives from across the state; as well as
personnel from various MDE offices.
• Charged with the task of making recommendations on the
following topics:
– whether to keep or discontinue current MS courses
beginning with the 2014-15 school year
– Naming the 4th year Common Core course that consists of
the CCSSM plus standards
– Graduation requirements and Carnegie units
– 8th grade Algebra I
14
MDE CCSS High School
Mathematics Transition Task Force
• Recommendations will be submitted to the Office of the
Superintendent and the State Board of Education in the
coming months
• Guidance will be provided to districts once a decision is made
regarding the Task Force’s recommendations
• IHL and CJC representatives will meet Fall 2013 to begin
planning stages of guidance for teacher preparation courses,
entry-level mathematics courses, and admission requirements
15
PARCC Math Assessment
Update
16
Device Capacity: “Rule of Thumb”
School
Type
Minimum
Number of Devices
Recommended
Number of Devices
School with three
tested grades
(K-5, 6-8, 9-12)
One device for every One device per
two students in the student for the
largest tested grade largest tested grade
School with six
tested grades
(K-8)
One device per
One device per
student for the
student for the two
largest tested grade largest tested
grades
17
Testing Window:
Grades 3-11
• Districts will have a maximum of two four-week
windows to administer the Performance Based
Assessments (PBA) and the End-of-Year (EOY)
assessments
• Districts may opt to administer the
assessments in a shorter time span if there is
capacity to do so
18
PARCC Assessment Sessions:
Grades 3-11
English Language Arts (ELA)
PBA
Up to 3 sessions
EOY
Up to 2 sessions
Mathematics
PBA
Up to 2 sessions
EOY
Up to 2 sessions
19
PARCC Assessment Sessions:
Estimated Testing Time on Task
• For Grade 3 students,
what is the estimated time
on task for the 2nd session
of the Math PBA?
________
• For Grade 4 students,
what is the estimated time
on task for the 1st session
of the Math EOY?
________
http://www.parcconline.org/assessment-administration-guidance
• For Grade 5 students,
what is the total estimated
testing time on task?
_________
20
PARCC Assessment Time:
Grades 3-11
• The estimated time-on-task for a typical student
to complete the full battery of PBA and EOY
assessments in ELA and Mathematics is 8-10
hours
• Specific session lengths and totals by grade level
are available online at the PARCC website
• Refined guidance will be shared after field
testing.
21
PARCC Proposed Performance
Level Descriptors
Purpose
• To report the results of assessment(s) used to make
College- and Career-Ready (CCR) determinations
• To report the results of high school end-of-grade
ELA/literacy assessments and end-of-course math
assessments (Grades 9 and 10)
• To report the results of end-of-grade assessments for
Grades 3-8
22
PARCC Proposed Performance
Level Descriptors
• PARCC will report student achievement on the
PARCC assessments using five (5) performance
level descriptors
• No names for the levels have been proposed at
this time.
• Level 4 is the proposed level for earning a CCR
Determination
Taken from http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCCCRDPolicyandPLDs_FINAL.pdf
23
PARCC Proposed Performance
Level Descriptors
Although many current state assessments report student achievement using
three (3) or four (4) performance levels, PARCC will use five (5) levels for a
number of reasons:
• PARCC assessments will include a sufficient number of score points to
support the accurate classification of student performance into five levels
• Five levels will help schools better target assistance to students;
• Five levels will provide states with options for using performance levels with
greater precision in various accountability mechanisms and decisions
• Five levels will provide increased opportunities for students, schools, and
districts to demonstrate growth
Taken from http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCCCRDPolicyandPLDs_FINAL.pdf
24
PARCC Grade Level Evidence Tables
(also known as Assessment Blueprints or Item Specifications)
• Released in April 2013 on the PARCC website.
• Communicate how individual standards will be
assessed on the EOY assessments and PBA/MYA
assessments
• Identify the Standard(s) for Mathematical Practice
that students must demonstrate in their response for
each standard
• Provide implications for instruction and in-class
assessments
25
Evidence Statement Tables:
Types of Evidence Statements
Several types of evidence statements are being used to
describe what a task should be assessing, including:
1. Those using exact standards language
2. Those transparently derived from exact standards language,
e.g., by splitting a content standard
3. Integrative evidence statements that express plausible direct
implications of the standards without going beyond the
standards to create new requirements
4. Sub-claim C & D evidence statements, which put SMP #3, #4,
and #6 as primary with connections to content
26
PARCC Grade Level Evidence Tables
Directions:
• Locate the blue handout: Grade 3 PBA/MYA
and EOY Assessment Evidence Tables. (excerpt)
• Review this document as the facilitator
describes key features.
27
1. Evidence Statements using
Exact Standards Language
(refer to PBA, page 1)
28
2. Evidence Statements
Derived
from
Exact
Standards
(refer to PBA, p. 2)
29
3. Integrative Evidence Statements
An Evidence Statement could be integrated across
• Grade/Course – Example: 3.Int.3 (Integrated across Grade 3)
• Domain – Example: 4.NF.Int.1 (Integrated across the Numbers
and Operations-Fractions domain)
• Cluster - Example: 3.NF.A.Int.1 (Integrated across the first cluster
in the Number and Operations-Fractions domain)
Note: The extension numbers “.1, .2, .3-3” on all “Int”
Evidence Statements are used for numbering and/or
ordering purposes for item developers.
30
3. Integrative Evidence Statements
(refer to EOY, p. 5)
31
3. Integrative Evidence Statements
(refer to EOY, p. 7)
32
4. Sub-claim C and Sub-claim D
Evidence Statements
(refer to PBA, p. 9)
Please note within 3.C.7 and 3.D.2, the Evidence Statements will address on
grade level Reasoning (3.C.7) and Modeling (3.D.2) but will utilize “securely
held (grade 2) content”.
33
Accountability and
Assessment
34
Accountability and Assessment
Students will be assessed based on a terminal Algebra II/Math III
assessment enhanced by two additional performance based tasks
designed to assess securely held knowledge from Algebra
I/Mathematics I, Geometry/Mathematics II, and prior grades (possibly
reaching down into middle school content).
The blueprint for the Algebra II/Math III assessment already includes two
performance based assessment items designed to assess securely held
knowledge by requiring students to apply skills attained in previous high
school math courses (specifically Algebra I/Math I and Geometry/Math II)
by performing modeling and reasoning tasks. The enhanced math
assessment approved by the Governing Board and ACCR will require
students to complete two additional performance based tasks.
35
Accountability and Assessment
For years 1-3 (2014 – 2015; 2015 – 2016; 2016 – 2017) of
operational administration, the CCRD in math will be based on
student scores from the enhanced terminal mathematics
assessment (Algebra II or Math III) only.
In the fourth year (2017 – 2018), after one cohort of students
has taken all three end of course assessments, PARCC (or PARCC
states) will evaluate the data from these exams to determine
whether incorporating student results from the Algebra I/Math I
and Geometry/Math II assessments adds predictive validity to
the CCRD. If predictive validity increases, then PARCC will
determine whether to incorporate scores from earlier EOC
exams into the final CCR determination.
36
Accountability and Assessment
• The Accountability Task Force drafted a State
Accountability and Assessment Transitional
Timeline which was presented to the Board in
April 2013.
• This timeline is currently out for public review.
Note: No flexibility on federal requirements regarding state
assessments is expected prior to the 2014-2015 school term.
37
CCSSM Exemplar Assessment Prototypes
PARCC
http://www.parcconline.org/samples/item-task-prototypes
Smarter Balanced (SBAC)
http://www.ode.state.org.us/serach/page/?id=3747
Illustrative Mathematics (IM)
www.illustrativemathematics.org
Mathematics Assessment Resources Service (MARS)
http://map.mathshell.org/materials/lessons.php
New York City Dept of Education (NYC)
http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/CommonCoreLibrary/TasksUnitsStudentWork
/default.htm
38
CCSSM Resources
Common Core Website
www.corestandards.org
PARCC Assessment Administration Guidance
http://www.parcconline.org/assessment-administration-guidance
PARCC Grade Level Assessment Blueprints and Test Specifications
http://www.parcconline.org/assessment-blueprints-test-specs
Progression Documents for CCSSM
http://math.arizona.edu/~ime/progressions/
PARCC Model Content Frameworks for Mathematics
http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-model-content-frameworks
SEDL CCSSM Support Videos
http://secc.sedl.org/common_core_videos/
39
MDE Resources
Office of Curriculum and Instruction
www.mde.k12.ms.us/ci
MDE iTunes U (archived webinars)
www.mde.k12.ms.us/itunes
MDE Common Core Website
www.mde.k12.ms.us/ccss
CCSS and PARCC training materials
https://districtaccess.mde.k12.ms.us/commoncore/
Curriculum and Instruction Listserv
http://fyt.mde.k12.ms.us/subscribe/subscribe_curriculum.html
40
MDE Contact Information
Office of Curriculum and Instruction
601.359.2586
Office of Accreditation
601.359.3764
Nathan Oakley – Director of Curriculum and Instruction
[email protected]
Dr. Marla Davis – Office Director for Mathematics
[email protected]
41