Transcript Assessment Update: Georgia’s Changing Assessment Landscape February 2014 Assessment Update • This update pertains to anticipated changes to Georgia’s Student Assessment Program for the future. –

Assessment Update:
Georgia’s Changing Assessment Landscape
February 2014
Assessment Update
• This update pertains to anticipated changes to
Georgia’s Student Assessment Program for the
future.
– As more information and details become
available, we will follow-up to keep everyone
informed.
• Please Note: This update does not pertain to
assessments administered this school year.
Federal Requirements for
High Quality Assessments
• College & Career Ready standards and expectations
• Assessments in grades 3 – 8 and high school
– capable of measuring student growth over the course of
the academic year
– accessible for all students, including SWD and EL
• ELP standards that correspond to CCR standards
• Administer no later than 2014 – 2015
• Annually report college-going and college-credit
accumulation rates for all students and student
subgroups at district and high school levels
A New Assessment System
Comprehensive
– single program, not series of tests (e.g., CRCT; EOCT; WA)
Coherent
– consistent expectations and rigor to position Georgia students to
compete with peers nationally and internationally
– consistent signal about student preparedness for the next level, be it
the next grade, course, or college/career
– consistent signal about student achievement both within system
(across grades and courses) and with external measures (NAEP; PSAT;
SAT; ACT)
Consolidate
– combine reading, language arts, and writing into a single measure to
align to the standards
Coherency – Consistency
Achievement of Georgia Students in Mathematics
2013
•
•
•
•
•
NAEP – Grade 8:
CRCT – Grade 8:
Coordinate Algebra EOCT:
SAT – Class of 2013:
ACT – Class of 2013:
29%
83%
37%
42%
38%
at/above proficient
met/exceeded
met/exceeded
college ready benchmark*
college ready benchmark**
2012
• PSAT – sophomores:
37% on track to be CCR
*SAT data represent 71% of Class of 2013
**ACT data represent 51% of Class of 2013
Coherency – Consistency
Achievement of Georgia Students in Reading
2013
•
•
•
•
•
•
NAEP – Grade 8:
CRCT – Grade 8:
9th Grade Literature EOCT:
American Literature EOCT:
SAT – Class of 2013:
ACT – Class of 2013:
32% at/above proficient
97% met/exceeded
86% met/exceeded
91% met/exceeded
43% college ready benchmark*
43% college ready benchmark**
2012
• PSAT – sophomores:
40% on track to be CCR
*SAT data represent 71% of Class of 2013
**ACT data represent 51% of Class of 2013
Georgia’s New Assessment System
As we begin to build a new assessment system, the
plan is:
 to consolidate reading, language arts, and writing into a single
measure to align to the standards;
 to embed norm-referenced items to provide a national
comparison;
 to share items with other states;
 to align expectations with other external measures to send
consistent signal of how Georgia students are doing compared
to their peers; and
 to involve USG and TCSG in the development to ensure the
assessments signal college and career readiness.
Georgia’s Plan
• To accomplish this plan, Georgia must:
– include a variety of item types – more than just
multiple choice;
– increase expectations for student learning and
achievement; and
– continue to – and accelerate – transition to online
administration
Georgia’s New Assessment System
Guiding principles stipulate the new system must:
 be sufficiently rigorous to ensure Georgia students are well positioned
to compete with other students across the United States and
internationally;
 be intentionally designed across grade levels to send a clear signal of
student progress/growth and preparedness for the next level, be it the
next grade level, course, or college or career;
 be accessible to all students, including those with disabilities or limited
English proficiency, at all achievement levels;
 support and inform educator effectiveness initiatives, ensuring items
and forms are appropriately sensitive to quality instructional practices;
and
 accelerate the transition to online administration, allowing – over
time – for the inclusion of innovative technology-enhanced items.
Our Assessment Landscaping is Changing
• Assessment development is complicated
• Assessment development is a process, not an event
– as such, some components may need to be rolled- out in
stages
• Georgia is transitioning from a set of long-standing,
mature programs
– districts, schools, students, parents, and the public are
familiar with and know what to expect
• This transition provides Georgia with an opportunity
– however, as with any change, there will be periods of
uncertainty and discomfort
Knowns and Partial Knowns
Knowns
• New program
‒
‒
‒
•
•
•
•
•
end of grade/end of course
will include language arts,
mathematics, science, social studies
will no longer be solely multiplechoice
IT requirements
Online transition over time
Accommodations
CRCT-M discontinued
Local scanning discontinued
•
open-ended items require hand
scoring
• Growth (SGPs) will continue
• Georgia educators will be involved
in test design/development
Partial Knowns
•
•
•
•
Test blueprint
Testing windows
Administration protocols
Reporting timelines
‒
‒
scores will be delayed in year 1 due to
technical work and standard setting
requirement to hand-score some
items may impact ability to report as
quickly as we have in the past
• Timing of ancillary material
availability
• Impact of the review of content
standards
• Calculator policy specifics
Resources to Move Us Forward
Resources
• Even with many of the specifics of the new
assessment system unknown at this time,
there are many, many resources that will
prepare educators and students:
– Content standards
• frameworks, formative lessons, PARCC evidence statements
– Sample items: PARCC; SBAC; Georgia OAS; other
states (KY, NY); NAEP released items
– CRCT Readiness Indicators
– Lexiles
CRCT Readiness Indicators:
Reading, ELA, Mathematics
 Indicators were designed to send a signal to
stakeholders about where students are relative to
where they need to be headed
 Indicators provide feedback about our preparedness
for the increase in rigor and expectation for student
achievement that is on the horizon
 Feedback consists of the percent of students who
achieved each readiness level – state , district, and
school levels – for instructional planning purposes
While we cannot guarantee that students who
achieve the On-Track level will be proficient on the
new assessment, we do know they will be better
prepared and positioned to be successful.
CRCT Readiness Indicators:
Reading, ELA, Mathematics
For instructional planning and decision making:
• Needs Additional Support: The student has
demonstrated that his or her command of the
knowledge and skills described in the CCGPS warrants
additional instructional supports.
• On Track: The student has demonstrated that his or her
command of the knowledge and skills described in the
CCGPS is sufficient; the student is on track for success at
the next level.
• Commendable: The student has demonstrated that his
or her command of the knowledge and skills described
in the CCGPS is exemplary.
CRCT Readiness Indicators:
Reading, ELA, Mathematics
• For accountability purposes - at the student (promotion/retention),
school, district, and state levels (CCRPI) - we will continue to use 800 and
850 for the 2013-2014 school year.
• It is strongly advised, however, that schools use the scale scores
associated with the Readiness Indicators as targets - we need to be
working actively to get students to these levels because we believe the
new tests will be more in line with those expectations than the 800 /
850.
• The readiness indicators will be provided during the interim as additional
feedback to districts and schools so they have "better" information
about where students are in relation to where they need to be in 20142015 (with the increased rigor).
 Bottom line: shooting for 800 isn't going to be sufficient in future years.
16
Lexiles
Lexiles
Lexiles
Lexiles with
CRCT Readiness Indicators
Lexiles
Common Core Stretch Text –
Lower Limit
Common Core Stretch Text –
Upper Limit
Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
520
740
830
925
970
1010
820
940
1010
1070
1120
1185
On Track
625
775
845
930
970
1070
Commendable
890
990
1085
1155
1210
1265
Reader – Lower Limit
330
445
565
665
735
805
Reader – Upper Limit
700
810
910
1000
1065
1100
2013 Median
790
860
940
1070
1095
1210
Formative Assessment Initiatives
Bringing a Balanced Assessment Focus to the Classroom
Statewide launch
in summer 2013
1600 new
items loaded
Formative
Item Bank
Assessment
Literacy
Professional
Learning
Benchmark
Assessments
Phase I available
February 2014; Phase
II pilot in winter 2014
Key Findings from Pilots of Formative
Open-Ended Items
• Overall performance shortfalls
– Students are not familiar with these types of items
• Many respond “dnk” – as in ‘do not know’
• Don’t know how to approach the items or how to organize
(show) their responses/answers
– Don’t seem to understand the need to “show” their work,
detail their thoughts, rationales, cite evidence to support
their answer or claim
• Tendency is to cite answer only – as if they were multiple-choice
items
– Don’t read careful and answer all parts
– Didn’t answer all parts of questions or label appropriately
Overall ELA Phase I Pilot Summary Data
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 - 10
11 - 12
Number and Percent of Students Achieving Each Score Point
Total student
N/ %
0
1
2
3
4
475
1613
713
202
45
3048
15.60%
52.90%
23.40%
6.60%
1.50%
100%
323
1518
814
199
83
2937
11.00%
51.70%
27.70%
6.80%
2.80%
100%
367
1100
901
518
125
3011
12.20%
36.50%
29.90%
17.20%
4.20%
100%
155
960
811
418
111
2455
6.30%
39.10%
33.00%
17.00%
4.50%
100%
218
1387
1275
617
146
3643
6.00%
38.10%
35.00%
16.90%
4.00%
100%
264
1140
1029
338
89
2860
9.20%
39.90%
36.00%
11.80%
3.10%
100%
175
1016
783
361
81
2416
7.20%
42.10%
32.40%
14.90%
3.40%
100%
376
1018
763
196
46
2399
15.70%
42.40%
31.80%
8.20%
1.90%
100%
Overall ELA Phase II Pilot Summary Data
Number and Percent of Students Achieving
Each Score Point
1
2
3
4
Total Student N/
%
174
26
2881
26.45%
6.04%
0.90%
100%
1145
765
168
63
3047
29.73%
37.58%
25.11%
5.51%
2.07%
100%
839
948
1294
537
183
3801
22.07%
24.94%
34.04%
14.13%
4.81%
100%
626
1467
1028
408
86
3615
17.32%
40.58%
28.44%
11.29%
2.38%
100%
695
1002
1035
515
140
3387
20.52%
29.58%
30.56%
15.21%
4.13%
100%
1116
1534
827
391
80
3948
28.27%
38.86%
20.95%
9.90%
2.03%
100%
1262
1816
559
106
9
3752
33.64%
48.40%
14.90%
2.83%
0.24%
100%
739
1389
1175
388
131
3822
19.34%
36.34%
30.74%
10.15%
3.43%
100%
Grade
0
3
812
1107
762
28.18%
38.42%
906
4
5
6
7
8
9 - 10
11 - 12
Overall Mathematics Phase I Pilot
Summary Data
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
9-10
11-12
Number and Percent of Students Achieving Each Score Point
Total student
N/ %
0
1
2
3
4
771
667
373
81
36
1928
40.00%
34.60%
19.30%
4.20%
1.90%
100%
795
800
360
87
58
2100
37.90%
38.10%
17.10%
4.10%
2.80%
100%
548
513
252
124
44
1481
37.00%
34.60%
17.00%
8.40%
3.00%
100%
927
768
269
65
14
2043
45.40%
37.60%
13.20%
3.20%
0.70%
100%
896
632
243
62
11
1844
48.60%
34.30%
13.20%
3.40%
0.60%
100%
984
791
314
100
51
2240
43.90%
35.30%
14.00%
4.50%
2.30%
100%
798
697
186
45
27
1753
45.50%
39.80%
10.60%
2.60%
1.50%
100%
690
602
178
63
9
1542
44.70%
39.00%
11.50%
4.10%
0.60%
100%
Overall Mathematics Phase II Pilot
Summary Data
Number and Percent of Students Achieving
Each Score Point
Grade
0
1
2
3
4
Total Student
N/%
3
1378
1152
539
121
47
3237
42.57%
35.59%
16.65%
3.74%
1.45%
100%
1323
1264
325
83
25
3020
43.81%
41.85%
10.76%
2.75%
0.83%
100%
1351
1049
391
64
15
2870
47.07%
36.55%
13.62%
2.23%
0.52%
100%
1579
1171
370
135
53
3308
47.73%
35.40%
11.19%
4.08%
1.60%
100%
1602
856
219
72
36
2785
57.52%
30.74%
7.86%
2.59%
1.29%
100%
1529
1049
619
217
88
3502
43.66%
29.95%
17.68%
6.20%
2.51%
100%
2570
1435
299
59
23
4386
58.60%
32.72%
6.82%
1.35%
0.52%
100%
4
5
6
7
8
9 - 12
Benchmark Assessment
Implementation Schedule
Phase I
Fall 2013 pilot
Available Winter 2014
• ELA
– Grades 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8,
and 10
• Mathematics
– Grades 1, 2, 3, and
Coordinate Algebra
• U.S. History
Phase II
Winter 2014 pilot
Available Fall 2014
• ELA
– Grades 4, 5, 9, and 11
• Mathematics
– Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
Analytic Geometry, and
Advanced Algebra
• Biology
FIP Learning Modules
1. Introduction to Formative Instructional Practices
2. Clear Learning Targets
3. Collecting and Documenting Evidence of Student Learning
4. Analyzing Evidence and Providing Effective Feedback
5. Student Ownership of Learning: Peer Feedback,
Self-Assessment, and More
6. Leading Formative Instructional Practices (for district
and/or school leaders)
7. Coaching Formative Instructional Practices (for instructional
coaches and/or teacher leaders)
NAEP Item Tool
Workshops Available:
Bobbie Bable, NAEP State Coordinator
(404.657.6168; [email protected])29
Assessment Update
• In closing – as a reminder:
– This update pertains to anticipated changes to
Georgia’s Student Assessment Program for the
future.
• As more information and details become available, we
will follow-up to keep everyone informed.
– Please Note: This update does not pertain to
assessments administered this school year.