Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Establishing Performance Standards for PARCC Assessments Initial Discussion PARCC Governing Board Meeting April 3, 2012 1.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Establishing Performance Standards for PARCC Assessments Initial Discussion PARCC Governing Board Meeting April 3, 2012 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 Establishing Performance Standards for PARCC Assessments Initial Discussion PARCC Governing Board Meeting April 3,

2 1.How many performance levels should be established? 2.Should the performance levels include claims about students’ command of prior grade level content as well as current grade level content? 3.What guidance does the GB have for defining College and Career Readiness? 4.At what grade level should the descriptor “on-track for college and career readiness” first appear? 2 Questions for Today’s Meeting

3 1.How many performance levels should be established? 2.Should the performance levels include claims about students’ command of prior grade level content as well as current grade level content? 3.What guidance does the GB have for defining College and Career Readiness? 4.At what grade level should the descriptor “on-track for college and career readiness” first appear? 3 Questions for Today’s Meeting

4 Content standards describe what student should know and be able to do. Performance standards describe how well students must perform in order to achieve a particular level of performance and are comprised of several components – A specified number of performance levels – Names and descriptors for each level – Cut scores Performance level descriptors come in different varieties – Policy descriptors (apply to any subject area) – General subject area descriptors (apply to any grade level) – Specific subject area descriptors for each grade level Cut scores – Threshold scores associated with each performance level – They are based on the PLDs using judgmental -and /ore empirically-based methods 4 Terminology

5 Current Practice in PARCC States Names of the Performance Levels No. of levels Selected States 3 levels (5 states) Advanced - Proficient - Basic (MD & MS) 4 levels (15 States) Advanced – Proficient – Needs Improvement – Warning (MA) Proficient with Distinction – Proficient – Partially Proficient – Substantially Below Proficient (RI) 5 levels (3 states) Advanced – Mastery - Basic - Approaching Basic – Unsatisfactory (LA) Level 1—Level 2- Level 3 – Level 4 - Level 5 (FL) 5

6 Too few levels will lump students with a wide range of abilities into a single category. Conversely, too many levels will result in making finer classifications in student performance than the test can support Ultimately, the number of levels will be a function of the claims to be made and the nature of the information generated by the assessments 6 Number of Levels

7 Performance level descriptors can make claims about – The extent to which students have mastered the content measured (CCSS) – The extent to which students are ready for something (e.g., CCR, next grade level) – The kind of instruction students may need (e.g. intensive intervention, targeted support, differentiated) 7 Types of Claims

8 In making claims about the extent to which students have mastered the content, existing state assessments typically reference content associated with a student’s current grade level This encourages teaching of grade level standards to all students However, the current reality is that many students are unable to demonstrate mastery of grade level content (see NAEP data), and existing performance level descriptors do not indicate what content they have mastered The question for the Governing Board is whether it would like the Leadership Team to explore options to address this issue 8 Claims about Content Mastery

9 One way to address this issue is to provide students with a an opportunity on the summative assessments to demonstrate command of content associated with their prior grade level If desired, the LT will seek advice from the PARCC TAC and other experts on how this can be done without increasing costs or testing time, reducing precision, or delaying the timeline for development. 9 Claims about Content Mastery

10 The definition of CCR, as stated in the NIA is – prepared to succeed in entry level credit bearing courses at institutes of higher education The definition requires further articulation in order to (1) validate a claim in the future that a student is CCR and (2) develop the subject specific PLDs Articulating the definition will require answers to some of the following questions: – Can the claim apply equally to college and careers? – How is success defined? – At what level of probability should the claim predict readiness? 10 Claims about College and Career Readiness

11 We are committed to including a performance level at the high school level indicating CCR. We could also indicate whether students are on track for CCR in earlier grades. If desired, at what grade level would the claim that the a student is on track (not on track) first appear? 11 Claims about being on track for CCR

12 June 2012: Vote to adopt the names and policy descriptors for a specified number of performance levels December 2012: Vote to adopt descriptors for ELA/Literacy and Math in grades 9-11 April 2013 : Vote to adopt descriptors for ELA/Literacy and Math in grades 3-8 Spring 2014: Vote to adopt the methodology PARCC will employ to set cut scores Early Summer 2015: Vote to adopt cut scores 12 Performance Standards GB Voting Schedule

13 1.How many performance levels should be established? 2.Should the performance levels include claims about students’ command of prior grade level content as well as current grade level content? 3.What guidance does the GB have for defining College and Career Readiness? 4.At what grade level should the descriptor “on-track for college and career readiness” first appear? 13 Questions for Today’s Meeting


Download ppt "Establishing Performance Standards for PARCC Assessments Initial Discussion PARCC Governing Board Meeting April 3, 2012 1."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google