Presentation on theme: "Assessment Update: Georgia’s Changing Assessment Landscape February 2014 To access the recording, use this link: https://sas.elluminate.com/mr.jnlp?suid=M.F00A03167C7DCC4F."— Presentation transcript:
Assessment Update: Georgia’s Changing Assessment Landscape February 2014 To access the recording, use this link: https://sas.elluminate.com/mr.jnlp?suid=M.F00A03167C7DCC4F C2E0F30EBEFC4B&sid=
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: 29% at/above proficient CRCT – Grade 8:83% met/exceeded Coordinate Algebra EOCT: 37% met/exceeded SAT – Class of 2013:42% college ready benchmark * ACT – Class of 2013:38% 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: 32% at/above proficient CRCT – Grade 8:97% met/exceeded 9 th Grade Literature EOCT: 86% met/exceeded American Literature EOCT:91% met/exceeded SAT – Class of 2013:43% college ready benchmark * ACT – Class of 2013:43% 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 multiple- choice 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 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 (with the increased rigor). Bottom line: shooting for 800 isn't going to be sufficient in future years. 16
Lexiles with CRCT Readiness Indicators Lexiles Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Common Core Stretch Text – Lower Limit Common Core Stretch Text – Upper Limit On Track Commendable Reader – Lower Limit Reader – Upper Limit Median
Formative Assessment Initiatives Bringing a Balanced Assessment Focus to the Classroom Assessment Literacy Professional Learning Benchmark Assessments Formative Item Bank 1600 new items loaded Statewide launch in summer 2013 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 Number and Percent of Students Achieving Each Score Point Total student N/ % %52.90%23.40%6.60%1.50%100% %51.70%27.70%6.80%2.80%100% %36.50%29.90%17.20%4.20%100% %39.10%33.00%17.00%4.50%100% %38.10%35.00%16.90%4.00%100% %39.90%36.00%11.80%3.10%100% %42.10%32.40%14.90%3.40%100% %42.40%31.80%8.20%1.90%100%
Overall ELA Phase II Pilot Summary Data Grade Number and Percent of Students Achieving Each Score Point Total Student N/ % %38.42%26.45%6.04%0.90%100% %37.58%25.11%5.51%2.07%100% %24.94%34.04%14.13%4.81%100% %40.58%28.44%11.29%2.38%100% %29.58%30.56%15.21%4.13%100% %38.86%20.95%9.90%2.03%100% %48.40%14.90%2.83%0.24%100% %36.34%30.74%10.15%3.43%100%
Overall Mathematics Phase I Pilot Summary Data Grade Number and Percent of Students Achieving Each Score PointTotal student N/ % %34.60%19.30%4.20%1.90%100% %38.10%17.10%4.10%2.80%100% %34.60%17.00%8.40%3.00%100% %37.60%13.20%3.20%0.70%100% %34.30%13.20%3.40%0.60%100% %35.30%14.00%4.50%2.30%100% %39.80%10.60%2.60%1.50%100% %39.00%11.50%4.10%0.60%100%
Overall Mathematics Phase II Pilot Summary Data Grade Number and Percent of Students Achieving Each Score Point Total Student N / % %35.59%16.65%3.74%1.45%100% %41.85%10.76%2.75%0.83%100% %36.55%13.62%2.23%0.52%100% %35.40%11.19%4.08%1.60%100% %30.74%7.86%2.59%1.29%100% %29.95%17.68%6.20%2.51%100% %32.72%6.82%1.35%0.52%100%
ELA – Grades 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10 Mathematics – Grades 1, 2, 3, and Coordinate Algebra U.S. History ELA – Grades 4, 5, 9, and 11 Mathematics – Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Analytic Geometry, and Advanced Algebra Biology Benchmark Assessment Implementation Schedule Phase I Fall 2013 pilot Available Winter 2014 Phase II Winter 2014 pilot Available Fall 2014
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)
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.