NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image. UNDERSTANDING THE CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND PROGRESS (CAASPP) Presented to the SHUSD Parents September 21, 2015

NUTS AND BOLTS OF CAASPP  How this test is made to show student growth year to year and individualized instructional needs?

HOW THE TEST IS MADE AND WHAT IT MEASURES

Assesses Desired Skills Problem Solving Perseverance Application of Knowledge Listening Reading Complex Texts Research

Philosophy of Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) “Computer adaptive testing (CAT) holds the potential for more customized assessment with test questions that are tailored to the students’ ability levels, and identification of students’ skills and weaknesses using fewer questions and requiring less testing time.” Shorr, P. W. (2002, Spring). A look at tools for assessment and accountability. Administrator Magazine.

Computer Adaptive Testing: Behind the Scenes Uses an algorithm to select questions based on a student’s responses, to score responses, and to iteratively estimate the student’s performance Final scale scores are based on item pattern scoring The test continues until the test content outlined in the grade level blueprint is covered.

How Does a CAT Work? Example: A Student of Average Ability Ability Medium Med-Low Low Very Low Med-High High Very Hig.97 h Test Questions Answers (R/W) R R R W R W W W W R R R Expanded

Properties of the Reporting Scale  Resulting ability estimates are based on the specific test questions that a student answered, NOT the total number of items answered correctly.  Scores are on a vertical scale  Expressed on a single continuum for a content area  Allows users to describe student growth over time across grade levels  For each grade level and content area, there is a separate scale score range. If they had the same score but are in different grades it is not equal since they are only tested on their grade level standards

READING A STUDENT SCORE REPORT

Overall Scores – 2 Areas, 4 Levels  English Language Arts – Mathematics Nearly Met the Standard Exceeded the Standard Met the Standard Has Not Met the Standard

Additional Scores – 3 levels, 8 topics  English Language Arts 1.Reading 2.Writing 3.Speaking & Listening 4.Research/Inquiry  Mathematics 1. Concepts & Procedures 2. Problem Solving 3. Communicating Reasoning 4. Modeling & Data Analysis Below Standard Above Standard At/Near Standard Above Standard At/Near Standard Below Standard

Elements of the Student Score Report Front Page Back Page

4 4 Elements of the Student Score Report Front Page

Elements of the Student Score Report 6 6 Back Page Science Grades 5, 8, &

Elements of the Student Score Report 8 8 Back Page Early Assessment Program Grade 11 only

HOW TO USE THE SCORES What can teachers do?

Appropriate Use of Scores  Identify students who may need additional help*  Identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in curriculum and instruction* −Claim level scores: o Below standard o At or near standard o Above standard * Use in conjunction with other evidence of student learning. 17

CAASPP RESULTS 2015

Overview  Overall  Comparison of Performance with Local Districts  Comparison of Performance with High Wealth and High Performing Districts  Future Plans

Overall GRADE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS 3rd4645 4th4541 5th6853 6th6341 7th5128 8th th8640 Overall6039 % OF STUDENTS WHO MET OR EXCEEDED STANDARDS

Achievement Gap SHHSELA 2013Math 2013ELA 2015 Math 2015 Hispanic White GAP SHESELA 2013Math 2013ELA 2015Math 2015 Hispanic White GAP RLSELA 2013Math 2013ELA 2015Math 2015 Hispanic White GAP

Achievement Gap by Grade Level GradeELA Prof./+ WhiteELA Prof./+ HispanicMath Prof./+ WhiteMath Prof./+ Hispanic 380%25% (-55)80%31% (-49) 478%30% (-48)87%23% (-64) 577%57% (-20)67%36% (-31) 688%33% (-55)68%12% (-56) 769%38% (-31)26%11% (-15) 871%31% (-40)24%13% (-11) 1187%84% (-3)38%31% (-7) Proficiency Data (broken down by Race/Ethnicity from above scores)

Comparison: Local Districts and State

Comparison: High Performing *Low Percentage of Students Assessed (62% at 11 th Grade and 92% at 8 th Grade)

Comparison: High Performing Then and Now in English Language Arts OVERALL DISTRICT SCORES STATE ASSESSMENT 2013 Proficient/Advanced 2015 Proficient/Advanced % Change SHUSD CARMEL PALO ALTO* ARCADIA LAGUNA BEACH STATE EAP2013 Passed2013 Provisional2015 Passed2015 Provisional % Change Passed and Provisional SHUSD CARMEL PALO ALTO* ARCADIA LAGUNA BEACH STATE

Comparison: High Performing

Comparison: High Performing Then and Now in Mathematics OVERALL DISTRICT SCORES STATE ASSESSMENT 2013 Proficient/Advanced 2015 Proficient/Advanced% Change SHUSD CARMEL PALO ALTO*75838 ARCADIA LAGUNA BEACH75669 STATE EAP2013 Passed2013 Provisional2015 Passed2015 Provisional % Change Passed and Provisional SHUSD CARMEL PALO ALTO* ARCADIA LAGUNA BEACH STATE

Areas for Growth ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS  Writing at the K-5  Reading Complex Texts at Middle School Level MATHEMATICS  Concepts and Procedures

Looking Forward ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS  Lucy Caulkin’s Writing K-5  Increased Reading Interventions  Writing Across Content Areas  CSU Expository Reading & Writing Course (ERWC) St. Helena High School’s revamped 12 th grade English course is designed to improve the academic literacy of high school seniors in preparation for college. The research based curriculum and instructional templates serve as both the springboard for those students who have already met postsecondary requirements, as well as those students who have been deemed conditionally ready. MATHEMATICS  Go Math and Carnegie  Fluency Measures and Programs DISTRICTWIDE INITIATIVES  Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) Instructional Model  Benchmarks  Revised English Learner Master Plan