PARCC Grade- and Subject-Specific Performance Level Descriptors Presented to the PARCC Governing Board and Advisory Committee on College Readiness June 26, 2013

Today’s Objective The purpose of this session is for the Governing Board and Advisory Committee on College Readiness to vote on the adoption of PARCC’s grade- and subject-specific performance level descriptors (PLDs) A joint GB and ACCR vote is required because the PLDs are one of the “key matters.” Key matters include: – Contents of high school assessments – College- and Career-Ready Determination Policy – Methodology and process used for standard setting – Adoption of the performance level cut scores that determine CCR 2

Timeline for Developing and Adopting PARCC PLDs October 2012GB and ACCR adopted five performance levels, Policy-Level PLDs, & College- and Career-Ready Determination Policy April 10, 2013Grade- and Subject-Specific PLDs released for public comment April 10 – May 8 Stakeholders submitted feedback via online survey May 9 – June 14 Grade- and Subject-Specific PLDs revised in response to feedback June 19, 2013Final Grade- and Subject-Specific PLDs sent to Governing Board and ACCR June 26, 2013Governing Board and ACCR meet to vote on adoption of the Grade- and Subject-Specific PLDs 3

Performance levels are the broad, categorical levels used to report student performance on an assessment. PARCC has 5 performance levels. Performance level descriptors (PLDs) indicate the knowledge, skills and practices that students should be able to demonstrate at each performance level, in each content area (ELA/literacy and mathematics), at each grade. What is a Performance Level Descriptor? 4

Purposes the PLDs will Serve In October 2012, the PARCC Governing Board/ACCR established that five performance levels will be used to report student results on PARCC assessments –Level 5: Distinguished command of the content … –Level 4: Strong –Level 3: Moderate –Level 2: Partial –Level 1: Minimal Policy-level PLDs were also adopted in October. The policy-level PLDs are not grade level- specific The PLDs presented today are content area - AND grade level-specific and designed to serve multiple purposes, most importantly to inform: –Item and task development for PARCC assessments; –The setting of performance level cut scores for PARCC assessments (summer, 2015); and –The development of curricular and instructional materials at the local level 5

Who Drafted the PLDs? SEA and LEA content experts, classroom teachers and higher education faculty serving on elementary, middle, or high school panels met several times during the fall and winter PARCC ELA/Literacy and Mathematics OWG members from 16 states provided guidance in initial drafting and implemented revisions in response to public feedback Maridyth McBee, State Lead from Oklahoma, provided State oversight Iterations of the drafts were reviewed by: —PARCC ELA/Literacy and Mathematics Operational Working Groups —PARCC K-12 State Leads —Higher Education Leadership Team (HELT) —PARCC TAC —The Center for Assessment —ETS and the College Board 6

PARCC received over 400 public responses to its survey, in addition to state-level feedback from several governing states. The major recurring themes were: Public Feedback Themes 7 ELA/LiteracyMathematics 1. Clarify the document such that it is more accessible and usable for teachers, parents and students 1. Respondents would like to see how standards/evidence statements align with the PLDs 2. Concerns about support for educators in implementing CCSS and PARCC 2. Unclear differentiation between levels, vague descriptor language 3. Respondents asked why Level 1 is not included 3. Concern that HS standards and PLDs are too rigorous (especially Algebra II)

PARCC implemented many of the suggested changes in order to improve the clarity, readability, and usability of the PLDs Major changes in response to feedback: PARCC Response to Public Feedback 8 ELA/LiteracyMathematics 1. Added links to test specification documents on PARCC website 1. Addition of evidence statements 2. Changed format of PLDs to improve readability and facilitate comparisons between performance levels 2. Emphasis on language that distinguishes between performance levels

The ELA/Literacy PLDs are organized in two areas: reading and writing —For reading, the levels are differentiated by three factors: 1.text complexity (standard 10) (accessible, moderately complex, very complex) 2.accuracy in student responses 3.evidence cited (explicit, implied) from sources read (standard 1) At each performance level, the degree to which students are able to demonstrate command of standards 2-9 (e.g. main idea, point of view, setting, plot, character, structure) is described in terms of the three factors. —For writing, the levels are differentiated by: 1.idea development, including when drawing evidence from sources 2.organization 3.use of conventions (grammar, capitalization, etc.) 4.language usage ELA/Literacy PLDs Structure & Factors that Differentiate the Levels 9

Three factors determine the performance levels 1.Text complexity 2.Range of accuracy 3.Quality of evidence Grade 11 LevelLevel of Text Complexity 1 Range of Accuracy 2 Quality of Evidence 3 5 Very Complex Moderately Complex Readily Accessible Accurate Explicit and inferential 4 Very Complex Moderately Complex Readily Accessible Mostly accurate Accurate Explicit and inferential 3 Very Complex Moderately Complex Readily Accessible Generally accurate Mostly accurate Accurate Explicit and inferential 2 Very Complex Moderately Complex Readily Accessible Inaccurate Minimally accurate Mostly accurate Explicit Explicit and inferential 10

Excerpt: ELA/Literacy Reading Sub-Claims, Grade Reading Sub-Claims Reading Literature Students demonstrate comprehension and draw evidence from readings of grade-level, complex literary text. Reading Information Students demonstrate comprehension and draw evidence from readings of grade-level, complex informational text. Vocabulary Interpretation and Use Students use context to determine the meaning of words and phrases. EVIDENCES: Students are expected to produce responses that demonstrate the skills and content listed in the evidence tables at the accuracy level and with the quality of evidence as described for students at each level. See Literary Evidence Table blueprints-test-specs See Informational Evidence Table blueprints-test-specs See Vocabulary Evidence Table blueprints-test-specs Level 5Level 4Level 3Level 2 A student who achieves at Level 5 demonstrates distinguished command of the grade-level standards. A student who achieves at Level 4 demonstrates strong command of the grade-level standards. A student who achieves at Level 3 demonstrates moderate command of the grade-level standards. A student who achieves at Level 2 demonstrates partial command of the grade-level standards. In reading, the pattern exhibited by student responses indicates:  With very complex text, students demonstrate the ability to do accurate analyses of the text, showing full understanding of the text when referring to explicit details and examples in the text and when supporting sound inferences drawn from the text.  With moderately complex text, students demonstrate the ability to do accurate analyses of the text, showing full understanding of the text when referring to explicit details and examples in the text and when supporting sound inferences drawn from the text.  With readily accessible text, students demonstrate the ability to do accurate analyses of the text, showing full understanding of the text when referring to explicit details and examples in the text and when supporting sound inferences drawn from the text. In reading, the pattern exhibited by student responses indicates:  With very complex text, students demonstrate the ability to do mostly accurate analyses of the text, showing extensive understanding of the text when referring to explicit details and examples in the text and when supporting sound inferences drawn from the text.  With moderately complex text, students demonstrate the ability to do accurate analyses of the text, showing full understanding of the text when referring to explicit details and examples in the text and when supporting sound inferences drawn from the text.  With readily accessible text, students demonstrate the ability to do accurate analyses of the text, showing full understanding of the text when referring to explicit details and examples in the text and when supporting sound inferences drawn from the text. In reading, the pattern exhibited by student responses indicates:  With very complex text, students demonstrate the ability to do generally accurate analyses of the text, showing basic understanding of the text when referring to explicit details and examples in the text and when supporting sound inferences drawn from the text.  With moderately complex text, students demonstrate the ability to do mostly accurate analyses of the text, showing extensive understanding of the text when referring to explicit details and examples in the text and when supporting sound inferences drawn from the text.  With readily accessible text, students demonstrate the ability to do accurate analyses of the text, showing full understanding of the text when referring to explicit details and examples in the text and when supporting sound inferences drawn from the text. In reading, the pattern exhibited by student responses indicates:  With very complex text, students demonstrate the inability to do an accurate analysis of the text, showing limited understanding of the text when referring to explicit details and examples in the text.  With moderately complex text, students demonstrate the ability to do minimally accurate analyses of the text, showing minimal understanding of the text when referring to explicit details and examples in the text and when supporting sound inferences drawn from the text.  With readily accessible text, students demonstrate the ability to do mostly accurate analyses of the text, showing extensive understanding of the text when referring to explicit details and examples in the text and when supporting sound inferences drawn from the text.

Excerpt: ELA/Literacy Reading Sub- Claims, Level 4, Grade Level 4 is the target for attaining a College- and Career-Ready Determination on the PARCC assessments Aligns with expectations for student performance laid out in the Common Core State Standards PLDs are the criteria used to make judgments in the standard-setting process

The Math PLDs are organized into five areas (claims) –Major content –Additional and supporting content –Mathematical reasoning –Mathematical modeling –Fluency (grades 3-6 only) Factors that differentiate the levels –Relative complexity of standards (evidence statements) for mathematical content and practice –Extent to which student can make effective use of stimulus materials such as graphs, tables, tools –Extent to which student can construct solutions to problems, solve scaffolded and unscaffolded problems Mathematics PLDs Structure & Factors that Differentiate the Levels 13

Excerpt: Algebra II 14 Algebra II: Sub-Claim A The student solves problems involving the Major Content for the grade/course with connections to the Standards for Mathematical Practice. Level 5: Distinguished Command Level 4: Strong Command Level 3: Moderate Command Level 2: Partial Command Rate of Change F-IF.6-2 F-IF.6-7 Calculates and interprets the average rate of change of polynomial, exponential, logarithmic or trigonometric functions (presented symbolically or as a table) over a specified interval, and estimates the rate of change from a graph. Compares rates of change associated with different intervals. Calculates and interprets the average rate of change of polynomial, exponential, logarithmic or trigonometric functions (presented symbolically or as a table) over a specified interval, and estimates the rate of change from a graph. Calculates the average rate of change of polynomial and exponential functions (presented symbolically or as a table) over a specified interval, and estimates the rate of change from a graph. Calculates the average rate of change of polynomial and exponential functions (presented symbolically or as a table) over a specified interval.

15 Excerpt: Algebra II, Level 4 Level 4 is the target for attaining a College- and Career-Ready Determination on the PARCC assessments Aligns with expectations for student performance laid out in the Common Core State Standards PLDs are the criteria used to make judgments in the standard-setting process Level 4: Strong Command Calculates and interprets the average rate of change of polynomial, exponential, logarithmic or trigonometric functions (presented symbolically or as a table) over a specified interval, and estimates the rate of change from a graph.

October 2013: Governing Board and ACCR approve general standard setting approach November 2013: Release RFP for standard setting Summer 2014: Governing Board and ACCR approve standard setting methodology Fall 2014: Governing Board and ACCR approve standard setting panel memberships Summer 2015: K-12 and Higher Education content and technical experts set standards for PARCC performance levels Timeline for Standard Setting 16

PARCC will produce materials to accompany the public release of the PLDs on July 17, including: – List of FAQs – Narrated PowerPoint presentations for each content area The PARCC Educator Leader Cadres will receive information and training on the PLDs, assessment blueprints and evidence tables during online virtual sessions beginning on July 1 and continuing through the end of September. – Content will be released publicly after ELC training concludes – Additional sessions on educator use of PLDs at the classroom level will be held during October in-person meetings Next Steps for Public Release 17

Draft Motion for Vote The PARCC Governing Board and Advisory Committee on College Readiness approve the proposed PARCC grade- and subject-specific performance level descriptors for ELA/Literacy and Mathematics for grades 3-11, including the PLDs for six high school end-of-course mathematics assessments. 18