STAR 2010 September 10, 2010

Agenda New in 2010 Interpreting reports Comparing results Appendixes A-G 2

3 What’s New in 2010 California Modified Assessment (CMA) reports –Scale score, performance levels for Grades 6–8 English−Language Arts (ELA) Grades 6–7 mathematics Grade 8 science –Percent correct for ELA grade 9 Life Science, grade 10 Algebra I Manual (M) 2

4 Results: Reporting Cluster Cautions Based on small numbers of items; therefore, may not be reliable or generalizable NOT equated from year to year Should not compare reporting cluster percent correct from year to year M 8−12; Appendix A

5 Interpreting Reporting Clusters or Content Areas in the Same Year Compare to percent-correct range of proficient students statewide M 8−12; Appendix A

CST Reporting Clusters: Number of Questions and Average Percent Correct To be finalized with complete data in 2010 Post-Test Guide, after August 16. M Appendix A

7 Examples—Interpreting Reporting Clusters for the CST for Geometry M 11

8 Using Results For instructional decisions with other data Used in Academic Performance Index (API) calculations: CSTs, CAPA, CMA (only grades 3–8, excluding Algebra I) Used in adequate yearly progress (AYP) calculations, ELA and mathematics: –Grades 2–8, CSTs –Grades 3–8, CMA (excluding Algebra I) –Grades 2–8 and 10, CAPA M 4

9 Year-to-Year Comparisons Do Compare CSTs: Same Grade and Same Content Area Mean scale score –Same content and grade, varying years Percent in each performance level –Same content by grade across years e.g., 2009 ELA grade 10 with 2010 ELA grade 10 M 13−16

10 Year-to-Year Comparisons Do Compare CSTs: Percent Proficient and Advanced Percentage of students scoring at PROFICIENT and above –For a given grade and subject, e.g., Percent proficient and above for grade 3 math in 2009 and 2010 –For a given subject and aggregated grades, e.g., Percent proficient and above for grades 2– 6 mathematics in 2009 and 2010 –Across grades and a subject, e.g., Percent proficient and above in all courses and all grades M 13−16

11 Year-to-Year Comparisons DON’T Compare Individual scale scores or statistics based on scale scores for different grades or content areas –Subjects by grade are independently scaled –Different content standards are measured in different grades Cohorts across grades Across tests CMA grades 6−11, STS grades 5−11 to previous years CAPA, CMA grades 3−5, STS grades 2−4 to years before 2009 M 13−16

12 Example—Using CST Results to Compare Grade Results from Year to Year 2009 CST for ELA 2010 CST for ELA Grade% Prof or Above Difference Grade 231%35%4% Grade 333% 0% Grade 429%31%2% Grade 534%32%–2% Grade 631%32%1% All Grades32%33%1% M 14

13 Summary Do’s and Don’ts –Do compare mean scale score, percent at performance levels within same grade, same content area –Don’t compare mean scale scores across grades, content area Summary and Internet reports Data CDs Individual reports

Appendixes Appendix A: STAR Reporting Clusters Appendix B: STAR Scale Score Ranges Appendix C: STAR Conditional Standard Errors of Measurement (CSEM) Appendix D: Parent/Guardian or School District Request for Verification of 2010 Test Score Appendix E: Request to Correct 2010 STAR CST/CMA and CAPA Demographic Data Appendix F: California Reading List Number Appendix G: Glossary of Statistical Terms September

15 For more information see: STAR Technical Assistance Center – CDE Accountability –

To Contact CDE CDE STAR office: –English–Language Arts tests, including writing: Jamie Contreras, –Mathematics tests: Jane Liang, –Science tests: Blessing Mupanduki, –History–Social Science tests: Nicole Jespersen, –CAPA, CMA: Don Killmer,