1 Assessment of the Common Core State Standards CCCOE Curriculum Council January, 2011

2 Assessment Consortia Beginnings During 1 st Round of RTTT Application  There were 7 Assessment Consortia  CA joined 3-5 Consortia (no cost for membership) By the 2 nd Round of RTTT Application  the assessment consortia coalesced resulting in 2 remaining consortia

3 Two Funded Assessment Consortia Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College & Careers (PARCC)   pdf pdf SMARTER Balanced Consortium (SBAC)  

4 Next Generation Assessments PARCC and SMARTER will usher in a new and different approach to assessment design

5 Comparing the Two Consortia CA joined PARCC  A consortium of 26 states  Procurement state is Florida  Achieve (American Diploma Project) is the managing partner  Received $170 million SBAC  Consortium of 31 (many Western) states  Procurement state is Washington  WestEd is the managing partner  Received $160 million

6 A 3 rd Grant Award $10 million was earmarked for the development of high school (end of course) assessments ED did not fund the group that applied to develop the high school assessments PARCC was granted the additional funding to develop high school assessments

7 PARCC States SMARTER States

8 Current ESEA Requirements ELA and math in grades 3-8  In CA CSTs, CMA, & CAPA ELA and math at least once in grades  In CA CAHSEE grade 10 Science at least once during each of three specified grade spans: 3-5, 6-9, and  In CA grades 5 & 8 science CSTS, CMA & CAPA 10 th grade Life Science, CMA & CAPA

9 PARCC Assessment System Design Distributed Summative Assessment

10 Achieve – PARCC’s Managing Partner Created in 1996 by the nation's governors and corporate leaders an independent, bipartisan, nonprofit education reform organization based in Washington D.C. leads the effort to make college and career readiness a national priority

11 Assessment System Design: Distributed Summative Assessment 11 START OF SCHOOL YEAR END OF SCHOOL YEAR Through- Course 1 Through- Course 2 25%50% Through- Course 3 75% Through- Course 4 90% End- Of-Year Source: Graphic adapted from a representation prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management ( Key components: Three through-course components distributed throughout the year in ELA and mathematics, grades One Speaking/Listening assessment administered after students complete the third through course component in ELA; required but not part of summative score – could be used for course grades. One end-of-year assessment

12 Assessment System Design: Distributed Summative Assessment 12 START OF SCHOOL YEAR END OF SCHOOL YEAR Through- Course 1 Through- Course 2 25% 50% Through-Course 1 and 2: ELA-1 and ELA-2: One or two tasks involving reading texts, drawing conclusions, and presenting analysis in writing. Math-1 and Math-2: One to three tasks that assess one or two essential topics in mathematics (standards or clusters of standards). Source: Graphic adapted from a representation prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management (

13 Through-Course 3 and Through-Course 4 (ELA only): ELA-3: Performance task(s) that require evaluating information from within a set of digital resources, evaluating their quality, selecting sources, and composing an essay or research paper. ELA-4 (speaking and listening): Students will present their work from ELA-3 to classmates and respond to questions. Teachers will score, using a standardized rubric, and can use results in determining students’ class grades. Math-3: Performance task(s) that require conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and application of mathematical tools and reasoning. START OF SCHOOL YEAR END OF SCHOOL YEAR Through- Course 1 25% Through- Course 2 50% Through- Course 3 75% Through- Course 4 Assessment System Design: Distributed Summative Assessment Source: Graphic adapted from a representation prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management (

14 START OF SCHOOL YEAR END OF SCHOOL YEAR Through- Course 1 Through- Course 2 25%50% Through- Course 3 75% Through- Course 4 90% End- Of-Year End-of-Year: EOY: Comprehensive, computer-scored assessment that includes a range of item types, including innovative, technology-enhanced items. Enables quick turnaround of student scores. A student’s summative score—used for accountability purposes—will include his/her performance on Through-Courses 1, 2, and 3 as well as the End-of- Year assessment. Assessment System Design: Distributed Summative Assessment Source: Graphic adapted from a representation prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management (

15 Summative Score for Accountability A student’s summative score (used for accountability purposes) will include his/her performance on Through Course1, 2 and 3 as well as end of year assessment.

16  Overall assessment system will include a mix of constructed response items, performance tasks, and computer enhanced, computer-scored items.  Assessments for grades 6-12 will be administered via computer while 3-5 will be administered via paper and pencil (in the short term).  Combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and human scoring will be employed; states will individually determine the extent to which teachers will be involved in scoring. Administration and Scoring:

17 SMARTER BALANCED ASSESSMENT Consortium (SBAC)

18 SBAC Assessment Characteristics State-of-the-art adaptive online exams The online system will provide information to teachers and others on the progress of all students  including students with disabilities, English language learners and low- and high-performing students. The system will include:  the required summative exams (offered twice each school year);  optional formative, or benchmark, exams; and  a variety of tools, processes and practices that will assist teachers in understanding what students are and are not learning on a daily basis

19 Assessment Design The Consortium will provide the following by the school year: 3. Formative tools and resources 4. Responsible flexibility 5. Distributed summative assessment a. Content clusters throughout a course b. Most appropriate time for each student c. Scores rolled up Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium

20 Assessment Design Type of Component Type of Data produced FrequencyNumber of items Administration Mode Scoring Method Summative assessing Common Core Scale score for achievement and growth Once annually 1- 2 opportunities 30 Selected response 3 Extended constructed response 7 Technology enhanced 1 Performance event Computer Adaptive, SR, ECR, TE Computer Delivered: teacher administered performance event Computer Adaptive: automated computer scoring Performance Event Combination of AI and teacher Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium

21 Examples of Internationally Benchmarked Assessments NAEP Released Items

22 Existing Internationally Benchmarked Assessments National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)  Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)  Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)  NCES: National Center for Educational Statistics Part of US Department of Education (ED)

23 Features of NAEP Items 4 th, 8 th and 12 th Grades Multiple Choice, Short Constructed Response, Extended Constructed Response Levels of Difficulty: Easy, Medium, and Hard Primarily Math and ELA, but also given in various subject matter domains (typically in 12 th grade)

24 Multiple Choice 4 th Grade NAEP, Medium Difficulty

25 Short Constructed Response 4 th Grade NAEP, Medium Difficulty

26 Extended Constructed Response 4 th Grade NAEP, Medium Difficulty

27 Extended Constructed Response 4 th Grade NAEP, Hard Difficulty

28

29

30

31 Next Steps and Timelines Assessment and Textbook Adoption

32 PARCC’s Timeline Oct. 2010: Launch and design phase begins Sept. 2011: Development phase begins Sept. 2012: 1 st year field testing and related research and data collection begins Sept. 2013: 2 nd year field testing and related research and data collection continues Sept. 2014: Full administration of PARCC assessment begins.

33 Textbook Adoption Timeline

34 CaCCSS Collaboration and Implementation California Mathematics Project (CMP) Curriculum and Instruction Steering Committee (CISC)  Mathematics Subcommittee California Mathematics Council (CMC) California Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (CAMTE) 1 st Meeting on January 19, 2011

35 Pamela Tyson, PhD Director, Educational Services Contra Costa County Office of Education