1. Iowa Assessment Update School Administrators of Iowa November 2013 Catherine Welch Iowa Testing Programs

3. ReportingEmpirically validated StandardizationResearch based Past -- Emphasis

4. Guided by mandate to be linked to previous forms for accountability reporting (A, B, E, F) Guided by desire to inform instruction  Emphasis on level of information in reporting structure  Emphasis on reliable reporting Guided by the quality of the information provided to users  Emphasis on measuring growth  Emphasis on college and career readiness Present – Forms E and F

5. Forms E and F – Test Similarities Balance of Concepts, Applications and Procedures Range of Cognitive Demands Aligned to Common Core Domains Connects Practice to Content

6. Forms E and F – Technical Similarities Vertical Scale to Measure Growth Allows Direct Comparisons to Previous Forms Parallel Forms allow the Tracking of Students Addresses NCLB Requirements Valid, Reliable and Technically Sound

7. Form F -- Enhancements Alignment Domain coverage at the same level Expanded standards covered Format Paired Passages Additional informational texts Rigor Using evidence from texts in social studies and science Assessing research and inquiry across all areas

8. Current Results State Performance Growth Use of Information

9. Reading Results – 2012-2013

10. Mathematics Results – 2012-2013

11. Compared to Nation

12. Growth in Reading Year 1 2011-2012 Year 2 2012-2013 Growth Expected Growth 3 rd to 4 th 1882041615 4 th to 5 th 2032191614 5 th to 6 th 218227913 6 th to 7 th 2262421612 7 th to 8 th 2412531211 8 th to 9 th 2532732010 9 th to 10 th 273284118 10 th to 11 th 28429067

13. Growth in Mathematics Year 1 2011-2012 Year 2 2012-2013 Growth Expected Growth 3 rd to 4 th 1902041415 4 th to 5 th 2032181514 5 th to 6 th 2172281113 6 th to 7 th 2272431612 7 th to 8 th 2432561311 8 th to 9 th 2562751910 9 th to 10 th 275285108 10 th to 11 th 28429177

14. Relationship between STEM Interest and Achievement

15. Future

16. Next Generation Iowa Assessment Test ComponentDescription Design and Development Aligned to Iowa Core Variety of item types (essay, constructed-response, technology-enhanced, multiple-choice) Developed by Iowa educators Field tested on Iowa students Delivery Online and Paper/pencil Comparable scores between modes Scoring and Reporting Online reporting system Automated scoring engine where applicable Human scoring where applicable Additional Components Customizable to state of Iowa needs Growth measures College and career readiness indicators Comparable scores over time

17. Timeline for Next Generation Iowa Assessment School Year Design and Development Delivery Scoring and Reporting Related Research 2012-13 Item design Item writing Field testing Comparability research Online reporting development Growth research 2013-14 Technology- enhanced platform Online pilot Online growth reporting Career and college-ready research 2014-15 Online option available for Iowa Assessments Online reporting available Validity studies Linking Scaling 2015-16 Online option available for Iowa Assessments Online reporting available Psychometric studies 2016-17New assessment implementation

18. Information Provided ELAMathOther Iowa Assessment Claim scores Domain scores Proficiency levels National comparisons Growth indicators College readiness Claim scores Domain scores Proficiency levels National comparisons Growth indicators College readiness Social Studies Science Skills Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium Claim scores Proficiency levels Comparison to SBAC states Claim scores Proficiency levels Comparison to SBAC states NA

19. Considerations for Moving Forward

20. Evaluate Purpose of Assessments Evaluate Products to Match Purpose Make Appropriate Comparisons Define Criteria for Evaluation from House File 215 – aligned with the Iowa common core standards in both content and rigor; – accurately describes student achievement and growth for purposes of the school, the school district, and state accountability systems; and – provides valid, reliable, and fair measures of student progress toward college or career readiness

21. Evaluate Purpose Accountability – Administrator – Teacher – Student Summative Formative Interim

22. Evaluate Products and Reports to Match Purpose Review the items and tests Review the score reports If adaptive, review the algorithms for adaptive testing – For example, understand how high-level 4 rd graders will be tested and the implications for alignment – Understand how low-level 8 th graders will be tested and the implications for comparisons across students If fixed form, review the implications for the balance and selection of content Compare level of reporting to requirements

24. Make Appropriate Comparisons

25. Define Criteria for Evaluation Aligned Reliable Valid Growth Readiness Technology Costs How much is enough? Who are the experts to evaluate these criteria? What are the compromises to be made? How are these compromises tied to purpose?

26. 165170175180185190195200205210215220225230235240245250 National Average 201 State Average 204 State Proficiency 189 College Readiness 218 Range of District Averages (342 Districts) Range of Individual Students (35,000 Students) 4 th Grade Mathematics Performance

27. 5 th Grade Mathematics Performance 165170175180185190195200205210215220225230235240245250 National Average 214 State Average 218 State Proficiency 200 College Readiness 236 Range of District Averages (342 Districts) Range of Individual Students (35,000 Students)

28. Alignment

29. Alignment? “Aligned” by 15 trained experts “Aligned” to 11 different standards “Aligned” to 4 different grade levels “Aligned” to 3 different domains

30. SBAC Alignment?

31. Alignment? “Aligned” by 7 trained experts “Aligned” to 6 different standards “Aligned” to 3 different grade levels “Aligned” to 3 different domains

32. Define Criteria for Use What are the metrics to be reported? Are they understood by parents? Will teachers have enough information from the results to shape their instruction? Will teachers receive the responses from the open-ended, constructed-response items? Will teachers receive professional development on the usefulness of the results?

33. Define Criteria for Technology Identify the vendor that will deliver the assessment Pilot test the types of items to be used Pilot test in a variety of districts in the spring of the year during the same 12-week window; during the busiest times of the day Pilot test using the vendor-developed online tools Pilot test using the graphics, videos, that will be a part of the assessment

36. Define Criteria for Administration Demand same time-of-year testing Demand reports/information prior to the end of the year Demand reports that show growth, readiness, achievement indicators and instructional- relevance