1. OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION High School End-of-Course Mathematics Exams in 2011 Deputy Superintendent Alan Burke ESD 113 Superintendents’ Meeting February 24, 2010

2. OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 2.24.2010 | Slide 2 What is assessed on EOCs? - Graduation requirements will consist of 22 “1 st year” PEs AND 15 “2 nd Year” PEs. -“Off diagonal” PEs that are not common to Alg 1/Int 1 or Geom/Int 2 will be reported as Strength/Weaknesses scores - Two types of retakes available: One assessing the 22 PEs for “1 st Year” math; one assessing 15 PEs for “2 nd Year” math

3. 2.24.2010 | Slide 3 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

4. 2.24.2010 | Slide 4 How Are the EOCs Scheduled? - EOCs given during two class periods, booklets packaged for intact classrooms - District schedules EOCs within 3 weeks of end of year - First EOCs available May/June 2011; Block-schedule EOCs ready for January 2012 - Retakes are a single-session tests (~90 minutes), administered in large-group settings A “Typical” Schedule for EOCs and Retakes

5. OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Questions About the Transition to Measurements of Student Progress and HS Proficiency Exams Deputy Superintendent Alan Burke ESD 113 Superintendents’ Meeting February 24, 2010

6. 2.24.2010 | Slide 6 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION How Will We Compare Scores on the MSP/HSPE to Scores on the WASL?  MSP Reading, Science & Writing: Will use the same scales, passing scores, etc. as WASL  MSP-Math: A new set of tests with standards set in August 2010; “bridging studies” will provide comparisons of new scores to old standards  HSPE: High school tests will use the same scales, passing scores, etc. as WASL

7. 2.24.2010 | Slide 7 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION How Do We Know the Shorter MSP/HSPE Are Still Valid and Reliable?  Strategies to shorten the tests approved by Washington’s advisory committee of national testing experts  MSP and HSPE adhere to test blueprints to assess full range of knowledge and skills in the content standards, including cognitive complexity  MSP and HSPE given independent review of alignment between tests and content standards; results submitted to US Dept. of Ed. for approval

8. 2.24.2010 | Slide 8 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Will the Online MSP Be Comparable to the Paper/Pencil Version?  Both tests follow the same test blueprint  The performance of the scale from the online version will be statistically compared to the paper/pencil version. If necessary, a separate set of scale scores can be used for the online version  OSPI will assure that a score of “400” will mean the same level of knowledge and skills, regardless of which version the student uses  Score comparability is required for approval by US Dept. of Ed.

9. 2.24.2010 | Slide 9 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION How Will AYP Be Determined with the New MSP-Math?  Using results from bridging studies, new elementary and middle school Uniform Bars will be set for MSP- Math  Due to standard setting, results from MSP-Math not available until end of August/early September.  US Dept. of Ed. to grant a waiver of the requirement for schools to report to parents 14 days before start of school year

10. 2.24.2010 | Slide 10 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Budget Model Options Total Amount of a State Race to the Top application: WA recommended for $250M 50% for State-Level Activities50% for Participating School Districts State decides the categories and % Sub-grant driven out by Title I formula Each participating LEA gets a sub-grant to implement the required elements of the State Reform Plan. The LEA may get additional $$ for being selected for participation in an initiative, a statewide program or for an equity factor such as size or remote or rural or achievement gap or another factors.

11. 2.24.2010 | Slide 11 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION How other states propose to use some of the 50% of the 100% of an RTTT Grant Award Wisconsin - a competitive grant program; a special allotment for certain district to close their achievement gap Louisiana – Capacity building through a leadership program plus other initiatives Kentucky – Special pilot projects defined; large statewide initiatives for data systems and use Connecticut – Special elective initiatives; extra funding for non-Title I or LEAs with low TI allocations; urban factor funding; technical assistance and capacity building at the state level