1. 1 COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS Assessments based on the Common Core State Standards Vince Dean, Ph.D. Office of Educational Assessment & Accountability MAASE 12/8/10

2. Common Core State Standards English Language Arts  Reading, Writing, Listening & Speaking Mathematics K-12 content standards College and Career Readiness Standards Learning Progressions

3. Common Core State Standards  Provide a common definition of college and career readiness in ELA and Mathematics.  Are internationally benchmarked

4. “The Common Core State Standards are built on the best state standards. These standards provide the content; they aren’t telling states or school districts how to teach these content standards.” - Superintendent Michael Flanagan

6. MDE Curriculum Unit - OEII Abbie Groff, Interim Supervisor, Curriculum and Instruction hilgendorfa@michigan.gov 517.241.4285 hilgendorfa@michigan.gov Ruth Anne Hodges, Elementary Mathematics Consultant hodgesr3@michigan.gov 517.373.4226 hodgesr3@michigan.gov Ruth Isaia, English Language Arts Consultant isaiar@michigan.gov 517.335.3678 isaiar@michigan.gov Dan LaDue, Secondary Mathematics Consultant ladued@michigan.gov 517.373.4226 ladued@michigan.gov Kevin Richard, Science Consultant richardk1@michigan.gov 517.373.4226 richardk1@michigan.gov

7. Race to the Top Assessment Competition Assessments based on the Common Core State Standards  RTTT Assessment Competition 350 million total 320 million for at least 3-8 and one H.S. grade 30 million for H.S. solution, likely end-of-course  Alternate Assessments based on Alternate Achievement Standards Grant Competition  English Language Proficiency Grant Competition (next federal fiscal year)

8. Race to the Top Assessment Competition Assessment Consortia  Development of an infrastructure and content for a common assessment in measuring CCSS in English Language Arts and Mathematics Two consortia  SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)  Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC)

9. Race to the Top Assessment Competition U.S. Education Department Requirements  Measure the full breadth of the Common Core State Standards  Extend the range of high quality measurement in both directions  Assessments operational by 2014-15  Consortia must offer an online version  Must take advantage of technology for reporting speed and be instructionally relevant

10. Race to the Top Assessment Competition The consortia:  SMARTER/Balanced 31 states 18 governing states CAT beginning in 2014-2015  PARCC 26 states 11 governing states CBT beginning in 2014-15

11. Introduction to the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)

12. History Smarter Computer Adaptive Mosaic Formative Capacity Balanced Integrated System

14. Theory of Action Goal To ensure that all students leave high school prepared for postsecondary success in college or a career through increased student learning and improved teaching

15. Theory of Action SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium shaped by the following principles: 1. Integrated system 2. Evidence of student performance 3. Teachers integrally involved 4. State-led, transparent and inclusive governance structure

16. Theory of Action SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium shaped by the following principles: 5. Continuously improve teaching and learning 6. Useful information on multiple measures 7. Design and implementation adhere to established professional standards

17. SBAC Specific Priorities Ensure all students have access to the technology needed to participate in each component (summative, interim/benchmark, formative) Support research on how to use technology to increase access for all students, in particular those needing accommodations

18. SBAC Specific Priorities Use technology to efficiently deliver training, resources, reports and data; social networks for teachers to develop and disseminate effective CCSS curriculum and instructional tools Create innovative item types that utilize technology and represent real- world contexts

19. SBAC Specific Priorities Use Computer Adaptive Testing engine to maximize accuracy for individual students across the CCSS Standardized accommodations policy and administration practices across states to ensure comparability

20. SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

21. Summative Assessment  Measure full range of CCSS  Computer Adaptive Testing for precision  Timely results  Engage Institutions of Higher Education to ensure achievement standards reflect college and career readiness  Scale scores help inform growth model

22. SBAC Assessment Design Proposal Interim Benchmark Assessment  Allow for finer grain of measurement (e.g., end of unit)  Inform teachers if students on track to be proficient on summative assessments  Multiple opportunities for students to participate  Scale scores help inform growth model

23. SBAC Assessment Design Proposal Formative Assessment  Repository of tools available to teachers to support quick adjustment and differentiated instruction  Help define student performance along the CCSS learning progressions  Concrete strategies for immediate feedback loops

24. SBAC Assessment Design Proposal Teacher Engagement  Integral role in developing test maps for each grade and content area  Item writing, specifications, reviewing, and range-finding for all test types  Teacher-moderated scoring of performance events to inform professional development

26. Technology Enhanced Item Prototype item courtesy of the Minnesota Department of Education

27. SBAC Assessment Design Proposal Assessment window vs. single day administration Multiple opportunities to assess Quick results available to support instruction Emphasis on problem-solving and critical thinking

28. Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Consortium Alternate Assessments Based on the Common Core State Standards

29. State Participants Iowa Kansas Michigan Mississippi Missouri New Jersey North Carolina Oklahoma Utah West Virginia Wisconsin

30. Other Participants University of Kansas  Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation  Center for Research Methods and Data Analysis  Center for Research on Learning  Special Education Department AbleLink Technologies The ARC The Center for Literacy and Disability Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Edvantia

31. Moving to Online Assessment Survey of state testing directors (+D.C.)  41 responses  5 of 41 states have no CBT initiatives  36 of 41 states have current CBT initiatives, including: Operational online assessment Pilot online assessment Plans for moving online

32. Moving to Online Assessment Survey of state testing directors (+D.C.)  Of 36 states with some initiative 21 states currently administer large-scale general populations assessments online 9 states have plans to begin (or expand) online administration of large-scale general populations assessments 8 states currently administer special populations assessments online 2 states have plans to begin (or expand) online administration of special populations assessments

33. Moving to Online Assessment Survey of state testing directors (+D.C.)  Of 36 states with some initiative 5 states currently use Artificial Intelligence (AI) scoring of constructed response items 4 states currently use Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) technology for general populations assessment 0 states currently use CAT technology for special populations assessment 7 states offer online interim/benchmark assessments 7 states offer online item banks accessible to teachers for creating “formative”/interim/benchmark assessments tailored to unique curricular units

34. Online Assessment -The Michigan Stage Michigan’s online initiatives  Pilot in 2006  Pilot in 2011 (English Language Proficiency)  Pilot in 2012 (Alternate Assessments)  Pilots leading up to operational adoption of SMARTER/Balanced Assessment Consortium products in 2014/15  Constitutional amendment barring unfunded mandates

35. Challenges LEA capacity for online assessment Bandwidth issues, especially in rural areas  Minnesota challenge  Utah example  USED working with FCC on National Broadband Initiative

36. Timeline for Transition 2010-2011  Getting to know the CCSS/Alignment work  2010 MEAP/2011MME remain the same  State focus will be on technical assistance 2011-2012  Implementation of CCSS in classrooms  2011 MEAP/2012 MME remain the same  State focus will be on instruction/professional development

37. Timeline for Transition 2012-2013  2012 MEAP minimally modified as necessary to reflect the CCSS  2013 MME remains the same  State focus will be on student learning 2013-2014  2013 MEAP based on 2012 model  2014 MME remains the same  State focus will be on preparing for new assessments from SMARTER Consortium 2014-2015  Full implementation - Instruction and assessment based on CCSS

38. DRAFT 381 Contact Information Vince Dean, State Assessment Manager  deanv@michigan.gov deanv@michigan.gov Office of Educational Assessment & Accountability  www.michigan.gov/oeaa www.michigan.gov/oeaa SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium  http://smarter.k12partners.org/ http://smarter.k12partners.org/