Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ASSESSMENT CONSORTIA: AN OVERVIEW
Part #2 of a 3-part National Deaf-Blind Project Network Webinar Series
Hosted by the National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB) Presenter: Annette Carey
Office of Special Education Dept. of Education, WV
March 20, 2013
∗ To obtain a greater understanding of the State Assessment Consortia: ∗ Two comprehensive Assessment
Consortia ∗ Two Alternate Assessment Consortia
∗ To align State Projects with the identified consortium (consortia)
∗ To identify the implications for the children with deafblindness
Objective for Today
Review
Standards
Instruction Assessment/ Evaluation
∗ Signed into law by President Johnson in 1965 ∗ Reauthorized and renamed in 2002 by
President Bush: No Child Left Behind ∗ 2007 ESEA was supposed to be reauthorized ∗ Assessment and Accountability remain at the
heart of reauthorizations discussions
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
∗ Math, Reading/Language Arts: Grades 3 – 8, one assessment for each content grades 10 -12
∗ Science: Once in grades 3-5, 6-9, 10 – 12 ∗ Alternative Assessment: up to 1 percent of
students with most significant cognitive disability ∗ National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP): Biennially for grades 4 and 8
Assessments Required by ESEA
∗ Assessments must aligned to state academic standards - Common Core for most states
∗ Reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities and ELLs
∗ Assessment results must be the primary tool in measuring schools for accountability
∗ Additional measures secondary to assessment
∗ 95 percent of students must participate in assessment.
ESEA
∗ Two Comprehensive Assessment Consortia for 99% of Learners: ∗ Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and
Careers (PARCC) ∗ Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (Smarter Balance
[SBAC]) ∗ Two Alternate Assessment Consortia for the 1% of the
Learners: ∗ the Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) ∗ National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC)
∗ An English Language Proficiency (ELP) Assessment Consortium
5 State Assessment Consortia 2014- 15 School Year
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
and Smarter Balanced Assessment
99% of the Learners
Assessment Consortia
∗ 2010 Competitive Grant ∗ State-led 15 or more states
∗ Grant Criteria ∗ Built on shared standards Common Core ∗ College and career readiness ∗ Measures student performance and individual growth
over time (teacher and principal evaluations) ∗ Incorporation of fair and reasonable
accommodations
∗ English Language Arts and Mathematics ∗ Grades 3 – 8 and high school ∗ Science not included
2 Assessment Consortia (PARCC & SBAC)
∗ NCLB 2001- inclusion on all students in statewide assessments
∗ 2010 Grant Competition ∗ Aligned to the Common Core ∗ English Language Arts and Mathematics ∗ Grades 3 – 8 and high school ∗ Science not included
∗ DLM Award: 22 million ∗ NCSC Award: 45 million
2 Alternate Assessment Consortia (DLM & NCSC)
∗ Governing States: decision-making votes on test design and policy
Arizona Indiana New Mexico Arkansas Louisiana New York Colorado Maryland Ohio DC Massachusetts Oklahoma Florida Mississippi Rhode Island Georgia New Jersey Tennessee Illinois ∗ Award: 186 Million (assessment and supplemental
grants) Race to the Top Assessment Program grants
PARCC 23 states
∗ Participating States: consults on test design and policy ∗ No decision-making authority ∗ Participates in pilot Kentucky North Dakota Pennsylvania ∗ Procurement State: fiscal agent- Florida ∗ Project Management Partner: Achieve
PARCC
Assessment Design English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3-11
End-of-Year Assessment
• Innovative, computer-based items
• Required
Performance-Based Assessment (PBA) • Extended tasks • Applications of
concepts and skills • Required
2 Optional Assessments/Flexible Administration
Mid-Year Assessment • Performance-based • Emphasis on hard-
to-measure standards
• Potentially summative
13
Speaking And Listening Assessment • Locally scored • Non-summative, required
Mid-Year Assessment • Performance-
based • Emphasis on hard-
to-measure standards
• Potentially summative
Diagnostic Assessment
• Early indicator of student knowledge and skills to inform instruction, supports, and PD
• Non-summative
Some examples include: Highlighting Customized colors Graphic organizers or
representations Captions for audio
Home language
supports/tools Braille (tactile/refreshable) Signing supports (ASL) Assistive technology
Computer Delivered: Embedded Supports Being Discussed
14
∗ Governing States: decision-making votes on test design and policy
California Michigan South Dakota Connecticut Missouri Vermont Delaware Montana Washington Hawaii Nevada West Virginia Idaho New Hampshire Wisconsin Iowa North Carolina Kansas Oregon Maine South Carolina ∗ Award: 176 Million (assessment and supplemental grants) Race to the Top Assessment Program grants
Smarter Balance 27 states
∗ Advisory: consults on test design and policy ∗ No decision-making authority ∗ Participates in pilot North Dakota Pennsylvania Wyoming ∗ Procurement State: fiscal agent- Washington ∗ Project Management Partner: WestEd
SBAC
The SBAC Assessment System (Overview) English Language Arts and Mathematics
Optional Interim assessment system — no stakes
Summative assessment for accountability
Last 12 weeks of year*
DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE of formative tools, processes and exemplars; released items and tasks; model curriculum units; educator training; professional development tools and resources; an interactive reporting system; scorer training modules; and teacher collaboration tools.
Scope, sequence, number, and timing of interim assessments locally determined
PERFORMANCE TASKS
• Reading • Writing • Math
COMPUTER ADAPTIVE
ASSESSMENT
Re-take option
Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks
INTERIM ASSESSMENT
Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks
INTERIM ASSESSMENT
∗ Computer Adaptive- adjusts the difficulty of questions based on
previous answer ∗ Technology that fit the individual need of child ∗ Extensive Literature Review of accommodations and accessibility
tools ∗ Foreground and background colors ∗ Tactile presentation of content ∗ Refreshable braille ∗ American sign language ∗ Other select languages ∗ Calculators ∗ Audio presentation
Examples of Embedded Supports
∗ Online assessment in ELA and Math ∗ Mix of item types ∗ Two components both given at end of year ∗ Electronic and human scoring- results expected back
in 2 weeks ∗ Optional interim assessments ∗ Resources ∗ Model curricular/instructional units ∗ Digital library for sharing and vetting resources and
tools
PARCC and SBAC Similarities
Dynamic Learning Maps and
National Center and State Collaborative
for the 1% learners
with significant cognitive disabilities
Alternate Assessment Consortia
∗ Governance: ∗ Two representative from each state ∗ Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation Iowa Oklahoma Kansas Utah Michigan Virginia Mississippi Washington Missouri West Virginia New Jersey Wisconsin North Carolina Welcome Vermont
Dynamic Learning Maps
∗ Project Management: CETE at the University of Kansas is host, fiscal agent, and project management lead
∗ Additional partner organization ∗ University of North Carolina at Chapel ∗ Edvantia (alternate standards and evaluation) ∗ The ARC (reporting system and dissemination)
∗ Award: 22 million
Dynamic Learning Maps
∗ Online and computer based ∗ Individualized to adapt to student needs ∗ Embedded assessments throughout the school year
and stand-alone summative (end-of-year) assessment ∗ Assessment task model best instructional practices ∗ Based on learning map
Dynamic Learning Maps
∗ Common Core Essential Elements (AA-AAS) ∗ Defined links to grade level CCSS ( Essential Elements) ∗ Instructional Achievement Level Descriptors (1 – 4)
∗ Learning Maps ∗ Learning landscape ∗ Relationship between skill AND ∗ Identify multiple learning pathways to learning target
∗ Learning Maps will guide Computer adapted test
Dynamic Learning Maps
RL.K.1. With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text.
Ask questions using details from a text.
Common Core Essential
Elements – Level III
Scaffolding for Access to the Common Core : A Continuum of Learning
Common Core Essential
Elements – Level IV
Common Core Essential Elements
– Level II Common Core
Essential Elements –
Level I
Learning Continuum
EERL.K.1. Identify key details in familiar story.
EERL.K.1. With guidance and support, identify a favorite detail in familiar story.
EERL.K.1. With guidance and support, interact with or explore pictures and objects related to a familiar story.
EERL.K.1. With guidance and support, identify details in familiar stories.
Answer a question from an array of choices from a known text.
Common Core State Standards Scaffolding for
Personalized Learning
Common Core State Standards and General Assessment
Common Core Essential Elements and Alternate Assessment
∗ Touch screen technology ∗ Audio via sound files ∗ American Sign Language video ∗ Pop-up context-dependent dictionaries/glossaries ∗ Text and image magnification ∗ On-screen note taking ∗ Color overlays ∗ IntelliKeys™ keyboard accessibility ∗ Masking ∗ Text readers ∗ Refreshable braille displays
Embedded Supports Being Discussed
∗ Governance: Project Management Team ∗ One to Two state representative from four work groups ∗ National Center of Educational Outcomes ∗ Six individuals for four partner organization:
∗ University of Kentucky ∗ National Center for the Improvement of Educational
Assessment ∗ University of North Carolina at Charlotte ∗ edCount
National Center and State Collaborative
∗ Membership States: Alaska Louisiana Rhode Island Arizona Massachusetts South Carolina Connecticut Nevada South Dakota DC New York Tennessee Florida North Dakota Wyoming Georgia Pacific Assessment Consortium Indiana Pennsylvania ∗ Project Management: NCEO is host fiscal and lead
∗ UKY for Professional Development; NCIEA for assessment design, UNCC for curriculum and instruction, and edCount for evaluation.
∗ Award: 45 million
National Center and State Collaborative
∗ Assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) ∗ Learning Progression Framework (LPF) ∗ From the LPFs develop grade-level assessment content targets and AAS
∗ Summative Assessment ∗ Variety of test items ∗ Recognize need of flexibility for accessibility with standardization:
∗ Cognitive Laboratories to research flexibility and standardization ∗ Development of Formative and interim tools: curriculum-
instruction-assessment (C-I-A) ∗ Technology based management system
∗ Assessment administration ∗ Documentation ∗ Reporting
NCSC
∗ Recognize student who do not yet use symbolic language
∗ Develop materials to build teacher capacity to effectively use augmentative communication strategies
∗ Goal: ensure each student is given opportunity to develop communicative competence to allow for access to instruction and assessment
NCSC Communication Triage
∗ Common Core State Standards ∗ Research based ∗ Professional Development ∗ Instructional Tools and Resources ∗ Pilot or Field testing ∗ PARCC: Field test Q1 & Q2 2014 ∗ SBAC: Pilot spring 2013 ∗ DLM: Pilot summer 2013
Consortia
∗ 3 Computer –based assessment ∗ 2 Computer –adapted individualized to the student ∗ Transition period: paper/ pencil/ braille (hard copy),
tactile graphics ∗ Currently a lot of discussions happening about: ∗ Technology capacity and cost ∗ Accessibility and Accommodations
Computer Consortia
∗ PARCC http://www.parcconline.org/
∗ SBAC http://www.smarterbalanced.org/
∗ DLM http://dynamiclearningmaps.org/
∗ NCSC http://www.ncscpartners.org/
Learn More
∗ Instruction and Assessment are two sides of the same coin
∗ Assessment and Accountability are not going away……BUT
∗ Consider the potential impact when 1% in a state becomes 1% in many states: ∗ Technology and Assistive Technology ∗ Instructional Resources and Materials
∗ Will this be accessible to the children we serve? “Mistakes are the portals of discovery…James Joyce”
Barriers and Opportunities “You do the best you can with what you know at the time.
When you know better, you do better.” Maya Aneglou
∗ First time we have a common set of standards ∗ CCSS- collaboration across state projects ∗ Developing instructional resources and
tools for teachers and families we serve ∗ Imagine offering instructional units , tools
and resources that align directly with the CCSS in ELA and Math that demonstrate accessibility
∗ Problem solving as we strive to ensure our students have a place at the table
∗ Technology and Assistive Technology
What an Opportunity For our Community!
Progress always involves risk; you can’t steal second base and keep your foot on first base. Frederick Wilcox
