HB 2680 Work Group - Oregon

HB 2680 Work Group Report – Exhibit 11a

HB 2680 Work Group

June 10, 2016

Recap of Where We’ve Been


• Meeting 1: January 15th

– Explore technical evidence re: Match to Standards – Introduce case study concept – Lay the ground work for future evaluations and recommendations

• Meeting 2: March 18th

– Explore technical evidence re: Match to Students – Examine student learning gaps – Explore how districts use assessment data in decision-making – Examine case study methodology

Where We’re Going


• Meeting 3: June 10th

– Establish shared understanding of the purpose of Oregon’s Statewide Summative Assessments

– Evaluate statewide results of 2014-15 administration of Oregon’s Statewide Summative Assessments and what they tell us about student learning gaps

– Discuss findings from the descriptive study – Begin to draw connections in preparation for forming

recommendations

• Meeting 4: June 27th

– Finalize conclusions and recommendations

Today’s Agenda 8:00 am – 8:30 am


Sign-In

8:30 am – 8:40 am Opening Remarks & Introductions

8:40 am – 9:00 am Recap of HB 2680 Charge and Process

9:00 am –9:30 am Exploring the Purpose of Oregon’s Statewide

Summative Assessment

9:30 am – 10:30 am Evaluating Student Learning Gaps through the

2014-15 Statewide Assessment Results

10:30 am – 10:45 am Break

10:45am – 11:45 am Exploring the Descriptive Study Results

11:45 am – 12:30 pm Working Lunch

12:30 pm – 2:00 pm Continued Discussion of Descriptive Study Results

2:00 pm – 2:15 pm Break

2:15 pm – 3:15 pm Descriptive Study Panel

3:15 pm – 4:00 pm Drawing Connections

4:00 pm Meeting Adjourns


Recap of HB 2680

Objectives


o Confirm understanding of the scope of HB 2680 and the workgroup’s charge

o Review group process initiated during Meetings 1 and 2

The 2680 Work Group


Work Group members represent the following roles in Oregon’s education system: • Classroom teachers • Instructional coaches • School and district administrators • Higher education • Oregon School Board Association • Oregon Education Association • Oregon Parent Teacher Association • Stand for Children • Oregon Legislature

Presenter

Presentation Notes

-Each work group member brings a unique perspective; your perspective and functional expertise will be critical to this work (recap from Meeting 1)

Our Norms


As a group, we agreed on the following rules of engagement: • We will be fully present and engage in active listening • We will be respectful of one an other’s views • We will suspend external “noise” and agendas during

the meeting • We will limit email and texting during the meeting

Presenter

Presentation Notes

In addition to these norms, it’s also critical that we can all use a common, shared vocabulary. Today’s meeting will present a lot of technical evidence that will serve as the foundation for this work group eventually evaluating the accuracy (or validity) of Oregon’s statewide assessments. To help ensure a level playing field for all work group members, your packet contains a glossary of key terms you will here throughout day’s discussion. These key terms are intended as a resource and reference for all work group members, regardless of your incoming technical expertise. As we move through today’s discussions, please feel free to let ODE staff know if there are additional terms you feel need to be defined to best support this work as we move forward.

The Work Group’s Charge


HB 2680 directs the work group to accomplish three tasks: 1. Evaluate whether the assessment accurately

measures student learning; 2. Analyze student learning gaps; and 3. Identify adjustments in instruction necessary to

address student learning gaps.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

What We’re NOT Here to Do: Revisit the decision to select of Smarter Balanced Discuss design of Oregon’s accountability system Discuss ESSA implementation -Today’s meeting will focus on the first charge, laying a foundation for the work group’s understanding of the technical evidence and supporting an eventual evaluation of the validity of the Smarter Balanced assessments. -Following the completion of the work group’s charge, the work group’s findings and recommendations will be shared with the State Board of Education and with interim legislative committees pertaining to education. It is our hope that these recommendations will be informed by the practices we learn about through the case study design and can be used to directly improve opportunities and outcomes for students in schools across Oregon.

Charge 1: Defining Accuracy


At Meetings 1 and 2 we asked: • Are the summative assessments clearly aligned to

the adopted standards, the Common Core? • How fully do the summative assessments cover

the depth and breadth of the Common Core? • What features or qualities of the summative

assessments have been employed to maximize accuracy of results for all students?

Charge 2: Defining Student Learning Gaps


At Meeting 2 we landed on two definitions: • Gaps in learning for groups of students, and

• Achievement gaps between student groups

Today we will: • Explore how summative assessment can be used to evaluate

both types of learning gaps • Evaluate what the statewide 2014-15 assessment results tell

us about learning gaps between student groups • Discuss the results of the descriptive study and what it tells us

about how schools look at gaps in learning for groups of students

Presenter

Presentation Notes

-The first is gaps relative to grade level learning (standards); in other words, the test is telling us something about where kids are in their learning relative to grade level standards. This is a criterion referenced way to operationalize gaps. -The second is the more traditional achievement gap perspective, comparing gaps in learning among student groups. This could be viewed as a more norm-referenced perspective.

Charge 3: Identifying Instructional Adjustments to Address Gaps


Today we will: • Explore the extent to which summative

assessment data can and should be used to identify adjustments in instruction to address student learning gaps

• Discuss the results of the descriptive study and what it tells us about how schools identify instructional adjustments to address student learning gaps


Exploring the Purpose of Oregon’s Statewide Summative

Assessment

Objectives


• Establish shared understanding of the varied purposes of assessment

• Establish shared understanding of the specific purpose of Oregon’s statewide summative assessment: – What is it designed to do? – How was it designed to be used? – What is outside the scope of the summative assessment, by

design?

Types of Assessments HB 2680 Work Group Report – Exhibit 11a

• Formative assessment: a process that supports learning and is used while a student is still engaged in instruction

• Interim assessments: periodic assessments used to determine the progress of groups of students based on focused elements of content

• Summative assessments: periodic assessments that determine how much knowledge and skills groups of students (e.g. programs, schools, districts and states) have acquired over a long period of time (e.g. end of the year and end of course)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

-A balanced approach to assessment includes summative assessment as part of a larger assessment plan

Activity


• At your tables, discuss these questions: – What type(s) of assessment will most effectively

identify gaps in learning for groups of students? – What type(s) of assessment will most effectively

identify achievement gaps between student groups? – How does your school/district use different types of

assessment data to identify learning gaps (both for groups of students and between student groups)?

• Take 10 minutes, then we’ll share out


Evaluating Student Learning Gaps through the 2014-15

Statewide Assessment Results

Objectives


• Evaluate statewide results of the 2014-15 administration

• Identify what the results tell us about student learning gaps (gaps between student groups)


Descriptive Study

Objectives


• Review descriptive study purpose and methodology

• Evaluate proposed protocols and timeline to ensure support for the three charges under HB 2680

Descriptive Study Methodology

• Purpose: provide evidence to support identification of local


conditions and best practices that can contribute to improved outcomes for all students

• Methodology: – include schools from around the state that represent Oregon’s diverse

needs and communities that “beat the odds” for all students in their school as measured by the 2014-15 statewide assessments

– Engage with broad sampling of roles from within selected schools to capture a full picture of the local conditions

• Desired outcome: support this work group’s final recommendations that can be implemented using existing systems of support to drive improved, equitable outcomes for all Oregon students

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Refer to handout

Site Selection


• Four steps were followed to identify schools that are “beating the odds.” – Identify the weighted combination of

demographic variables that explain the largest amount of variance in student achievement • Percent of students economically disadvantaged • Percent of students who are English learners • Percent of students chronically absent • Percent of students mobile within the school year • Percent of students in underserved racial/ethnic groups

Site Selection


– Calculate the difference between predicted achievement and actual achievement

– Identify schools that have higher scores than would be predicted from demographic factors alone

– Take into account geographic location and school size to arrive a final set of candidates


Drawing Connections

Objectives


• Begin reflecting on the evidence presented and what it tells us in relation to the workgroup’s three charges: 1. Evaluate whether the assessment accurately

measures student learning; 2. Analyze student learning gaps; and 3. Identify adjustments in instruction necessary to

address student learning gaps.


Next Steps

Our Timeline

•


Notes from Meeting 3 will be distributed by our facilitator

• Our fourth and final meeting will be on Monday, June 27th, when we will finalize conclusions and recommendations

Evaluations


Please take a moment to let us know whether your process and substance needs are being met: • What is working for you? • What could be improved?


Thank You!

Documents

HB 2680 Work Group - Oregon