Date post: | 13-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | tamsyn-obrien |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update
Joseph A. Martineau, Interim DirectorOffice of General Assessment & AccountabilityMichigan Department of Education
Presentation to the School Improvement Facilitators’ NetworkAt Clinton County RESA, October 11, 2007
2
Agenda Assessments
MEAP MME Secondary Credit Assessments
(End of Course Assessments) Formative Assessment Initiatives
Accountability AYP EducationYES!
Curriculum Activities State Legislative Horizon Federal Legislative Horizon Q & A
3
Performance Level Labels Goes into effect with Fall 2007 MEAP
and Spring 2008 MME
State Board renamed performance levels Level 1: Not proficient Level 2: Partially proficient Level 3: Proficient Level 4: Advanced
Definitions transfer Apprentice Not Proficient Basic Partially Proficient Met Proficient Exceeds Advanced
4
Performance Level Labels Action statement added to
definitions Not Proficient
Needs intensive intervention and support to improve achievement
Partially Proficient Needs assistance to improve achievement
Proficient Needs continued support to maintain and
increase proficiency
Advanced Needs support to continue to excel
5
MEAP Changes For Fall 2007
Linking Items EliminatedReadingMathematicsShorter Assessments
6
MEAP Changes For Fall 2007
Writing changes, continued… Writing scale is accurate, but too
discrete Students do achieve the nearest
observable score to their demonstrated achievement
Writing assessment is shorter than all others
But in Fall 2005 and Fall 2006 there were only 16 possible observable scores
Statewide percents proficient were less stable than other subjects with longer assessments
7
MEAP Changes For Fall 2007
Writing changes, continued… Addressing the issue
Add 5 writing (Multiple Choice) MC items Adds more observable raw score points
Use psychometric model used for MME Adds more observable scale score points Different ways to achieve same raw score, e.g. 13:
student 1: 0+0+1+1+1+0+0+0+1+1+3+5 student 2: 0+0+1+0+0+1+1+0+1+1+3+5 1st two red items are easier & less informative 2nd two are harder & more informative
Student 2 gets a slightly higher scale score Review & approved by State TAC
8
MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Reporting on Math and ELA Change
in Achievement relative to grade level expectations Performance Levels divided into three,
e.g., Low Advanced Mid Proficient High Partially Proficient
Both years’ Performance Levels Presented differently on parent reports
and all other reports Change in Performance Level category
9
MEAP Changes For Fall 2007
Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid HighLow N I I SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SIMid D N I I SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SIHigh D D N I I SI SI SI SI SI SI SILow SD D D N I I SI SI SI SI SI SIMid SD SD D D N I I SI SI SI SI SIHigh SD SD SD D D N I I SI SI SI SILow SD SD SD SD D D N I I SI SI SIMid SD SD SD SD SD D D N I I SI SIHigh SD SD SD SD SD SD D D N I I SILow SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D D N I IMid SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D D N IHigh SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D D N
Not Proficient
Partially Proficient
Advanced
Proficient
Proficient
Fall 2006 Achievement
Fall 2007 AchievementNot
ProficientPartially
Proficient Advanced
SD = Significant Decline D = Decline N = No Change I = Improvement SI = Significant Improvement
10
MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Parent Report (chart on outside)
Parent Report (textual report on inside for reading, math)
Last fall, Jane scored near the high end of the advanced performance level. This fall, she scored near the middle of the advanced performance level.
From last fall to this fall, Jane showed a decline in performance level. Because your student scored at or very near the highest possible level in both years, this decline should not be a serious concern.
11
MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Individual Student Reports
Low (L) Mid (M) High (H)
12
MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Individual Student Reports
Low (L) Mid (M) High (H)
13
MEAP Changes for Fall 2007 Student Rosters
Number of PL 1 = Advanced 2 = Proficient 3 = Partially Proficient 4 = Not Proficient
Portion of PL range L = Low L = Middle H = High
For example 1H
High portion of Advanced range
4M Middle portion of the Not
Proficient range
305
285
356
2L
4H
1H
1L
4L
1H
SD
I
N
14
MEAP Changes for Fall 2007 Student Labels
15
MEAP Changes for Fall 2007 Summary Reports
16
MME What is the Michigan Merit
Examination? Day 1
ACT + Writing Day 2
WorkKeys + MI developed Mathematics
Day 3 MI developed Science & Social Studies Can occur on either afternoon of day
2 OR morning of day 3
17
MME Why the Three-Part Assessment?
State MME legislation requires1. College Entrance examination2. Work Skills examination3. Social Studies component4. Compliance with NCLB
NCLB legislation requires alignment of overall assessment to State content standards
Therefore Requirement 1: ACT Requirement 2: WorkKeys Requirement 3: MI Social Studies Requirement 4: MI Math, Science and
Writing Constructed response
18
MME Differences from MEAP
Timed, stricter administration rules 3 days initial or makeup: no more
“window” Staff training required Counting toward NCLB 95%
participation All contributing components of
reading, writing, and mathematics must be completed
Extension of previous MEAP participation rule to all components of MME
19
MME Differences from MEAP
Spring Assessment Accommodations ACT-approved
For Students with Disabilities and section 504 ONLY!
ACT is college reportable Counts toward AYP participation and proficiency
Standard State-allowed Standard English Language Learner
accommodations Other state-allowed for SWD and 504 ACT is not college reportable Counts toward AYP participation and proficiency
Non-standard Not allowed on the ACT Allowed on Days 2 and 3 if IEP specifies Not participating for AYP purposes!
20
MME Differences from MEAP
Re-testing Must meet re-test eligibility criteria
Non-valid score on reading, writing, math, or science
Performance level 3 or 4 on reading, writing, math, or science
Must re-take the entire MME Components from each day
One re-test per school year Fall OR Spring, not both MEAP had six possible test
opportunities
21
MME
Differences from MEAP Fall Re-take
Day 1 ACT in a national testing site on a
Saturday No ELL accommodations No other State-allowed
accommodations Days 2 and 3
Same as Spring administration On Tuesday and Wednesday
22
MME
Contributing Components ELA
Reading ACT Reading WorkKeys Reading
Writing ACT English ACT Writing Prompt Social Studies Prompt (scored for persuasive writing)
23
MME
Contributing Components Mathematics
ACT Mathematics ACT Science Data Analysis items
WorkKeys Mathematics MI developed Mathematics
24
MME Contributing Components
Science ACT Science
Covers scientific process Covers scientific reasoning
MI developed Science Covers specific discipline content (e.g.
biology)
Social Studies MI developed Social Studies
MC items and CR item scored for civic writing
25
Secondary Credit Assessments (SCA)
A.K.A “End of Course Assessments” Requirements
Districts Must use “an approved” SCA to give
credit to students who have not taken a course
Must use “an approved” SCA as an End of Course assessment
“An approved” is undefined in legislation Assume approval by School Board
Not required to use State-developed test State
Must develop SCAs if feasible
26
Secondary Credit Assessments (SCA) No funding for development Current limited development of “prototypes” of SCAs
under existing contracts Algebra I, Geometry posted Spring 2007 (new forms to be
posted Spring 2008) English 9, Biology to be posted Spring 2008 Recommended standards
Not required 70% correct
Use for final course grades An End of Course Assessment (EOCA) must be given An EOC assessment must be a part of the final grade State-developed SCA prototypes may be used for this purpose Recommend no more than 25% of final grade
Current initiatives in Professional Development (PD) for classroom (formative) assessment
Current initiative under no funding Develop prototypes as current contracts allow Identify most urgent needs, develop one or two at a time
27
Secondary Credit Assessments (SCA) Plans if fully funded
Develop all subjects simultaneously if feasible Develop statewide PD in formative
assessment Develop interim benchmark assessments
based on Curriculum units Achievement on different interim benchmark
assessments can be pieced together to demonstrate achievement on the course content as a whole
Online delivery and scoring for rapid feedback to inform instruction (e.g. continue review or move to the next unit)
Develop full end of course assessments Online deliver and scoring
Formally set achievement standards on SCAs
28
Adequate Yearly Progress No changes in AYP as of yet Possibility of asking for changes
through accountability workbook submission to USDOE
Reauthorization of NCLB may mean substantial changes in AYP
29
EducationYES! Existing three-pronged structure
Achievement Cross-sectional Multi-year average
Change Change in grade 3 achievement this year
versus grade three achievement last year Cross-sectional non-cohort change
Growth Future implementation when longitudinal
data are available To be individual student level growth
30
EducationYES! Proposal for new three-
pronged structure Achievement
All grades and subjects Change in PL (Growth)
ELA and Mathematics Longitudinal data are now available
Change Only where change in PL is not
feasible Science, Social Studies High School
31
EducationYES! Indicators
Report on rubrics through AdvancED (NCA)
Will not be scored Will be reported
External data to be added and scored Highly Qualified Attendance Graduation Curricular reform?
Extra credit TBD
32
Curriculum Activities Social Studies Standards recently
approved Science Standards expected to be
approved before year end Means…
New social studies and science assessments
New standards on science and social studies assessments
33
State Legislative Horizon Senate Bills introduced
Add social studies as a Promise Grant eligibility requirement
Eliminate social studies from MME Eliminate social studies from MEAP Eliminate State-developed secondary credit
assessments Eliminate WorkKeys portion of MME Eliminate ACT Writing prompt as required part of MME Limit statewide assessments to Reading, Writing,
Mathematics, and Science Make cost of ACT writing prompt payable by student Make all MME re-take costs payable by the student
Additional lobbying Eliminate the MME fall re-take Add third part of WorkKeys (Locating Information) to
MME
34
Federal Legislative Horizon NCLB reauthorization
Discussion draft requirements Limited growth model Significantly greater data gathering Longitudinal data systems Teacher-student data links Monitor the closure of achievement gaps Limits on use of large confidence
intervals AND safe harbor simultaneously Limits on size of confidence intervals Nationwide group size of 30 for reporting
on AYP
35
Questions & (hopefully) Answers
36
Contact Information
Joseph Martineau, Interim DirectorOffice of General Assessment &
AccountabilityMichigan Department of EducationP.O. Box 30008Lansing, MI 48909