1

Assessments of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

Curriculum and Instruction Leadership Council (CILC)

November, 2010

2

Presentation Outline

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Overview

Next Steps: Transitioning to New Standards and Assessments

Assessment Consortia: The beginnings Examples of Internationally Benchmarked

Assessment Released Items

3

the same for everyone fundament

al knowledge needed to be college & career

ready

adopted statewide; not federal

Shared, rigorous

academic content

with clear expectation

s for students

4

CCSS Development Timeline

National Deliberation over & Development of Drafts of CCSS

– Sponsored by CCSSO and NGA (2009)– Voluntary participation of 48 states– to develop CCSS & deliberation over possible state

adoption– Multiple drafts were reviewed and vetted by tens of

thousands (including unions and professional math and ELA organizations)

5

California’s Adoption Process

California to Adopt CCSS? (Jan. ‘10)– SB X5 1 created Academic Content Standards Commission

(ACSC) (January 2010)– ACSCs goal was to “ensure that the rigor” of CA’s

standards are maintained by the CCSS– ACSC recommends CCSS adoption with Additions – 85%

Rule (July ‘10) SBE Unanimously Adopts CCSS “Plus” (August ’10)

– at the last possible moment to remain a contender for the 2nd round of RTTT funds

6

One or Two Sets of Standards?

Common Core California Standards (CCCS)

Which standards are more important to us?

Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

7

CCSS Characteristics

Alignment with college and work expectations– Knowledge and skills needed for success after high school

Rigorous content Application of higher-order thinking skills International benchmarking

– Informed by curriculum and assessments from top-performing countries to insure success in our global economy (e.g., NAEP, TIMSS, PIRLS)

Evidence and/or research-based.

8

Next Steps: Transitioning to New Standards and Assessments

Curriculum, Assessment, and Professional Development

9

Proposed Next Steps for CCCS

California Department of Education (CDE) charged with proposing next steps for adoption of California Content California Standards (CCCS) to the State Board of Education (SBE)

10

SBE is Prohibited by Law

from taking actions related to developing curriculum frameworks and adopting instructional materials until 7/1/13 (Ed Code 60200.7)

Reversal of this requires the legislature to authorize and fund implementation-related activities, to amend this

– If no action is taken, an instructional framework can not be presented to SBE for action until 2015 (followed by a 2017 textbook adoption).

11

CDE’s Proposal for Next Steps

CTC and SBE will hold a joint meeting to provide information only on possible implementation scenarios for CCSS (11/8/10)– CDE will present a plan for next steps in (1)

frameworks and textbook adoption, (2) professional development for administrators, teachers, and educators (including teacher educators), and (3) development of new assessments.

Current text materials will be in use until these dates!

12

Accelerated Frameworks, Textbook & Assessment Development Timelines

Frameworks and Textbook Adoption

13

Current Assessment Practices

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires assessing

– ELA and math in grades 3-8 In CA CSTs, CMA, & CAPA

– ELA and math at least once in grades 10-12 In CA CAHSEE grade 10

– Science at least once during each of three specified grade spans: 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12

In CA grades – 5 & 8 science CSTS, CMA & CAPA– 10th grade Life Science, CMA & CAPA

14

Assessment Development Timelines

New Common Core Assessments to– be developed and pilot tested in 2011-12– be field tested in 2012-13 & 2013-14– “go live” and conduct standards setting in 2014-15

15

Assessment Consortia

The beginnings

16

The Assessment Consortia Beginnings

During 1st Round of RTTT Application– There were 7 Assessment Consortia – CA joined 3-5 Consortia (no cost for membership)

During 2nd Round of RTTT Application– 7 assessment consortia joined/coalesced to which

resulted in 2 remaining consortia

17

Request for Applications (RFA’s)Consortia Goals

Competitive grants for consortia to develop comprehensive assessment systems that

– Align to CCSS– Are designed to measure and documents students’ readiness for

college and careers by the time they graduate from high school. Then work backward to measure students’ progress toward that goal.

Measure longitudinal growth results have to be comparable across states at the student level (not at the aggregate level)

Meet rigorous, internationally benchmarked assessments To be fully implemented by the 2014-15 school year

18

Assessment System Must Develop

Common assessments, policies, procedures and definitions, for example– Test administration conditions– Release of test items– Test security– Accommodations allowed– Definition of English learners

19

Assessments Must

Allow for multiple measures across a full range of performance

Consist of formative assessments administered multiple times a year so teachers can use results to adjust instruction

Allow for in-depth assessment of writing and mathematics problem-solving (higher order thinking)

Be computer enhanced and scored

20

Must Produce Data to Inform

Evaluation of school effectiveness Evaluation of principal and teacher

effectiveness Determinations of principal and teacher

professional development and support needs Teaching, learning and program

improvement Student promotion and graduation decisions

21

Assessment Consortia Awarded

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College & Careers (PARCC)– http://www.achieve.org/files/CCSS&Assessments.

pdf

SMARTER Balanced Consortium– http://www.k12.wa.us/smarter/

22

Comparing Consortia

CA joined PARCC – A consortium of 26

states– Procurement state is

Florida– Achieve (American

Diploma Project) is the managing partner

– Received $170 million

SMARTER Balanced Consortium

– Consortium of 31 states (many Western states)

– Procurement state is Washington

– WestEd is the managing partner

– Received $160 million

$75 million is CA’s combined budget for STAR and CAHSEE

23

A 3rd Grant Award RFA

$10 million earmarked for high school assessment development (specifically end of course assessment)

ED did not fund the group that applied ED gave PARCC some additional funding

that will probably be used for the high school assessment system.

24

PARCC Assessment Characteristics

3 “through-course” assessments given during the year (after 35%, 50%, and 75% of year)

– Allow assessment of full breadth of standards– Provide frequent feedback to teachers and educators (formative

assessment) Culminating assessment after 90% of instruction (current CA is

after 85% of instruction) Likely that the assessments won’t be as long as current CSTs Proposal required many types of items: multiple choice,

constructed response, computer enhanced and computer scored

25

Examples of Internationally Benchmarked Assessments

NAEP Released Items

26

Existing Internationally Benchmarked Assessments

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

– http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

– http://nces.ed.gov/timss/

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

– http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls/

NCES: National Center for Educational Statistics

Part of US Department of Education (ED)

27

NAEP - Multiple Choice (MC) Grade 4, Medium Difficulty

15. Which picture shows that is the same as

A.

B.

C.

D.

28

NAEP - Short Constructed Response (SCR) Grade 4, Medium Difficulty

29

NAEP - Extended Constructed Response (ECR) Grade 4, Medium Difficulty

30

NAEP - Extended Constructed Response (ECR) Grade 4, Hard Difficulty

31

NAEP - Extended Constructed Response (ECR) Grade 8, Medium

Describe what happens to the speaker of the poem and explain what this experience makes the speaker realize.

32

Pamela Tyson, PhD

Director of Educational Services

Contra Costa County Office of Education

Ptyson@cccoe.k12.ca.us