Partnership for Assessment of College and Career Readiness Michael Cohen Achieve

1. Partnership for Assessment of College and Career Readiness Michael Cohen Achieve

2. Agenda • Context: Common Core State Standards and Race to the Top Common Assessment Competition • Overview of Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) • Postsecondary Involvement in PARCC • Implications and Opportunities for Postsecondary Education

3. Common Core State Standards & Race to the Top

4. Common Core State Standards Initiative • State-led effort coordinated by NGA and CCSSO • Achieve a partner in developing the standards • Standards for Math and English Language Arts/Literacy K-12 • Internationally benchmarked • Aligned with demands of college and careers • Provides coherent, focused, grade-by-grade progression • Based on evidence and research • Builds upon strengths and lessons of current state standards • Standards released on June 2, 2010 • 34 states have adopted the standards

5. Federal Incentives to adopt Common Core State Standards • Race to the Top State Grants • Points earned for committing to adopt CCSS • Race to the Top Common Assessment Grants • $350 million for consortia of states to develop common assessments aligned with common standards • Comprehensive Assessments ($320 million, 1-2 awards) • Grade 3-8 & high school/college- career-readiness • Math and ELA • Intended to replace NCLB & state accountability assessments • High School Assessments ($30 million, 1 award) • Range of subjects, not limited to math and ELA • Not tied to federal accountability requirements

6. Partnership for Assessment of College and Career Readiness (PARCC)

7. PARCC States

8. PARCC States 15 Participating States • Alabama • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Delaware • Georgia • Kentucky • Mississippi • New Hampshire • New Jersey • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Pennsylvania • South Carolina 11 Governing States • Arizona • District of Columbia • Florida-Fiscal Agent • Illinois • Indiana • Louisiana • Maryland • Massachusetts-Board Chair • New York • Rhode Island • Tennessee

9. Overview of PARCC’s Approach

10. Theory of Action: Fundamental Goal • States in the Partnership are committed to building their collective capacity to increase the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared for success in college and the workplace

11. Theory of Action • Reporting achievement results based on a clear definition of college and career readiness will improve outcomes for students • Assessments will identify whether students are ready for and prepared to succeed in entry-level postsecondary courses by the time they graduate from high school • The common assessment system will help make accountability policies better drivers of improvement • Classroom teachers will have an assessment system that functions as an integrated element enabling them to adjust instruction, individualize interventions, and fine-tune lessons throughout the school year • The common assessment system will help education leaders and policymakers make the case for improvement and for sustaining education reforms

12. PARTNERSHIP FOR ASSESSMENT OF READINESS FOR COLLEGE AND CAREERS (PARCC) Summative assessment for accountability English Language Arts and Mathematics Grades 3 – 11 Required; not for accountability BEGINNING OF YEAR END OF YEAR 25% 50% 75% 90% DIGITAL LIBRARY of released items, formative assessments, model curriculum frameworks, curriculum resources, student and educator tutorials and practice tests, scoring training modules, and professional development materials THROUGH-COURSE ASSESSMENT 2: ELA- 2and M-2 THROUGH-COURSE ASSESSMENT 3: ELA-3 and M-3 END OF YEAR ASSESSMENT: EOY THROUGH-COURSE ASSESSMENT 1: ELA- 1 and M-1 THROUGH-COURSE ASSESSMENT 4: ELA-4 • Description of assessment system components: • Through-Course Assessments –to be used for accountability pending validation studies: • ELA-1 and ELA-2: In a single session/class period, students will complete 1 or 2 tasks involving reading texts, drawing conclusions and presenting analysis in writing. • ELA-3: Over several sessions/class periods, students will locate and evaluate information from within a set of digital resources, evaluate their quality, select sources, and compose an essay or research paper. • ELA-4: (speaking and listening) Students will present their work from ELA-3 to classmates and respond to questions. Teachers will score, using a standardized rubric, and use results in determining students’ class grades. • M-1 and M-2: In a single session/class period, students will complete 1 to 3 tasks that assess 1 or 2 essential topics (standards or clusters of standards). • M-3: Students will perform multi-step performance task (s) that require conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and application of mathematical tools and reasoning, sometimes in unfamiliar contexts. • End-of-Year Comprehensive Assessment: • EOY: Students will take this assessment on the computer, and it will be rapidly scored. The test will be composed of 40 to 65 questions with a range of item types, including innovative items. This representation was prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management for illustration purposes only. For a full description of this assessment system go www.fldoe.org/parcc/.

13. Assessment System Design Advantages of Through Course components • Reflect and support good instructional practice • Signals received throughout the year, nearer in time to when key skills and critical knowledge are addressed • Components together address the full range of the CCSS • Multiple measures of student performance throughout the year, including in-depth assessment of writing and mathematics problem-solving skills • Actionable data that teachers can use to plan and adjust instruction • Ability to measure the performance of students across the ability spectrum

14. Assessment System Design • Anchored by college and career readiness as measured by the Common core State Standards • Measure rigorous content and students’ ability to apply that content • Include SWD and ELL students • Provide valid information on: • Student achievement, including in areas that have been traditionally hard to measure • Annual growth and progress toward college and career readiness • Comparability across schools, districts, states, and countries

15. Assessment System Design Data to Support Instruction, Professional Development, and Accountability Decisions • Types of Data • Student achievement scores and growth measures • Information on readiness for college and careers • Item analysis of released items • Reporting • Periodic Feedback Reports • Annual Stakeholder Reports • Item Analysis Reports • Interactive Data Tool (online) • Available data will be aggregated at a level appropriate for each audience and report

16. Assessment System Design Technology Based Summative Assessments • Significantly more rapid reporting of results • Allows use of innovative item types • Reduction in annual costs of assessments

17. Higher Education Engagement

18. Higher Education Engagement • Public postsecondary systems and institutions that enroll nearly 90% of direct matriculation students in PARCC states have committed to participate in development and use of college – ready assessments • Nearly 200 IHE partnerships covering approximately 1,000 campuses

19. College-Ready Assessments • California State University Early Assessment Program is a model: • State 11th grade assessments • Aligned to K-12 state standards • Measure readiness skills as defined by CSU • Results used to: • exempt students from placement exams (and guarantee placement into credit-bearing courses, • Identify skill gaps that must be addresses • Trigger interventions and supports in senior year • ADP Algebra II exam is a multi-state model

20. Setting College-Ready Performance Standards • PARCC will used evidence from research such as: • Concurrent validity studies that compare performance on PARCC assessments with SAT, ACT, Compass, Accuplacer and other similar assessments • Predictive validity studies that document the relationship between performance on PARCC assessments and subsequent performance in first year courses • Judgment studies by postsecondary faculty rating the importance of specific standards and test items for success in first year courses they teach • Alignment studies that examine the relationship between content and student work in first year courses and what PARCC assessments measure

21. Higher Education Engagement • A College-Ready Advisory Committee • Include system and institution chancellors/presidents from partnership states • Engage institutions and faculty on the use of college-ready assessments as an indicator of students’ readiness • College-Ready Working Groups • Include faculty from mathematics, English, composition, and other relevant disciplines • Participate in all aspects of test development, including developing test specification and participating on test development committees • Participate in a robust, research-based process to set the college-ready achievement levels

22. Higher Education Engagement Together the groups will work in their states to engage representativegroups of faculty from participating IHEsaround how the Partnership’s college-ready assessments can help address the knowledge gaps that students chronically bring to their classrooms

23. Expected Outcomes of Higher Education Involvement • Better alignment of high school curricula with first-year college courses; • Development of “bridge courses” and exploration of dual enrollment policies • Targeted college-readiness supports to help students make the transition • Alignment of exit standards in high school with placement expectations of postsecondary systems

24. Implications for Higher Education • Aligning High School Standards, Assessments, and Cut Scores will provide honest feedback to students and parents regarding preparation for postsecondary success • It will help improve postsecondary preparation, reduce postsecondary remediation rates, and increase degree completion • New college-ready assessments will also show lower pass rates than do existing state assessments, creating pressures to lower the bar • THESE CHANGES CAN’T BE MADE WITHOUT THE SUSTAINED SUPPORT OF HIGHER EDUCATION

25. Michael Cohen Achieve mcohen@achieve.org www.achieve.org