Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update

1. Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update Joseph A. Martineau, Interim Director Office of General Assessment & Accountability Michigan Department of Education Presentation to the School Improvement Facilitators’ Network At 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 Eliminated • Reading • Mathematics • Shorter 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 • 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 2L 1L SD 285 4H 4L I 356 1H 1H 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 requires • College Entrance examination • Work Skills examination • Social Studies component • 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 Director Office of General Assessment & Accountability Michigan Department of Education P.O. Box 30008 Lansing, MI 48909 martineauj@michigan.gov 517-241-4710