ELA Common Core State Standards and SMARTER Balanced

1. ELA Common Core State Standards and SMARTER Balanced Region VII Common Core Conference Susan Gendron, Senior Fellow International Center for Leadership in Education Policy Coordinator, SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium September 28, 2011

2. An Overview of the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium

3. Assessment Consortia 1. Measure common core standards 2. Provide accurate information about what students know and can do: a. Student achievement standardsb. Student growth from year to yearc. On-track to college and career ready by the time of HS graduation

4. 29 Member States

5. Technical Advisory Committee

6. Institution of Higher Education (IHE) Partners • IHE partners • Include 163 public and 13 private institutions and systems of Higher Education • represent nearly 78% of the total number of direct matriculation students across all SMARTER Balanced States • IHE representatives and/or postsecondary faculty may serve on: • Executive Committee • Assessment scoring and item review committees • Standard-setting committees * Does not include California IHE partners

7. Assessment System Overview

8. Seven SMARTER Balanced Design Principles • An integrated system • Summative/Interim/Formative • Design with evidence of student performance • “Evidence-based design” • Teacher involvement • Prototype design; item/task writing; scoring of complex items/tasks • State-led with transparent governance • Engagement in policy and implementation decisions

9. Seven SMARTER Balanced Design Principles • Continuously improve teaching and learning • Regular feedback of progress; professional development supports • Useful information on multiple measures • Progression-based scores; extended response items and performance tasks • Adhere to established professional standards • AERA/NCME Standards for Testing • ATP Best Practices • JCSEE Standards (Utility, Reliability, Propriety, Feasibility)

10. The Challenge ...to here? How do we get from here... Common Core State Standards specify K-12 expectations for college and career readiness All studentsleave high school college and career ready ...and what can an assessment system do to help?

11. Assessment System Components Adaptive summative assessments benchmarked to college & career readiness Common Core State Standards specify K-12 expectations for college and career readiness All students leave high school college and career ready

12. Summative Assessments Summative assessments using online computer adaptive technologies • The accountability component • Adaptive testing... • A way to select items for students • Highly individualized • Accurate measurement across the performance scale • Very efficient – less testing time needed • Reports current achievement and growth across time • Multiple item types • Two performance tasks per year per content area • Students may take twice a year; results in two weeks

13. Assessment System Components Adaptive summative assessments benchmarked to college & career readiness Common Core State Standards specify K-12 expectations for college and career readiness All students leave high school college and career ready Adaptive interim assessments that are flexible and open providing actionable feedback

14. Interim Assessments Optional interim assessments using online adaptive technology • Non-secure and fully accessible • Timing and content are customizable • On same scale as the summative assessments • Includes performance tasks • Clear examples of the expected performance • Helps identify specific needs • Teachers included in item and task design and scoring

15. Assessment System Components Adaptive summative assessments benchmarked to college & career readiness Common Core State Standards specify K-12 expectations for college and career readiness Teachers can access formative tools and practices to improve instruction All students leave high school college and career ready Adaptive interim assessments that are flexible and open providing actionable feedback

16. Formative Tools and Practices Optional Web-based formative resources • Online resources for... • Aligning instruction to CCSS • Classroom evidence of student learning • Formative assessment guides • Training in item and task development, creating scoring guides/rubrics • Best-practice support through online learning modules • Comprehensive information portal... • Access to information about student progress • Student performance history

17. Responsible Flexibility for Implementation • Computerized testing • Paper/pencil option locally available during a 3-year transition • Spring 2011: State-by-state survey of technology/infrastructure gaps • End-of-course tests • Test-builder tool available to use interim item pool for EOCs • Common, interoperable open-source software • Accommodate State-level assessment options • Adoption of best practices procedures/protocols • Common protocols for item development: accessibility, language/cultural sensitivity, construct irrelevant variance • Common accommodation and translation protocols

18. Assessment System Components Adaptive summative assessments benchmarked to college & career readiness Common Core State Standards specify K-12 expectations for college and career readiness Teachers can access formative tools and practices to improve instruction All students leave high school college and career ready Adaptive interim assessments that are flexible and open providing actionable feedback

19. The System English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3–8 and High School BEGINNING OF YEAR END OF YEAR Last 12 weeks of year* DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE of formative tools, processes and exemplars; released items and tasks; model curriculum units; educator training; professional development tools and resources; scorer training modules; and teacher collaboration tools. INTERIM ASSESSMENT INTERIM ASSESSMENT Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks • PERFORMANCE • TASKS • Reading • Writing • Math END OF YEAR ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENT Scope, sequence, number, and timing of interim assessments locally determined Re-take option Optional Interim assessment system— Summative assessment for accountability * Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions. Source: http://www.ets.org

20. Evidence-Based Design Overview

22. Curriculum-Instruction-Assessment Connections

23. Evidence-Based Design Framework Interpretation Observation “Assessment Triangle” Cognition

24. Models of Cognition Describe how students acquire knowledge and develop competence in a particular area Reflect recent and credible scientific evidence of typical learning processes and informed experiences of expert teachers Describe typical learning progression toward competence, including milestones (benchmarks)

25. Observation Models A set of specifications for assessment tasks that will elicit illuminating responses from students The tasks or situations are linked to the cognitive model of learning and should prompt students to say, do, or create something that provides evidence to support inferences about students’ knowledge, skills, and cognitive processes

26. Interpretation Interpretations use the evidence from observations to make claims about what students understand and can do Claims Frame a manageable number of learning goals around which instruction can be organized Guide the specification of appropriate evidence Provides a basis for meaningful reporting to different interested audiences

27. An Overview of SBAC’s Approach Content Specifications … • Create a bridge between standards and assessment and, ultimately, instruction • Organize the standards around major constructs & big ideas • Express what students should learn and be able to do

28. ELA/Literacy Content Specifications

29. 5 Major Claims for ELA/Literacy & Literacy • Claim #1– Students can read closely & critically to comprehend a range of increasingly complex literary and informational texts. • Claim #2– Students can produce effective writing for a range of purposes and audiences. • Claim #3– Students can employ effective speaking and listening skills for a range of purposes and audiences. • Claim #4– Students can engage appropriately in collaborative and independent inquiry to investigate/research topics, pose questions, and gather and present information. • Claim #5– Students can use oral and written language skillfully across a range of literacy tasks.

30. Each claim is described for assessment • Rationale for each claim • Why is this learning goal important for College & Career Readiness (CCR)? • What does the research say about learning in this area? • What does ‘sufficient’ evidence look like? • What types of items/tasks? • What content/texts will be emphasized? • What are some suggested reporting categories?

31. Summative Assessment Targets • Indicate proposed prioritized content for the summative assessment- link CCSS to the kinds of items/tasks students will respond to • Show how one or more (or parts) CCSS addresses the target – ‘bundles’ CCSS (examples on next slide) • Standards or parts of standards that relate to same type of understanding & comparable rigor/DOK demands • Several similar CCSS from different strands

32. Summative Assessment Targets • Indentify intended rigor/Depth of Knowledge /DOK level for assessment targets and test items/tasks (Appendix B) • Illustrate how assessment targets relate to a hypothesized* learning progression across grade levels (See excerpts from the example reading Learning Progressions Frameworks (LPFs) in Appendix C. *Hypothesized learning progressions use our best application of current research to describe typical learning pathways. Student work analysis is used to validate our assumptions about learning.

34. Comment Period • ELA Closes today at 11:59 PDT • http://www.smarterbalanced.org/Resources.aspx.

35. To find out more... ...the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium can be found online at www.k12.wa.us/SMARTER

36. Rigor/Relevance For All Students C D A B

37. 1. Awareness 2. Comprehension 3. Application 4. Analysis 5. Synthesis 6. Evaluation Knowledge Taxonomy

38. Application Model 1.Knowledge in one discipline 2. Application within one discipline 3. Application across disciplines 4. Application to real-world predictable situations 5. Application to real-world unpredictable situations

39. Levels Bloom’s C D A B 6 5 4 Knowledge 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 Application

40. Students gather and store bits of knowledge/information and are expected to remember or understand this acquired knowledge. Application 3 A Acquisition Comprehension 2 Low-level Knowledge Awareness 1 1 Knowledge in one discipline 2 Apply knowledge in one discipline

41. Students use acquired knowledge to solve problems, design solutions, and complete work. Application 3 B Application Comprehension 2 Awareness 1 Low-level Application 3 Apply knowledge across disciplines 5 Apply to real-world unpredictable situation 4 Apply to real-world predictable situation

42. Students extend and refine their knowledge so that they can use it automatically and routinely to analyze and solve problems and create solutions. Evaluation 6 C Assimilation Synthesis 5 Analysis 4 High-level Knowledge Application 3 1 Knowledge in one discipline 2 Apply knowledge in one discipline

43. Students think in complex ways and apply acquired knowledge and skills, even when confronted with perplexing unknowns, to find creative solutions and take action that further develops their skills and knowledge. Evaluation 6 D Adaptation Synthesis 5 Analysis 4 High-level Application Application 3 3 Apply knowledge across disciplines 4 Apply to real-world predictable situation 5 Apply to real-world unpredictable situation

44. Standards D C B A

45. Assessments D C B A

46. STANDARDS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS & LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, SCIENCE, AND TECHNICAL SUBJECTS JUNE 2010

47. http://www.corestandards.org

48. Design and Organization Three appendices A: Research and evidence; glossary of key terms B: Reading text exemplars; sample performance tasks C: Annotated student writing samples

49. Design and Organization Shared responsibilities for students’ literacy development

50. Design and Organization Focus on results rather than means