1 / 12

Consortium-Based Algebra II Exam Development Initiative

Learn about the collaborative effort by states in developing Algebra II exams since 2006, led by Pearson with a state-led initiative. The exam aims for college readiness and a common measure at the high school level. Discover the purposes, challenges, state uses, and benefits of the consortium approach.

karens
Download Presentation

Consortium-Based Algebra II Exam Development Initiative

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ADP Assessment Consortium In summer 2006, nine states issued RFP for the development of an Algebra II EOC Exam: • Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island • Ohio acted as “lead state” in unprecedented multi-state procurement arrangement • Pearson awarded contract in 2007 with addition of Algebra I in 2008 • Since the consortium began, six additional states have joined: Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Washington. More states are expressing interest in the exam and joining the consortium… 2

  2. State-led initiative—led by K-12 chiefs and Governors seeking a common measure at the upper end of high school States worked together to agree on test content and design specifications based on ADP benchmarks, state standards Mix of item types (30% of points from extended response items) Mix of calculator/non-calculator Core test with modules to extend content, allow variation Common cut scores Achieve: convening, quality control, leadership on standard setting, reporting cross-state results Pearson: test development and administration, critical research, innovative standard setting design The Creation of the ADP Exams 3 3

  3. Multiple purposes Improve curriculum and instruction and ensure consistency of content and rigor Enable states to compare results (and pool resources) across and within states Indicate readiness for college credit bearing mathematics All design and development activities involved two- and four-year post-secondary mathematics faculty and high school teachers

  4. State Uses of the Algebra II Exam Most states are still in the process of developing and adopting policies for use of exam Some states require students completing Algebra II course to take the exam Arkansas Hawaii Indiana No state is using the exam as high stakes graduation test Many states are hoping exam will be used by postsecondary faculty as an indicator of readiness for credit bearing mathematics 5 5

  5. Example of College Ready HS Exam: CSU Early Assessment Program Augments 11th grade standards based Algebra II exam with additional items to ensure alignment with CSU readiness standards Students who score “ready” are exempt from taking placement exam as freshman if they enroll in CSU institution Students with lower scores Receive additional assistance in senior year Take required placement exam as freshman 6

  6. Unique approach to setting cut scores Purpose: To set common performance levels based on evidence Three types of validity studies: Concurrent studies—how does student performance on the Algebra II exam compare with other exams given in the high school to college transition? Cross-sectional studies—what is the relationship between college students’ performance on the exam and their course grades? Judgment studies—what kind of performance on the exam do college faculty expect? Content alignment studies (international and state comparisons) 7

  7. Benefits of a Consortium Quality Efficiency /Cost Sharing Interstate and Intrastate Comparison Possibility of common tools/supports 8 8

  8. Challenges Agreement on content and design State differences: Testing windows, Testing modes, Test security, Test guidelines, Calculator policy for mathematics, Accommodations, Special forms required by law (Braille, large print, Spanish, etc.), Legal requirements (Procurement), etc Meeting the various policy goals/multiple purposes Gaining credibility with higher ed

  9. Lessons learned Common need not mean “lowest common denominator” Opportunity for innovation – but tension about how far to stretch Compromise is critical Purpose of the exam is important to design/implementation Leadership/political will/clear policy goals are key

  10. Considerations – moving forward Purposes need to drive test design Balance between summative and interim assessments Anchored in college and career readiness Opportunity for Innovation International benchmarking Assessment as part of broader system of instructional tools/supports Ownership & Governance

More Related