Imagine…..

1. Imagine….. California Educational Research AssociationNovember 29, 2012Deb SigmanDeputy Superintendent of Public InstructionDistrict, School, and Innovation Branch

2. A Time When… • Standards • Curriculum • Assessments • Accountability

3. Standards and Curriculum

4. Math and ELA Standards • SB 1200 (Hancock) authorizes the SSPI to recommend and the SBE to adopt the ELA anchor standards for the CCSS. Additionally, if the SSPI and the SBE jointly find that there is a need to revise or modify the mathematics academic content standards as adopted by the SBE on August 2, 2010, SB 1200 calls for an advisory group of experts to be formed to provide recommendations to the SSPI and the SBE on modifying the mathematics standards. SB 1200 also provides additional needed time for the SBE to consider national science standards.

5. Assembly Bill 1246 • Assembly Bill 1246 (Brownley) authorizes the adoption of CCSS-aligned instructional materials for mathematics by 2014 and provides districts flexibility in the selection of instructional materials.

6. English Language Development Standards • The State Board of Education adopted new ELD standards in November 2012

7. Assembly Bill 1719 • AB 1719 (Fuentes) requires the CDE to develop a list of supplemental instructional materials for K–8 that provide a bridge to the new English language development standards for the SBE to approve by June 30, 2014. Additionally, it authorizes a school board to approve supplemental instructional materials other than those approved by the SBE if the school board determines the supplemental instructional materials are aligned to the revised ELD standards. AB 1719 also extends the timeline for the CDE and the SBE to complete a supplemental materials list for mathematics as required by SB 140.

8. Science Standards • Through a multistate, collaborative process, the Next Generation Science Standards will be based on the Framework for K–12 Science Education, developed by the National Research Council. The Next Generation Science Standards are scheduled to be completed in early 2013.

9. Assessments

10. STAR Reauthorization • Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program sunsets July 2014 • California Education Code 60604.5 amended • Extensive consultation with stakeholders

11. Current Assessment System • Originally designed in 1997 • Modifications made over the years • Current STAR system includes: • California Standards Tests • California Modified Assessment • Standards-based Tests in Spanish • California Alternate Performance Assessment • Other parts of state assessment system: • California High School Exit Examination • California English Language Development Test • Physical Fitness Test

12. Smarter Balanced Participation • In June 2011, California joined the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) • Develop assessments in English–language arts (ELA) and mathematics in grades three through eight and grade eleven • Will satisfy federal accountability requirement • Will include optional formative assessment tools and interim assessments

13. Alternate Assessment Participation • California recently joined the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) as a Tier II state • Representing a Tier II state, the California team will: • Dedicate a staff member to coordinate the work • Work directly with members of the Special Education Administrators of County Offices of Education (SEACO) and with directors of special education local plan areas (SELPA) to build a community of practice • Meet directly with the field implementers every other month with technology supported meetings in between and as needed • Deliver electronically to California stakeholders the comprehensive curriculum, instruction, and professional development modules available from the NCSC on the CCSS expected by fall 2012

14. Purpose of the New Assessment System • The SSPI and the CDE are committed to designing an assessment system that includes a variety of assessment approaches and item types that has as its primary purpose to model and promote high quality teaching and student learning activities.

15. Purpose of the New Assessment System (cont.) In accomplishing the primary purpose, the system can also: • Produce scores that can be aggregated for the purpose of holding schools and districts accountable for the progress of their students in learning the California academic content standards • Provide assessments and/or assessment tools in multiple grades covering the full breadth of the curriculum to provide clear expectations and incentives for teaching the full curriculum

16. Guiding Principles • Assess subjects and learning in ways that promote high-quality instruction • Conform to rigorous industry standards for test development • Use resources efficiently and effectively • Provide for inclusion of all students • Provide information on the assessment system that is readily available and understandable to parents, teachers, schools, and the public

17. Strengths of the Current System • Paper and pencil multiple-choice assessments inexpensively developed, administered, and scored • Reliable results • Provide secure measures of achievement • Use of multiple-choice approach has allowed for a wide variety of tests and a high level of reliability and validity in the accountability system

18. Limitations of the Current System • Multiple-choice assessments limit the types of knowledge and skills measured (less depth) • Limited types of items and formats • Criticized for negatively influencing instruction through narrowing of the curriculum • Limited student diagnostic information

19. Decisions Within Current Context • Common Core State Standards (CCSS) require a more integrated approach to delivering instruction (literacy across curriculum) • SBAC assessments will use multiple item types such as multiple-choice, constructed response, technology enhanced, and performance tasks • SBAC will provide optional formative assessment tools and interim assessments

20. Decisions Within Current Context (cont.) • Costs will likely be greater per student with SBAC assessments than the current system – different assessment • Need to consider allocating additional resources for assessment, finding more efficient ways to assess subjects not included in SBAC, and reduce the number of grades and subjects assessed • Consider utilizing various ways to administer, score, and report has the potential for realizing greater efficiencies

21. Decisions Within Current Context (cont.) • Choices beyond the SBAC assessments • State accountability considerations • Interim and formative assessments • Other grades/content areas • Matrix testing • Trade-offs between costs of the system and the kind of assessment and reporting desired

22. Accountability

23. Thinking Differently • Accountability beyond the API • Indicators beyond test results and graduations rates • Methods for incorporating new indicators into the API

24. Overview of Senate Bill 1458 • In September 2012, the legislature passed, and the governor signed, Senate Bill (SB) 1458 which significantly changed the composition of the high school Academic Performance Index (API).

25. Overview of SB 1458 (Cont.) • Beginning with the 2015–16 API cycle, 40% of a high school’s API must be from indicators other than state assessments, such as college and career readiness indicators and graduation rates.

26. Overview of SB 1458 (Cont.) • By October 1, 2013, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI), in consultation with the PSAA Advisory Committee, shall report to the legislature an alternative to the decile rank as a method for determining eligibility, preference, or priorities for statutory programs.

27. Overview of SB 1458 (Cont.) • By October 1, 2013, the SSPI must recommend to the SBE a method or methods for increasing the emphasis on science and history- social science. This emphasis may occur through changes in the API or through other means.

28. Overview of SB 1458 (Cont.) • The SSPI, with SBE approval, may incorporate into the API the rates at which students successfully promote from one grade to the next in middle and high school and successfully matriculate from middle to high school.

29. Overview of SB 1458 (Cont.) • The SSPI, with SBE approval, may develop and implement a program of school quality review that features locally convened panels to visit schools, observe teachers, interview students, and examine student work if an appropriation for this purpose is in the annual budget.

30. Draft SB 1458 Implementation Timeline • Key dates • October 1, 2013 legislative reports due • July 2013 to January 2015 interim reports provided to SBE every 6 months • July 2015 SBE adopts new high school indicators

31. Opportunities and Challenges • Critics and skeptics • Investment of time and money • Keep our eyes on the prize