1 / 41

MDE Update: CCSSM and PARCC Assessment

MDE Update: CCSSM and PARCC Assessment. 2013 Making Connections Conference MS Gulf Coast Coliseum and Convention Center Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Marla Davis, Ph.D., NBCT, Office Director for Mathematics Office of Curriculum and Instruction. Agenda .

waite
Download Presentation

MDE Update: CCSSM and PARCC Assessment

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. MDE Update: CCSSM and PARCC Assessment 2013 Making Connections Conference MS Gulf Coast Coliseum and Convention Center Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Marla Davis, Ph.D., NBCT, Office Director for Mathematics Office of Curriculum and Instruction

  2. Agenda • CCSSM Guidance from the MDE (July 2012 – June 2013) • MDE CCSS High School Mathematics Transition Task Force • PARCC Math Assessment Update • Accountability and Assessment

  3. CCSSM Guidance from the MDE (July 2012 - June 2013)

  4. Suggested Implementation Timeline 2011 - 2012 Grades K-2 2012 - 2013 Grades 3-8 2013 - 2014 Grades 9-12 2014 - 2015 Live Assessments

  5. Changed to Fall 2013

  6. CCSSM Guidance from the MDE July 2012: Grades 9-12 Initial Training (Regional Training of the Trainers, Face-to-Face) • Design and structure of the CCSSM • MS Mathematics Frameworks content strands vs. CCSSM conceptual categories • Standards for Mathematical Practice • Instructional support for particular standards (A-REI.II, F-BF.1a, and G-SRT.2a) • PARCC Model Content Frameworks • Planning at the district level

  7. CCSSM Guidance from the MDE • October 2012: Successful Integration of the Standards for Mathematical Practice (SMPs) • Close Reading • Instructional support • Evaluating student work for evidence of the SMP • Activities, manipulatives, questioning strategies, and resources for immediate classroom use • November 2012: The CCSSM Trilogy • Reviewed the SMPs, Progression Documents (PDs) and the PARCC Model Content Frameworks (MCF) • Designing in-class assessments and activities using the SMPs, PDs, and the MCF

  8. CCSSM Guidance from the MDE • December 2012: Preparing for the PARCC Math Assessment (vol. 1) • PARCC Assessment Design • Mathematical Task Types (Type I, II, and III) • Virtual Toolbox (Calculator Policy, Reference Sheet, and Virtual Manipulatives) • Instructional Support for the Virtual Toolbox • January 2013: Administrative Support for the CCSSM • Tri-State Quality Review Rubric • Classroom observations • “Book Studies” using the Progression Documents

  9. CCSSM Guidance from the MDE • February 2013: Frequently Asked Questions from the Field • Language within individual standards (e.g. “includes”) • SMP #7 vs. SMP #8 • Algebra I at the 8th grade • PARCC assessment • MDE Future Training • March 2013: Preparing for the PARCC Math Assessment (vol. 2) • Number of sessions • Number of items by grade • Estimated testing time on task • Assessment/testing “window” • PARCC timeline for future guidance

  10. CCSSM Guidance from the MDE • April 2013: Evaluating the CCSS for High School Mathematics • Linked the Grade 3-8 domains to the HS conceptual categories • Demonstrated effective use of the Modeling conceptual category (using A-REI.11) • Evaluating student work for evidence of the SMPs • PARCC Assessment Blueprints/Evidence Tables (new, clean version)

  11. CCSSM Guidance from the MDE • May 2013: Grades 9-12 Follow-up Training • Reviewed MDE CCSSM trainings and webinars provided by the MDE Office of Curriculum and Instruction • Instructional support for cross-cutting standard (A.REI.4b) • Instructional support for plus standard (G-SRT.9) • Suggested next steps at the local level

  12. CCSSM Guidance from the MDE • June 3, 2013: Preparing for the PARCC Math Assessment (vol. 3) • provided districts/schools with a template for aligning all of the resources and documents needed to develop unit/lesson plans • assisted participants with developing professional development and training materials for mathematics teachers (Grades K-12) during the summer and fall of 2013

  13. MDE CCSS High School Mathematics Transition Task Force

  14. MDE CCSS High School Mathematics Transition Task Force • Consisted of 15 select administrators, mathematics teachers, and IHL/CJC representatives from across the state; as well as personnel from various MDE offices. • Charged with the task of making recommendations on the following topics: • whether to keep or discontinue current MS courses beginning with the 2014-15 school year • Naming the 4th year Common Core course that consists of the CCSSM plus standards • Graduation requirements and Carnegie units • 8th grade Algebra I

  15. MDE CCSS High School Mathematics Transition Task Force • Recommendations will be submitted to the Office of the Superintendent and the State Board of Education in the coming months • Guidance will be provided to districts once a decision is made regarding the Task Force’s recommendations • IHL and CJC representatives will meet Fall 2013 to begin planning stages of guidance for teacher preparation courses, entry-level mathematics courses, and admission requirements

  16. PARCC Math Assessment Update

  17. Device Capacity: “Rule of Thumb”

  18. Testing Window:Grades 3-11 • Districts will have a maximum of two four-week windows to administer the Performance Based Assessments (PBA) and the End-of-Year (EOY) assessments • Districts may opt to administer the assessments in a shorter time span if there is capacity to do so

  19. PARCC Assessment Sessions: Grades 3-11

  20. PARCC Assessment Sessions: Estimated Testing Time on Task • For Grade 3 students, what is the estimated time on task for the 2nd session of the Math PBA? ________ • For Grade 4 students, what is the estimated time on task for the 1stsession of the Math EOY? ________ • For Grade 5 students, what is the total estimated testing time on task? _________ http://www.parcconline.org/assessment-administration-guidance

  21. PARCC Assessment Time:Grades 3-11 • The estimated time-on-task for a typical student to complete the full battery of PBA and EOY assessments in ELA and Mathematics is 8-10 hours • Specific session lengths and totals by grade level are available online at the PARCC website • Refined guidance will be shared after field testing.

  22. PARCC Proposed Performance Level Descriptors Purpose • To report the results of assessment(s) used to make College- and Career-Ready (CCR) determinations • To report the results of high school end-of-grade ELA/literacy assessments and end-of-course math assessments (Grades 9 and 10) • To report the results of end-of-grade assessments for Grades 3-8

  23. PARCC Proposed Performance Level Descriptors • PARCC will report student achievement on the PARCC assessments using five (5) performance level descriptors • No names for the levels have been proposed at this time. • Level 4 is the proposed level for earning a CCR Determination Taken from http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCCCRDPolicyandPLDs_FINAL.pdf

  24. PARCC Proposed Performance Level Descriptors Although many current state assessments report student achievement using three (3) or four (4) performance levels, PARCC will use five (5) levels for a number of reasons: • PARCC assessments will include a sufficient number of score points to support the accurate classification of student performance into five levels • Five levels will help schools better target assistance to students; • Five levels will provide states with options for using performance levels with greater precision in various accountability mechanisms and decisions • Five levels will provide increased opportunities for students, schools, and districts to demonstrate growth Taken from http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCCCRDPolicyandPLDs_FINAL.pdf

  25. PARCC Grade Level Evidence Tables(also known as Assessment Blueprints or Item Specifications) • Released in April 2013 on the PARCC website. • Communicate how individual standards will be assessed on the EOY assessments and PBA/MYA assessments • Identify the Standard(s) for Mathematical Practice that students must demonstrate in their response for each standard • Provide implications for instruction and in-class assessments

  26. Evidence Statement Tables:Types of Evidence Statements Several types of evidence statements are being used to describe what a task should be assessing, including: • Those using exact standards language • Those transparently derived from exact standards language, e.g., by splitting a content standard • Integrative evidence statementsthat express plausible direct implications of the standards without going beyond the standards to create new requirements • Sub-claim C & D evidence statements, which put SMP #3, #4, and #6 as primary with connections to content

  27. PARCC Grade Level Evidence Tables Directions: • Locate the blue handout: Grade 3 PBA/MYA and EOY Assessment Evidence Tables. (excerpt) • Review this document as the facilitator describes key features.

  28. 1. Evidence Statements using Exact Standards Language (refer to PBA, page 1)

  29. 2. Evidence Statements Derived from Exact Standards (refer to PBA, p. 2)

  30. 3. Integrative Evidence Statements • An Evidence Statement could be integrated across • Grade/Course – Example: 3.Int.3(Integrated across Grade 3) • Domain– Example: 4.NF.Int.1 (Integrated across the Numbers and Operations-Fractions domain) • Cluster - Example: 3.NF.A.Int.1 (Integrated across the first cluster in the Number and Operations-Fractions domain) Note: The extension numbers “.1, .2, .3-3” on all “Int” Evidence Statements are used for numbering and/or ordering purposes for item developers.

  31. 3. Integrative Evidence Statements (refer to EOY, p. 5)

  32. 3. Integrative Evidence Statements (refer to EOY, p. 7)

  33. 4. Sub-claim C and Sub-claim D Evidence Statements (refer to PBA, p. 9) Please note within 3.C.7 and 3.D.2, the Evidence Statements will address on grade level Reasoning (3.C.7) and Modeling (3.D.2) but will utilize “securely held (grade 2) content”.

  34. Accountability and Assessment

  35. Accountability and Assessment Students will be assessed based on a terminal Algebra II/Math III assessment enhanced by two additional performance based tasks designed to assess securely held knowledge from Algebra I/Mathematics I, Geometry/Mathematics II, and prior grades (possibly reaching down into middle school content). The blueprint for the Algebra II/Math III assessment already includes two performance based assessment items designed to assess securely held knowledge by requiring students to apply skills attained in previous high school math courses (specifically Algebra I/Math I and Geometry/Math II) by performing modeling and reasoning tasks. The enhanced math assessment approved by the Governing Board and ACCR will require students to complete two additional performance based tasks.

  36. Accountability and Assessment For years 1-3 (2014 – 2015; 2015 – 2016; 2016 – 2017) of operational administration, the CCRD in math will be based on student scores from the enhanced terminal mathematics assessment (Algebra II or Math III) only.  In the fourth year (2017 – 2018), after one cohort of students has taken all three end of course assessments, PARCC (or PARCC states) will evaluate the data from these exams to determine whether incorporating student results from the Algebra I/Math I and Geometry/Math II assessments adds predictive validity to the CCRD.  If predictive validity increases, then PARCC will determine whether to incorporate scores from earlier EOC exams into the final CCR determination.

  37. Accountability and Assessment • The Accountability Task Force drafted a State Accountability and Assessment Transitional Timeline which was presented to the Board in April 2013. • This timeline is currently out for public review. Note: No flexibility on federal requirements regarding state assessments is expected prior to the 2014-2015 school term.

  38. CCSSM Exemplar Assessment Prototypes PARCC http://www.parcconline.org/samples/item-task-prototypes Smarter Balanced (SBAC) http://www.ode.state.org.us/serach/page/?id=3747 Illustrative Mathematics (IM) www.illustrativemathematics.org Mathematics Assessment Resources Service (MARS) http://map.mathshell.org/materials/lessons.php New York City Dept of Education (NYC) http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/CommonCoreLibrary/TasksUnitsStudentWork/default.htm

  39. CCSSM Resources Common Core Website www.corestandards.org PARCC Assessment Administration Guidance http://www.parcconline.org/assessment-administration-guidance PARCC Grade Level Assessment Blueprints and Test Specifications http://www.parcconline.org/assessment-blueprints-test-specs Progression Documents for CCSSM http://math.arizona.edu/~ime/progressions/ PARCC Model Content Frameworks for Mathematics http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-model-content-frameworks SEDL CCSSM Support Videos http://secc.sedl.org/common_core_videos/

  40. MDE Resources Office of Curriculum and Instruction www.mde.k12.ms.us/ci MDE iTunes U (archived webinars) www.mde.k12.ms.us/itunes MDE Common Core Website www.mde.k12.ms.us/ccss CCSS and PARCC training materials https://districtaccess.mde.k12.ms.us/commoncore/ Curriculum and Instruction Listserv http://fyt.mde.k12.ms.us/subscribe/subscribe_curriculum.html

  41. MDE Contact Information Office of Curriculum and Instruction 601.359.2586 Office of Accreditation 601.359.3764 Nathan Oakley – Director of Curriculum and Instruction noakley@mde.k12.ms.us Dr. Marla Davis – Office Director for Mathematics mdavis@mde.k12.ms.us

More Related