georgia’s changing assessment landscape melissa fincher, ph.d. associate superintendent for...

Georgia’s Changing Assessment Landscape

Melissa Fincher, Ph.D.Associate Superintendent for Assessment and Accountability

Georgia Department for Education

Winter GAELFebruary 2014

Federal Requirements for High Quality Assessments

• College & Career Ready standards and expectations• Assessments in grades 3 – 8 and high school

– capable of measuring student growth over the course of the academic year

– accessible for all students, including SWD and EL

• ELP standards that correspond to CCR standards• Administer no later than 2014 – 2015 • Annually report college-going and college-credit

accumulation rates for all students and student subgroups at district and high school levels

A New Assessment SystemComprehensive

– single program, not series of tests (e.g., CRCT; EOCT; WA)

Coherent – consistent expectations and rigor to position Georgia students to

compete with peers nationally and internationally– consistent signal about student preparedness for the next level, be it

the next grade, course, or college/career– consistent signal about student achievement both within system

(across grades and courses) and with external measures (NAEP; PSAT; SAT; ACT)

Consolidate– combine reading, language arts, and writing into a single measure to

align to the standards

Coherency – ConsistencyAchievement of Georgia Students in Mathematics2013•NAEP – Grade 8: 29% at/above proficient•CRCT – Grade 8: 83% met/exceeded•Coordinate Algebra EOCT: 37% met/exceeded•SAT – Class of 2013: 42% college ready benchmark*

•ACT – Class of 2013: 38% college ready benchmark**

2012•PSAT – sophomores: 35% on track to be CCR

*SAT data represent 71% of Class of 2013**ACT data represent 51% of Class of 2013

Georgia’s New Assessment System

As we begin to build a new assessment system, the plan is:

to consolidate reading, language arts, and writing into a single measure to align to the standards;

to embed norm-referenced items to provide a national comparison;

to share items with other states; to align expectations with other external measures to send

consistent signal of how Georgia students are doing compared to their peers; and

to involve USG and TCSG in the development to ensure the assessments signal college and career readiness.

Georgia’s Plan

• To accomplish this, Georgia must:

– continue strong partnership between K – 12 and post-secondary (USG and TCSG);

– include a variety of item types – more than just multiple choice;

– increase expectations for student learning and achievement; and

– continue to – and accelerate – transition to online administration

Resources to Move Us Forward

Resources• Even with many of the specifics of the new

assessment system unknown at this time, there are many, many resources that will prepare educators and students:– Content standards

• frameworks, formative lessons, PARCC evidence statements

– Sample items: PARCC; SBAC; Georgia OAS; other states (KY, NY)

– CRCT Readiness Indicators– Lexiles

CRCT Readiness Indicators:Reading, ELA, Mathematics

Indicators are designed to send a signal to stakeholders about where students are relative to the expectations in the our standards

Indicators are to provide feedback about our preparedness for the increase in rigor and expectation for student achievement that is on the horizon

Feedback will consist of the percent of students who achieved each readiness level – state , district, and school levels – for instructional planning purposes


For instructional planning and decision making:• Needs Additional Support: The student has

demonstrated that his or her command of the knowledge and skills described in the CCGPS warrants additional instructional supports.

• On Track: The student has demonstrated that his or her command of the knowledge and skills described in the CCGPS is sufficient; the student is on track for success at the next level.

• Commendable: The student has demonstrated that his or her command of the knowledge and skills described in the CCGPS is exemplary.


• For accountability purposes - at the student (promotion/retention), school, district, and state levels (CCRPI) - we will continue to use 800 and 850.

• It is strongly advised, however, that schools use the scale scores associated with the Readiness Indicators as targets - we need to be working actively to get students to these levels because we believe the new tests will be more in line with those expectations than the 800 / 850.

• The readiness indicators will be provided during the interim as additional feedback to districts and schools so they have "better" information about where students are in relation to where they need to be in 2014-2015 (with the increased rigor). Bottom line: shooting for 800 isn't going to be sufficient in future years.

11

Lexiles

Lexiles with CRCT Readiness Indicators

LexilesGrade

3Grade

4Grade

5Grade

6Grade

7Grade

8

Common Core Stretch Text – Lower Limit

520 740 830 925 970 1010

Common Core Stretch Text – Upper Limit

820 940 1010 1070 1120 1185

On Track 625 775 845 930 970 1070

Commendable 890 990 1085 1155 1210 1265

Reader – Lower Limit 330 445 565 665 735 805

Reader – Upper Limit 700 810 910 1000 1065 1100

2013 Median 790 860 940 1070 1095 1210

Formative Assessment InitiativesBringing a Balanced Assessment Focus to the Classroom

1600 new items loaded

Statewide launch in summer 2013

Phase I available February 2014; Phase II pilot in winter 2014

Key Findings from Pilots of Formative Open-Ended Items

• Overall performance shortfalls– Many students lacked organization and neatness– Don’t seem to understand what question required – Don’t follow directions well – Didn’t answer all parts of questions– Don’t follow through with “units” in Mathematics

answers

17

Overall ELA Phase I Pilot Summary Data

Grade

Number and Percent of Students Achieving Each Score PointTotal student

N/ % 0 1 2 3 4

3 475 1613 713 202 45 3048

15.60% 52.90% 23.40% 6.60% 1.50% 100%4 323 1518 814 199 83 2937

11.00% 51.70% 27.70% 6.80% 2.80% 100%5 367 1100 901 518 125 3011

12.20% 36.50% 29.90% 17.20% 4.20% 100%6 155 960 811 418 111 2455

6.30% 39.10% 33.00% 17.00% 4.50% 100%7 218 1387 1275 617 146 3643

6.00% 38.10% 35.00% 16.90% 4.00% 100%8 264 1140 1029 338 89 2860

9.20% 39.90% 36.00% 11.80% 3.10% 100%9 - 10 175 1016 783 361 81 2416

7.20% 42.10% 32.40% 14.90% 3.40% 100%11 - 12 376 1018 763 196 46 2399

15.70% 42.40% 31.80% 8.20% 1.90% 100%

Overall ELA Phase II Pilot Summary Data

Grade

Number and Percent of Students Achieving Each Score Point

Total Student N/ %0 1 2 3 4

3 812 1107 762 174 26 2881

28.18% 38.42% 26.45% 6.04% 0.90% 100%

4 906 1145 765 168 63 3047

29.73% 37.58% 25.11% 5.51% 2.07% 100%

5 839 948 1294 537 183 3801

22.07% 24.94% 34.04% 14.13% 4.81% 100%

6 626 1467 1028 408 86 3615

17.32% 40.58% 28.44% 11.29% 2.38% 100%

7 695 1002 1035 515 140 3387

20.52% 29.58% 30.56% 15.21% 4.13% 100%

8 1116 1534 827 391 80 3948

28.27% 38.86% 20.95% 9.90% 2.03% 100%

9 - 10 1262 1816 559 106 9 3752

33.64% 48.40% 14.90% 2.83% 0.24% 100%

11 - 12 739 1389 1175 388 131 3822

19.34% 36.34% 30.74% 10.15% 3.43% 100%

Overall Mathematics Phase I Pilot Summary Data

Grade Number and Percent of Students Achieving Each Score Point Total student N/ %

0 1 2 3 4 3 771 667 373 81 36 1928

40.00% 34.60% 19.30% 4.20% 1.90% 100%4 795 800 360 87 58 2100

37.90% 38.10% 17.10% 4.10% 2.80% 100%5 548 513 252 124 44 1481

37.00% 34.60% 17.00% 8.40% 3.00% 100%6 927 768 269 65 14 2043

45.40% 37.60% 13.20% 3.20% 0.70% 100%7 896 632 243 62 11 1844

48.60% 34.30% 13.20% 3.40% 0.60% 100%8 984 791 314 100 51 2240

43.90% 35.30% 14.00% 4.50% 2.30% 100%9-10 798 697 186 45 27 1753

45.50% 39.80% 10.60% 2.60% 1.50% 100%11-12 690 602 178 63 9 1542

44.70% 39.00% 11.50% 4.10% 0.60% 100%

Overall Mathematics Phase II Pilot Summary Data

Grade

Number and Percent of Students Achieving Each Score Point

Total Student N / %0 1 2 3 4

3 1378 1152 539 121 47 3237

42.57% 35.59% 16.65% 3.74% 1.45% 100%

4 1323 1264 325 83 25 3020

43.81% 41.85% 10.76% 2.75% 0.83% 100%

5 1351 1049 391 64 15 2870

47.07% 36.55% 13.62% 2.23% 0.52% 100%

6 1579 1171 370 135 53 3308

47.73% 35.40% 11.19% 4.08% 1.60% 100%

7 1602 856 219 72 36 2785

57.52% 30.74% 7.86% 2.59% 1.29% 100%

8 1529 1049 619 217 88 3502

43.66% 29.95% 17.68% 6.20% 2.51% 100%

9 - 12 2570 1435 299 59 23 4386

58.60% 32.72% 6.82% 1.35% 0.52% 100%

• ELA – Grades 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8,

and 10

• Mathematics – Grades 1, 2, 3, and

Coordinate Algebra

• U.S. History

• ELA – Grades 4, 5, 9, and 11

• Mathematics – Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

Analytic Geometry, and Advanced Algebra

• Biology

Benchmark Assessment Implementation Schedule

Phase I Fall 2013 pilot

Available Winter 2014

Phase IIWinter 2014 pilot

Available Fall 2014

FIP Learning Modules1. Introduction to Formative Instructional Practices

2. Clear Learning Targets

3. Collecting and Documenting Evidence of Student Learning

4. Analyzing Evidence and Providing Effective Feedback

5. Student Ownership of Learning: Peer Feedback, Self-Assessment, and More

6. Leading Formative Instructional Practices (for district and/or school leaders)

7. Coaching Formative Instructional Practices (for instructional coaches and/or teacher leaders)