sbe board district

8/10/2019 SBE Board District

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sbe-board-district 1/63

Tuesday

January 6, 2015

5:00 – 8:00 pm

Outlook at the

Duncan Center

Dover, DE

STATE BOARD OFEDUCATION

ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND

ACCOUNTABILITY

WORKSHOP



Opening remarks

Starter polls and questions

WELCOME



Assessment:

What are the key components of the State assessment system

Name four differences in the Smarter Summative compared to DCAS

Develop a deeper understanding of what is meant by the Assessment

Suite

How are districts and schools utilizing theses assessments to improve

instruction?

Accountability

How will the new Accountability system differ from the existing

system? How can you be involved in the development of the ESEA Flexibility

Renewal application?

What is the difference between the Accountability system and theESEA Flexibility Application?

FIVE MAIN POINTS AND ESSENTIAL

QUESTIONS TO TAKE AWAY FROM TONIGHT’S

WORKSHOP



DeSSADELAWARE STATE

ASSESSMENT SYSTEM



5

Smarter

ELA/Literacy

Smarter

Mathematics

Smarter Interim Comp

Assessments

Smarter DigitalLibrary

DCAS Science

DCAS

Social Studies

NAEP

SAT

PSAT

DCAS-Alt1

End of CourseAlg II and IM III

Smarter Interim

Assessment Blocks

End of Course

US History

ACCESS (ELL)

Grade 9/10Option

Delaware

System of

Student

Assessments



NEW SMARTER ASSESSMENTS:MEASURING WHERE STUDENTS AR E ON THEIR PATH TO

SUCCESS

Replace existing tests and are an improvement

Provide an academic checkup by measuring real-world skills

l ike critical thinking and problem solving

Provide information during the year to give teachers and

parents a better picture of where students are succeeding

and where they need help

6



A BALANCED ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

7



SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS FOR

ACCOUNTABILITY

8



SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT

(COMPUTER ADAPTIVE)

Administered within the last 12 weeks (grades 3 –8) and 7

weeks (grade 11) of the instructional year

Includes a variety of question types

Selected response

Short constructed response

Extended constructed response

Technology enhanced

A small number of items will require hand-scoring by

professionally trained scorers

9




(COMPUTER ADAPTIVE)

Assesses the full range of Common Core in ELA/Literacy and

mathematics for students in grades 3–8 and 11

Measures current student achievement and growth acrosstime, showing progress toward college and career readiness

10




(PERFORMANCE TASK)

A Performance Task (PT) is made up of a Classroom Activity

and an individually administered, computer-generated task

The Classroom Activity takes place before the student

engages in the performance task, is not scored, and doesnot have special technology requirements

The Classroom Activity is a teacher-led group activity

designed to provide needed context for a particular PT topic

11




(PERFORMANCE TASK)

Each student will complete one PT in each content area

There are multiple performance tasks associated with a

particular Classroom Activity and PT topic

PT items require hand-scoring — for summative by

professionally trained scorers

12



SUMMARY OF STATE ASSESSMENT TIME

Total Assessment Time per grade level

TOTAL

TIME K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

CURRENT

w/ DCAS2 0 3 9 12 10.5 9 10.5 12 9 13 8.5 0*

PROPOSED

with

SMARTER

2 0 0 6 7 7.5 8.5 8 9.5 0 4 13 0*

* NAEP – Not given every year and full duration of test not given to any one student, students take different portions of test in designated years in designated

subjects. – Included in total for 4th & 8th, 12th grade is a very small sample 240 total in state for 2015

** DCAS Alt-1 – students who take DCAS Alt-1 do not also take SMARTER, thus this time is not in addition to SMARTER, but is instead of it

*** ACCESS Language is only taken by ELL students – Not included in total, since not all student take it

**** EOC Algebra 2/ IM III – is no longer required after the switch to Smarter, it remains an option for LEA’s if they choose

# 9th

and 10th

grade assessments are optional for LEA’s



SMARTER

ACCESSIBILITY



SMARTER ASSESSMENTS …

… provide more accommodations/supports than any one state

could develop individually

… are some of the most accessible tests available

American Sign Language (ASL) (video)

Refreshable Braille

Text to Speech (TTS)

Various language glossaries available

External devices/software

Supports available to general education students

15



UNIVERSAL TOOLS, DESIGNATED

SUPPORTS, AND ACCOMMODATIONS

16



SMARTER FIELD TEST FEEDBACK

Site visits were conducted by 14 DDOE staff during the field testsessions and included:

Observation (26 visits)

Discussions with building/district administrators, test

coordinators, teachers, and students Follow-up:

Debrief sessions at DDOE

Share out of information with districts, assessment department, andSmarter Balanced

An announcement at the monthly Teaching and Learning Cadre

meeting was made requesting feedback

Smarter Balanced Help Desk reports were also considered in theDDOE feedback gathering and review process.

17



POSITIVES DURING FIELD TEST

Print on demand worked well

Classroom activity/PT process

Students were very dil igent

Liked the online dictionary, notepad, and the classroom

activity

Teachers stated Per formance Tasks created a better testing

situation

Some students felt the test was better than a multiple choice

test – it was a better test of what they knew

18



SUGGESTIONS/COMMENTS ABOUT FIELD

TEST

Need practice with listening portions — develop additional tools

for field

Training should require taking the practice test

Hold meetings with test coordinators, especially this first

operational year

Stress importance of preparing prior to session time, training,

reading the Test Administration Manual (TAM), and ensuring

accommodations are addressed in preparation

Share technology concerns with Smarter — hard stops, initial

set-up, streamlining TAM, clarifying directions for PT

Develop/share practice activities

Many students reported the test was much harder than DCAS

19



ALGORITHM AND

FLEXIBLE ITEM POOL



FLEXIBLE ITEM POOL

DESIGN PRINCIPLES

The item selection algorithm will be designed to administer

out-of-grade-level items

All tests will adhere to on-grade blueprint content

requirements

Testing out of grade level will not increase test length.

21



On-grade contentcriteria minimum

met

Performance isclearly in Level 4

or Level 1

Off grade level itembetter meets

measurement andcontent

requirements than

on-grade items

CONDITIONS FOR STUDENTS RECEIVING

ITEMS FROM ADJACENT GRADE LEVELS

22



FINAL SCORES AND

ACHIEVEMENT CATEGORIES

The final score is based on responses to items from both the

PT and CAT components

All PTs are delivered on grade level

Smarter Balanced will report final overall scores, achievement

levels, and claim information from the whole test.

Score reports will display student per formance relative to

enrolled grade; there will not be off-grade score reports.

26



PREPARING FOR NEW TEST SCORES

Smarter Balanced assessments measure the full range of theCommon Core State Standards. They are designed to let teachers andparents know whether students are on track to be col lege- and

career-ready by the t ime they graduate.

Because the new standards set higher expectations for students- -and

the new tests are designed to assess student performance againstthese higher expectations--our definit ion of gr ade level performanceis higher than it used to be.

As a result , it means that fewer students will meet grade level

standards , especially for the first few years. Results should improveas students have additional years of instruction aligned to the newstandards and become better equipped to meet the ch allenges they

present.

This does not mean that our students are “doin g worse” than they didlast year. Rather, the scores represent a “new b seline” that providesa more accurate indicator for educators, students, and parents asthey work to meet the rigorous demands of college and careerreadiness.

27



LEARN MORE ABOUT ACHIEVEMENT

LEVEL SETTING

Video explanation of process

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW_yGf4BB1E

Interpretation and Use of Scores

http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Interpretation-and-Use-of -Scores.pdf

Easy to follow flow chart

http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Smarter-Balanced-Achievement-Level -Sett ing-Overv iew- .pdf

Q&A Document

http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Smarter-Balanced-Achievement-Levels-QA.pdf

www.DelExcels.org

28


http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Interpretation-and-Use-of-Scores.pdf


http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Smarter-Balanced-Achievement-Level-Setting-Overview-.pdf















































NEW SMARTER ASSESSMENTS:MEASURING WHERE STUDENTS AR E ON THEIR PATH TO

SUCCESS

Replace existing tests and are an improvement

Provide an academic checkup by measuring real -world skills

like critical thinking and problem solving

Provide information during the year to give teachers and

parents a better picture of where students are succeeding and

where they need help

29



A BALANCED ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

30



DIGITAL LIBRARY –

FORMATIVEASSESSMENT TOOLS

AND PROFESSIONAL

RESOURCES



DIGITAL LIBRARY RESOURCES

• Commissioned Professional Learning Modules

• Resources for educators, students and families

• Frame Formative Assessment within a Balanced Assessment System

• Articulate the Formative Assessment Process

• Highlight Formative Assessment Practices and Tools

AssessmentLiteracy Modules

• Commissioned Professional Learning Modules

• Instructional coaching for educators

• Instructional materials for students

• Demonstrate/support effective implementation of the formative

assessment process

• Focus on key content and practice from the Common Core State

Standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts

ExemplarInstructional

Modules

• High-quality vetted instructional resources and tools for educators

•

High-quality vetted resources and tools for students and families

• Reflect and support the formative assessment process

• Reflect and support the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics

and English Language Arts

• Create Professional Learning Communities

EducationResources

32



SUPPORTS FOR FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT

PRACTICES

Digital Library

State Network Educators

State Leadership Team

Additional Formative Assessment Supports

Common Ground 2.0

Literacy and Math Cadre

Literacy and Math Coalition

33



34

INTERIMASSESSMENTS



INTERIM ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS

35



THREE PHASE APPROACH

PHASE I – PRE-HAND SCORING DECEMBER)

Focuses on developing background knowledge and preparing for the

administration of the Smarter Interim Assessments to be released

in January

P

HASE

I I – H

AND

-S

CORING

T

RAINING

J

ANUARY

)

Focuses on the hand-scoring process to promote integrity, validity,

and reliability of scoring and alignment with summative scoring

P

HASE

I I I – P

OST

-H

AND

S

CORING

J

ANUARY

–S

UMMER

)

Focuses on the entry, interpretation, and usage of scores while

planning forward to enhance the process.

36



37

Brian Touchette

Office of Assessment

[email protected]

(302) 735-4090

Renee ParsleyCurriculum, Instruction, and Professional Development

[email protected]

(302) 735-4180

Carolyn Lazar

Office of [email protected]

(302) 735-4090

E-mail any additional questions or comments

mailto:[email protected]










Interim and

Formative

Assessment

DISTRICT AND SCHOOL

IMPLEMENTATION



Audience Q&A

Break/Transition

ASSESSMENT



Assessment

System and

Accountability

Workshop

Tuesday,

January 6,2015

Outlook at the

Duncan Center

Dover, DE

DEVELOPMENT OF ANEW STATE

ACCOUNTABILITYSYSTEM



41

Standards andAssessments

HighPerforming

Schools

Educators asCatalysts

21st Century

Skills

Communication of initiatives and goals

Collaboration between Board, Community Stakeholders, Educators, Parents, andStudents

High Standards and Rigorous Expectations for Students, Teachers, and Leaders

State Board of Education Strategic Framework



High Performing SchoolsBuilding models for systemic and sustainable reform

RATIONALE

High performing schools reflect amicrocosm of an integrated system that

works – high student achievementunderpinned by great teachers and

leaders working collaboratively to deliverrigorous and diverse curriculum, high

quality instruction, relevant experiences,strong accountability for student outcomes

and overall well being.

SBE STRATEGY

• Develop and Implement an

Accountability system of

growth and achievement that

is fair and consistent for all

public schools

• Strengthen authorizing

process to result in more

high performing charter

schools

• Highlight the best practices

and support their replicationacross schools/districts

• Outreach more with schools,

learning environments, and

stakeholders

EXPECTED OUTCOMES

• More high performing public schools

available to all Delaware students

• Improvements in student learning and

proficiency

• Narrowing of achievement gaps

• Increase graduation rate and decrease

high school drop outs

HighPerforming

Schools



A school accountabil ity system is

Process to help all education stakeholders – parents, teachers,administrators, policymakers, and the public – understand theperformance of a school

Includes multiple measures and tools to measure multiplefacets of school performance

Way to help all schools improve their own levels ofperformance

Applied at all levels – school, district and state

Transparent and actionable

ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM:

WHAT IS IT?



To provide a stronger system to communicate schoolperformance beyond the current single measure of AdequateYearly Progress (AYP)

We wanted the public to help drive the next accountabilit ysystem, so that it would be meaningful for all stakeholders DOE created a survey in multiple languages

Established an email address to collect all public comments and held townhalls throughout the state

We wanted the process to gather input and develop the systemto be transparent

Want the resulting Framework model to be based on multiplemeasures, be easily understood and interpreted, provideuseful information, and be a fair representation of overallschool performance

ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM



Process

Al igned to the basel ine expectations of a state accountabil i ty system

Performance areas set by the DDOE to al ign with ESEA guidance

Measures developed by the Accountabili ty Framework Working Group

Comprised of district representatives such as Superintendents, district

administrators, school administrators, charter school leaders and the StateBoard of Education

Work began in June and will continue through early 2015

Performance Areas

1. Academic Achievement

2. College and Career Readiness3. Chronic Absenteeism

4. On-Track to Graduation

ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM:

OVERVIEW OF PART A



AFWGACCOUNTABILITY

FRAMEWORK WORKING

GROUP



Theodore Boyer

Heath Chasanov, Woodbridge

Sharon Digirolamo, PolyTech

Ed Emmett, Positive Outcomes Charter School

Kevin Fitzgerald, Caesar Rodney

Ken Hutchins, Capital Jason Conway, Lake Forest

Donna Johnson, SBE

Joe Jones, NCCVT

Jeff Klein, Appoquinimick

Sally Maldonado, Kuumba Academy

Gerri Marshall, RCCSD

Jay Owens, Indian River

David Ring, Delmar

AFWG MEMBERSHIP



Finalize components and methodology for measures in Part A

Assist with development of Community Planning Process fordevelopment of Part B

Assist with development of Community Survey

Develop methodology for measures in Part B

Develop overall metrics and rating methodology for school

accountability

Assist with methodology for accountability system components in

ESEA Flexibility renewal

WORK OF THE AFWG



Sought community feedback through a statewide

accountability survey through December 31 st

Potential measures: Industry recognized credentials

School climate surveys

Student literacy

Staff attendance

Closing the achievement gap

COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS:

OVERVIEW OF PART B



Town Halls were held in each county:

November 5, Wilmington

November 12, Dover

November 13, Middletown

November 19, Georgetown

Common themes:

Simplicity of data

Clear consequences for lack of performance

Ability for school to tell its story

FEEDBACK FROM TOWN HALLS



SURVEY RESPONDENT RESULTS AS OF

JANUARY 5, 2015



Accountability Framework Working Group willanalyze the data this month and makerecommendations to the Secretary

Survey respondent results by county as of January

5, 2015:

New Castle = 65.6% (Statewide = 59.4%)Kent = 17.4% (18.3%)Sussex = 17.0% (22.3%)

Public release of results in February to share theresults with the community

COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS:

OVERVIEW OF SURVEY



The goal is to create a user-friendly, accessible school

report card

Not all metrics included on a report card are included in the

classification calculation

Additional metrics are reported to provide context for school

performance

State asked the public to tell us what they want reported

ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM: SCHOOL

REPORT CARDS



January – February (2015)

Survey data analysis conducted

February (2015)

Public release of survey results

January – April (2015)

Final metrics developed by AFWG with DDOE

Spring/Summer(2015):

Online school report card platform is developed and tested

Early Fall (2015): Online report card portal available

STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM

TIMELINE

ADDITIONAL STATE ACCOUNTABILITY



ADDITIONAL STATE ACCOUNTABILITY

SYSTEM INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE

http://www.doe.k12.de.us/domain/234

55



ESEA FLEXIBILITY RENEWAL

APPLICATION

Ryan Reyna,

DDOEDirector of

Accountability



1. College- and career-ready expectations for all

students

2. Differentiated recognition, accountability and

support systems for schools and districts

3. Supporting effective instruction and leadership

4. Reducing duplication and unnecessary burden

ESEA FLEXIBILITY PRINCIPLES



DDOE approved for ESEA Flexibility May 2012

Amendments to align RTTT/ESEA routines and targets in Oct 2012

For SY 2012-13 and SY 2013-14

USED Monitoring of DDOE (Fall 2012 and Aug 2013)

Part B Monitoring Report received November 2013

Process and protocol for Focus Schools

How LEAs addressed other Title I Schools that were missing state AMOs

ESEA Flexibility extension approved by USED July 2014

Amendments to address issues in monitoring report, Smarter Balanced assessments, PrioritySchools and LEA performance reviews

For SY 2014-15

ESEA Flexibility renewal guidance released by USED November 2014

FAQ released by USED December 2014

Applications due by March 31, 2015

Renewal for 3 years through SY 2017-18

ESEA FLEXIBILITY HISTORICAL OVERVIEW



Amend current plans

Describe continuous improvement process across all

principles

Demonstrate continued commitment to

implementing principles

Describe public engagement efforts

Important Note: If the Extension is not approved, then DDOE will

be required to implement full “NCLB” requirements in SY 2015 -16

ESEA FLEXIBILITY RENEWAL –

REQUIREMENTS



ESEA FLEXIBILITY RENEWAL – PUBLIC

ENGAGEMENT



What changes are being made to your school calendar?Professional development schedule? Or wraparound supportservices to align with the new assessments?

Have you had recent presentations from your assessment and curriculumcoordinators about the ongoing work with respect to formative andinterim assessments?

What additional flexibilities may be afforded schools anddistricts through the ESEA Flexibility?

How will you communicate the changes in assessment as well asthe changes in accountability to parents and your neighboring

community?

What local policy changes need to be considered now? Whatchanges should be considered within the next 6 months?

LOCAL POLICY LEVERS AND KEY QUESTIONS

TO ASK AS WE MOVE FORWARD



AUDIENCE Q & A



CLOSING COMMENTS AND SUMMARY

ACTIVITY

D l St t B d f Ed ti



~DRAFT~

65

VISION:

All Delaware students are prepared to lead full and productivelives in the 21st century global society

Mission:

In collaboration with community and stakeholders, theDelaware State Board of Education serves as the primary voicefor Delaware citizens on education policy to create a worldclass education system for every student.

Guiding Principles

1) Further our thriving democratic society with opportunities for anexcellent and equitable education for all students.

2) Enrich education policymaking with the inclusion of diverseperspectives that represent the breadth and depth of Delaware’s

citizens.3) Utilize research-based viewpoints to inform decisions in the bestinterest of all students.

4) Advocate for the development of the whole child through learning,teaching, and community engagement.

Delaware State Board of Education

Dr. Teri Quinn Gray,President

Mr. Jorge L.

Melendez,Vice President

Mr. Gregory B.

Coverdale, Jr.

Mr. G. Patrick

Heffernan

Mr. Randall L.

Hughes II

Mrs. Barbara B.

Rutt

Dr. Terry M.

Whittaker



You will find all slides and resources posted on the State

Board website:

www.destateboarded.k12.de.us under the Meetings Tab,

select Workshops, and the Date of the Workshop

If you have additional questions or comments please contact

the State Board of Education at

[email protected]

302-735-4010

THANK YOU

http://www.destateboarded.k12.de.us/



http://www.destateboarded.k12.de.us/

sbe board district

Documents