MDE Update: CCSSM and PARCC Assessment

2013 Making Connections ConferenceMS Gulf Coast Coliseum and Convention Center

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Marla Davis, Ph.D., NBCT, Office Director for MathematicsOffice 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

CCSSM Guidance from the MDE

(July 2012 - June 2013)

3

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

CCSSM Guidance from the MDEJuly 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

6

CCSSM Guidance from the MDE

7

• 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

CCSSM Guidance from the MDE

8

• 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

CCSSM Guidance from the MDE

9

• 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

CCSSM Guidance from the MDE

10

• 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)

CCSSM Guidance from the MDE

11

• 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

CCSSM Guidance from the MDE

12

• 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

MDE CCSS High School Mathematics Transition

Task Force

13

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

14

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

15

PARCC Math Assessment Update

16

Device Capacity: “Rule of Thumb”School

TypeMinimum

Number of DevicesRecommended

Number of Devices

School with three tested grades (K-5, 6-8, 9-12)

One device for every two students in the largest tested grade

One device per student for the largest tested grade

School with six tested grades(K-8)

One device per student for the largest tested grade

One device per student for the two largest tested grades

17

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

18

PARCC Assessment Sessions: Grades 3-11

English Language Arts (ELA)PBA EOY

Up to 3 sessions Up to 2 sessions

MathematicsPBA EOY

Up to 2 sessions Up to 2 sessions

19

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 1st session of the Math EOY? ________

•For Grade 5 students, what is the total estimated testing time on task? _________

http://www.parcconline.org/assessment-administration-guidance

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.

21

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

22

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

23

Taken from http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCCCRDPolicyandPLDs_FINAL.pdf

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

24

Taken from http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCCCRDPolicyandPLDs_FINAL.pdf

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

25

26

Several types of evidence statements are being used to describe what a task should be assessing, including:1. Those using exact standards language2. Those transparently derived from exact standards language,

e.g., by splitting a content standard3. Integrative evidence statements that express plausible direct

implications of the standards without going beyond the standards to create new requirements

4. Sub-claim C & D evidence statements, which put SMP #3, #4, and #6 as primary with connections to content

Evidence Statement Tables:Types of Evidence Statements

27

Directions:• Locate the blue handout: Grade 3 PBA/MYA

and EOY Assessment Evidence Tables. (excerpt)

• Review this document as the facilitator describes key features.

PARCC Grade Level Evidence Tables

28

(refer to PBA, page 1)

1. Evidence Statements using Exact Standards Language

29

(refer to PBA, p. 2)

2. Evidence Statements Derived from Exact Standards

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

(refer to EOY, p. 5)

3. Integrative Evidence Statements

32

(refer to EOY, p. 7)

3. Integrative Evidence Statements

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”.

Accountability and Assessment

34

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.

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.

37

CCSSM Exemplar Assessment Prototypes

38

PARCChttp://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

CCSSM Resources

39

Common Core Websitewww.corestandards.org

PARCC Assessment Administration Guidancehttp://www.parcconline.org/assessment-administration-guidance

PARCC Grade Level Assessment Blueprints and Test Specificationshttp://www.parcconline.org/assessment-blueprints-test-specs

Progression Documents for CCSSMhttp://math.arizona.edu/~ime/progressions/

PARCC Model Content Frameworks for Mathematics http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-model-content-frameworks

SEDL CCSSM Support Videoshttp://secc.sedl.org/common_core_videos/

MDE Resources

40

Office of Curriculum and Instructionwww.mde.k12.ms.us/ci

MDE iTunes U (archived webinars)www.mde.k12.ms.us/itunes

MDE Common Core Websitewww.mde.k12.ms.us/ccss

CCSS and PARCC training materialshttps://districtaccess.mde.k12.ms.us/commoncore/

Curriculum and Instruction Listserv

http://fyt.mde.k12.ms.us/subscribe/subscribe_curriculum.html

MDE Contact Information

41

Office of Curriculum and Instruction601.359.2586

Office of Accreditation 601.359.3764

Nathan Oakley – Director of Curriculum and Instructionnoakley@mde.k12.ms.us

Dr. Marla Davis – Office Director for Mathematicsmdavis@mde.k12.ms.us