PARCC Higher Education Webinar: Reviewing State-Level Stakeholder Engagement Strategies and Feedback for the

CRD and PLDs August 2012

Presented by:Allison Jones, Vice President for Postsecondary Collaboration, AchieveCallie Riley, Program Associate, Postsecondary Engagement, AchieveLynn Brabender, Policy Intern, Postsecondary Engagement, Achieve

• Introduction and Welcome: 3 minutes• Review of Initial Feedback: 10 minutes

—Q and A: 10 minutes• Review of State Strategies: 10 Minutes

—Q and A: 10 Minutes• Areas of Additional Support Needed: 15 Minutes• Revised Timeline: 2 minutes

Overview of Today’s Session

2

Review of Initial Feedback

3

• Each state received an identical survey to disseminate to its key stakeholder groups

• Many states have used the surveys to solicit feedback on issues related to the College-Ready Determination policy and Performance Level Descriptors by adding questions

• States are receiving varying levels of responses—for this webinar, we will focus on concerns from the field

Public Feedback Survey Questions

4

• PARCC is planning to use five performance levels to report student results on the PARCC assessments. These levels are currently named Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, and Level 5. Level 5 is the highest performance level. To what extent do you agree that five levels is the appropriate number for use on the PARCC assessment?

—Too many levels• Suggest 4 levels• 1-3 are too similar, how will we differentiate and will this lead to

problems • Will students in level 2 be overlooked by interventions

—Will scale scores be available?5

Question 1: Key Takeaways

• If PARCC were to name the levels, what names do you believe would best align with the descriptions contained in the policy-level descriptors?– Suggestions for naming the levels fell into the following

categories:• College Readiness Based• Knowledge/skills Based• Remediation Based

6

Question 1a: Key Takeaways

• Each PARCC performance level descriptor includes two components: (1) a policy claim, which describes the educational implications for students at a particular performance level; and (2) general content claims, which describe the academic knowledge and skills students performing at a given performance level are able to demonstrate, regardless of grade level. To what extent do you agree that the language of the policy claims at all grade levels clearly describes a student’s academic preparedness and ability to pursue further study at each performance level?

— Wording is vague and definitions adequate but not strong enough— May be interpreted to indicate that students below level 3 need

remediation— Performance level descriptors do not reflect that students who fall in the

1-3 range might need non-academic supports and interventions— Acceptance of scores across states

7

Question 2: Key Takeaways

• In order to inform the standard-setting process that will be used to identify the threshold scores students will need to achieve on the PARCC high school assessments to earn a College-Ready Determination, and to conduct future studies to validate the efficacy of those Determinations, the draft policy states that at least 75% of students performing at Level 4 will earn college credit by attaining at least a grade of C or its equivalent in introductory courses in English and mathematics. To what extent do you agree with these criteria (i.e., 75% will earn at least a C)?

—Validation• Where is the research?• What is the rational?

—Likelihood of achieving a “C” might differ by institution 8

Question 3: Key Takeaways

9

Question 4: Key Takeaways

• To what extent do you agree that College Algebra or Introductory Statistics are the appropriate entry-level, credit-bearing courses to which the mathematics College-Ready Determination should apply?—Liberal Arts Math and/or other entry level math courses

should be included—Consider broadening the definition rather than prescribing

particular courses

10

Question 5: Key Takeaways

• To what extent do you agree that College English Composition or Literature and introductory courses that require college-level reading, such as the social sciences and history, are the appropriate entry-level, credit-bearing courses to which the ELA/literacy College-Ready Determination should apply?– States generally agree with the ELA/literacy College-Ready

Determination– The definition was well received due to perceived flexibility

Questions and Discussion

11

Review of State Strategies

12

The Purpose of the Stakeholder Input Process

13

1. Strengthen the draft PARCC CRDs and PLDs through strong and targeted feedback from multiple perspectives.

2. Build awareness and understanding of the draft policies among critical stakeholders.

3. Encourage support and buy-in for the draft policies by giving critical players and the public the opportunity to engage in the development process.

4. Inform the decisions of the Governing Board and ACCR members when they finalize the PARCC college-ready determination policy and PLDS later this fall.

• State Directors and Commissioners of Higher Education• Presidents of Two- and Four-Year Colleges• Directors of Developmental Education Programs at Two and

Four Year Colleges• Governor’s Office• Education Advocacy Organization Representatives• Foundations/Philanthropy• Legislative Leaders• Faculty Leaders• Department Chairs

Postsecondary Stakeholders

14

15

What States Are Doing…

• New York— Developed a set of documents and guiding questions to use with SUNY and

CUNY representatives instead of the online survey— Consolidating the feedback received both in conversations and in writing to

submit to PARCC, Governing Board and ACCR reps

• Massachusetts— Enhanced state-specific survey to ask additional key questions— Using existing in-state structure to solicit responses

• New Jersey— Convened Council of Presidents PARCC Committee— Presidents and VPAAs tasked with communicating to individual campuses and

collecting feedback— Committee to review comments from all campuses to create a “New Jersey

higher education response”

• Assemble K-12 and postsecondary teams of critical stakeholders• Disseminate draft College-Ready Determination policy and Performance

Level Descriptors via multiple communication and engagement methods• Continuous access and review of feedback and responses collected on

the state-specific survey• K-12 and Higher Education Leadership Team members will work

together to analyze and report state responses• K-12 and Higher Education Leadership Team members will present state

responses to state Governing Board and ACCR members• State K-12 and Higher Education leadership team members will provide

a state-level summary of feedback and recommendations for revisions to the draft policies by September 21, 2012

Expectations for Collaborating with K-12 to Compile and Report Survey Data

16

Questions and Discussion

17

Areas of Additional Support Needed

18

1. Has your state identified or established a feedback team for the PLDs and College Ready Determination (CRD)?

2. What strategies or activities have you pursued to gain feedback on the PLDs and CRD?

3. What key stakeholders have been involved in these strategies or activities?4. What have you learned so far about the process of gathering feedback on the

PLDs and CRD – what is working well and what strategies or activities need adjustments?

5. What are your plans for gathering additional feedback by August 24? By September 21?

6. What are your plans for compiling and synthesizing feedback and communicating it to your Governing Board member or ACCR representative? To PARCC?

7. What additional support do you need from PARCC for stakeholder engagement on the PLDs and CRD in your state?

Key Questions

19

• August 24, 2012: Preliminary feedback from states due (for inclusion in September 12th Joint ACCR/GB meeting information)

• September 12, 2012: Present preliminary aggregated feedback to Joint ACCR/GB

• September 21, 2012: End of public feedback/review period

• September 22 – October 12, 2012: Review feedback and revise CRD/PLDs policy proposal (with Performance Level Operational Working Group)

• October 15, 2012: Send revised CRD/PLDs policy proposal to ACCR/GB for review

• October 25, 2012 (in conjunction with Transition and Implementation Institute): Hold special face-to-face session with ACCR/GB members (conference in remote members) for final vote on CRD/PLD policy

• Duration of Fall 2012: Create content-level descriptors for review by K-12 and higher education

Public Review Timeline:Summer/Fall 2012

20

Contact Information:

Allison Jones: ajones@achieve.org Callie Riley: criley@achieve.org

Lynn Brabender: lbrabender@achieve.org

www.parcconline.org/crd-pld-surveywww.parcconline.org/highered-webinars

21