Upload
others
View
10
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Chad Buckendahl (for Susan Davis), Alpine Testing SolutionsChris Domaleski, Center for Assessment
Kris Ellington, Florida Department of Education Tim Parshall, University of Missouri
Gay Pickner, South Dakota Department of EducationTeri Siskind, Carolina State Department of Education
National Conference National Conference on Student Assessment
June 2010, Detroit, Michigan
Chad W. BuckendahlAlpine Testing Solutions
Context of the impact
Range of questions about impact that may inform programs
Range of stakeholders (e.g., educators, public, policymakers)
Defining goals and anticipated action plans as part of the design in advance
Mehrens (1998)
Curricular and instructional impact
Teacher motivation and stress
Student motivation and self-concept
Changes in student achievement
Public awareness of student achievement
Lane, Parks, & Stone (1998)
Multi-level stakeholder consideration (e.g., classroom, school, district, state, national)
Tim ParshallAssociate DirectorAssessment Resource CenterCollege of EducationUniversity of Missouri
Background
Peer Review
Technical Advisory Committee
Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Assessment Resource Center
Outstanding Schools Act (1993) v. NCLB (2001)
Plan (2012) v. Reality (2009)
Focus Groups & Interviews
236 participants from 14 stakeholder groups, representing variety of Missouri locales, grade levels, etc.
What are the consequences of MAP testing under NCLB?
Superintendents
Curriculum Coordinators
Data Professionals
Principals
Focus Groups & Interviews, cont.
Library/Media Specialists
Teachers
Students
Parents
School Board Members
Business Community Leaders
Focus Groups & Interviews, cont.
Representatives from Testing Industry
Regional Professional Development Center Staff
Teacher Educators
DESE Staff
Surveys
Seven surveys, with response rates from 27% for parents to 86% for superintendents)
Superintendents (86%)
School Board Members (44%)
Principals (68%)
Surveys, cont.
Teachers (36%)
Students (63%)
Parents (27%)
DESE/RPDC Staff (50%)
Reporting
Written reports to DESE June 2007
September 2008
June 2009
September 2009
Updates to and input from TAC
Reports to State Board of Education
AERA presentation in 2009
Major Findings
Student motivation
Teacher frustration/morale
Responsibility/accountability: learning/test scores
Increased emphasis on targeted content
Greater collaboration among teachers
Misunderstandings, including intent vis-à-vis good/bad: unintended consequences not necessarily “bad”
Major Applications
Overcoming challenge of communicationReducing misunderstandings about testing and accountability: leaders, teachers, students, parents
Discovering what all those groups want out of testing
Reducing “Content Drag” at the local level
Establishing End-of-Course exams
Teri SiskindSouth Carolina Department of Education
Does this accountability system do what it is intended to do?
South Carolina Education Accountability ActPush schools and students toward higher performance
Furnish clear and specific information about school and district academic performance and other performance to parents and the public
Stimulate quality teaching and learning practices and target assistance to low performing schools
Improve student performance and reduce gaps in performance
Does this accountability system do what it is intended to do?
No Child Left BehindHas student achievement increased?
Have achievement gaps narrowed?
4th Grade Mathematics
AYP Ste
p
Format
ive
Ado
ption
List
AYP Ste
p
EAA Am
men
dmen
ts
Incr
ease
in R
igor
AYP Bas
elin
e
NCLB B
ecom
es L
aw
First R
eport C
ard
EAA Pas
sed
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Pe
rce
nt
At/
Ab
ov
e B
as
ic
NAEP
PACT
PASS
2009: PACT replaced
with PASS
No accommodations
permitted
Final year off-grade-level
testing counted
8th Grade Mathematics
EAA Pas
sed
First R
eport C
ard
NCLB B
ecom
es L
aw
AYP Bas
elin
e
Incr
ease
in R
igor
EAA Am
men
dmen
ts
AYP Ste
p
Format
ive
Ado
ption
List
AYP Ste
p
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Pe
rce
nt
At/
Ab
ov
e B
as
ic
NAEP
PACT
PASS
2009: PACT replaced
with PASS
No accommodations permitted
Final year off-grade-
level testing counted
Performance Category
Point Value Number of Students
Points
Advanced 5 10 50
Proficient 4 10 40
Basic 3 10 30
Below Basic 2 2 10 20
Below Basic 1 1 10 10
In the example above:
Absolute Index = 50 + 40 + 30 + 20 + 10 = 150/50 = 3.0
Rating Range of Indexes
Excellent 3.9 and above
Good 3.5-3.8
Average 3.1-3.4
Below Average 2.7-3.0
Unsatisfactory Below 2.7
Year Minimum Average Index Achieved Mean Index
2001 2.6 2.89
2002 2.6 2.93
2003 2.6 2.96
2004 2.7 3.08
2005 2.8 3.09
2006 2.9 3.05
2007 3.0 3.04
2008 3.1 3.10
In 2001, 168 schools were rated Excellent. In 2008, 89 schools were rated Excellent.In 2001, 71 schools were rated Unsatisfactory. In 2008, 195 schools were rated Unsatisfactory.
Gay PicknerSouth Dakota Department of Education
Part of Peer Review
What SD didHired a vendor
Carried out our plan
What we learned from first part
Conducted a dissemination meeting
What we learned from the dissemination meeting
Our plans before RRT and reauthorization
Our plans now
Chris DomaleskiCenter for Assessment
Implemented in various forms starting in 1999-2000Policy determines promotion for students in grades 4 and 8 based on performance on the Mathematics and English Language Arts components of the LEAP test Legislative resolution called for the Board to study the negative and positive effectsLouisiana’s broad-based Accountability Commission took up this task throughout 2009-2010
Are selected subgroups (e.g. students with disabilities) disproportionately retained?
Is there evidence that remediation programs are effective?
Is there evidence that retaining students improves performance in subsequent grades?
Does the policy increase drop-outs?
Does the testing and retention policy create barriers that prevent students from progressing to middle school or high school?
What can be learned from extant research and from applications of similar policies?
2000-01
•Kindergarten Students
2001-02
•Cohort
•Grade K
•Grade >=1
•Unmatched:
•Dropouts
•Other
2002-03
•Cohort
•Grade K
• Grade 1
•Grade >=2
•Unmatched
•Dropouts
•Other
2003-04
•Cohort
•Grade <=2
•Grade >=3
•Unmatched:
•Dropouts
•Other
2004-05
•Cohort
•Grade <=3
•Grade >=4
•Unmatched
•Dropouts
•Other
2005-06
•Cohort
•Grade <=3
•Grade =4
•Grade >=5
•Unmatched
•Dropouts
•Other
2006-07
•Cohort
•Grade <=3
•Grade =4
•Grade =5
•Grade >=6
•Unmatched
•Dropouts
•Other
How many students are still in 4th
grade 2 years later?
How many students were retained following Kindergarten or 1st
grade?
Is there a spike in dropouts?
Each approach addressed broad claims about the goals/ outcomes associated with the assessment program
The methods considered impact at different levels (e.g. student, school, teacher)
A variety of evidence was considered to inform decisions
Each state considered how to use the results to improve practice
It is important to specify a comprehensive Theory of Action
What are the intended outcomes?
How does the assessment support these outcomes?
What intermediate actions/ supports are needed to achieve these outcomes?
Consider the evaluation plan as a important component that is built into the Theory of Action (not an afterthought). What evidence will bolster the credibility of the claims?
Distinguish between threats related to the precision of the measure versus those associated with policy or intended use. Each requires a distinct response.
Adverse impact could be related to a flaw in the assessment. For example, it is not well aligned to the content standards.
Alternatively, undesirable outcomes may be associated with claims in the TOA that lack support. For example, strategies to support struggling students are not effective.