Overview and UpdateRaising Achievement and Closing Gaps Conference

March 30, 2010

Angela H. Quick, Deputy Chief Academic OfficerLou Fabrizio, Director, Accountability Policy and Communications

Gary Williamson, Director, Accountability Operations

Mission

Our Goal:

NC public schools will produce globally competitive students.

The Purpose of Standards:To define and communicate the knowledge and skills a student must master to be globally competitive.

ACRE Accountability and Curriculum Revision Effort

A Simple Vision

Essential Standards

Assessments

Accountability

Writing and Revising

Writing and Revising the Essential Standards

Writing Teams Membership

Teachers Higher Ed AccountabilityStaff

EC & CurriculumStaff

School Readiness Staff

External Business

Instructional Coaches

Curriculum Directors

Administrators

National & InternationalStandards

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

Assessment Prototypes

21st Century Skills

Filters

National and International Standards

Science K-12 Standards Frameworks

• American Association for the Advancement of Science - Benchmarks for Science Literacy

• American Association for the Advancement of Science - Atlas of Science Literacy volumes I and II

• National Research Council - National Science Education Standards

• Other State Standards (including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina, California)

• Singapore Science Syllabus

Assessment Frameworks

• Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

• Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

• National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2009 Framework

NSES

Conceptual development

TIMSS

Other State Standards

PISA

NAEP

AAAS Benchmarks

AAAS Atlas

Singapore

ES

ES ES

ES ES

ES ES

ES ES

ES

Nat

ion

al &

In

tern

atio

nal

Sta

nd

ard

s

21st

Ce

ntu

ry S

kills

Re

vise

d B

loo

m’s

Ta

xon

omy

Conceptual development Criteria and Filters

• Enduring

• Measurable

• Clear and Concise

• Prioritized and Focused

• Rigorous

• Relevant to the Real World

Criteria Filters CourseGeneralized goals Examples and processes to

achieve criteriaStudent Outcomes

Ass

ess

me

nt P

roto

type

s

Objective

Objective

Objective

Objective

ES

ES ES

ES ES

ES ES

ES ES

ES

North Carolina Standard Course of Study Essential Standards Overview

Essential Standard

...zooming in on one Essential

Standard

Course

Prototypical Assessment

Prototypical Assessment

Classroom

EOC-EOG

Essential Standards

CreateCreate

EvaluateEvaluate

AnalyzeAnalyze

Apply

UnderstandUnderstand

RememberRememberKnowingKnowing

OrganizingOrganizing

ApplyingApplying

AnalyzingAnalyzing

GeneratingGenerating

IntegratingIntegrating

EvaluatingEvaluating

Marzano’s Dimensions of Thinking

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

Four primary meansfor involvement…

Stakeholder InvolvementWriting and Revising

IndividualPublic

Comment

Writing Teams and

Meetings

LEA Collaborative

Feedback

StructuredBusinessFeedback

Current Status:I. SBE Approved

Math, Science, English 10, &Instructional Technology

2. Under Development

English Language Arts, Social Studies, Second Languages, Guidance, The Arts, Health and Physical Education, and Instructional Toolkits

Indicators Uses Levels

Goal: Institute an accountability model that improves student achievement, increases graduation rates and closes achievement gaps.

2

Student Performance

Post-SecondaryReadiness

Student Growth

Graduation Rates

Academic Course Rigor

Proposed Indicators

Impact of ESEA Reauthorization

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/

index.html

School

Indicator Ex 1 Ex 2 Ex 3 Ex 4 Avg ?Student Achievement: The School Performance Composite

50 70 50 10 45

Post-Secondary Readiness as Measured by the ACT (or Other National Indicators)

20 20 20 40 25

Future-Ready Core Participation (A Measure of the Rigor of Courses that Students Take Based on Algebra II Completion and Proficiency)

10 5 5 10 7.5

5-Year Cohort Graduation Rate 20 5 25 40

22.5

High School

Shown are some possible weighting scenarios we have considered. We’d like both performance index and growth index to have the same weighting. These are preliminary numbers, not final recommendations.

Draft; For discussion purposes only.

Weighting the Indicators?

Performance Index Growth Index

Making Expected or High Growth

Making Less than Expected Growth

900 - 1000 School of Excellence No Recognition

800 - 899 School of Distinction

600 - 799 School of Progress

Less than 600 Low-Performing School*

How to Update School Classification System?

First Classification Example(Similar Format; Fewer Categories)

*Will require statutory change.

The categories and scales are not finalized. The performance index is differentthan the performance composite and therefore a new scale has been used.

18

Second Classification Example (Four-Quadrant)

Lower PerformanceHigher Growth

Higher Performance Higher Growth

Lower PerformanceLower Growth

Higher PerformanceLower Growth

Gro

wth

Inde

x

Performance IndexScale to be determined

Sca

le to

be

dete

rmin

ed

Examples of Data We Should Report But Not Include

in the High-Stakes Accountability Model?

• Advanced Placement (# and % of participants and scores)• International Baccalaureate (# and % of participants and

scores)• Credentialing Programs (# and % credentials)• Online Courses Taken (# and %)• Higher-Levels Foreign Language Courses Taken (# and %)• Concentrations (# and %)• College courses taken (# and %)• Attendance of teachers and students• Local Options • Additional?

How Do We Address Unique School Types?

Examples• Alternative Schools• Hospital Schools• VocEd/Career Centers• Special Education Schools• Schools with grade 3 and below

How do these schools fit into the system?

How Do We Best Measure Post-Secondary Readiness?

ACT, SATWorkKeys

Accuplacer Compass

•If multiple, how to set cut scores, or ranges, for points to award to school?•If one assessment, which one?

Synopsis: What’s Different?

• Inclusion of LEA Accountability (Longitudinal Growth)

• Incorporation of an Index Model

• Robust Growth Measures

• Inclusion of Post-Secondary Readiness Measure

• Increased Academic Course Rigor (Future-Ready Core)

• Graduation Rate Instead of Dropout Rate

• Revised Reporting

• Revised Student Accountability System

Academic Growth

How to Establish and Utilize Long-Term Growth Standards

Reading Growth Curves by Cohort Panel

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Grade

Le

xil

e M

ea

su

re

1995-2000 1996-2001 1997-2002 1998-2003 1999-2004

Measurement of Growth

Extrapolated Growth Curvewith Median Postsecondary Text Measures

UndergraduateAdmissionsand Military

Citizenship

Workplace

Community College

University

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Grade (0=K)

Lex

ile

E(L) = 700.0 + 118.7 (Grade-3) - 6.1 (Grade-3)2

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

LEXI

LE M

EASU

RE

GRADE

Alternate Paths to a Higher Twelfth-Grade Outcome

NC ref

intercept=820

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

LEXI

LE M

EASU

RE

GRADE

Alternate Paths to a Higher Twelfth-Grade Outcome

NC ref

intercept=820

velocity=132

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

LEXI

LE M

EASU

RE

GRADE

Alternate Paths to a Higher Twelfth-Grade Outcome

NC ref

intercept=820

velocity=132

deceleration=-9.2

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

LEXI

LE M

EASU

RE

GRADE

Alternate Paths to a Higher Twelfth-Grade Outcome

NC ref

Combined strategy

Numerical Comparison of the Four Strategies

Parameters (in Lexiles)

NC HigherIntercept

Higher Velocity

Lower Deceleration

Combination Strategy

Intercept 700.0 820.0 700.0 700.0 775.0

Initial velocity 118.7 118.7 132.0 118.7 122.0

Deceleration -12.2 -12.2 -12.2 -9.2 -11.8

1999-2004 NC Average Reading Growth Curve

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

3 4 5 6 7 8

Grade

Le

xile

Me

as

ure

Average Quadratic Fit

A Growth Standard Presented in Tabular Form

Gains Between Each Pair of GradesNC Averages (N=67,908) By Grade

rounded to nearest Lexile 700 813 913 1001 1077 1141

Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8

3 113 213 301 377 441

4 100 189 265 329

5 88 164 228

6 76 140

7 64

8 0

change between adjacent grades; i.e., year-to-year change

change across 2-year spans

change across 3-year spans

change across 4-year spans

change across 5-year span from 3 to 8

Growth Standard Presented as an Equation(Example)

)(1.6)(7.118700)( 2TTLE t

Note: Use T = (Grade – 3) when applying the model