Upload
layne
View
27
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Vertical Articulation in the Context of States’ Transition to the Common Core State Standards. How did we get here, Where are we now, and How is that working out?. National Conference on Student Assessment June 25-27, 2014. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Vertical Articulation in the Context of States’ Transition to the
Common Core State Standards
How did we get here, Where are we now, and How is that working out?
National Conference on Student AssessmentJune 25-27, 2014
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
How did we get here?
Vertical Articulation in the Context of States’ Transition to the Common Core State Standards
Patricia A. BaronEducational Testing Service
National Conference on Student AssessmentJune 25-27, 2014
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Where are we?• The current standards and testing movement is in
transition from the multi-state standards to the Common Core State Standards (45 states and DC)
http://www.academicbenchmarks.com/ccss-state-status
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
How did we get here?Historical Highlights
• U.S. Federal Policy and Initiatives • Research – ongoing and results since 1995
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
US Education Policy
1965 1969 1990 2001 2006 2009Title I ESEA Launched development of the field of educational evaluation and school accountability
NAEPSubject-area National Survey, Grades 4,8, and 12; subject area frameworks developed by NAGB
NAEP State Assessments
No Child Left Behind Act Annual testing for all subjects in grades 3-8; Annual progress objectives; State Standards in reading and mathematics
ED Invites states to include achievement and growth models; vertical scaling not required but promise of greater comparability
RTT Created to spur innovation & reforms in state & local districts; points for complying with CCSS
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Setting the Stage
Three Related Areas of Research and Practice
1. Defining proficiency 2. Linking tests. Linking scales. Vertical scales
and growth. 3. Standard Setting: Content and Performance
Standards
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Defining proficiency
1968NAEP: The Nation’s Report Card.Introduced as a data gathering tool and not an accountability tool;
1988Scale anchors included;NAGB changed from Can Do to …Should Do ;Standard setting process under fire
2001NCLB –Increased the amount of testing and increased the consequences to the statesStates defined proficiency according to state content standards, grade-level assessments and proficiency standards
2003Currently the variability in the stringency of state standards defining proficiency is so great that the concept of proficient achievement lacks meaning (Linn)
The Common Core is designed to promote deep learning through rigorous standards aligned with college and career readiness
Defining proficiency
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Vertical Scales & Growth Models• Vertical scales introduced with ED
invitation (2006) to include growth models in state performance reporting.
• Methods existed for linking different tests, different scales– Linking statewide tests to NAEP, accuracy of
combining test results across states (Linn and Kiplinger, Ercikan)
– Linking NAEP to international tests, e.g., TIMMS (Johnson)
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Vertical Scales & Growth Models• Issues for measuring growth & change
scores– Scales measuring latent variables such as
proficiency or achievement are not equal interval scales (e.g., Patz, 2007).
____+____+___+__+__+__+– Valid vertical scales require a set of content
standards that provide continuity across the grade span
• Learning progressions (e.g., Wilson, 2009)
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Vertical Scales & Growth Models
• Issues for measuring growth & change scores– Linking tests across grades without an
anchor (common items) problematic– Standard setting conducted by grade not
sufficient
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Standard Setting: Content and Performance Standards
Content Standards: Content standards define the knowledge, concepts, and skills that students should acquire at each grade level.
Performance Standards: These standards specify how much understanding of content students need at each level of performance (e.g., basic, proficient, advanced), relative to the content standards.
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Standard Setting: Content and Performance Standards
• Best practice in standard setting– appropriately-informed panelists – alignment between test and content standards
• Cross-grade expectations and learning progressions:– Cohesive content standards, e.g., Grades 3 to 4
to 5, …Grade 11. • Options for cross-grade alignment of
performance standards– Vertical scaling and vertical moderation
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Good sources for further reading
• The Future of Test-Based Educational Accountability, Ed. Ryan & Shepard, (2008)
• Vertical Scaling in Standards-Based Educational Assessment and Accountability Systems, published by CCSSO, Rich Patz (2007)
• Vertical Scaling– in Test Equating, Scaling and Linking: Methods
and Practices, Kolen and Brennan (2004)
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Research Highlights• 2003
– Vertical equating for state assessments: Issues and solutions in AYP and school accountability (Lissitz and Huynh)
• 2005– Vertically Moderated Standards: Special Issue of Applied
Measurement in Education• 2009
– Impact of vertical scaling decisions on growth interpretations (Briggs and Weeks)
• 2010– Post-standard-setting panel considerations for decision-
makers (Geisinger and McCormick)• 2012
– Growth, Standards and Accountabiilty (Betebenner) in Cizek, Ed., Setting performance standards
Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2013 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
TodayCurrent Research• Priya Kannan, Research Scientist, Educational
Testing ServiceCurrent Practice• Deb Lindsey, Director of Assessment, Wyoming
Department of EducationDiscussion• Marianne Perie, Co-Director at Center for
Educational Testing and Evaluation, University of Kansas