College and Career Ready Determinations and PARCC High S chool Assessments

1. College and Career Ready Determinations and PARCC High School Assessments Governing Board Meeting September 12, 2012

2. Objectives • Determine which high school assessment(s) will be used to make College and Career Ready (CCR) Determination in ELA/Literacy • Prioritize which options for high school assessment(s) will be used to make College and Career Ready (CCR) Determination in mathematics • Discuss potential policy implications derived from Objective 2

3. Background • Draft College-Ready Determination Policy purposefully does not indicate on which high school assessments students have to achieve Level 4 to be CCR: In order to earn and maintain a College-Ready Determination in ELA/ literacy and mathematics, a student will need to achieve at least the threshold score for Level 4 on the designated PARCC high school ELA/ literacy and mathematics assessments. • Primary work stream implicated: • Further development of high school assessment blueprints

4. CCR Determination in ELA/Literacy • PARCC Leadership Team recommendation: CCR determination should be based on 11th grade ELA/Literacy assessment • Rationale: Logical progression across three courses allows for final assessment to capture full range of CCSS.

5. Decision Should PARCC use the Grade 11 assessment in ELA/Literacy for making the College and Career Ready Determination?

6. Mathematics • Construct is different than ELA/Literacy, so different approach may be required. • Content progresses differently in high school than in K – 8, and different than in ELA/Literacy: • Literacy builds continuously grades K – 12; • ELA builds continuously grades 4 – 12; • Mathematics domains SHIFT between K – 8 and High School, leading to some discontinuity • Predominant approach of segregating Algebra and Functions from Geometry makes gathering data about all three more challenging

7. MathematicsKey CCR Development Milestones • April 2011: High School Math Task Force • Key members from K – 12 LT and IHE Representatives • Focus on Critical Content and Score Types • Spring – Fall 2011: Draft Model Content Frameworks • Captured critical content in high school standards for CCR • February 2012: Content Meeting, Orlando, FL • Further refinement of critical content and draft PLD • Summer 2012: Final HS Model Content Frameworks

8. Overview of Model Content Frameworks for HS Mathematics • Two pathways • Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II • Mathematics I, Mathematics II, Mathematics III • Both pathways include all of the high school CCSS for all students; no (+) standards • Regardless of sequence, students will learn (and be assessed on) the same college- and career-ready content by the end the third course

9. Key Engaged Parties from Mathematics Community • Representatives from Higher Education, the Leadership Team, and state content experts • Members of the Content Technical Working Group • Drs. Wu, McCallum, Zimba, Schmidt, Askey, and Shaughnessy; Skip Fennell, Steve Leinwand, and Sybilla Beckman. • AFT and NEA • The Boards of NCTM and NCSM

10. Resulting in options for CCR determination in mathematics • There are three options: • Use student’s performance on terminal high school assessment (Algebra II or Mathematics III) as criterion • Expand scope of terminal assessment to include additional section focusing on securely held content from previous courses; base CCR determinations on performance on this expanded terminal assessment • Make CCR determinations based on performance on aggregate of all three high school assessments • Options arrived at through feedback from K – 12 and Higher Education, neither of which was monolithic in nature

11. Option 1 in CCR determination in mathematics: Vince Verges (FL) • The final assessment will include a number of culminating topics important to address foundational skills, as well as preparedness for college-level work, due to the structure of the CCSS • Some securely-held knowledge assessed on a portion of the test, in alignment with instructional objectives for the course • Students and teachers held accountable only for content addressed within these course descriptions • Straightforward data collection for CRD • Testing time/ length the same as in other tests/ grades

12. Challenges of Option 1 in CCR determination in mathematics: Doug Sovde (Achieve) • Not all content, particularly geometry, is well sampled, which is a particular concern for IHEs • Some securely held knowledge will be assessed, but it will be constrained, meaning less data about critical content from previous courses/grades • Different sequences could lead to different cut scores as a result of psychometrics, blurring the discussion about rigor and CCR

13. Option 2 in CCR determination in mathematics: Bob Bickerton (MA) • College mathematics professors expect PARCC to deliver greater assurance that “CCR” freshman are fluent in all K – 12 mathematics operations and capable of solving complex problems; they are skeptical that 3 end of course high school mathematics assessments can deliver on this promise • Extending the terminal (3rd course) high school mathematics assessment enables greater coverage of securely held knowledge and competence across more standards relevant to 1st year college math • Administering this assessment well after standards have been taught and proximate to H.S. graduation significantly increases assurance that students will meet the expectations of college freshman math

14. Challenges of Option 2 in CCR determination in mathematics: Doug Sovde (Achieve) • Additional testing time • Potential additional cost through form construction • Option 2 does NOT assume that the teacher of the terminal class would be responsible for prior years’ securely held knowledge; this could be confusing.

15. Option 3 in CCR determination in mathematics: Jim Wright (OH) • This option provides maximum evidence over all high school content from the three course sequence. • Provides student information over time showing students growth in mastering mathematical content. • Provides student information based on comparable content regardless of the sequence taken • Does not require additional testing time.

16. Challenges of Option 3 in CCR determination in mathematics: Doug Sovde (Achieve) • Management of data becomes far more challenging across three years • Could create circumstances of “false-positives”, which also brings into question conjunctive versus compensatory approaches • Retake issues becomes a paramount concern

17. Decision • For further development, how should PARCC prioritize the three options in mathematics for making the College and Career Ready Determination? • Terminal Assessment • Terminal Assessment + • All 3 Assessments

18. Critical Policy Implication • How will states resolve discrepancy between: Current graduation requirements in mathematics and • Full implementation of the CCSS, which is necessary for College and Career Readiness; • Implementation of the PARCC CCD Assessment(s); • Both require high school mathematics through Algebra II/Mathematics III to be CCR

19. Graphic of States’ progress toward CCR for All. Default CCR diploma with minimum opt-out Default CCR diploma with personal modification opt-out No CCR diploma Mandatory CCR diploma

20. Graphic of States’ progress toward CCR for All.