1 / 13

Indiana Assessments

Indiana Assessments. June 4, 2014. Dr. Michele Walker, Director of Student Assessment, IDOE Dr. Michelle McKeown, General Counsel, SBOE. Indiana Assessments. Relationship between Content and Item Type * Test Form Development

apollo
Télécharger la présentation

Indiana Assessments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Indiana Assessments June 4, 2014 Dr. Michele Walker, Director of Student Assessment, IDOE Dr. Michelle McKeown, General Counsel, SBOE

  2. Indiana Assessments Relationship between Content and Item Type * Test Form Development Operationalizing a College-and-Career Ready Assessment for 2014-15 RFI Presenter Selection Field Survey Big Ideas regarding Assessment Revisiting Procurement Schedule Future Subcommittee Meeting Dates

  3. Assessment: Relationship Between Content and Item Type • Not all states use open-ended item types. • Indiana added “applied skills” in 1995. • There is no magic formula for the percentage of open-ended vs. selected response/machine scorable items. • Fall Test (through 2008) • Approximately 40% Applied Skills; 60% Basic Skills (Multiple-Choice, Gridded Response) • Spring Test (began in 2009) • Approximately 30% Applied Skills; 70% Multiple-Choice, Gridded Response

  4. Assessment: Relationship Between Content and Item Type • Indiana involves educators in analyzing standards to determine • DOK level (1, 2, 3, 4) • standard weight [priority/importance] (3, 2, 1) • appropriate item format (MC, GR, CR, ER, TE) • specifications and content limits • Blueprint percentages by standard and specifics regarding items determine number of items per type • Multiple-Choice, Gridded-Response, Constructed-Response, Extended-Response, Technology-Enhanced Content-based decisions drive item types!

  5. Assessment: Operationalizing a College-and-Career Ready Assessment for 2014-15 Requirements: • Waiver requires that Indiana have a CCR-aligned assessment operationalized for 14/15 • Meaningful exposure opportunity and result information of representative sample should be provided in August/September. • Board staff recommendation is to mandate administration of the representative sample by end of September 2014. Recommendations: • Technical assistance information and communications should continue to emphasize need for teachers to plan for new standards and new item types. Concerns: • USDOE has not made representations that USDOE would approve the “freeze” of accountability for one year. (Note: Other states have requested; a determination has not been made). • USDOE has not made representations that USDOE would approve the complete removal of objective data from teacher evaluation for the evaluations from the 14/15 school year.

  6. Assessment: RFI process Responses due 6/6 Drs. Walker and McKeown will identify 5-6 vendors to present Format: 30 minute presentations; 20 minutes for questions; 10 minute breaks. Presentations 6/12 scheduled from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Questions during RFI Vendor Presentations Based upon value statements from subcommittee members, Drs. Walker & McKeown will draft questions that may be utilized during the RFI presentations. Value Statements Examples: “I want to make sure that growth data provided by an assessment are valid and reliable”; OR “I do/do not want to require any more hours of testing than are required to administer the mandated assessments under the current assessment scheme;” OR “I think that formative assessments should be/should not be built into the state-mandated assessment”

  7. Assessment: Survey Drs. Chamberlin, Walker, and McKeown are working on finalizing a very short survey to be provided to the field to gather inputs around the assessments. We plan to have the survey finalized by June 6, and shared with the field by early next week.

  8. Assessment: Policy Decisions Topics: Grade Span GQE Assessing both college and career readiness Identifying students who may need remediation HEA 1005 (2013) Do we want to absorb IREAD-3 into the assessment used for accountability, or keep it separate Fixed form versus Adaptive and hybrid approaches These are the policy decisions that should be made prior to issuing the RFP.

  9. Assessment: Policy Decisions • Grade Span • For what grades does the Board want to administer state-mandated assessments? • Considerations: • - vertical alignment is necessary for growth data • - current requirements • Options: • - Grades 3 through 10 • - Grades 3 through 11 • - Kindergarten through 10 • - Kindergarten through 11 • - Vertical alignment through 10 and then options for 11 • Board staff recommend vertical alignment grades 3-10 and options for Grade 11.

  10. Assessment: Policy Decisions • Graduation Qualifying Exam and College & Career Readiness Assessments • What assessment should serve as the GQE? • Which year of high school? • What assessment(s) should serve as measurements of students’ readiness for college/career? • Staff recommendation: • GQE: Use grade 10 accountability assessment • CCR: Grade 11offer options for assessments to align with individual students’ interests (mandate a minimum of one; participation % for accountability; further recommended that state pay for up to 2 in various categories)

  11. Assessment: Policy Decisions • IREAD-3 • Does the Board want to absorb the role of IREAD into the state assessment utilized for federal accountability? • Considerations: • IREAD-3 was originally created because the current ISTEP+ did not include sufficient reading specific items to provide a separate “reading” score that is valid and reliable. The educators involved with standard setting indicated that they did not want to make ISTEP+ longer by incorporating additional reading-specific items into the current ISTEP+. NOTE: ISTEP+ does measure reading. • Absorbing IREAD-3 into the assessment used for federal accountability will require some increased testing time to include additional reading items. • Current Reading Plan Rule provides that students who do not pass during the Spring window must receive intervention from the school and then retest in the Summer. • Board staff recommendation is to maintain the current separation of IREAD-3 from the assessment utilized for accountability. • Related Question for Consideration: • If IREAD-3 is maintained separately, should IREAD-3 data be utilized in new accountability system?

  12. Assessment: Revisiting Procurement Schedule Staff request that we push back the release of the RFP until late July. The additional time allows the Board to: participate in the RFI presentations; administer the assessment survey; receive information from the expert consultant; and utilize the above information to make the policy decisions at the July 9 meeting . Staff need the policy determinations from the Board prior to drafting and releasing the RFP.

  13. Assessment: Future Meeting Dates June 12- 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. July 9 – immediately following Board Business Meeting Additional dates TBD

More Related