Statewide Assessment Updates • Standard Setting for the U.S. History End-of-Course (EOC) Assessment • Passing scores for FCAT 2.0 and EOC assessments, as required by Senate Bill 1076 • English, Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics assessments – 2014-2015 and beyond • 2013 NAEP Results (late addition) 1
Future State Board Rule Amendment • Establish Achievement Levels for the U.S. History End-of-Course (EOC) Assessment • Establish passing scores for FCAT 2.0 and EOC assessments, as required by Senate Bill 1076 3
FCAT 2.0 and EOC Assessments are Standards-Based Tests • Based on Florida’s content standards (Next Generation Sunshine State Standards) • Students’ scores are in comparison to achievement standards – the criteria (Criterion-Referenced Test) • Used to measure how well students have learned the content assessed • Used to measure the teaching and learning of important content in Florida’s schools 4
When is Standard Setting Necessary? • Standard setting becomes necessary whenever any of the following occur: • New test • Curriculum updates • Blueprint changes • Achievement Level Descriptions (ALDs) change • Next Generation Sunshine State Standards – new content standards 5
Low High Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level5 Achievement Levels • Requires the setting of four Achievement Level cuts • The Level 2/3 cut is the “Satisfactory” cut Five Achievement Levels, Four Cut Points 6
Florida EOC Assessment Scale Score Range • All Florida EOC Assessments use the same scale score range • U.S. History EOC Assessment Achievement Level cuts must be determined on this score scale 7
Standard-Setting Timeline Complex process with input solicited from several groups of stakeholders Summer 2012: Content experts defined U.S. History EOC Assessment Achievement Level Descriptions (ALDs). March/April 2013: ALDs posted for public comment. August 13-16, 2013: Content experts rated the difficulty of items on the test relative to student expectations, which were aggregated to derive recommended cut scores. August 22-23, 2013: Reactor panel reviewed the Educator Panel’s outcomes and provided feedback and recommendations for adopting the cut scores. September 2-5, 2013: Rule Workshops were held for gathering public input on the Educator and Reactor Panels’ recommendations. October 15, 2013: Informational presentation to State Board of Education on process, outcomes, and current recommendations. Winter 2013-2014: The State Board of Education will consider prior information and legislator input, then will make a final cut-score decision. 10
Educator Panel: August 13-16 • 26 teachers and district-level administrators with subject-area expertise and expertise with special populations • Panel represented Florida’s diversity, including: • Gender • Race/Ethnicity • District Size • Region • School/District Type 11
The “Just-Barely” Test Taker Borderline in terms of Achievement Level Just barely meets criteria to be classified into the Achievement Level “Just-Barely” Level Students Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Achievement 12
Reactor Panel: August 22-23 • Convened a group of diverse stakeholders from across Florida • Business and Community Leaders • Education Leaders (Superintendents and School Board Members) • Postsecondary Faculty • Parents • Provided feedback to the department on the outcomes of the Educator Panel • Maintained Educator Panel’s recommended cut scores 13
Reactor Panel Review Considered the following: • Information and materials from the standard-setting Educator Panel meeting • Next Generation Sunshine State Standards • Achievement Level Descriptions (ALDs) • External tests (SAT US History, AP U.S. History, FCAT 2.0 Grade 10 Reading) • Impact data 14
Proposed U.S. History EOC Cuts Impact Data: Percentage of Students in each Achievement Level Variation at Level 2/3 cut score of 397 was 389-405
Recommendation: All StudentsPercentage in Each Achievement LevelImpact Data (Based on 2013 Student Performance) 18
Impact Data and Data Comparisons for Recommended Cut Scores 19
Impact Data – Based on 2013 Student Performance Reading Grade 10, Algebra 1, Biology 1, Geometry, and Proposed U.S. History (Proposed) Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 20
FCAT 2.0 and EOC Assessment Passing Scores The following slides represent the established achievement standards for the FCAT 2.0 and Florida EOC Assessments. Passing scores must now be established pursuant to Senate Bill 1076, passed during the 2013 legislative session. 22
Commissioner’s Recommendations To set the recommended passing scores at the “satisfactory” threshold currently used for accountability purposes: • That FCAT 2.0 Reading (grades 3 – 10), Mathematics (grades 3 – 8), and Science (grades 5 and 8) passing scores be established as the minimum score in Achievement Level 3 • That FCAT 2.0 Writing (grades 4, 8, and 10) passing score be established as a 3.5 on a scale of 1.0 to 6.0 • That Florida EOC Assessment passing scores remain the minimum score in Achievement Level 3 24
Grade 3 Reading • Although the recommended “passing” score is a minimum of a Level 3 score, per s. 1008.25, F.S., “If a student’s reading deficiency…is not remedied by the end of grade 3, as demonstrated by scoring at Level 2 or higher…in reading for grade 3, the student must be retained.” • Statute provides for six good cause exemptions from mandatory retention for students who score Level 1 in grade 3 Reading. 25
State Standardized Assessments – English, Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics
Criteria for Selecting Assessments • Assessment is aligned to the standards • Provide meaningful information for parents and teachers • Timely reporting of results • Valid and reliable for a variety of purposes (e.g., promotion, graduation, and accountability) • Quality test items and tasks • Testing time • Cost • Technology requirements/ paper-based options • Comparability of Florida’s results with those of other states
Three Assessment Options • Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) • Consortium of states funded through Race to the Top Grant. • Assessment development work by contractors is led and reviewed by states. • Nationwide field testing is scheduled for spring 2014 with full assessments available in spring 2015. • Partnership with Other States • Using existing assessments/contracts or those in development by other states. • “Shelf” or “Semi-Shelf” Assessment Product • A number of assessment developers have indicated that “shelf” products may be available to assess the common core standards in spring 2015. • These products may allow for some state customization. • Some states are buying or intend to buy these types of assessments.
PARCC - Advantages • Florida K-12 and higher education faculty and staff, and department staff, have been key contributors, and would continue to be part of the work. • External validation of item quality and very high degree of alignment of items to standards adopted by the Board in 2010. • Timely and meaningful reports are anticipated. • Economies of scale - Shared costs and access to national expertise in numerous areas. • Results can be compared to other PARCC states. • Paper-based option available for first year.
PARCC - Disadvantages • Approximatelytwice the testing time of FCAT 2.0 in grades 3-8, and grades 9 and 10 Reading • PARCC End-of-Course (EOC) tests are about 1 hour longer than Florida EOCs • Higher costs than for comparable FCAT 2.0 tests/ EOCs. Will be somewhat higher if fewer states remain in PARCC. Florida will likely use paper-based tests at some grades, further increasing costs. • Paper and pencil option may not be available for as long as needed • Although PARCC is state led, initial design and any adjustments to major aspects require federal approval until the grant ends in late 2014. • Governance and purchasing process for 2015 and beyond still to be determined.
Partnership with Other States - Advantages • Use of existing assessments, or those currently in development • Competitive bid process completed by other state • Comparability of results to that of partner state(s) • Possibility to partner in development of future test items and related products/ services • Flexibility to select states whose goals are most closely aligned with Florida’s 31
Partnership with Other States - Disadvantages • Must purchase services exactly as set forth in partner state’s contract – cannot easily amend to meet additional Florida requirements • Limited number of states with which to partner • Dependent on stability in partner state 32
‘Shelf’ or ‘Semi-Shelf’ Assessment – Advantages • A contract would require that it be ready by 2014-2015 • Comparability of results with other states using the assessment • May allow for engagement by Florida stakeholders in design, development and scoring of performance tasks • Some control over cost and testing time • Paper-based option would be required • Timely and meaningful reports would be required
‘Shelf’ or ‘Semi-Shelf’ Assessment – Disadvantages • Number, quality and alignment of assessments an unknown • Little or no Florida input into student field test statistics, initial test design, or initial item development • May have less control over some aspects of standard setting (college and career ready) • Comparability with other states and amount of cost savings depend on how many states adopt the assessment • Exact technology requirements unknown
Assessment Options Decision Timeline Decision Florida is pursuing several pathways to ensure that the best assessment option is available.
2013 NAEP Results Florida Public School Students Compared to National Public School Students
Questions? Vince Verges firstname.lastname@example.org