New York State Common Core Assessments

April 2013

The Challenge
In June 2011, 145,805 students statewide and 63,024 students in NYC were NOT ready for college/careers following four years in high school

College and career readiness for all students requires

More rigorous Common Core standards Shifts in instruction New curriculum resources and ongoing professional development New tests that measure student progress Continuation of teacher and principal evaluation systems
2

Our Common Purpose and Resolve*

New York State Graduation Rates
100% 90% 80%
Graduation Rate

85% 74% 58% 48% 35% 58%

82%

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% All White Black Hispanic Asian Student Subgroup 12% 15% 56%
Graduation Rate ELA/Math Aspirational Performance Measure (APM) **

* 2007 cohort, four-year outcomes through June. Source: NYSED Office of Information and Reporting Services ** Aspirational Performance Measures (APM) are based on quantitative analysis of college course placement and performance data, quantitative analysis of SAT data, and interviews with CUNY, SUNY and CICU institutions.

New York
Percent at or above Proficient: 3-8 ELA & Math
2009 Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 Grade 4 8 ELA 76 77 82 81 80 69 Reading 36 32 Math 93 87 88 83 87 80 Math 43 30 ELA 55 57 53 54 50 51 Reading 36 33 2010 Math 59 64 65 61 62 55 Math 40 34 ELA 56 59 58 56 52 50 Reading 35 35 2012 Math 61 69 67 65 65 61 Math 36 30

NAEP 2007

NAEP 2009

NAEP 2011

Source: NYSED June 17, 2012 Release of Data (Background Information: Slide Presentation). Available at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/pressRelease/20120717/2012-ELAandMathSlides-SHORTDECK-7-16-12.ppt. ELA data from slide 16; Math data from slide 31. Percentages represent students scoring a 3 or a 4. Source: NAEP Summary Report for New York State. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/Default.aspx Most recent year available for Reading and Mathematics is 2011.

46 States* + DC Have Adopted the Common Core State Standards1,2

*Minnesota adopted the CCSS in ELA/literacy only 1 For research supporting key elements of the standards see: http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf 2 For comparisons to NAEP see: http://achieve.org/CCSS-ELA-NAEP-Framework and http://www.achieve.org/files/CCSSMathandNAEP.pdf

Shifts in ELA Assessments

*Student reads texts from two different authors and makes connections using evidence from both texts.

Shifts in Math Assessments

Test Design
More constructed responses Less time for 3rd and 4th graders

Math, 3rd grade: reduction of 1 hour Math, 4th grade: reduction of 40 minutes ELA, 3rd and 4th grade: reduction of 1 hour each
8

Common Core Assessment Development

Every item: Designed from scratch to measure Common Core Field-tested Reviewed multiple times in development cycle by multiple New York State Certified Teachers Meets industry best practice for item quality, fairness and accessibility Meets rigorous criteria developed by NYSED [contract obligation] Processes and quality assured by third-party evaluator [same evaluator as for NAEP].
9

NYS Educator Involvement: NYS Assessments

NYS Educators are represented on the following panels: New York State Content Advisory Panels
Spans early childhood and P12 through CUNY, SUNY and CICU faculty

Item Development, Item Review, Final Form Review Performance Standards (cut scores)
Teachers, faculty and district-level

These panels are informing: College and Career Ready Determinations Test specifications, policies, and items NYS policy-level and grade-level performance level descriptors Setting performance standards
10

Assessment Resources on EngageNY.org

Test Guides Sample Questions Assessment Design Documents
New York State has never been more transparent about what content and skills are measured on our assessments and how they are measured.

11

NEW SCALES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The standards and items are changing, so the scale and performance standards must also change. The 2013 3-8 assessments are standards-based assessments.

12

Changes
New score scale Scores will range from approximately 100 320/350 Proposed new performance categories Level 4: Student excels in standards for this grade level Level 3: Student is proficient in standards for this grade level Level 2: Student is not proficient for this grade level (demonstrates partial but insufficient knowledge and skills for this grade level). Level 1: Student do not demonstrate knowledge and skills for this grade level
13

SETTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

College and Career Readiness NYS Teachers, SUNY, CUNY and CICU faculty and national experts from Harvard and College Board are working with Office of State Assessment and Curriculum, Regents Research Fund and Pearson to define what it means to be on track in ELA and Math for college and career readiness for each grade. 14

SETTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Over 100 New York State Educators
Certified teachers as well as district administration and higher education representation Regional and demographic representation

Research-based Methodology

Five days in Troy, New York National experts in performance standard setting
15

SETTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

College and Career Readiness Research-based Methodology

NY Educator Judgment Cutscores

Standard Setting Determination
16

Common Core Regents Exams

17

17

Comprehensive Supports for Implementation

(CCSS adopted by the Board of Regents in July 2010)

18

Summer 2012 Curricular Resources

Professional Development Videos developed with authors of Common Core and PBS Tri-State Rubric developed with Massachusetts and Rhode Island to evaluate district curricular materials against the Common Core Content Frameworks developed by PARCC in collaboration with the authors of the Common Core Curricular Exemplars (sample lessons and instructional materials) developed with feedback from the authors of Common Core Sample Assessment Items developed with feedback from the authors of Common Core Network Team Institutes / Teacher & Principal Common Core Ambassadors Program

19

NYS Curriculum 1st and Only

Exemplary, Comprehensive, Optional, Free High Quality, Rigorous, Deeply Aligned to CCSS Addresses Needs of Students Performing Above & Below Grade Level, Students with Disabilities, English Language Learners Includes Performance Tasks and other assessments which measure student growth daily, weekly, at the end of each unit & module Ensures Diversity of Voices & Perspectives in Text Selection Contains notes for teachers, templates, handouts, homework, problem sets, overviews, etc Innovative Creative Commons License Approach
20

Implementation Supports: Workbook

NYSED provided an implementation workbook, including: Metrics, rubrics, and templates to support Common Core, Data Driven Instruction, and Teacher/Leader Effectiveness; Local/regional data on implementation status
21

EngageNY: Facts and Figures

To date, there have been 14.8 Million page views since August 2011

And 1.5 Million unique visitors to EngageNY

22

2012-13 Assessments and Educator Evaluation

The State-provided growth scores based on State exams are not affected by changes in the assessment scale or the level of performance required for proficiency.

The growth score provided by the State for each educator will reflect student growth between two tests compared to students with similar academic test history, adjusted for demographics (poverty, disability, English language learner). Despite the change in assessments, growth scores will identify variation in the effectiveness of instruction received by similar students.
23181818 23

NYSED expects the 2012-13 State-provided growth score rating distribution to be similar to 2011-12:
Growth Score Rating 2011-12 Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective
Percent of Teacher MGPs (Grades 4-8, ELA/Math) Percent of Principal MGPs (Grades 4-8)

7% 77% 10% 6%

6% 79% 8% 7%

24

24

Other Components of Evaluation

Some Districts have student learning objectives or locally-selected measures for some educators based on State assessments.

The State will provide guidance later this spring to help districts confirm what level of student performance meets the expectations they intended for their 2012-2013 APPRs.

25

25