Illinois State Board of Education A New Vision for Illinois Assessment: Problems Worth Solving Tests Worth Taking November, 2013

PARCC is designed to reward quality instruction aligned to the Standards, so the assessment is worthy of preparation rather than a distraction from good work. PARCC’s Fundamental Advance 2

Assessment Design English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3-11 End-of-Year Assessment Innovative, computer-based items Required Performance-Based Assessment (PBA) Extended tasks Applications of concepts and skills Required Diagnostic Assessment Early indicator of student knowledge and skills to inform instruction, supports, and PD Non-summative 2 Optional Assessments/Flexible Administration Mid-Year Assessment Performance-based Emphasis on hard- to-measure standards Potentially summative 3 Speaking And Listening Assessment Locally scored Non-summative, required

PARCC Assessment Priorities 1.Determine whether students are college- and career-ready or on track 2. Compare performance across states and internationally 3.Assess the full range of the Common Core Standards, including standards that are difficult to measure 4.Measure the full range of student performance, including the performance of high and low performing students 5.Provide data during the academic year to inform instruction, interventions and professional development 6.Provide data for accountability, including measures of growth 7.Incorporate innovative approaches throughout the system

Focus: PARCC assessments will focus strongly on where the Standards focus. Students will have more time to master concepts at a deeper level. Problems worth doing: Multi-step problems, conceptual questions, applications, and substantial procedures will be common, as in an excellent classroom. Better Standards Demand Better Questions: Instead of reusing existing items, PARCC will develop custom items to the Standards. Fidelity to the Standards: PARCC Evidence Statements are rooted in the language of the Standards so that expectations remain the same in both instructional and assessment settings. PARCC’s Core Commitments to Mathematics Assessment Quality 5

PARCC states first developed the Model Content Frameworks to provide guidance to key elements of excellent instruction aligned with the Standards. The Model Content Frameworks were then used to provide guidance in the content emphasis for the mathematics assessment. So, for the first time... PARCC is communicating in the same voice to teachers as it is to assessment developers! PARCC is designing the assessments around exactly the same SHIFTS the standards expect of teachers and students. What is Different About PARCC’s Development Process? 6

What Are the Shifts at the Heart of PARCC’s Design? 1.Focus: The PARCC assessment will focus strongly where the Standards focus. 2.Coherence: Think across grades and link to major topics within grades. 3.Rigor: In major topics, pursue conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and application. 7

The Common Core State Standards Require New Aligned Assessments  The Common Core State Standards were developed collaboratively by K-12 and postsecondary content experts and faculty to establish standards of college readiness  Higher education partners in PARCC—nearly 200 institutions and systems covering over 850 campuses across the country— committed to work with K-12 partners to develop assessments aligned to these standards and set a college-ready cut score that will be used to place incoming freshman into credit-bearing college courses 8

Sub-claim A: Students solve problems involving the major content for their grade level with connections to practices Sub-Claim B: Students solve problems involving the additional and supporting content for their grade level with connections to practices Sub-claim C: Students express mathematical reasoning by constructing mathematical arguments and critiques Sub-Claim D: Students solve real world problems engaging particularly in the modeling practice Sub-Claim E: Student demonstrate fluency in areas set forth in the Standards for Content in grades 3-6 Claims for Mathematics Master Claim: Students are on-track or ready for college and careers

What are Performance Level Descriptors? Performance Level Descriptors or PLDs describe what students at each performance level know and can do relative to grade-level or course content standards assessed.

Performance Level Descriptor Language 11 Level 5: Students performing at this level demonstrate a distinguished command of the knowledge, skills, and practices embodied by the Common Core State Standards assessed at their grade level. Level 4: … strong command … Level 3: … moderate command … Level 2: … partial command … Level 1: … minimal command …

Factors that determine the performance levels (Cognitive Complexity) Cognitive Complexity Mathematical Content Mathematical Practices Stimulus Material Response Mode Processing Demand 1.Mathematical Content 2.Mathematical Practices 3.Stimulus Material 4.Response Mode 5.Processing Demand 12 For further reading on the PARCC Cognitive Complexity Framework see, “ Proposed Sources of Cognitive Complexity in PARCC Items and Tasks: Mathematics “ Aug. 31, 2012

1. Mathematical Content At each grade level, there is a range in the level of demand in the content standards--from low to moderate to high complexity. Within Mathematical Content, complexity is affected by: Numbers: Whole numbers vs. fractions Expressions and Equations: The types of numbers or operations in an expression or equation ( 3/7, √ ) Diagrams, graphs, or other concrete representations: may contribute to greater overall complexity than simpler graphs such as scatterplots. Problem structures: Word problems with underlying algebraic structures vs. word problems with underlying arithmetic structures. 13

2. Mathematical Practices MPs involve what students are asked to do with mathematical content, such as engage in application and analysis of the content. The actions that students perform on mathematical objects also contribute to Mathematical Practices complexity. Low Complexity Items at this level primarily involve recalling or recognizing concepts or procedures specified in the Standards. High Complexity High complexity items make heavy demands on students, because students are expected to use reasoning, planning, synthesis, analysis, judgment, and creative thought. They may be expected to justify mathematical statements or construct a formal mathematical argument. 14

3. Stimulus Material This dimension of cognitive complexity accounts for the number of different pieces of stimulus material in an item, as well as the role of technology tools in the item. Low Complexity Low complexity involves a single piece of (or no) stimulus material (e.g., table, graph, figure, etc.) OR single online tool (generally, incremental technology) High Complexity High complexity involves two pieces of stimulus material with online tool(s) OR three pieces of stimulus material with or without online tools. 15

4. Response Mode The way in which examinees are required to complete assessment activities influences an item’s cognitive complexity. Low cognitive complexity response modes in mathematics involve primarily selecting responses and producing short responses, rather than generating more extended responses. High Complexity response modes require students to construct extended written responses that may also incorporate the use of online tools such as an equation editor, graphing tool, or other online feature that is essential to responding. 16

5. Processing Demand Reading load and linguistic demands in item stems, instructions for responding to an item, and response options contribute to the cognitive complexity of items. 17

Looking at the PLDs 18 Gives the Conceptual Concept the PLD is based on Gives the Sub-Claim that the PLD is written for (A-Major Content) Gives the PLD by performance level ranging from 2-5. Level 1 indicates a range from no work shown to Minimal command

Overview of PARCC Mathematics Task Types 19 Task TypeDescription of Task Type I. Tasks assessing concepts, skills and procedures Balance of conceptual understanding, fluency, and application Can involve any or all mathematical practice standards Machine scorable including innovative, computer-based formats Will appear on the End of Year and Performance Based Assessment components Sub-claims A, B and E II. Tasks assessing expressing mathematical reasoning Each task calls for written arguments / justifications, critique of reasoning, or precision in mathematical statements (MP.3, 6). Can involve other mathematical practice standards May include a mix of machine scored and hand scored responses Included on the Performance Based Assessment component Sub-claim C III. Tasks assessing modeling / applications Each task calls for modeling/application in a real-world context or scenario (MP.4) Can involve other mathematical practice standards May include a mix of machine scored and hand scored responses Included on the Performance Based Assessment component Sub-claim D For more information see PARCC Task Development ITN Appendix D.

Master Claim: On-Track for college and career readiness. The degree to which a student is college and career ready (or “on- track” to being ready) in mathematics. Sub-Claim A: Major Content 1 with Connections to Practices Sub-Claim B: Additional & Supporting Content 2 with Connections to Practices Sub-Claim E: Fluency in applicable grades (3-6) Claims Structure: Mathematics Sub-Claim C: Highlighted Practices MP.3,6 with Connections to Content 3 (expressing mathematical reasoning). Sub-Claim D: Highlighted Practice MP.4 with Connections to Content (modeling/application) Total Exam Score Points: 82 (Grades 3-8), 97 or 107(HS ) Total Exam Score Points: 82 (Grades 3-8), 97 or 107(HS ) 12 pts (3-8), 18 pts (HS) 6 pts (Alg II/Math 3 CCR) 12 pts (3-8), 18 pts (HS) 6 pts (Alg II/Math 3 CCR) ~37 pts (3-8), ~42 pts (HS) ~37 pts (3-8), ~42 pts (HS) ~14 pts (3-8), ~23 pts (HS) ~14 pts (3-8), ~23 pts (HS) 14 pts (3-8), 14 pts (HS) 4 pts (Alg II/Math 3 CCR ) 14 pts (3-8), 14 pts (HS) 4 pts (Alg II/Math 3 CCR ) 7-9 pts (3-6)

Illinois State Board of Education PARCC Subclaim Percentage of Items on High School Assessments Task Types A: Solve problems with major content 39% Balance of conceptual understanding, fluency, and application Can involve any or all mathematical practice standards B: Solve problems with additional and supporting content 21% Balance of conceptual understanding, fluency, and application Can involve any or all mathematical practice standards C: Express mathematical reasoning 17% Each task calls for written arguments / justifications, critique of reasoning, or precision in mathematical statements Can involve other mathematical practice standards D: Solve real-world problems engaging in modeling 22% Each task calls for modeling/application in a real-world context or scenario Can involve other mathematical practice standards

Common Core Resources Sample 2 nd Grade Formative Assessment (2.NBT.5) Choose 3 Ways Use three strategies to solve

Common Core Resources Illinois Math Model Curriculum –

Questions