Indiana Education Roundtable: K-12 Education Assessments Presentation to the Indiana Education Roundtable Monday, June 23,

 Provide overview of future assessment needs  Provide update on assessment implementation plans  Update Roundtable on SBOE Assessment Committee work  Obtain policy guidance from the Education Roundtable to inform the State Board of Education and Indiana Department of Education in crafting an RFP for new assessments, implemented starting in Today’s Objectives 2

 Roundtable, State Board and IDOE Duties  Overview of Federal and State Requirements  Assessments Update  Assessments Policy Recommendations  Discuss Next Steps Agenda 3

 The Education Roundtable has statutory authority to make recommendations regarding:  “Subjects related to education.” [IC ]  The content, format, and passing scores for ISTEP and the graduation examination. [IC ]  The Roundtable is also authorized by statute to consult with the State Board of Education regarding a college-and-career readiness assessment for students “likely to require remedial work at a postsecondary educational institution or workforce training program.” [IC ] Education Roundtable Authority 4

 IC (a): The state board shall: (1) authorize the development and implementation of the ISTEP program; and (2) determine the date on which the statewide testing is administered in each school corporation.  IC : National or international assessments (a) The state board may require schools to participate in national or international assessments. (b) The state board may establish an assessment to be administered at the conclusion of each Core 40 course in English/language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science. However, participation in a Core 40 assessment established under this subsection must be voluntary on the part of a school corporation. (c) The state board may establish a diagnostic reading assessment for use in grades 1 and 2 to promote grade level reading competency by grade 3. However, participation in a reading assessment established under this subsection must be voluntary on the part of a school corporation. (d) The state board may establish assessments to supplement ISTEP assessments for secondary school students. State Board of Education Authority 5

 IC (b) The state superintendent is responsible for the overall development, implementation, and monitoring of the ISTEP program. (c) The department shall prepare detailed design specifications for the ISTEP program that must do the following: (1) Take into account the academic standards adopted under IC (2) Include testing of students' higher level cognitive thinking in each subject area tested. Department of Education Authority 6

 The State Board of Education approved the creation of an Assessment Committee in April  Committee agenda materials are posted here:  The Committee consists of the following members:  Superintendent Ritz (Chair), Mr. Troy Albert, Dr. Brad Oliver, Ms. Sarah O’Brien, Ms. Cari Whicker  The Committee has met five times and completed the following activities:  Coordinated with IDOA to issue a Request For Information (RFI), to which 14 vendors responded  Heard oral presentations from 6 vendors who responded to the RFI  Identified policy areas requiring Roundtable and State Board guidance State Board of Education Assessment Committee 7

 Roundtable, State Board and IDOE Duties  Overview of Federal and State Requirements  Assessments Update  Assessments Policy Recommendations  Discuss Next Steps Agenda 8

 IC Content of tests. To carry out the purposes described in section 1 of this chapter, each English/language arts and mathematics test developed for use under the ISTEP program test must include the following:  (1) A method of testing basic skills appropriate for the designated grade level, including multiple choice questions.  (2) A method of testing applied skills appropriate for the designated grade level, including short answer or essay questions and the solving of arithmetic or mathematical problems.  (3) A method of testing and grading that will allow comparison with national and international academic standards.  State Contracts for Summative and Formative Assessments  Existing state contracts for required state assessments in English/Language Arts and Mathematics, as well as Reading – the ISTEP+, End of Course Assessments (ECAs), and IREAD-3 – will expire on June 30, 2014 and October 30,  State contracts for optional formative assessments – including Acuity, mCLASS/DIBELS, and IREAD K-2 – will also expire on June 30, State Requirements for Assessments 9

 The IDOE is in the process of extending existing contracts through June 30, 2015, to ensure assessment continuity until a new system can be implemented.  The state has already begun the procurement process to identify new vendors/execute new contracts for , and has completed the RFI process.  The State Board requires policy guidance from the Roundtable to inform the creation of an RFP for new assessments.  The RFP must be issued in July 2014 in order to ensure we are on track to select vendors(s), execute contracts, and ensure the timely development of new assessments to be administered by schools beginning in the school year.  Vendor responses will be due in late August, and the goal is to select approved vendors in September. Procurement Requirements and Timeline 10

 Roundtable, State Board and IDOE Duties  Overview of Federal and State Requirements  Assessments Update  Assessments Policy Recommendations  Discuss Next Steps Agenda 11

 Federal law requires that mandatory state assessments must be aligned with state standards.  Indiana adopted new college-and-career ready standards for E/LA and Math on April 28,  Therefore, we must develop new assessments aligned with our new standards to comply with federal law.  Federal law requires that tests used for accountability purposes measure student proficiency at grade level.  Indiana’s ESEA Waiver, approved by the U.S. Department of Education in February 2012, requires Indiana to implement an operational assessment beginning in  An operational assessment must be 100% aligned with new standards, must be administered to all eligible students, and must be used for accountability purposes. Federal Requirements for Assessments 12

 Federal No Child Left Behind waiver, approved for Indiana in February 2012, requires college-and-career readiness assessments to be administered during the school year.  assessments must be operational, which means: (1) 100% aligned with new E/LA and Math standards, (2) administered to all eligible students, (3) be used for purposes of accountability.  Indiana statute requires the state to administer ISTEP+ in  The Indiana Department of Education is working with the current assessment vendor, CTB/McGraw-Hill, to modify the ISTEP+ to align with the new academic standards and to include college-and-career ready test items in Grades 3-8.  IDOE is also working with the End of Course Assessments vendor, Questar, to align the ECAs with the new standards and federal accountability requirements School Year Assessments 13

 The IDOE is working with the vendors for existing assessments to extend through the school year to ensure consistency and continuity for students and educators:  ISTEP+  ECA  IREAD  Acuity  mCLASS Contract Renewal Status 14

 Roundtable, State Board and IDOE Duties  Overview of Federal and State Requirements  Assessments Update  Assessments Policy Recommendations  Discuss Next Steps Agenda 15

Assessment Development Activities: April-July April 2014:  SBOE Assessment Committee created  Committee approves Request For Information (RFI) May 2014:  Indiana Department of Administration (IDOA) posts RFI June 2014:  Respondents to RFI present to Assessment Committee  Education Roundtable meets to adopt resolution regarding assessment policy parameters  Survey issued to field regarding formative and summative assessment needs, likes and dislikes July 2014:  State Board of Education votes on Education Roundtable assessment recommendations  IDOA issues RFP 16

Assessment: Policy Decisions  Grade Span  Graduation examination/ GQE  Assessments for both college and career readiness  Determining remediation needs in high school  IREAD-3  Test Form  Assessment costs 17

Policy Decision: Grade Span 18 Policy Question: For what grades should there be state-mandated assessments? Considerations: Federal requirements Validity and reliability of assessments in grades below Grade 3 Time spent testing versus on instruction during early elementary years Vertical alignment is necessary for valid and reliable growth data Assessment costs Recommendations: No mandated testing in grades K-2 Provide optional formative assessments in grades K through 10 Mandate summative assessments in grades 3 through 10 Implications: Addition of a 9 th grade test provides additional indicator of grade level content mastery, enabling more targeted instruction Vertical scale extending from 8 th into 10 th grade allows for calculation of growth in high school, which is not currently possible

GQE Policy Decision: GQE 19 Policy Questions: 1.What assessment should serve as the Graduate Qualifying Exam (GQE)? 2.In which year of high school should the GQE be administered? Considerations: Math courses begin to vary after 8 th grade, which makes it challenging to develop an aligned assessment The Algebra I End of Course Assessment is administered as early as 8 th grade, raising questions about its function as the GQE Due process rights will require a phased-in approach to any changes to the GQE Recommendations: GQE: Use grade 10 ISTEP; phase out End of Course Assessments Math GQE: Math content and course alignment to be developed in consultation with local and national math content/math assessment experts Implications: Need to phase out ECAs over 2-3 years (due process considerations)

College & Career Readiness Assessments Policy Decision: College & Career Readiness Assessments 20 Policy Question: 1.What assessments should serve as measurements of students’ readiness for college and/or career readiness (CCR)? Considerations: Students pursue different paths post-graduation, and not every student will need to take the same CCR assessment (e.g., SAT, AP, IB, Accuplacer). The current A-F school accountability system includes CCR indicators (AP, IB, dual credit, industry certification) as part of the high school letter grade calculation. Recommendations: Grades 11 and 12: offer options for assessments to align with individual students’ interests/pathways, consistent with current policies, and designed to provide information regarding readiness for the following: o College admission; College placement in credit-bearing courses; Workforce readiness, including industry certifications; and Military service. The A-F accountability system will utilize a participation rate calculation for students who participate in any one of these assessments. Implications: Ensure appropriate quality of career indicators (i.e., workforce readiness)

Policy Decision: IREAD-3 21 Policy Question: Should IREAD-3 be folded into the new 3 rd grade ISTEP, or should it remain separate? Considerations: The current ISTEP+ does measure reading standards; however, IREAD-3 was originally created because the current ISTEP+ did not include sufficient reading items to provide a separate “reading” score that is valid and reliable. The educators involved with cut score setting indicated that they did not want to make ISTEP+ longer by incorporating additional reading- specific items into the current ISTEP+. According to Dr. Derek Briggs, absorbing IREAD-3 into the assessment used for federal accountability will require increased testing time and could result in lower testing scores. Current Reading Plan Rule provides that students who do not pass IREAD-3 during the Spring window must receive intervention from the school and then retest in the Summer. De-coupling the reading questions for purposes of re-testing may prove challenging. Desire to measure reading proficiency over multiple years/grades. Currently IREAD-3 measures whether students know how to read versus 3 rd grade reading proficiency. Recommendations: Maintain a separate IREAD-3 assessment from the 3 rd grade ISTEP+. Ensure that new ISTEP assessment measures sufficient number of reading items to provide valid and reliable proficiency and growth data.

Policy Decision: Test Form 22 Policy question: Should Indiana implement an adaptive summative assessment or maintain a fixed-form summative assessment? Considerations: Federal accountability requirements and approval Testing equity, e.g., equal number of questions per student Technology requirements for fixed-form vs. adaptive testing Paper-and-pencil administration implementation (i.e., for IEPs) Test duration Size and cost of item bank, time required to develop and field test items Consistency for students and educators (i.e., current assessments are fixed-form) Recommendations: Maintain fixed-form summative assessment Once a new assessment has been implemented for at least two years, consider possible adaptation of fixed-form assessment to include an adaptive component (dependent upon readiness of adaptive testing, cost implications, duration considerations) During RFP process, explore possibility of adaptive optional formative assessments

Policy Decision: Cost 23 Policy question: What assessments should the state budget fund? Current Funding: The state covers the cost (either in full or in part) of the following: ISTEP+ ECA Acuity IREAD-3, and optional IREAD in K-2 mCLASS PSAT in 10 th grade AP and IB Recommendations: Fund the full cost of the required summative assessment in grades 3-10 Fund the full cost of at least one optional College & Career Readiness assessment in 11 th and 12 th grade Fund the full cost of the required assessment used to determine remediation in 11 th grade Fund the full per-grade cost of at lease one optional, formative assessment in grades K-10

 Roundtable, State Board and IDOE Duties  Overview of Federal and State Requirements  Assessments Update  Assessments Policy Recommendations  Discuss Next Steps Agenda 24

Assessment Development Activities: August-October  July 9 th State Board of Education Meeting  August/September 2014:  Deadline for RFP submissions.  Assessment Committee meeting  State Board of Education meets to vote on Roundtable recommendation.  September/October 2014:  Contracting process commences  Spring :  New assessment(s) implemented 25

Future Roundtable Meetings  Update on STEM Teacher Recruitment Grant Fund  Update in HEA 1005  Update in HEA 1005 [PL ] and impact upon remediation requirements  Cut score setting for assessment  Looking ahead to science standards review and adoption  2016 timeline for Roundtable and State Board approval  Work commences in