Implementing Assessments Aligned to College- and Career- Readiness (CCR) Standards Presented by Gloria Zyskowski, Ph. D. Director, Student Assessment Division Texas Education Agency N ATIONAL C ONFERENCE ON S TUDENT A SSESSMENT J UNE 22-24, 2015

Brief Timeline of STAAR Development Executive Order RP-53 calls on the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) to work together to enhance college-readiness standards and programs for Texas public schools 2005 House Bill 1 calls for an increase in the number of students graduating high school as college and career ready; requires TEA and the THECB to establish vertical teams to develop College and Career Readiness Standards (CCRS) in the areas of English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies 2006 TEA and THECB establish vertical teams to develop CCRS; State Board of Education (SBOE) incorporates the CCRS into the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)

Vertically Aligning STAAR Connecting the Curriculum and the Assessment  Align CCRS to high school standards  Identify Readiness and Supporting standards  Vertically align down to elementary assessments Connecting the Performance Standards  Inform postsecondary-readiness standards with empirical evidence from external validity studies for the STAAR English III and Algebra II assessments  Vertically align down to elementary assessments English III English II English I Grade 8 Grade 7 Grade 6 Grade 5 Grade 4 Grade 3 Start 3

STAAR Performance Labels and Policy Definitions 4 Level II: Satisfactory Academic Performance Students in this category are reasonably likely (with at least a 60% probability) to succeed (with a grade of C or higher) in an entry-level, credit-bearing course in that content area … Level III: Advanced Academic Performance Students in this category are highly likely (with at least a 75% probability) to succeed (with a grade of C or higher) in an entry-level, credit-bearing course in that content area…

Overview of Standard-Setting Process 1) Validity Studies 2) Performance Labels/Policy Definitions 3) Grade/Course Specific Performance Level Descriptors 4) Policy Committee 5) Standard- Setting Committees 6) Reasonableness Review 7) Approve Performance Standards 8) Implement Performance Standards 9) Review Performance Standards 5

Policy Committee 6

Neighborhood for Level III cut 100% Meeting Standard0% Meeting Standard STAAR Assessment Neighborhood for Level II cut Level I Unsatisfactory Academic Performance Level II Satisfactory Academic Performance Level II CutLevel III Cut Level III Advanced Academic Performance Established Neighborhoods for Level II and Level III Standard-Setting Committee: Recommended Level II and Level III cuts within neighborhoods 7

Empirical Studies Considerations Norm-referenced assessments (e.g., Iowa Tests of Basic Skills) Assessments linked to college and career readiness (e.g., EXPLORE, which links to ACT; ReadiStep, which links to SAT) National and international comparative assessments (e.g., NAEP, PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS) Internal linkage between STAAR assessments (e.g., 3-8 to EOC, vertical scale studies) Comparison to the prior Texas assessment (STAAR-TAKS) 8

Uses of the Empirical Studies To establish neighborhoods for setting performance standards, Support the committees’ recommended performance standards through feedback data, and Review the recommended performance standards for reasonableness. 9

Study Profile Example: STAAR 10

Data Quality Summary Example : STAAR 11

Empirical Number Lines Example : STAAR 12

100% Meeting Standard0% Meeting Standard STAAR Algebra II Studies Level II Abbreviations CR = College Readiness TSI = Texas Success Initiative HERC = Higher Education Readiness Component 55% 40% STAAR test questions correct 26% 2009 NAEP 12 th grade math Proficient or higher 47% ACCUPLACER Algebra TSI cut 63% THEA math TSI cut 21% College: 75% prob. of C or better 32% College: 60% prob. of C or better 9% High school course grade A 64% High school course grade B or better 25% 60% STAAR test questions correct SAT: 75% probability of C or better 27% ACT math CR benchmark 94% SAT: 60% probability of C or better TAKS grade 11 math HERC 78% Level III 2% 25% Level II 47% 13

14 "The funny thing is, the state got exactly what it wanted – a tougher test that would better give educators a sense of where kids really stood in relation to the rest of the nation and the world. But that has caused everybody to freak out.“ Celeste, Eric. "Do Flat STAAR Tests Mean DISD Was Better Under Hinojosa? Of Course Not." LearningCurve. Web. 11 June Parting Words