Fall 2007 Assessment & Accountability Update Joseph A. Martineau, Interim Director Office of General Assessment & Accountability Michigan Department of Education Presentation to the School Improvement Facilitators’ Network At Clinton County RESA, October 11, 2007

2 Agenda Assessments MEAP MME Secondary Credit Assessments (End of Course Assessments) Formative Assessment Initiatives Accountability AYP EducationYES! Curriculum Activities State Legislative Horizon Federal Legislative Horizon Q & A

3 Performance Level Labels Goes into effect with Fall 2007 MEAP and Spring 2008 MME State Board renamed performance levels Level 1: Not proficient Level 2: Partially proficient Level 3: Proficient Level 4: Advanced Definitions transfer Apprentice  Not Proficient Basic  Partially Proficient Met  Proficient Exceeds  Advanced

4 Performance Level Labels Action statement added to definitions Not Proficient Needs intensive intervention and support to improve achievement Partially Proficient Needs assistance to improve achievement Proficient Needs continued support to maintain and increase proficiency Advanced Needs support to continue to excel

5 MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Linking Items Eliminated Reading Mathematics Shorter Assessments

6 MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Writing changes, continued… Writing scale is accurate, but too discrete Students do achieve the nearest observable score to their demonstrated achievement Writing assessment is shorter than all others But in Fall 2005 and Fall 2006 there were only 16 possible observable scores Statewide percents proficient were less stable than other subjects with longer assessments

7 MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Writing changes, continued… Addressing the issue Add 5 writing (Multiple Choice) MC items Adds more observable raw score points Use psychometric model used for MME Adds more observable scale score points Different ways to achieve same raw score, e.g. 13: student 1: student 2: st two red items are easier & less informative 2 nd two are harder & more informative Student 2 gets a slightly higher scale score Review & approved by State TAC

8 MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Reporting on Math and ELA Change in Achievement relative to grade level expectations Performance Levels divided into three, e.g., Low Advanced Mid Proficient High Partially Proficient Both years’ Performance Levels Presented differently on parent reports and all other reports Change in Performance Level category

9 MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 SD = Significant Decline D = Decline N = No Change I = Improvement SI = Significant Improvement

10 MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Parent Report (chart on outside) Parent Report (textual report on inside for reading, math) Last fall, Jane scored near the high end of the advanced performance level. This fall, she scored near the middle of the advanced performance level. From last fall to this fall, Jane showed a decline in performance level. Because your student scored at or very near the highest possible level in both years, this decline should not be a serious concern.

11 MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Individual Student Reports Low (L) Mid (M) High (H)

12 MEAP Changes For Fall 2007 Individual Student Reports Low (L) Mid (M) High (H)

13 MEAP Changes for Fall 2007 Student Rosters Number of PL 1 = Advanced 2 = Proficient 3 = Partially Proficient 4 = Not Proficient Portion of PL range L = Low L = Middle H = High For example 1H High portion of Advanced range 4M Middle portion of the Not Proficient range L 4H 1H 1L 4L 1H SD I N

14 MEAP Changes for Fall 2007 Student Labels

15 MEAP Changes for Fall 2007 Summary Reports

16 MME What is the Michigan Merit Examination? Day 1 ACT + Writing Day 2 WorkKeys + MI developed Mathematics Day 3 MI developed Science & Social Studies Can occur on either afternoon of day 2 OR morning of day 3

17 MME Why the Three-Part Assessment? State MME legislation requires 1. College Entrance examination 2. Work Skills examination 3. Social Studies component 4. Compliance with NCLB NCLB legislation requires alignment of overall assessment to State content standards Therefore Requirement 1: ACT Requirement 2: WorkKeys Requirement 3: MI Social Studies Requirement 4: MI Math, Science and Writing Constructed response

18 MME Differences from MEAP Timed, stricter administration rules 3 days initial or makeup: no more “window” Staff training required Counting toward NCLB 95% participation All contributing components of reading, writing, and mathematics must be completed Extension of previous MEAP participation rule to all components of MME

19 MME Differences from MEAP Spring Assessment Accommodations ACT-approved For Students with Disabilities and section 504 ONLY! ACT is college reportable Counts toward AYP participation and proficiency Standard State-allowed Standard English Language Learner accommodations Other state-allowed for SWD and 504 ACT is not college reportable Counts toward AYP participation and proficiency Non-standard Not allowed on the ACT Allowed on Days 2 and 3 if IEP specifies Not participating for AYP purposes!

20 MME Differences from MEAP Re-testing Must meet re-test eligibility criteria Non-valid score on reading, writing, math, or science Performance level 3 or 4 on reading, writing, math, or science Must re-take the entire MME Components from each day One re-test per school year Fall OR Spring, not both MEAP had six possible test opportunities

21 MME Differences from MEAP Fall Re-take Day 1 ACT in a national testing site on a Saturday No ELL accommodations No other State-allowed accommodations Days 2 and 3 Same as Spring administration On Tuesday and Wednesday

22 MME Contributing Components ELA Reading ACT Reading WorkKeys Reading Writing ACT English ACT Writing Prompt Social Studies Prompt (scored for persuasive writing)

23 MME Contributing Components Mathematics ACT Mathematics ACT Science Data Analysis items WorkKeys Mathematics MI developed Mathematics

24 MME Contributing Components Science ACT Science Covers scientific process Covers scientific reasoning MI developed Science Covers specific discipline content (e.g. biology) Social Studies MI developed Social Studies MC items and CR item scored for civic writing

25 Secondary Credit Assessments (SCA) A.K.A “End of Course Assessments” Requirements Districts Must use “an approved” SCA to give credit to students who have not taken a course Must use “an approved” SCA as an End of Course assessment “An approved” is undefined in legislation Assume approval by School Board Not required to use State-developed test State Must develop SCAs if feasible

26 Secondary Credit Assessments (SCA) No funding for development Current limited development of “prototypes” of SCAs under existing contracts Algebra I, Geometry posted Spring 2007 (new forms to be posted Spring 2008) English 9, Biology to be posted Spring 2008 Recommended standards Not required 70% correct Use for final course grades An End of Course Assessment (EOCA) must be given An EOC assessment must be a part of the final grade State-developed SCA prototypes may be used for this purpose Recommend no more than 25% of final grade Current initiatives in Professional Development (PD) for classroom (formative) assessment Current initiative under no funding Develop prototypes as current contracts allow Identify most urgent needs, develop one or two at a time

27 Secondary Credit Assessments (SCA) Plans if fully funded Develop all subjects simultaneously if feasible Develop statewide PD in formative assessment Develop interim benchmark assessments based on Curriculum units Achievement on different interim benchmark assessments can be pieced together to demonstrate achievement on the course content as a whole Online delivery and scoring for rapid feedback to inform instruction (e.g. continue review or move to the next unit) Develop full end of course assessments Online deliver and scoring Formally set achievement standards on SCAs

28 Adequate Yearly Progress No changes in AYP as of yet Possibility of asking for changes through accountability workbook submission to USDOE Reauthorization of NCLB may mean substantial changes in AYP

29 EducationYES! Existing three-pronged structure Achievement Cross-sectional Multi-year average Change Change in grade 3 achievement this year versus grade three achievement last year Cross-sectional non-cohort change Growth Future implementation when longitudinal data are available To be individual student level growth

30 EducationYES! Proposal for new three-pronged structure Achievement All grades and subjects Change in PL (Growth) ELA and Mathematics Longitudinal data are now available Change Only where change in PL is not feasible Science, Social Studies High School

31 EducationYES! Indicators Report on rubrics through AdvancED (NCA) Will not be scored Will be reported External data to be added and scored Highly Qualified Attendance Graduation Curricular reform? Extra credit TBD

32 Curriculum Activities Social Studies Standards recently approved Science Standards expected to be approved before year end Means… New social studies and science assessments New standards on science and social studies assessments

33 State Legislative Horizon Senate Bills introduced Add social studies as a Promise Grant eligibility requirement Eliminate social studies from MME Eliminate social studies from MEAP Eliminate State-developed secondary credit assessments Eliminate WorkKeys portion of MME Eliminate ACT Writing prompt as required part of MME Limit statewide assessments to Reading, Writing, Mathematics, and Science Make cost of ACT writing prompt payable by student Make all MME re-take costs payable by the student Additional lobbying Eliminate the MME fall re-take Add third part of WorkKeys (Locating Information) to MME

34 Federal Legislative Horizon NCLB reauthorization Discussion draft requirements Limited growth model Significantly greater data gathering Longitudinal data systems Teacher-student data links Monitor the closure of achievement gaps Limits on use of large confidence intervals AND safe harbor simultaneously Limits on size of confidence intervals Nationwide group size of 30 for reporting on AYP

35 Questions & (hopefully) Answers

36 Contact Information Joseph Martineau, Interim Director Office of General Assessment & Accountability Michigan Department of Education P.O. Box Lansing, MI