1. Illinois State Board of Education A Vision for Illinois Assessment: Problems Worth Solving Tests Worth Taking

2. What are we looking into? – MCF – Sample Questions Integrated alignment 3 Type of questions Accountability – 2016 changes and beyond Illinois State Board of Education

3. PARCC Model Content Frameworks Purpose Support implementation Inform development of item specific and PARCC assessments

4. Key Elements of the High School PARCC Model Content Framework High School Course Individual End of Course Overviews Pathway Summary Tables Assessment Limits Tables for Standards Assessed in More than One Course Mathematical Practices in Relation to Course Content Key Advances Fluency Recommendations

7. Content Emphases by Cluster Content Emphasis by Cluster

10. Standard Testing Limitations

13. ECD is a deliberate and systematic approach to assessment development that will help to establish the validity of the assessments, increase the comparability of year-to year results, and increase efficiencies/reduce costs. Evidence-Centered Design (ECD) for the PARCC Assessments Claims Design begins with the inferences (claims) we want to make about students Evidence In order to support claims, we must gather evidence Tasks Tasks are designed to elicit specific evidence from students in support of claims

14. 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

15. 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) This past year it was

16. 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) 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) All these point totals will be proportional, resulting in the new totals The points will be adjusted increasing the value of Type I and decreasing the value of Type 2 and Type 3 problems. Total Exam Score Points: 82 (Grades 3-8), 97 or 107(HS ) Total Exam Score Points: 82 (Grades 3-8), 97 or 107(HS ) Spring 2016, will now be: 66 ≈ 81 Claims Structure: Mathematics There will be a decrease in Type I questions. The number of Type II and Type III questions will remain the same!

18. Several types of evidence statements are being used to describe what a task should be assessing, including: 1.Those using exact standards language 2.Those transparently derived from exact standards language, e.g., by splitting a content standard 3.Integrative evidence statements that express plausible direct implications of the standards without going beyond the standards to create new requirements 4.Sub-claim C & D evidence statements, which put MP.3, 4, 6 as primary with connections to content Evidence Statement Tables: Types of Evidence Statements

19. Overview of PARCC Mathematics Task Types 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.

20. Where to find Integrated Practice Problems

26. PARCC Sample Problems Let’s take a look at some problems and how they translate into an Integrated class. Illinois State Board of Education

49. Performance Level Descriptors In October 2012 PARCC established 5 performance levels 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: Students performing at this level demonstrate a strong command… Level 3: Students performing at this level demonstrate a moderate command… Level 2: Students performing at this level demonstrate a partial command… Level 1: Students performing at this level demonstrate a minimal command…

50. Practice tests – EOY – PBA Assessment UPDATE Coming Fall (Pending) new combined Practice Test There will now be 1 single test split into multiple sessions with a window of April- May These sessions will be 3-5: 4 Sessions 60 mins each 6-8: 3 Sessions 80 mins each HS: 3 Sessions 90 mins each This will be about 60 mins less than 2015 Integrated Practice Tests have been requested and are up for conversation with no timeframe on availability

51. UPDATE How can we handle ACCOUNTABILITY? PARCC CCR Tests now will account toward Community College placement. Universities have begun discussion on the same topic, but currently there is no timeframe. In most Community Colleges a score of a 3 will earn placement above remedial level classes. Most importantly, Compass will begin to fade away come December 2016!

52. UPDATE Scores will be available, from 2015 testing, in Sept/Oct. In future years results will be available in June Spring 2016 Paper and Pencil tests will continue to be provided; however, the plan is to have Paper and Pencil Tests as an accommodation only! Beginning this school year the TI-84 drop down calculator will be available for Practice Tests.