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

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

3. PARCC Model Content Frameworks
Purpose
Support implementation
Inform development of item specific and PARCC assessments
They created the MCF to connect the ccssm to the assessment as a tool for teachers and other stakeholders to use.
Purpose
Support implementation of the Common Core State Standards
Inform development of item specifications and blueprints for the PARCC assessments in grades 3–8 and high school
Audience
Primary audience is state and local curriculum directors
Frameworks are a resource for teachers and building administrators
Content contained is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

4. Key Elements of the High School PARCC Model Content Framework
Advances
Fluency
Recommendations
Individual
End of Course Overviews
Pathway Summary
Tables
High School
Course
Assessment Limits Tables for Standards Assessed in More than One Course
PARCC Model Content Framework seems to be the clearest and most well-defined resource when it comes to defining HS courses.
Helpful for teachers because it is aligned to what students will see on PARCC assessments.
Figure shows all components that are available for each HS course (Traditional and Integrated are both included in PARCC as well)
There are six elements in the high school section of the Model Content Frameworks. Individual end of course overviews, key advances, fluency recommendations, pathway summary tables and assessment limits tables for standards assessed in more than one course provide a frame for the high school courses, with the connection to the practice standards providing that base for the framework.
Mathematical Practices in Relation to Course Content

6. The Model Content Framework gives two high school pathways: traditional and integrated. Traditional is what we frequently see in the US, Algebra 1, then Geometry and Algebra 2. Integrated is sometimes referred to as the international pathway and it goes from Math 1 to 2 to 3. Note that both pathways have the same standards, the standards are still the common core, but they are in different course placements. PARCC is creating assessments for both the traditional and integrated pathways. Both pathways lead to higher level mathematics in the fourth year or beyond.
Note that Appendix A is not identical to the PARCC Model Content Frameworks, nor is the draft version the same as the 2012 final version.
PARCC will assess standards in different grade levels than as described in Appendix A. Also, within those standards different components may be assessed. For example, Appendix A limits Math 1 to the functions of linear and exponential, but Math 1 in PARCC includes these functions as well as square root, cube root and piecewise functions.
Remember that the STANDARDS are not changing. The standards are the same, they are just in a different course. PARCC does not define the curriculum within a course, but states what will be assessed by the end of that year.

7. Content Emphases by Cluster
Green – major Blue – supporting Yellow – additional
Content Emphasis by
Cluster
Read the Critical Areas for Grade 3 and look at the Grade 3 Content Standards.
Place a Green, Blue or Yellow dot on the clusters that you think may be major, supporting or additional.
The chart at the end of each grade level description lists each of the clusters and an emphasis to encourage focus.
Major content identifies where the majority of instructional time and focus should be. At least 70% of the assessment will focus on the major content clusters.
Supporting standards are designed to strengthen the areas of major emphasis. Connections of supporting to the major clusters are provided.
Additional are those standards that do not connect tightly or explicitly to the major
Content contained is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

8. Every standard is listed and a dot is put on the course in which this standard is assessed. There is a table for both pathways. The traditional pathway table, shown here, puts the courses out of order Algebra 1, then Algebra 2 then Geometry. PARCC says this is to more accurately see the standards that are assessed in more than one course. Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 have more common standards than geometry. The grey-shaded boxes indicate standards that are assessed in more than one grade level.
Content contained is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

10. Standard Testing Limitations

13. 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
PARCC utilizes Evidence-Centered Design to inform the development of the summative assessments. 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. The Design begins with the inferences (claims) we want to make about students. In order to support claims, we must gather evidence. Tasks are then designed to elicit the specific evidence from students that supports the claims.
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.
Confidential - Not for Distribution

14. Claims for Mathematics
Master Claim: Students are on-track or ready for college and careers
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
Master Claim: Students Are “On Track” to College and Career Readiness
This Master Claim reflects the overall goal of the Common Core State Standards and Model Content Frameworks—to prepare students for college and careers, and specifically to ensure students have the skills and understandings required for success. The measure of progress towards this essential goal will be reflected by a student’s overall performance on the summative components (both the Performance-Based Assessment and End-of-Year Assessment) of the PARCC Assessment System.
PARCC created five claims that they use to drive their design and to keep a student on track to be college and career ready. These claims help the designers to keep the focus of the CCSSM always at heart. PARCC created item prototypes and with each item, they state the claim that it connects to.
The first involves the major content with connections to the practices, the second the supporting and additional content, the third claim focuses on reasoning and the fourth modeling and application. Note that the fifth claim “fluency” is only applicable through 6th grade however, the model content frameworks still includes fluency recommendations for the upper grades as we will discuss later.

15. Claims Structure: Mathematics
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.
Total Exam Score Points:
82 (Grades 3-8), 97 or 107(HS)
This past year it was
Sub-Claim C: Highlighted Practices MP.3,6 with Connections to Content3 (expressing mathematical reasoning) .
Sub-Claim A: Major Content1 with Connections to Practices
Sub-Claim B: Additional & Supporting Content2 with Connections to Practices
~14 pts (3-8),
~23 pts (HS)
~37 pts (3-8),
~42 pts (HS)
14 pts (3-8),
14 pts (HS)
4 pts (Alg II/Math 3 CCR)
Master Claim: Students Are “On Track” to College and Career Readiness
This Master Claim reflects the overall goal of PARCC based on the Common Core State Standards and the PARCC Model Content Frameworks—to prepare students for college and careers, and specifically to ensure students have the skills and understandings required for success. The measure of progress towards this essential goal will be reflected by a student’s overall performance on the summative components (both the Performance-Based Assessment and End-of-Year Assessment) of the PARCC Assessment System.
Sub-Claim D: Highlighted Practice MP.4 with Connections to Content (modeling/application)
Sub-Claim E: Fluency in applicable grades (3-6)
12 pts (3-8),
18 pts (HS)
6 pts (Alg II/Math 3 CCR)
7-9 pts (3-6)

16. Claims Structure: Mathematics
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.
Spring 2016, will now be: ≈ 81
Total Exam Score Points:
82 (Grades 3-8), 97 or 107(HS)
Sub-Claim C: Highlighted Practices MP.3,6 with Connections to Content3 (expressing mathematical reasoning) .
Sub-Claim A: Major Content1 with Connections to Practices
Sub-Claim B: Additional & Supporting Content2 with Connections to Practices
There will be a decrease in Type I questions.
The number of Type II and Type III questions will remain the same!
All these point totals will be proportional , resulting in the new totals
Sub-Claim D: Highlighted Practice MP.4 with Connections to Content (modeling/application)
Sub-Claim E: Fluency in applicable grades (3-6)
The points will be adjusted increasing the value of Type I and decreasing the value of Type 2 and Type 3 problems.

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

19. Overview of PARCC Mathematics Task Types
Description 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)
Sub-claim D
Previous items were Type I, II and III
Related, there are three task types. Claim A, B and E align to Type 1. These items are machine scorable, but could be technology enhanced. Items may include not only multiple choice, but multiple select, drag and drop, drop down menus, fill in the blank or even the opportunity to interact with a grid or graph and place points or graph lines.
Type 2 tasks align to Claim C and deal with reasoning. Type 3 tasks, align to Claim D, modeling. Both Type 2 and 3 will only be on the performance based assessment, which takes place approximately 75% of the way through the year and will be hand scored, involving very open-ended questions.
For more information see PARCC Task Development ITN Appendix D.

20. Where to find Integrated Practice Problems

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

27. MATH I
Algebra
Type II Question

29. MATH I
Algebra
Type III Question

32. MATH II
Geometry
Type III Question

38. MATH II
Geometry
Type III Question

40. MATH III
Geometry
Type II Question

42. MATH III
Algebra II
Type I Question

43. Type III Question
MATH III
Algebra II

46. MATH III
Algebra II
Type III Question

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…
The PLD’s were created as an internal document for PARCC. PARCC has committed to complete transparency, and published these so that the educators and stakeholders are aware how the scoring practices will be completed. Until the pilots are complete, grade level PLDs may change.
A vote taken by the PARCC Governing Board and Advisory Committee on College Readiness in October 2012 established 5 performance levels for the PARCC assessments.
The policy-level descriptors shown here provide information about a student’s performance at a given level—no matter the grade or course
In combination with the policy-level PLDs, the grade- and subject-specific PLDs will describe the educational implications for students who attain a particular performance level on the PARCC assessments.
However, the policy-level PLDs are different from the grade- and subject-specific PLDs because they do not describe student performance at each grade level.

50. UPDATE Practice tests Assessment
Integrated Practice Tests have been requested and are up for conversation with no timeframe on availability
Practice tests
EOY
PBA
Assessment
Coming Fall (Pending) new combined Practice Test
There will now be 1 single test split into multiple sessions with a window of April-May
All students (and parents and others) will be able to try out the practice tests, to gain familiarity with the test questions they will see next spring.
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

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