1. Kentucky’s Science Assessment System
A 3-part System in Support of 3-D Standards

2. Focus Questions What IS a system of assessments?
Why would an SEA focus beyond the statewide summative?
How can policies drive effective teaching and learning?
How can an SEA walk the talk when they say: We’re from the state and we’re here to help?

3. Vision of Science Proficiency
[By] the end of 12th grade, all students:
have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science;
possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on related issues;
are careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives;
are able to continue to learn about science outside school;
and have the skills to enter careers of their choice, including (but not limited to) careers in science, engineering and technology.

4. A SYSTEM of Science Assessments
Classroom Embedded Assessments
Statewide Summative Assessment
Through-Course Tasks
Built on teaching and learning in classroom
Each component adds and elicits new evidence of students’ learning
Defensible evidence of student attainment of the standard – as the standard was intended – is generated
Supports different purposes/users/uses PE

5. Board on Testing and Assessment (BOTA)
The committee encourages a developmental path for assessment that is “bottom up” rather than “top down;” one that begins with the process of designing assessments for the classroom, perhaps integrated into instructional units, and moves toward assessments for monitoring (page 8)
Current research points to the interactions of teachers and students around learning expectations (standards) – the instructional core – as the key lever in advancing student learning … basically – what happens day to day in the classroom is THE key determinant in student success!

6. Classroom Assessments
From a traditional view of …
Classroom Assessments
predict
Common Assessments
State Test
Science Standards
Generally, a narrow focus on just what was likely to be on the summative (the SUBSET of standards); generally, common assessments provided little opportunity for classroom adjustments (depending on how they were administered, built) – often “short term summatives” that were designed to look just like a smaller summative … so they could “predict” how students would do on the SUMMATIVE … the summative assessment was the focus – with all its limitations (item types, depth of knowledge, ability to elicit evidence of “deeper learning”) … not the SET OF STANDARDS established.

7. TCT 3x a year, every student, every year
To:
KAS for Science
CEA
Every day, every student, every year
TCT 3x a year, every student, every year
SSA
Once per year in grades 4, 7 and high school
Provides cumulative, yet not necessarily duplicative information
A system built around the EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENT LEARNING (standards – all of them) in which each component yields actionable information FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, USERS AND USES … not a one-size-fits-all, but rather a “landscape” of student learning over time that yields information for students, teachers, schools, districts, parents and the state as a whole.

8. A good assessment system can play a critical role in providing fair and accurate measures of the learning of all students and providing students with multiple ways of demonstrating their competency.
(page 9)
With ESSA – we have an unprecedented opportunity to do what is best for teaching and learning!

9. CEA: Classroom Embedded Assessments
KAS for Science
CEA: Classroom Embedded Assessments
Provide opportunities for seeking and interpreting evidence of three-dimensional science learning for use by learners and their teachers to decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there
Users: primarily students, teachers, parents –
What: day-to-day, week-to-week information about student learning against the STANDARDS (vs ‘test prep for the summative’)

10. TCT: Through Course Tasks
KAS for Science
TCT: Through Course Tasks
Provide snapshots of student learning/ thinking/application (and models of quality 3-D tasks) of the science standards; teachers working collaboratively analyze students’ work to calibrate expectations and confer on instructional implications/next steps to promote learning
Users: TEAMS of teachers – to calibrate expectations of students against the standard; to model strong 3-D tasks; to allow for sharing of instructional strategies through task analysis and student work analysis;
Students – they work on these in class and then can assess their own work against success criteria to set their own goals for learning AGAINST the STANDARDS
State – to begin to build “anchors” of actual student work on a continuum to promote calibration of expectations, establish professional learning priorities

11. Creating the TCTs:
Kentucky teachers from every grade/course selected to develop tasks for each grade K-12
Tasks were piloted/revised in the developer’s classrooms
Facilitation guides created to accompany each task
Open window November-March for classroom implementation: EVERY teacher of science was asked to administer a task of their choosing
Post-task analysis resulted in the submission to KDE of one single representative sample per grade/course from each district for calibration and quality control

12. Grade 1 TCT Example: SEP/CCC Driven

13. What pattern in the shadows do you observe?
What does the pattern tell you about the relationship between the sun and the shadow?

14. The pattern I observed in the shadow chart helped me know this because ______________________________

15. SSA: Statewide Summative Assessments
KAS for Science
SSA: Statewide Summative Assessments
Sampling of a school’s science program level of achievement (based on Kentucky Academic Standards for Science) and identify percentage of students meeting expected levels of attainment
For shareholders – community, districts, schools, teachers, students – to see how GROUPS of students are performing against the STANDARDS; to inform possible curricular strengths and needs; to assign school level accountability

16. Creating the Summative:
40+ Kentucky teachers selected to develop items
Bundled 2-3 Performance Expectations (PE) from the Kentucky Academic Standards within the context of a phenomenon
Developed “storylines” and stimuli that establish the outline of how the phenomenon will be used to elicit evidence for the PEs
Created clusters of items that provide evidence of student learning of the bundled PEs:
6-7 selected response opportunities
2-3 constructed response questions

17. State Summative Assessment Prototype: Phenomenon-based Cluster

18. State Summative Assessment Prototype

19. Essential Questions for Teaching, Learning and Assessment
What do we expect students to know and be able to do?
How will we know when they are successful?
What will we do to support further/deeper learning – to move all students forward?

20. ANALYZING STUDENT WORK
Process for CEAs/TCTS
PLANNING
IMPLEMENTING
ANALYZING STUDENT WORK
Note: Each of these corresponds to research on highly effective teaching, learning and assessment as well as Kentucky’s Framework for Teaching, Domains 1, 3, and 4

21. Policy and Practice Challenges: Rigorous and Aligned 3-D Tasks/Clusters
A customizable “template” assures the explicit pairing of SEPs that promote exploration of a DCI-based phenomena using a CCC as a sense-making lens.
KY teacher created, vendor supported
Phenomenologically centered to elicit evidence of and transfer of learning
For TCTs – a set of TEMPLATE TASKS from which each teacher selects will be provided; for CEAs, teachers can select from ‘pre-designed’ tasks or design their own using the template. Template assures the explicit pairing of SEPs that promote exploration of a DCI-based phenomena using a CCC as a sense-making lens. The resulting task is the central focus for the three-step process (CEAs, TCTs)

22. Policy and Practice Challenges: Effective Professional Learning Opportunities
Professional learning vs “PD as activity” (leveraged by new PL Standards in regulation)
Intentionality of teachers engaging in the three-step process is key to establishing a focus on highly effective practices that effect student success
Quality over ‘quantity’ (in terms of teacher time, collaboration)
Whether doing this alone for CEAs – or in established teams during the TCTs

23. Policy and Practice Challenges: Focus on Effectiveness – from preservice throughout career
Involvement of higher ed faculty to develop assessments/support ongoing professional learning
Expectations for effective teaching congruent to effective implementation of system components
Focus on developing collective teacher efficacy
Link to partnering with higher ed – thru both preservice and in service – and clarity/congruence with PGES throughout…
Collective Teacher Efficacy is one of the most effective strategies for effecting greater student achievement – we EXPECT this in our system (via CEAs and TCTs)

24. 2017 Field Test: Lessons Learned (TCT)
Teacher uncertainty regarding formative assessment and TCT—”Do your best”
Emphasis on SEP and CCC as ‘content’
Phenomena well-received by teachers and students, engagement fosters perseverance
Emphasis on process vs task—quality conversations
Meaningful tasks aren’t created easily

25. 2017 Field Test: Lessons Learned (summative)
Phenomena/clusters well-received by teachers and students, engagement fosters perseverance
Storyline approach requires careful attention to reading levels/load
Student engagement dramatically different: students appreciated the storyline/cluster approach
Meaningful clusters aren’t created easily: 30+ hours per cluster rough draft

26. More about Kentucky’s Science Assessment System
/science/Pages/Science-Assessment.aspx
Contacts: