1. Georgia’s Changing Assessment Landscape
Assessment Update:
Georgia’s Changing Assessment Landscape
February 2014

2. Assessment Update
This update pertains to anticipated changes to Georgia’s Student Assessment Program for the future.
As more information and details become available, we will follow-up to keep everyone informed.
Please Note: This update does not pertain to assessments administered this school year.

3. Federal Requirements for High Quality Assessments
College & Career Ready standards and expectations
Assessments in grades 3 – 8 and high school
capable of measuring student growth over the course of the academic year
accessible for all students, including SWD and EL
ELP standards that correspond to CCR standards
Administer no later than 2014 – 2015
Annually report college-going and college-credit accumulation rates for all students and student subgroups at district and high school levels

4. A New Assessment System
Comprehensive
single program, not series of tests (e.g., CRCT; EOCT; WA)
Coherent
consistent expectations and rigor to position Georgia students to compete with peers nationally and internationally
consistent signal about student preparedness for the next level, be it the next grade, course, or college/career
consistent signal about student achievement both within system (across grades and courses) and with external measures (NAEP; PSAT; SAT; ACT)
Consolidate
combine reading, language arts, and writing into a single measure to align to the standards

5. Coherency – Consistency
Achievement of Georgia Students in Mathematics
2013
NAEP – Grade 8: % at/above proficient
CRCT – Grade 8: 83% met/exceeded
Coordinate Algebra EOCT: 37% met/exceeded
SAT – Class of 2013: 42% college ready benchmark*
ACT – Class of 2013: 38% college ready benchmark**
2012
PSAT – sophomores: 37% on track to be CCR
*SAT data represent 71% of Class of 2013
**ACT data represent 51% of Class of 2013

6. Coherency – Consistency
Achievement of Georgia Students in Reading
2013
NAEP – Grade 8: % at/above proficient
CRCT – Grade 8: 97% met/exceeded
9th Grade Literature EOCT: 86% met/exceeded
American Literature EOCT: 91% met/exceeded
SAT – Class of 2013: 43% college ready benchmark*
ACT – Class of 2013: 43% college ready benchmark**
2012
PSAT – sophomores: 40% on track to be CCR
*SAT data represent 71% of Class of 2013
**ACT data represent 51% of Class of 2013

7. Georgia’s New Assessment System
As we begin to build a new assessment system, the plan is:
to consolidate reading, language arts, and writing into a single measure to align to the standards;
to embed norm-referenced items to provide a national comparison;
to share items with other states;
to align expectations with other external measures to send consistent signal of how Georgia students are doing compared to their peers; and
to involve USG and TCSG in the development to ensure the assessments signal college and career readiness.

8. Georgia’s Plan To accomplish this plan, Georgia must:
include a variety of item types – more than just multiple choice;
increase expectations for student learning and achievement; and
continue to – and accelerate – transition to online administration

9. Georgia’s New Assessment System
Guiding principles stipulate the new system must:
be sufficiently rigorous to ensure Georgia students are well positioned to compete with other students across the United States and internationally;
be intentionally designed across grade levels to send a clear signal of student progress/growth and preparedness for the next level, be it the next grade level, course, or college or career;
be accessible to all students, including those with disabilities or limited English proficiency, at all achievement levels;
support and inform educator effectiveness initiatives, ensuring items and forms are appropriately sensitive to quality instructional practices; and
accelerate the transition to online administration, allowing – over time – for the inclusion of innovative technology-enhanced items.

10. Our Assessment Landscaping is Changing
Assessment development is complicated
Assessment development is a process, not an event
as such, some components may need to be rolled- out in stages
Georgia is transitioning from a set of long-standing, mature programs
districts, schools, students, parents, and the public are familiar with and know what to expect
This transition provides Georgia with an opportunity
however, as with any change, there will be periods of uncertainty and discomfort

11. Knowns and Partial Knowns
New program
end of grade/end of course
will include language arts, mathematics, science, social studies
will no longer be solely multiple-choice
IT requirements
Online transition over time
Accommodations
CRCT-M discontinued
Local scanning discontinued
open-ended items require hand scoring
Growth (SGPs) will continue
Georgia educators will be involved in test design/development
Partial Knowns
Test blueprint
Testing windows
Administration protocols
Reporting timelines
scores will be delayed in year 1 due to technical work and standard setting
requirement to hand-score some items may impact ability to report as quickly as we have in the past
Timing of ancillary material availability
Impact of the review of content standards
Calculator policy specifics

12. Resources to Move Us Forward

13. Resources
Even with many of the specifics of the new assessment system unknown at this time, there are many, many resources that will prepare educators and students:
Content standards
frameworks, formative lessons, PARCC evidence statements
Sample items: PARCC; SBAC; Georgia OAS; other states (KY, NY); NAEP released items
CRCT Readiness Indicators
Lexiles

14. CRCT Readiness Indicators: Reading, ELA, Mathematics
Indicators were designed to send a signal to stakeholders about where students are relative to where they need to be headed
Indicators provide feedback about our preparedness for the increase in rigor and expectation for student achievement that is on the horizon
Feedback consists of the percent of students who achieved each readiness level – state , district, and school levels – for instructional planning purposes
While we cannot guarantee that students who achieve the On-Track level will be proficient on the new assessment, we do know they will be better prepared and positioned to be successful.

15. CRCT Readiness Indicators: Reading, ELA, Mathematics
For instructional planning and decision making:
Needs Additional Support: The student has demonstrated that his or her command of the knowledge and skills described in the CCGPS warrants additional instructional supports.
On Track: The student has demonstrated that his or her command of the knowledge and skills described in the CCGPS is sufficient; the student is on track for success at the next level.
Commendable: The student has demonstrated that his or her command of the knowledge and skills described in the CCGPS is exemplary.

16. CRCT Readiness Indicators: Reading, ELA, Mathematics
For accountability purposes - at the student (promotion/retention), school, district, and state levels (CCRPI) - we will continue to use 800 and 850 for the school year. 
It is strongly advised, however, that schools use the scale scores associated with the Readiness Indicators as targets - we need to be working actively to get students to these levels because we believe the new tests will be more in line with those expectations than the 800 / 850.
The readiness indicators will be provided during the interim as additional feedback to districts and schools so they have "better" information about where students are in relation to where they need to be in (with the increased rigor). 
Bottom line: shooting for 800 isn't going to be sufficient in future years. 

17. Lexiles

18. Lexiles

19. Lexiles

20. Lexiles with CRCT Readiness Indicators
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Common Core Stretch Text – Lower Limit
520
740
830
925
970
1010
Common Core Stretch Text – Upper Limit
820
940
1070
1120
1185
On Track
625
775
845
930
Commendable
890
990
1085
1155
1210
1265
Reader – Lower Limit
330
445
565
665
735
805
Reader – Upper Limit
700
810
910
1000
1065
1100
2013 Median
790
860
1095

21. Assessment Literacy Professional Learning Benchmark Assessments
Formative Assessment Initiatives Bringing a Balanced Assessment Focus to the Classroom
1600 new items loaded
Statewide launch in summer 2013
Assessment Literacy Professional Learning
Benchmark Assessments
Formative Item Bank
Phase I available February 2014; Phase II pilot in winter 2014

22. Key Findings from Pilots of Formative Open-Ended Items
Overall performance shortfalls
Students are not familiar with these types of items
Many respond “dnk” – as in ‘do not know’
Don’t know how to approach the items or how to organize (show) their responses/answers
Don’t seem to understand the need to “show” their work, detail their thoughts, rationales, cite evidence to support their answer or claim
Tendency is to cite answer only – as if they were multiple-choice items
Don’t read careful and answer all parts
Didn’t answer all parts of questions or label appropriately

23. Overall ELA Phase I Pilot Summary Data
Grade
Number and Percent of Students Achieving Each Score Point
Total student N/ % 1 2 3 4
475
1613
713
202 45
3048
15.60%
52.90%
23.40%
6.60%
1.50%
100%
323
1518
814
199 83
2937
11.00%
51.70%
27.70%
6.80%
2.80% 5
367
1100
901
518
125
3011
12.20%
36.50%
29.90%
17.20%
4.20% 6
155
960
811
418
111
2455
6.30%
39.10%
33.00%
17.00%
4.50% 7
218
1387
1275
617
146
3643
6.00%
38.10%
35.00%
16.90%
4.00% 8
264
1140
1029
338 89
2860
9.20%
39.90%
36.00%
11.80%
3.10%
9 - 10
175
1016
783
361 81
2416
7.20%
42.10%
32.40%
14.90%
3.40%
376
1018
763
196 46
2399
15.70%
42.40%
31.80%
8.20%
1.90%

24. Overall ELA Phase II Pilot Summary Data
Grade
Number and Percent of Students Achieving
Each Score Point
Total Student N/ % 1 2 3 4
812
1107
762
174 26
2881
28.18%
38.42%
26.45%
6.04%
0.90%
100%
906
1145
765
168 63
3047
29.73%
37.58%
25.11%
5.51%
2.07% 5
839
948
1294
537
183
3801
22.07%
24.94%
34.04%
14.13%
4.81% 6
626
1467
1028
408 86
3615
17.32%
40.58%
28.44%
11.29%
2.38% 7
695
1002
1035
515
140
3387
20.52%
29.58%
30.56%
15.21%
4.13% 8
1116
1534
827
391 80
3948
28.27%
38.86%
20.95%
9.90%
2.03%
9 - 10
1262
1816
559
106 9
3752
33.64%
48.40%
14.90%
2.83%
0.24%
739
1389
1175
388
131
3822
19.34%
36.34%
30.74%
10.15%
3.43%

25. Overall Mathematics Phase I Pilot Summary Data
Grade
Number and Percent of Students Achieving Each Score Point
Total student
N/ % 1 2 3 4
771
667
373 81 36
1928
40.00%
34.60%
19.30%
4.20%
1.90%
100%
795
800
360 87 58
2100
37.90%
38.10%
17.10%
4.10%
2.80% 5
548
513
252
124 44
1481
37.00%
17.00%
8.40%
3.00% 6
927
768
269 65 14
2043
45.40%
37.60%
13.20%
3.20%
0.70% 7
896
632
243 62 11
1844
48.60%
34.30%
3.40%
0.60% 8
984
791
314
100 51
2240
43.90%
35.30%
14.00%
4.50%
2.30%
9-10
798
697
186 45 27
1753
45.50%
39.80%
10.60%
2.60%
1.50%
11-12
690
602
178 63 9
1542
44.70%
39.00%
11.50%

26. Overall Mathematics Phase II Pilot Summary Data
Grade
Number and Percent of Students Achieving
Each Score Point
Total Student N / % 1 2 3 4
1378
1152
539
121 47
3237
42.57%
35.59%
16.65%
3.74%
1.45%
100%
1323
1264
325 83 25
3020
43.81%
41.85%
10.76%
2.75%
0.83% 5
1351
1049
391 64 15
2870
47.07%
36.55%
13.62%
2.23%
0.52% 6
1579
1171
370
135 53
3308
47.73%
35.40%
11.19%
4.08%
1.60% 7
1602
856
219 72 36
2785
57.52%
30.74%
7.86%
2.59%
1.29% 8
1529
619
217 88
3502
43.66%
29.95%
17.68%
6.20%
2.51%
9 - 12
2570
1435
299 59 23
4386
58.60%
32.72%
6.82%
1.35%

27. Benchmark Assessment Implementation Schedule
Phase I
Fall 2013 pilot
Available Winter 2014
Phase II
Winter 2014 pilot
Available Fall 2014
ELA
Grades 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10
Mathematics
Grades 1, 2, 3, and Coordinate Algebra
U.S. History
ELA
Grades 4, 5, 9, and 11
Mathematics
Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Analytic Geometry, and Advanced Algebra
Biology

28. FIP Learning Modules Introduction to Formative Instructional Practices
Clear Learning Targets
Collecting and Documenting Evidence of Student Learning
Analyzing Evidence and Providing Effective Feedback
Student Ownership of Learning: Peer Feedback, Self-Assessment, and More
Leading Formative Instructional Practices (for district and/or school leaders)
Coaching Formative Instructional Practices (for instructional coaches and/or teacher leaders)

29. NAEP Item Tool Workshops Available:
Bobbie Bable, NAEP State Coordinator ( ;

30. Assessment Update In closing – as a reminder:
This update pertains to anticipated changes to Georgia’s Student Assessment Program for the future.
As more information and details become available, we will follow-up to keep everyone informed.
Please Note: This update does not pertain to assessments administered this school year.