1. Katie Bowler, Science and Tech/Eng Assessment Manager, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

2. Where We Are Draft NGSS-like standards are posted to our web site Board will vote on standards late 2015 or early 2016 We are a PARCC state Science MCAS Results Are Accountable: HS Graduation Requirement Narrowing Proficiency Gap in Science/Reducing Failing %/Increasing Advanced % Science MCAS Scores Included in Determining Scholarship for Public Colleges and Universities (for Class of 2016+)

3. Current Science Assessments Grade 5 (Earth, Life, Physical, Tech/Eng) Grade 8 (Earth, Life, Physical, Tech/Eng) Four HS End of Course Tests: Biology, Chemistry, Intro Physics, and Tech/Eng Given in Grade 9 or 10 After student takes and passes test, ineligible to take any additional Science MCAS tests (due to cost, no other accountability)

4. Current System to Ensure Quality Release of Items to Public each Year Teachers/Schools/Districts can use MCAS data for instructional purposes: they know exactly what students are getting correct and what they are not Going to the standard/reporting category is not enough information to make informed decisions Item banks with state/district/school data are available to everyone Science Assessment Staff Review all contractor work and revise when necessary Main focus, so staff becomes more informed over time, making the items better, especially constructed-response Item Specifications for Content and Skills

5. Why Are We Thinking of the Future Already? Takes minimum of 3 years to develop and field test new items Will most likely take longer if there are new formats A lot of accountability around science in MA, so need to plan thoughtfully (public accountability!) Disclaimer: The following slides are NOT perfect; they are not meant to be. They will hopefully generate discussion, ideas, and feedback. Also, these ideas are not currently endorsed by the MA Dept. of Education

6. Thinking Toward the Future Created Crosswalk between Current Standards and Draft Standards (Comparable, Partially Comparable, Not Comparable) Went Further—Compared Gr. 5 & 8 Current Item Content Specifications with Draft Standards (found more differences when we dug deeper); Example: Current Standard ES.9. Differentiate between weather and climate. Draft Revised Standard Comparably Aligned to Standard: 3-ESS2-2. Obtain and summarize information about the climate of different regions of the world to illustrate that typical weather conditions over a year vary by region. Questions/comments about draft standards: It’s possible to interpret standard as summarizing information about climate by looking at the weather over one year. Directions to MP: Ideas for items: give data about climate in an area and ask which statement predicts weather in that area during a particular month/season; For OR items, give weather data and ask about expected climate, compare weather patterns and ask for climate conditions, or give climate and ask predictions about weather. Possibly interpret or create bar graphs or pictgraphs. ES.9 Item Specifications that align to 3-ESS2-2: Describe climate as the average conditions of the air (e.g., temperature, precipitation, wind, humidity) in a particular place over a long period of time (e.g., more than 20 years). Recognize or describe examples of weather and examples of climate. Recognize that weather can change from day to day, but a change in climate is over a much longer time. Recognize that a change in climate has a larger effect on an ecosystem than a change in weather. Describe how changes in climate can affect an ecosystem in comparison to a change in weather. ES.9 Item Specifications that do NOT align to draft standards: Analyze data and determine if it is weather data or climate data. Describe weather as the conditions of the air (e.g., temperature, precipitation, wind, humidity) in particular place at a particular time.

7. Thinking Toward the Future (cont’d) Reviewed Item Banks to see where there were “holes”—overlap with draft & current standards Asked contractor to develop items to fill these holes (gave this information 1 yr ahead of when we will review items) Asked contractor to write more items at the Applying, Analyzing, and Creating levels Asked to write items using more models and data These “overlap” items can be field tested in 2016

8. Future Formats MA needs to do some catching up on the IT side; we have not had CBT before Can still do a lot with paper and pencil—well, more than we are currently doing Ideally we will be working toward online assessments, but timeline is fuzzy Try-out phase of performance assessments

9. Performance Assessments Learned a lot with RTTT project and with PARCC Many limitations with large-scale performance assessments A hybrid assessment?? Locally-scored hands-on component(s) (1-3 days) Written (may include reading, creating graphs, written models, calculations, reasoning, etc.) component that would be state-scored (1-2 days) Different than current MCAS: go more in depth into a few standards; practices can be emphasized with this format Could include some short-answer/selected response to elicit the additional knowledge from the student

10. Comments/Questions