1. Where Do We Go from Here? Next Generation Assessment Systems for Achievement and Accountability Presentation at the National Conference on Large Scale Assessment Gregory J. Cizek University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill cizek@unc.edu 2015, June

2. Purposes of Assessment: Four Principles 2

3. 1) All assessments are designed, on purpose, to best fulfill one purpose 3

4. Purposes of Assessment: Four Principles 1) All assessments are designed, on purpose, to best fulfill one purpose 2) Some assessments can be made to fulfill multiple purposes, but they are not likely to serve those multiple purposes equally well 4

5. Purposes of Assessment: Four Principles 1) All assessments are designed, on purpose, to best fulfill one purpose 2) Some assessments can be made to fulfill multiple purposes, but they are not likely to serve those multiple purposes equally well 3) To demand that they do so is unrealistic 5

6. Purposes of Assessment: Four Principles 1) All assessments are designed, on purpose, to best fulfill one purpose 2) Some assessments can be made to fulfill multiple purposes, but they are not likely to serve those multiple purposes equally well 3) To demand that they do so is unrealistic 4) Diverse purposes likely require multiple, targeted assessments 6

7. What types of test(s) would be most important to have in an assessment system? 7

8. DesignPurpose(s)Options Annual large-scale, state-mandated student achievement test (Summative) Public and system accountability; fiduciary monitoring of overall achievement in a state; policy evaluation, funding decisions, program & instructional planning at aggregate levels Matrix, cluster, random, or other sampling strategy of students Random, systematic, purposeful, or census sampling of content standards Annual large-scale, state-mandated student achievement test (Summative) Above, plus reporting to students and parents of overall mastery of grade/subject content standards; local and teacher instructional planning; student accountability (e.g., graduation, promotion) Census sampling of students Random, systematic, purposeful, or census sampling of content standards 8

9. 9 DesignPurpose(s)Options Fine-grained, narrowly- focused assessment of student learning (Diagnostic) Individually-diagnostic, educator actionable, tailoring of instruction On demand, individual or group administration, state or locally developed, aggregated (or not), secure (or not) Instructionally-embedded assessment for learning (Formative) Instructional planning for educator and student; student responsibility for goals, monitoring progress, self-evaluation, meta-cognition As needed, individual or classroom administration, state or locally developed, not aggregated, highly insecure

10. Why all the controversy about accountability systems? 10

11. Why all the controversy about accountability systems? 1) “It’s the accountability, stupid.” 11

12. Why all the controversy about accountability systems? 1) “It’s the accountability, stupid.” 2) The personnel evaluation system in education is broken. 12

13. Why all the controversy about accountability systems? 1) “It’s the accountability, stupid.” 2) The personnel evaluation system in education is broken. 3) Federal shenanigans 13

14. Why all the controversy about accountability systems? 1) “It’s the accountability, stupid.” 2) The personnel evaluation system in education is broken. 3) Federal shenanigans 4) Teacher preparation requirements: An Epic Fail 14

15. Can accountability results improve achievement? 15

16. Can accountability results improve achievement? That may or may not be the purpose. 16

17. Can accountability results improve achievement? Point of diminishing returns on large- scale, every pupil state (or federal) mandated student achievement tests. 17

18. Can accountability results improve achievement? Best candidates for improving achievement: 18

19. Can accountability results improve achievement? Best candidates for improving achievement: * REAL formative assessment 19

20. Can accountability results improve achievement? Best candidates for improving achievement: * REAL formative assessment * ANY content standards that change what happens in classrooms 20

21. What are the Psychometric Issues? 21

22. What are the Psychometric Issues? 1) Clarity of construct 2) Clarity of purpose 22

23. Construct Clarity “A consensus definition of what constitutes college and career readiness does not exist.” (Hao & Wyse, 2015, p. 3) 23

24. Construct Clarity (cont’d) The score at which a student has a 75% probability of getting a score of X or better on a different test [or a grade of Y or better in a different course]. 24

25. Construct Clarity (cont’d) The score at which a student has a 75% probability of getting a score of X or better on a different test [or a grade of Y or better in a different course]. “Intelligence as a measurable capacity must at the start be defined as the capacity to do well on an intelligence test. Intelligence is what the tests test.” (Boring, 1923, p. 35) 25

26. Clarity of Purpose: Two Examples 26

27. Clarity of Purpose: Example 1 “How can we extend the content standards and develop a modified assessment for the most severely cognitively disabled students so that their scores have equivalent meaning as those from the general assessment? 27

28. Clarity of Purpose: Example 2 “How can we shorten this test and not adversely affect the precision of the student ability estimates?” 28