1. Surf & Turf Collaborative Marianne Perie Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation University of Kansas A presentation at the National Conference on Student Assessment June22, 2015

2. How We Got Here  CETE has been delivering assessments for the state of Kansas for almost 30 years.  In November 2013, Kansas was part of Smarter Balanced, and CETE was going to deliver the assessments.  We needed 2  3 more states to make this new role resource efficient.  Alaska put out a bid to deliver SBAC with an option of creating a standalone assessment. 2

3. The Whirlwind  In December 2013, the Kansas State Board voted to withdraw Kansas from SBAC and have CETE build new assessments aligned to their standards.  In January 2014, Alaska announced they were awarding the assessment contract to us, dropping out of SBAC, and asking us to build new assessments aligned to their standards. 3

4. Our Redemption  Fortunately KSDE had already asked us to build “transitional assessments” to move them from the old assessments tied to old assessments to SBAC aligned to the new standards, so we had an item pool.  Alaska and Kansas agreed to work together on man aspects of the assessment to save resources. 4

5. Our Challenge  Build two new assessments, with as much overlap as reasonable to save both states resources but ensure enough individuality for each state to have an assessment system that appeared custom built for them. 5

6. Different Backgrounds Alaska  Paper/Pencil based  New user of KITE system for general education  Previous tests all static item types  Prior experience with hand-scored item types Kansas  Computer based since 2005  Using KITE system since 2012-2013 school year  Prior experience with technology item types  Previous tests all machine-scored item types

7. Custom Item Banks KansasAlaska

8. Same Desired Final Design  Stage-Adaptive CAT o 3 stages o First stage longer, more heterogeneous o Adapt into an easy, medium, or hard block o Adapt again into a very easy, moderately easy, moderately hard, or very hard block o Non-adapting FT section

10. Same Early Design  First year: Static test o Followed same format o First section 25 items o Second, third, and fourth sections 15 items  Opportunity to calibrate items  Opportunity to try out the structure

11. 2014–2015 Accomplishment  5000+ items developed  ~4300 items to be calibrated  Over 400 unique blocks  163 reading passages developed  153 reading passages placed on tests  Over 200 PTs developed and field tested

12. Summer Plans  Standard setting! o Each state started with the same draft PLDs and customized them for their state. o Each state will use the same methodology but will hold separate standard setting meetings with their teachers recommending a cut score. o Each state board will ultimately approve and adopt the performance standards (cut scores + PLDs). 12

13. Future Summative Supplements  Adaptive panel development o KS: 2016 o AK 2017  Listening o KS: smaller dedicated FT in the fall o AK: include additional FT items in the spring  Expand performance tasks

14. Future Features  Kansas started an interim testlet bank for teachers to use throughout the year; Alaska will supplement that bank.  Both Kansas and Alaska are interested in developing formative tools for teachers aligned to their college- and career-ready standards. o KS will fund primary ELA R&D o AK will fund secondary Math R&D 14

15. Conclusion  Two state collaborative that allows for differences between states creates efficiencies, saving both states money, but still allows for customization, including teacher involvement and Department approval. 15