new jersey principals and supervisors association legislative conference march 21, 2014
DESCRIPTION
New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association Legislative Conference March 21, 2014. New Jersey Department of Education. Agenda. Why? New Jersey’s involvement in PARCC development Transitioning to PARCC Think abouts …. NAEP – 8 th Grade Math. New Jersey’s NAEP Comparisons. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association
Legislative ConferenceMarch 21, 2014
New Jersey Department of Education
Agenda• Why?• New Jersey’s involvement in PARCC development• Transitioning to PARCC• Think abouts…. Pe
rform
ance
Div
ision
New
Jers
ey D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
2
NAEP – 8th Grade Math
Perfo
rman
ce D
ivisi
onN
ew Je
rsey
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
catio
n
3
New Jersey’s NAEP Comparisons
2011 2013
4th Grade Reading 2 2
8th Grade Reading 1 1
4th Grade Math 3 4
8th Grade Math 2 2
Perfo
rman
ce D
ivisi
onN
ew Je
rsey
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
catio
n
4
Mismatch: State Assessments & NAEP
States (Sample) State Test: 2011 4th Grade Reading Pass Rate
2013 4th Grade NAEP Reading Ranking
Georgia 88.0% 17Kentucky 79.0% 9New Hampshire 77.0% 1Connecticut 74.7% 2North Carolina 71.6% 15Maine 68.0% 9California 63.0% 42New Jersey 62.8% 2
Massachusetts 53.0% 1Tennessee 44.7% 23
New
Jers
ey D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
5
Perfo
rman
ce D
ivisi
on
Nationwide, current state assessments were not designed to: Measure the key advancements in the Common Core Assess and signal whether students are on track for
success in college or careers Produce timely, actionable data for students, teachers and
parents Test key skills, such as critical thinking and ability to
problem solve Play a key role in the improvement of instruction
Why New Assessments Now?
PARCC Assessment Priorities
1. Determine whether students are college- and career-ready or on track
2. Compare performance across states and internationally
3. Assess the full range of the Common Core Standards, including standards that are difficult to measure
4. Measure the full range of student performance, including the performance of high and low performing students
5. Provide data for accountability, including measures of growth
6. Incorporate innovative approaches throughout the system
Evidence-Centered Design (ECD)
Claims
Design begins with the inferences (claims) we want to make about students
Evidence
In order to support claims, we must gather evidence
Tasks
Tasks are designed to elicit specific evidence from students in support of claims
• In ELA/literacy, general content claims at each level describe how well students are able to• Read and comprehend a range of sufficiently complex text independently• Write effectively when using and/or analyzing sources• Build and present knowledge through the integration, comparison, and synthesis
of ideas• Use of context to determine the meaning of words and phrases
• In Mathematics, the general content claims at each level describe how well students are able to• Solve problems involving the major content with connections to the practices• Solve problems involving the additional and supporting content with connections
to the practices• Express mathematical reasoning by constructing viable arguments• Solve real world problems
General Content Claims
Summative Assessment Components
End-of-Year Assessment (EOY)
• Innovative, computer-based items
Performance-BasedAssessment (PBA)• Extended tasks• Applications of
concepts and skills
• Performance-Based Assessment (PBA) administered as close to the end of the school year as possible. The ELA/literacy PBA will focus on writing effectively when analyzing text. The mathematics PBA will focus on applying skills, concepts, and understandings to solve multi-step problems requiring abstract reasoning, precision, perseverance, and strategic use of tools
• End-of-Year Assessment (EOY) administered after approx. 90% of the school year. The ELA/literacy EOY will focus on reading comprehension. The math EOY will be comprised of innovative, machine-scorable items
Task/Item Development Process
NJ Assessment Transition Timeline
New
Jers
ey D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
12
Spring 2012
NJ ASK Aligned to
Core Curriculum
Spring 2013
NJ ASKCommon
Core Aligned
(except gr 6-8 Math)
Spring 2014
NJ ASKCommon
Core Aligned
SY 2014-15
PARCC assessment
Transitional Assessments
Perfo
rman
ce D
ivisi
on
Transition Methodology• Alignment study between the New Jersey Core Curriculum
Content Standards and the Common Core State Standards.
• A review of existing test items (questions and tasks) to determine if the items had the rigor and depth associated with the Common Core.
• Field tested items in 2012 and 2013 as part of NJASK to increase our Common Core item pool (Field tested items were not scored as part of a student’s score).
Perfo
rman
ce D
ivisi
onN
ew Je
rsey
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
catio
n
13
English Language Arts (ELA) Content Shifts
• In ELA, the shifts were subtle.
• Writing prompts became more text dependent, requiring students at all grade levels to ground their responses in specific evidence and information.
• Students were expected to comprehend and accurately use grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases in their reading and writing.
• Fifty percent or more of the reading passages are now informational.
Perfo
rman
ce D
ivisi
onN
ew Je
rsey
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
catio
n
14
English Language Arts (ELA) Proficient and Above, By Grade
Grade Level
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Difference 2012-2013
Third 62.8 59.7 63.1 66.8 66.3 -0.5
Fourth 63.0 59.5 62.8 58.6 59.6 1.0
Fifth 65.8 63.0 61.0 62.1 61.2 -0.9
Sixth 69.7 65.3 66.8 64.6 66.1 1.5
Seventh 71.9 69.0 63.4 61.0 65.0 4.0
Eighth 81.7 82.2 82.0 82.0 81.4 -0.6
NJASK Aggregate 69.2 66.5 66.6 65.9 66.7 0.8
HSPA Aggregate 87.4 89.1 90.7 92.7 93.6 0.9
New
Jers
ey D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
15
Perfo
rman
ce D
ivisi
on
Math – Gap Analysis from Core Curriculum to Common Core, by Grade
New
Jers
ey D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
16
Perfo
rman
ce D
ivisi
on
MathematicsProficient and Above, By Grade
Grade Level
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Difference 2012-2013
Third* 75.1 77.9 78.8 78.3 77.7 -0.6
Fourth* 72.8 76.8 79.1 77.1 78.1 1.0
Fifth* 77.2 78.6 80.5 83.1 79.8 -3.3
Sixth 70.8 71.7 77.4 78.8 78.7 -0.1
Seventh 66.3 64.3 65.8 63.3 63.6 0.3
Eighth 71.2 68.4 71.5 71.7 69.1 -2.6
NJASK Aggregate 72.2 73.0 75.5 75.3 74.5 -0.8
HSPA Aggregate 81.0 80.7 82.3 83.3 85.6 2.3
New
Jers
ey D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
17
* Aligned to Common Core State Standards.
Perfo
rman
ce D
ivisi
on
Release of Assessment Results
Perfo
rman
ce D
ivisi
onN
ew Je
rsey
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
catio
n
18
Think abouts…• Standards – Curriculum – Instructional alignment• Algebra I in the middle school• Current uses NJASK scale scores• Current messaging about your HSPA results• Integration of technology into regular classroom instruction
Perfo
rman
ce D
ivisi
onN
ew Je
rsey
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
catio
n
19