colorado presentation final

John Cronin, Ph.D.

Director

The Kingsbury Center @ NWEA

Common Core Assessment and the Early Results from the Transition

This presentation is available on Slideshare at the

address below

http://www.slideshare.net/JohnCronin4/colorado-

presentation-final

http://www.slideshare.net/JohnCronin4/colorado-presentation-final





Priority purposes of the PARCC assessment

• Determine whether students are college and career ready

• Assess the full range of Common Core standards, including those that are difficult to measure

• Measure the full range of student performance

• Provide data to inform instruction, interventions, and professional development

• Provide data for accountability, including measurement of growth.

• Incorporate innovative approaches into the assessment system

Source: http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-assessment-design

http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-assessment-design






PARCC sample ELA Grades 3, 7 & 10

• Grade 3 ELA sample

• Grade 7 ELA

• Grade 10 ELA

http://www.parcconline.org/samples/english-language-artsliteracy/grade-3-ebsr-end-year-assessment

http://www.parcconline.org/samples/english-language-artsliteracy/grade-7-tecr-research-simulation-task

http://www.parcconline.org/samples/english-language-artsliteracy/grade-10-ebsr-literary-analysis-task

PARCC sample tasks mathematics grade 3, 7, & 10

Grades 3, 7, & 10 Mathematics

http://www.ccsstoolbox.com/parcc/PARCCPrototype_main.html



NWEA Item Pool

Colorado Standards

Colorado Item Pool

Nevada Standards

Nevada Item Pool

Results on the Colorado and Nevada tests can be compared because:1. Both tests are children of the same

parent item pool, and report results on a single scale.

2. Both tests are aligned to the curriculum the students are taught.

Why NWEA Test Results are Comparable

Across States

NWEA Item Pool

Colorado Standards

Colorado Item Pool

Common Core Standards

Common Core Item

Pool

Results on the Colorado and Common Core tests can be compared because:1. Both tests are children of the same

parent item pool, and report results on a single scale.

2. Both tests are aligned to the curriculum the students are taught.

Why NWEA Common Core Test Results are

Comparable to the Prior Colorado Test

300

150

Colorado Item Pool

Common Core Item Pool

The Colorado and Common Core Item

Pools should not Differ in Difficulty

300

150

Colorado Item Pool

Common Core Item Pool

..but a student may perform differently

based on the differences in what’s taught.

Robert - 230

Robert - 227

Possible causes of a performance change

• Change in curriculum emphasis

– Mathematics – More depth and less breadth

– Reading – More non-fiction reading

• Less alignment…

– Instruction to Curriculum

– Instructional Materials to Curriculum

• Poor match of curriculum to student’s instructional level

• Implementation dip

In states that have transitioned to the MAP/Common Core, student performance declined slightly in the term when the school transitioned tests.

If the transition occurred during the fall term students’ fall to spring growth was unaffected.

Mathematics Growth – Kentucky and New Hampshire

Math Student Count

Fall and Spring –Non CC

Student Count

Non CC –FallCC –Spring

Student Count

CC – Fall and Spring

2011-2012

77181 47.9% 63222 42.5%

2012-2013

30758 45.0% 72306 38.5% 159967 42.4%

Reading Growth – Kentucky and New Hampshire

Math Student Count


Student Count


Student Count


2011-2012

76331 48.6% 149146 42.3%

2012-2013

29005 47.2% 19836 39.2% 160859 48.0%

In states that have transitioned to the MAP/Common Core, student performance declined slightly in the term when the school transitioned tests.

If the transition occurred during the fall term students’ fall to spring growth was unaffected.

Mathematics Growth – Kentucky and New Hampshire

Math Student Count


Student Count


Student Count


2011-2012

77181 47.9% 63222 42.5%

2012-2013

30758 45.0% 72306 38.5% 159967 42.4%

Reading Growth – Kentucky and New Hampshire

Math Student Count


Student Count


Student Count


2011-2012

76331 48.6% 149146 42.3%

2012-2013

29005 47.2% 19836 39.2% 160859 48.0%

Mathematics Grade 3

Category Num Item

Response

s

Percent Mean

Calib

Mean

Score on

these

Items

Mean

Score for

Entire

Test

% Correct

Multiple

Choice

Both 851172 54.9% 205.0 206.1 205.7 51.9

Multiple

Choice CC 639120 41.2% 205.8 206.2 206.1 50.7

Enhanced

Both 59130 3.8% 200.0 202.2 201.9 53.0

Enhanced

CC 1873 0.1% 203.2 206.2 204.4 58.1

Totals 1551295 205.1 206.0 205.7 51.4

Category Num Item

Responses

Percent Mean

Calib

Mean

Score on

these

Items

Mean

Score for

Entire Test

% Correct

Multiple

Choice

Both 928780 61.0% 235.0 236.0 235.8 50.6

Multiple

Choice CC 577238 37.9% 233.4 234.8 234.0 51.5

Enhanced

Both 14339 0.9% 230.1 234.9 231.3 57.0

Enhanced

CC 1331 0.1% 245.0 236.6 243.2 30.5

Totals 1521688 235.9 235.5 235.1 51.0

Grade 8 Mathematics

Category Num Item

Responses

Percent Mean

Calib

Mean

Score on

these

Items

Mean

Score for

Entire Test

% Correct

Multiple

Choice

Both 928780 61.0% 235.0 236.0 235.8 50.6

Multiple

Choice CC 577238 37.9% 233.4 234.8 234.0 51.5

Enhanced

Both 14339 0.9% 230.1 234.9 231.3 57.0

Enhanced

CC 1331 0.1% 245.0 236.6 243.2 30.5

Totals 1521688 235.9 235.5 235.1 51.0

Grade 3 Reading

Category Num Item

Responses

Percent Mean

Calib

Mean

Score on

these

Items

Mean

Score for

Entire Test

% Correct

Multiple

Choice

Both 756060 59.2% 200.7 201.9 201.0 51.2

Multiple

Choice CC

508894 39.8% 202.1 202.4 202.1 49.8

Enhanced

Both 11709 0.9% 211.0 207.8 209.1 43.4

Enhanced

CC 434 0.0% 189.0 190.0 192.3 52.5

Totals 1277097 201.3 202.1 201.5 50.6

Grade 8 Reading

Category Num Item

Responses

Percent Mean

Calib

Mean

Score on

these

Items

Mean

Score for

Entire Test

% Correct

Multiple

Choice

Both 770020 61.6% 225.1 226.7 225.6 51.0

Multiple

Choice CC 464101 37.1% 220.4 222.6 221.8 53.2

Enhanced

Both 16303 1.3% 229.3 229.2 229.0 49.7

Enhanced

CC 66 0.0% 189.0 192.0 195.5 57.1

Totals 1250490 223.4 225.2 224.2 51.8

Grade 3 Language Usage

Category Num Item

Responses

Percent Mean

Calib

Mean

Score on

these

Items

Mean

Score for

Entire Test

% Correct

Multiple

Choice

Both 408966 42.5% 201.0 201.7 201.1 50.2

Multiple

Choice CC 477264 49.5% 202.4 203.0 202.5 50.6

Enhanced

Both 68801 7.1% 207.6 207.2 206.6 48.2

Enhanced

CC 8220 0.9% 199.2 201.8 199.9 51.8

Totals 963251 202.1 202.7 202.2 50.3

Grade 8 Language Usage

Category Num Item

Responses

Percent Mean

Calib

Mean

Score on

these

Items

Mean

Score for

Entire Test

% Correct

Multiple

Choice

Both 443136 47.8% 223.7 224.8 224.0 50.6

Multiple

Choice CC 377942 40.8% 218.9 220.7 220.6 52.4

Enhanced

Both 91297 9.8% 224.6 227.4 224.7 54.9

Enhanced

CC 14908 1.6% 233.0 230.1 229.9 43.1

Totals

927283 223.5 223.5 222.7 51.6

Most change in student achievement will be attributable to changes in the proficiency cut scores.

Preliminary estimates of NY proficiency cut scores relative to the NWEA scale

Grade Mathematics Reading

Current Prior Current Prior

3 209 199 207 198

4 220 207 214 205

5 234 214 220 212

6 233 221 223 216

7 241 224 227 220

8 245 235 229 223

Preliminary estimate of the change in proficiency level on the New York state mathematics assessment.

3936

33

4037

52

6972

82

6975 73

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

Prior test

Current Test

Preliminary estimate of the change in proficiency level on the New York state ELAassessment

48 4651 51 53 53

72 7174

71 7369

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

Prior test

Current Test

In New York student performance on MAP commonly increased slightly between 2012 and 2013.

Some of this increase may be attributable to

the increased stakes associated with MAP’s

use for APPR in some districts.

MAP Mathematics Grade 4 Means Spring 2012- Spring 2013

Spring 2012 Spring 2013

District 1 218.1 219.6

District 2 219.4 221.8

District 3 210.9 224.8

District 4 215.3 219.8

District 5 218.1 221.3

District 6 201.4 204.6

Estimated 4th grade cut score = 220

Estimated change in MAP Grade 4 estimated proficiency rates in math – based on old and new cut scores

Estimated Proficiency based on 2012 cut scores


Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2012 Spring 2013

District 1 89.1% 87.3% 45.5% 54.9%

District 2 87.9% 90.7% 46.6% 56.1%

District 3 95.5% 94.1% 53.2% 65.1%

District 4 82.6% 91.9% 32.6% 53.0%

District 5 85.6% 87.5% 46.3% 58.9%

District 6 36.8% 47.6% 5.5% 13.5%

MAP Reading Grade 4 Means Spring 2012-Spring 2013


District 1 213.6 212.3

District 2 211.0 212.8

District 3 215.0 216.4

District 4 212.5 212.2

District 5 209.9 211.0

District 6 198.9 198.1






District 1 89.1% 87.3% 45.5% 54.9%

District 2 87.9% 90.7% 46.6% 56.1%

District 3 95.5% 94.1% 53.2% 65.1%

District 4 82.6% 91.9% 32.6% 53.0%

District 5 85.6% 87.5% 46.3% 58.9%

District 6 36.8% 47.6% 5.5% 13.5%

Mathematics Grade 7 Means Spring 2012- Spring 2013


District 1 232.6 234.8

District 2 241.0 238.6

District 3 242.7 243.1

District 4 212.2 212.1

District 5 231.8 233.0






District 1 73.3% 87.6% 27.1% 32.2%

District 2 86.6% 87.4% 58.4% 51.0%

District 3 91.6% 89.8% 58.4% 60.6%

District 4 23.4% 28.2% 5.2% 2.7%

District 5 73.0% 75.6% 28.0% 32.9%

Presenter - John Cronin, Ph.D.

Contacting us:

NWEA Main Number: 503-624-1951

E-mail: [email protected]

The presentation and recommended resources are

available at our SlideShare site:

http://www.slideshare.net/JohnCronin4/colorado-

presentation-final

Thank you for attending

mailto:[email protected]






colorado presentation final

Education