How An Alignment Study Shaped Pennsylvanias View of Assessment

1

• How An Alignment Study Shaped Pennsylvanias View
  of Assessment
• CCSSO 36th Annual National Conference on
  Large-Scale Assessment
• June 28, 2006
• Eric W. Crane
• Assessment and Standards Development Services,
  WestEd
• in collaboration with
• Ray Young
• Bureau of Assessment and Accountability,
  Pennsylvania Department of Education

2
Overview

• Before alignment study
• The study
• The results and consequences

3
Before Alignment Study

• Broad, numerous academic standards
• PA teacher committees authored items, specified
  alignment
• Development of assessment anchors

4
Goals for Revised Assessment System

• Aligns to states standards
• Focuses on a set of Core Standards
• Is accurate
• Allows for maximum number of students to
  participate
• Provides results that are accessible to the
  public

5
Requirements of the Assessment Anchors

• Clear
• Focused
• Aligned
• Grade Appropriate
• Support a Curricular Flow
• Rigorous
• Manageable

6
The Study

• The quality and appropriateness of the assessment
  anchors and eligible content
• Degree of alignment between the assessments and
  the anchors and eligible content

7
Two Kinds of Reviews

• Benchmarking reviews of Pennsylvanias assessment
  anchors and eligible content
• Alignment reviews of assessments to
  Pennsylvanias assessment anchors and eligible
  content

8
The Study Phases I III

• Phase IBenchmarking Analysis Reading and Math
  Grades 3-8 and 11
• Phase IIBenchmarking AnalysisScience Grades 4,
  8, and 11
• Phase IIIAlignment Analysis Reading and Math
  Grades 3, 5, 8, and 11

9
The Study Phases IV V

• Phase IVAlignment Analysis Reading and Math
  Grades 4, 6, and 7
• Phase VAlignment Analysis Science Grades 4, 8,
  and 11

10
Key Dates

• Summer 2003Standards review (preliminary
  anchors)
• Summer 2004Standards review (refined anchors)
• September 2004Alignment review
• October 2004Abbreviated standards review
  (focused on changes)
• January 2005Development of public report

11
Findings

• State identified the most essential content for
  inclusion.
• Anchors align well with overall Academic
  Standards.
• Statements are clear, measurable and encompass a
  manageable amount of content.

12
Results and Consequences Content

• Anchors and eligible content will be helpful to
  teachers in developing lessons and classroom
  assessments.
• PA needs to continue to fine-tune the content
  statements so they show a consistent pattern of
  increasing rigor across grades.
• Tests are strongly aligned to anchors and
  eligible content.

13
Results and Consequences Cognitive Demand

• Right decision to include constructed response
  items on the tests, but will need to ensure all
  are of high quality.
• Plan for passage types was needed.
• Ratchet up the cognitive demand of the anchors,
  eligible content, and assessments over time and
  in concert.

14
Results and Consequences Progression

• Strengthen the progression of anchors and
  eligible content from one grade level to the
  next.
• Provide examples of items and grade-level text.
• Develop grade-level standards or high school
  course standards for missing grades.

15
Results and Consequences System and
Communication

• Made changes to the 2005 and 2007 assessments.
• Developed a matrix to show progression of
  complexity.
• Developed a plan to increase the cognitive
  demand.
• Developed item samplers.

16
Contact Information

• WestEd
• Assessment and Standards Development Services
  (ASDS)
• Eric W. Crane
• ecrane_at_wested.org