Challenges in Assessment under NCLB Subcommittee
Chairperson: Bernadette Morris (LA)
The Challenges in Assessment under NCLB Subcommittee, is focusing on the challenges presented by changes in standards and assessments under NCLB. Requirements changed from one grade in each grade range to assessments in every grade three through eight and once in high school. Changes to existing standards impact the development of new assessments and the equating of new and old assessments to sustain the longitudinal data States have worked hard to establish. All of these issues including alternate assessments and the addition of science raise concerns about the impact of these changes on the validity and reliability of the total assessment system, critical to the accuracy of decisions based primarily on these assessments. Alignment between standards, assessments, and their use in school reform is embedded in the challenges faced by States. This group is researching and studying these issues and planning papers and tools to provide timely assistance to States in their work. As stakes increase, so does the need for test security. The group has completed three papers in the series, both available on the CCSSO Website: Framework for Transitioning from IASA to NCLB, Consistency for State Achievement Standards Under NCLB, and Creating Aligned Standards and Assessment Systems. The group is planning several additional short e-papers. Topics include high quality test specifications, computer based testing in large scale assessment systems, end-of-course testing, consequential validity, auditing assessment procedures, and a possible revisiting of the topic of an earlier CAS paper on using disaggregated data.
Sanctions under NCLB Subcommittee
Chairperson: TBD
The Sanctions under ESEA Title I Requirements Subcommittee is working on building capacity of states to deal with sanctions imposed under the No Child Left Behind legislation, particularly supplemental services and school choice. The study group is studying the concerns of their states in meeting these requirements and examining ways to meet the challenges they present. A range of challenges faces States depending upon their size, demographics, and availability of supplemental service and choice.
The Study Group outlined a Procedural Guide to Evaluating SES Provider Effectiveness. The group is working in partnership with the Center for Intended and Unintended Consequences of NCLB at the University of Minnesota to identify available tools and to use modified tools from IES case studies to determine the effectiveness of supplemental services providers. Several study group states will conduct a pilot case study that will be used as the basis for the Guide. The Guide will include an introduction reviewing the purpose, definitions and criteria for quality services; a review of the literature, and evaluation of qualitative and quantitative measures of effectiveness, and findings from case studies in pilot states.
Capacity Building for Delivery of Support and Corrective Action to Districts and Schools under AYP Subcommittee
Chairpersons: Diane Lowery (SD) and Ted Jarrell (DE)
The Capacity Building for Delivery of Support and Corrective Action to Districts and Schools Under AYP Subcommittee has developed, in partnership with the EdVantia (formerly AEL), a diagnostic tool to help States determine level of need for State support to districts in their work with schools identified as in need of improvement under AYP. Among the issues the Study Group has addressed are States’ judgments about the relative level of need of districts and schools for technical assistance and the types of technical assistance required to produce improvement. Because States lack the manpower to meet these challenges in a labor-intensive way, the Study Group has developed and piloted the District Audit Tool in four CAS States using AYP data, particularly student achievement data and rubrics to evaluate level and type of technical assistance needs. The document, District Audit Tool: A Method for Determining Level of Need for Support to Improvement is now in publication and the District Audit Tool Metric Calculator is available on-line.
The next stage of the Study Group’s work involves a validity study of the tool. This process will involve the use of a progress metric with an added proportionality feature in the Metric Calculator. This progress metric allows states to conduct a year over year analysis of progress. Study Group states will use the Metric Calculator to monitor progress based on the District Audit Tool. A supplemental document is being created to describe procedures for the progress metric and the experience of states in this validation process.
Maintaining a Balanced Comprehensive Assessment System Subcommittee
Chairperson: Tammy Howard (NC)
The Maintaining a Balanced Comprehensive Assessment System Subcommittee is investigating the challenges facing states as they attempt to incorporate or assist districts in incorporating formative assessments into a standards-based comprehensive assessment system. The Study Group is paying particular attention to the full alignment of elements within a comprehensive assessment system. The areas of investigation include Content Areas for Item and Task Development, Types of Banks, Delivery Methods, Technical Quality of Data, Types of Reports, How to use formative assessment to drive student learning and achievement, Professional Development. All above issues will include and investigation of the current research base and what it means for building the system of assessments. This group is researching and studying these issues and planning papers and tools to provide timely assistance to States in their work.
Chiefline
