|
|
THE STATE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234 |
|
TO: |
The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents |
|
FROM: |
James A. Kadamus |
|
COMMITTEE: |
EMSC-VESID |
|
TITLE OF
ITEM: |
Assessments in the Middle Grades |
|
DATE OF
SUBMISSION: |
January 31, 2005 |
|
PROPOSED
HANDLING: |
Discussion |
|
RATIONALE FOR
ITEM: |
Monitoring of Regents Policy |
|
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
Goals 1 and 2 |
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
SUMMARY:
The attached item addresses three issues of concern to the Regents about
assessments and data for the middle grades:
(1)
Moving one of
the grade 8 tests to grade 7.
(2)
Timing of test
information provided to schools in order for them to make decisions on public
school choice and supplemental educational services.
(3)
Release of test
information to the Regents, schools and public.
These items are being discussed as part of
the Regents review of assessment issues and their consideration of a proposal on
middle-level education.
Attachment
Assessments in the Middle
Grades
Moving One of the
Grade 8 Tests to Grade 7
In response to concerns expressed to the Regents regarding the scheduling and timing of middle school tests during the school year, Department staff have completed an analysis of the pros and cons of moving either the middle-level science or middle-level social studies test to grade 7 and the pros and cons for scheduling tests at different times of the school year. Attachment A summarizes this analysis. The analysis indicates that we should carefully consider all consequences, including costs, and consult with field representatives before making changes to the current test formats and schedules, including changes to administration dates to different grade levels. A consultative process could be completed by June 2005
Timing of Test Information Provided to Schools in Order
For Tem to Make Decisions on Choice and Supplemental Educational
Services
Department staff has developed a plan for providing timely information to schools related to school choice. All schools that are in improvement status under Title I must offer public school choice. That group includes schools in need of improvement (year 1), schools in need of improvement (year 2), schools in corrective action, schools planning for restructuring, and restructuring schools. To assist districts in planning for public school choice in 2005-06, the Department will send each district with schools that may be in improvement status under Title I the following lists in February 2005:
1.
Schools that are in improvement status in 2004-05 and will remain in that
status in 2005-06 because, in 2003-04, they failed to make adequate yearly
progress on an accountability measure for which they were identified as needing
improvement.
2.
Schools that are in improvement status in 2004-05 and may be removed from
that status in 2005-06 because, in 2003-04, they made adequate yearly progress
in each subject for which they were identified as needing
improvement.
3.
Schools that are not in improvement status in 2004-05 but may be placed
in that status in 2005-06 because, in 2003-04, they failed to make adequate
yearly progress in one or more subjects.
4.
Schools that are not in improvement status in 2004-05 and will remain in
good standing in 2005-06 because, in 2003-04, they made adequate yearly progress
in every subject.
In 2005-06, schools in group 1 must provide public school choice; schools in group 4 will not have to provide public school choice. The 2004-05 performance of schools in groups 2 and 3 will determine whether or not they have to provide public school choice.
Providing these lists in February 2005 will allow districts, particularly New York City, to make many of the necessary decisions about school choice and Supplemental Education Services (SES) months earlier than last year. It must be noted, however, that a number of data elements must be considered in making final accountability status determinations. For elementary and intermediate schools, student performance on the English language arts and mathematics assessments, the New York State Alternate Assessment, the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test and the Elementary and Intermediate Science Tests, must be received from local schools, edited as necessary and analyzed to determine the accountability status of each public school in the State. For that reason, providing districts with the lists described above will allow them to make many decisions in early 2005, and they only have to make final determinations on the NCLB status on a greatly reduced number of schools in the summer.
For 2005, the administration for each of these tests is as follows:
|
Test |
Administration
Period |
|
Grade 4 ELA |
January 31 – February 4,
2005 |
|
Grade 8 ELA |
January 10 – 14,
2005 |
|
Grade 4 Mathematics |
May 10-12, 2005 |
|
Grade 8 Mathematics |
May 10-11, 2005 |
|
NYS Alternate
Assessment |
Datafolio scoring - March
2005 |
|
NYS English as a Second Language Achievement
Test |
April 25 – May 20,
2005 |
Release of Test Information to the Regents, Schools
and Public
In response to concerns regarding the return of testing data from the grades 4 and 8 English Language Arts and Mathematics exams, we are providing the test administration and reporting timelines for this year. Attachment B shows the length of the testing and analysis cycles.
The grades 4 and 8 exams are administered in a way that is specifically designed to give schools every opportunity to test all affected students. Failure to test 95 percent of their students in each accountability group will result in a school not making Adequate Yearly Progress, so it is critical that the Department design testing windows that allow schools the necessary time to test all students. While the tests have set initial administration dates and times, there is a period afterwards to allow school districts to administer make-up exams to absent students and to provide time to adequately administer the tests to special education students who may have testing accommodations in their Individual Education Plan (IEPs). This testing period is approximately 10 school days. Schools are then required to score these exams and prepare all answer sheets for submission to Regional Information Centers (RICs) and the Big 5 Scanning Centers. This scoring period is approximately 13 days. Within three weeks of submitting their tests to the RICs and Scanning Centers, schools receive their initial score reports that detail district, school, and individual student performance on the exams.
While schools can get this preliminary information regarding test performance within a month after the completion of scoring, there is a substantial amount of work that is required by the vendor and the Department to certify the final test results. These dates are reflected in the timeline in Attachment B. After CTB sends score reports to the Department, the Department needs to:
v check for reasonability, i.e., consistency with previous years’ results and patterns of performance within need/resource capacity categories;
v perform a quality control check on their printed summary and student reports to ensure accuracy; and
v verify the psychometric processes used to scale the tests.
After final certification of test results, CTB packages and sends reports to districts; this takes approximately two weeks. During this time, the Department prepares district and school-level summaries of student performance. We also prepare a PowerPoint presentation showing summaries by need/resource category, race/ethnicity performance, and the Big 5.
It is essential to impose an embargo on public release of the data during this period so that all parties who have access to any of the data can have time to study and understand the results. The National Assessment Governing Board, composed of governors, legislators, state and local officials, and educators, has an agreement to embargo the annual results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and all parties strictly adhere to it. The embargo is necessary because all assessment data is complex and must be explained in detail; it does a disservice to the truth to have aspects of the information appear in pieces, frequently distorted. Daily newspapers favor the use of the embargo so they can review the data and prepare more informed reports, and, with isolated exceptions, they have abided by the embargo; those who do not abide by the embargo do not receive the data in advance. That same model, with a strict agreement to respect an embargo prior to the time of public release, can work in New York for the Board of Regents and anyone else who has access to the data in advance. The data can then be released at one set time in a press conference during and after which the media can ask questions.
As we move forward with implementation of our grades 3-8 testing program, the need to provide timely and accurate results to schools and policy makers will be a cornerstone of our planning efforts. We will develop a timeline for the 2005-06 school year.