Category Archives: transparency

Smarter Balanced Assessments 37

Scoring.

Journalists have been getting an inside look at the process for hand scoring common core exams in recent months:

  • EdSource, on Educational Testing Service’s work scoring SBAC exams in California.
  • EdWeek, on scoring PARCC and SBAC exams, and Pearson’s work scoring PARCC exams in Columbus. [Note the Pearson’s scoring speed expectations: “Those reviewing 3rd grade math, for instance, are expected to score 50 to 80 answers per hour, while raters for 3rd and 4th grade English/language arts responses are expected to complete 20 to 40 per hour, and those scoring high school English/language arts responses are expected to complete 18 to 19 per hour, Pearson officials said.” ]
  • The New York Times, on scoring PARCC and SBAC exams, and Pearson’s work scoring PARCC exams in San Antonio.

In scoring related news, see The Seattle Times on unexplained delays in SBAC scoring, resulting in student scores not being available three weeks after completion of testing as promised (HT: Truth in American Education).

Reporting.

Here is what SBAC reports might look like, courtesy of the California Department of Education, by way of EdSource:

The graphic above shows a sample pre-SBAC report, with sample SBAC reports shown below. The Iowa Assessment reports I receive contain more information than any of these sample reports. College and career readiness information won’t be available until eighth grade (see SBAC models here, HT: Joanne Jacobs).

Technical glitches and participation rates.

EdWeek reports that following technical glitches this spring, only 37% of Nevada students and 76% of Montana students completed computer-based SBAC tests in ELA and math, and only 88% of North Dakota students completed paper or computer-based SBAC tests.

As for participation by states in SBAC, EdWeek reports that Missouri and Maine are dropping the Smarter Balanced assessments, and Connecticut may no longer require high school juniors to take the Smarter Balanced assessments.

New Administrative Rules Site

A new Iowa Administrative Rules website was launched today.

The website explains the administrative rulemaking process, including an explanation of the petition for rulemaking process which allows “any interested person to request that an agency adopt, amend or repeal a rule.”

The website provides an opportunity for viewing and commenting on noticed (proposed) rules prior to adoption, which should be more convenient than following or searching multiple agency websites to look for noticed rules.  In my experience, public comments (or lack thereof) are noted and noticed rules are sometimes changed prior to adoption based on public comments received. In other words, it may be worthwhile to comment on noticed rules.

The website also provides a Frequently Asked Questions page and a list of state government organizations, including links to the websites, agency chapters, and agency rules. These last two links should make finding rules easier. Here’s the Department of Education organization overview page. If the DE had any Notices of Intended Action (noticed or proposed rules open for comment), they would be listed on the left side of the page (where it currently reads “No Publications Found”).

I’ve added links to the open notices and DE pages near the top of the right sidebar under Admin Rulemaking, and a link to the website home page (Iowa Administrative Rules) under Iowa Government.

The Long and Winding Road to the Smarter Balanced Assessments

The second funnel deadline for the Iowa Legislature is today and neither of the assessment bills (HF 446 or SF 429) will survive it. So despite the zealous advocacy of the Assessment Task Force, the State Board of Education, and the Education Coalition (Iowa Association of School Boards, School Administrators of Iowa, Iowa Area Education Agencies, Iowa State Education Association, Urban Education Network of Iowa, and Rural School Advocates of Iowa) and who knows who else, it appears that the Iowa Legislature will take no action regarding statewide assessments this session.

How did we get here: the executive branch loves SBAC, the legislative branch loves it not (apparently).

Governor Branstad, then State Board of Education President Rosie Hussey, and then DE Director Jason Glass signed off on making Iowa an SBAC governing state in June 2011. The letter requesting the change in status updated the SBAC MOU originally signed by Governor Chet Culver, interim DE Director Kevin Fangman, and Rosie Hussey in June 2010. The MOU contains the following language with regard to the Smarter Balanced Assessments: “The purpose of [the SBAC MOU] is to . . . (h) Bind each State in the Consortium to every statement and assurance made in the application . . . ” and “Each State that is a member of the Consortium in 2014-2015 also agrees to the following: . . . Fully implement statewide the Consortium summative assessment in grades 3-8 and high school for both mathematics and English language arts no later than the 2014-2015 school year, . . . .”

Thus, it would appear that the executive branch had committed Iowa to implementing the Smarter Balanced assessments during the 2014-2015 school year.

However, 2012 brought SF 2284, Division II of which fixed the Iowa Assessments as the statewide assessments for Iowa.  The state board was permitted to submit recommendations for modifying the assessment, but legislative action would be required to adopt the Smarter Balanced Assessments.  [SF 2284 is found in Chapter 1119 of the 2012 Acts and Joint Resolutions, which begins on page 434.  Division II of SF 2284 is on page 435.]

2013 brought further changes with HF 215, Division V of which allowed for a successor assessment administered by the same assessment provider (Iowa Testing Programs) and modified the assessment requirements as follows:  Beginning with the 2016-17 school year, districts will be required to administer assessments to all students enrolled in grades three through eleven.  The assessments shall be administered during the last quarter of the school year, must be aligned with the Iowa common core standards, must accurately describe student achievement and growth for accountability purposes, and must measure student progress toward college or career readiness. [HF 215 is found in Chapter 121 of the 2013 Acts and Joint Resolutions. Division V begins on page 13.]

HF 215 also directed the director of the DE to establish an assessment task force to review and make recommendations for a statewide assessment of student progress. The task force began working in October 2013.

Meanwhile, some Iowa schools participated in SBAC pilot tests in spring 2013 and SBAC field tests in spring 2014.

In July 2014, Governor Branstad and DE Director Brad Buck sent a joint letter to SBAC, stating in part:

How to best measure the academic performance of Iowa students is an important conversation under way in Iowa. The Iowa Assessment Taskforce established by the 2013 Iowa Legislature has been studying the state’s academic assessment needs, including past, present and future options for accountability. Taskforce recommendations are expected by Jan. 1, 2015.

To honor the work of the taskforce, Iowa will not sign a new Memorandum of Understanding with the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium as requested.

The Assessment Task Force submitted a report and recommendations, including a recommendation that the Smarter Balanced assessments be adopted as the statewide assessment of student progress in mathematics and reading, on December 31, 2014.

In February 2015, the State Board of Education endorsed the Assessment Task Force recommendation to adopt the Smarter Balanced assessments.

Senate and House assessment bills (HF 446 and SF 429) were passed out of respective education committees earlier this session so that the assessment issue would survive the first funnel deadline. Meetings about the statewide assessment issue were held by the Senate Education Committee and the House Education Committee on March 18th and 25th.

And then, somewhat unexpectedly, though questions about the effect of a delay had been raised, legislators have taken no further action and the assessment bills, as noted above, are effectively dead for this session. One might assume that legislative support was insufficient to assure passage of a bill adopting the Smarter Balanced assessments at this time.

What happens now: your guess is as good as mine.

It is too soon to despair or rejoice (depending upon your preferred assessment outcome) as there may yet be a path to Smarter Balanced assessments in Iowa. (District IT staff may want to go ahead and despair the uncertainty and lack of additional funding for school technology infrastructure). Here are a few scenarios to consider:

One: After time to think, twist arms, or otherwise make sausage, legislators return in January 2016 and vote to adopt the Smarter Balanced assessments–either for the 2016-2017 school year or with a delay to give districts more than a few months notice to get prepared for computer-based assessments.

Or two: The State Board of Education adopts the Smarter Balanced assessments through the administrative rule-making process–either in 2015, risking a legislative backlash that undoes the adoption of the Smarter Balanced assessments in January 2016, or after the 2016 session.

The (unsubstantiated) word is that there is a legal theory being floated that the State Board of Education or the DE has the authority to choose a new assessment if the Legislature fails to act.

I haven’t yet heard the details of the theory, so I won’t comment on the quality of it, but I do think there is an argument to be made that the Legislature has acted on this issue. The Legislature directed the State Board of Education to adopt rules to make the Iowa Assessments or a successor assessment administered by the same assessment provider (ITP) the statewide assessment of student progress on the core academic indicators of mathematics, reading, and science. The successor assessment that will be administered by the same assessment provider (the Next Generation Iowa Assessments) meets the minimum legal requirements that take effect for the 2016-2017 school year. No conflict, no further action by the Legislature needed.

Umm, Good Question

Mercedes Schneider had an interesting blog post last week, Florida Supers Fake Readiness for 2015 Computerized Testing–for Which Bus Drivers Could Serve As Techies, detailing a Florida DOE official’s testimony at a Florida Senate Education PreK-12 Committee “regarding Florida’s technological readiness for their state assessments.” (HT: @TruthinAmEd)

The questions and answers are interesting. How good is the information that Florida districts are technology ready for computer-based assessments? Answer: perhaps not very, as some superintendents reportedly told a senator that they felt pressured to certify readiness, even though they aren’t ready and expect to have problems administering the assessments. What’s the plan if Florida districts aren’t ready? Answer: we don’t have one.

As striking as these exchanges were, here’s the thing that is most striking to me: the Florida Legislature makes video recordings of committee hearings (and subcommittee hearings?) available to the public by way of The FLORIDA Channel:

Located in the state Capitol building, The FLORIDA Channel is a public affairs programming service funded by The Florida Legislature and produced and operated by WFSU-TV. It features programming covering all three branches of state government, and is Florida’s primary source for live, unedited coverage of the Governor and Cabinet, the Legislature and the Supreme Court.

How cool–and transparent–is that?

As it happens, the Iowa House Committee on Education heard from DE Director Brad Buck last week. What did he talk about? Did the representatives ask good–tough and probing–questions on behalf of their constituents? Or did they just ask easy–softball–questions? How good were Director Buck’s answers? What topics were discussed and what was the quality of that discussion?

The only people who know are the people who were in the room, because here’s the record of the meeting that has been provided to the public:

HEC minutes 012015

It isn’t easy for members of the public to attend committee meetings. Unlike lobbyists and Des Moines-based government employees, we may need to arrange to take most of the day off for travel to Des Moines and back while hoping that the meeting we wanted to attend hasn’t been moved or cancelled. This isn’t easy for many of us to do on short notice.

The Assessment Task Force report is expected to be presented to the Iowa House and Senate Committees on Education this session. Will tough and probing questions be asked? Will good answers be provided? One hopes so, but how will we know?