CMAS PARCC Score Release 2015 Board Presentation

go
r
ba
Em
ed
Colorado Measures of
Academic Success:
U
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
PARCC English Language Arts and Math

2015 State-level Results
15
20
Joyce Zurkowski, Executive Director of Assessment

Alyssa Pearson, Interim Associate Commissioner
Nov. 12, 2015
Agenda
ed
go
r
ba
Em
Background
Performance Levels
Participation and Achievement Results
Accountability
Release Schedule
Sample Score Reports
Resources
U
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
go
r
ba
Em
ed
Background
U
il
nt
ov
N
em
2,
r1
be
Why do we have new tests and

what makes them different?
15
20
Why did we transition

to new tests?
go
r
ba
Em
Track record:
ed
34% of graduates from the class of 2013 who went to public
colleges in Colorado needed remediation in at least one class

Colorado is only producing 22 college graduates to every 100
students who enter a Colorado high school
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
Why did we transition

to new tests?
Em
r
ba
Colorado Academic Standards were fully implemented
ed
go
in 2013-14.
These new and more challenging standards will better prepare our
students for college and career.
CMAS tests in science, social studies, English language arts and
math are aligned to the standards.
Science and social studies developed in Colorado
English language arts and math developed in collaboration with a
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
consortium of states known as PARCC, or the Partnership for

Assessment of Readiness for College and Career.
ed
go
r
ba
Em
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
What makes these tests

different?
Em
r
ba
CMAS tests, including PARCC, are aligned to the Colorado
ed
go
Academic Standards
Designed to be administered online
Feature more interactive, engaging questions
Assess concepts and real world skills included in the standards
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
TCAP vs. CMAS

r
ba
Em
ed
go
Middle School CMAS: You
Middle School TCAP

I am most proud of the fact
that this school year, I
________________.
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
have read a passage from The

Count of Monte Cristo and a
scene from Blessings. Think
about the similarities and
differences in how the two
authors develop the themes in
each text. Write an essay in
which you identify a theme
from each text and analyze
how each theme is developed.
Be sure to include specific
details from both selections.
15
20
What are the purposes of state

assessments?
Em
Serve as one indicator of student mastery of the grade-
r
ba
level standards by the end of the year

Provide information on how students are performing
compared to their school, district and state peers. For
ELA and math, they will also provide information on how
they compare to students in other states
Track yearly student growth
Allow teachers to see how their students are performing
against the standard and identify areas they may need to
adjust in their practice in the future
Provide school and district comparisons and
accountability information for parents, students and the
community
ed
go
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
2015 Administration
Em
go
r
ba
English language arts administered in grades 3

ed
through 11
Math administered in grades 3 through the
completion of Algebra II or Integrated Math III
U
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
10
2015 Administration
Em
ed
go
r
ba
Accessibility
Accommodations
U
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
11
New Test, New Baseline

Em
r
ba
These are new tests. Teachers and students need time to get
ed
go
used to them.
Initially, scores may be lower, but we expect scores to rise over
time.
Scores from these tests cannot be compared to Colorados
previous test scores.
These tests are aligned to the Colorado Academic Standards and
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
are testing different things than past tests.
student growth.
12
15
20
This years scores will serve as a baseline to measure future
ed
go
r
ba
Em
Performance Levels
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
Performance Level Setting

Em
r
ba
For purposes of PARCC reporting, performance level cut scores
ed
go
were set this past summer/early fall.

Approximately 200 educators from across the consortium
il
nt
participated in developing recommendations

The PARCC governing board adopted cut scores for purposes of
PARCC reports
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
Note: Each state will make its own accountability decisions.
15
20
14
What are the

performance levels?
Em
ed
go
experts
r
ba
Set by teachers, higher education professionals and content
U
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
15
Performance Level Crosswalk

Em
Science and Social Studies
go
r
ba
English Language Arts and Math
Distinguished Command*
ed
Exceeded Expectations*
U
il
nt
Met Expectations*
Moderate Command
2,
r1
be
Limited Command
15
20
Did not yet meet expectations
em
Partially Met Expectations
ov
N
Approached Expectations
Strong Command*
*On track for next grade level or college and career ready in content area
16
r
ba
Em
ed
go
Participation and
Achievement Results
U
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
Participation by Grade Level

English Language Arts
Math
95.0%
94.8%
94.6%
92.4%
88.7%
85.0%
70.5%
95.2%
94.8%
94.6%
92.3%
88.5%
84.9%
69.8%
ed
go
r
ba
Em
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
15
20
61.7%
50.4%
em
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
*Not all 11th graders were required to take a math exam.
60.3%
*
Who Participated?
Grades 3-5 ELA
ed
go
r
ba
Em
il
nt
ov
N
Primary Home Language Other than English
2,
r1
be
em
19
48.9
51.1
3.1
4.6
33.1
54.3
3.8
43.6
56.4
10.6
89.4
79.9
1.8
12.5
5.3
0.4
0.1
Actual
15
20
Female
Male
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Two or more races
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
Not Eligible
Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
Not on IEP
Native English Speakers
Not English Proficient
Limited English Proficient
Fluent English Proficient
Former English Learner
Expected
48.8
51.2
3.2
4.6
33.8
53.6
3.7
44.2
55.8
10.3
89.7
79.3
1.8
12.9
5.5
0.4
0.1
Who Participated?
Grades 6-8 ELA
ed
go
r
ba
Em
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
20
49
51
3.2
4.6
32.9
54.4
3.5
41.7
58.3
89.7
10.3
80.4
1.5
9.2
8.4
0.4
0.2
Actual
15
20
Female
Male
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Two or more races
Not Eligible
Not on IEP
Expected
48.7
51.3
3.4
4.8
34.4
52.6
3.5
43
57
89.8
10.2
78.8
1.5
10
9.1
0.4
0.2
Who Participated?
High School ELA
ed
go
r
ba
Em
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
21
49
51
3.2
5
31.3
55.5
3.2
35.7
64.2
91.2
8.8
82.6
1.2
5.8
9.6
0.5
0.2
Actual
15
20
Female
Male
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Two or more races
Not Eligible
Not on IEP
Expected
47.8
52.2
3.3
5.4
36.5
50
3
40.8
59.2
90.9
9.1
78.2
1.5
7.5
12
0.5
0.2
Who Participated?
Grades 3-5 Math
Em
Expected
ed
go
r
ba
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
22
48.9
51.1
3.1
4.5
33.5
54
3.7
43.9
56.1
89.4
10.6
79.5
1.9
12.9
5.2
0.4
0.1
15
20
Female
Male
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Two or more races
Not Eligible
Not on IEP
Actual
48.8
51.2
3.2
4.6
34.2
53.2
3.7
44.5
55.5
89.6
10.4
78.8
1.9
13.4
5.5
0.4
0.1
Who Participated?
Grades 6-8 Math
ed
go
r
ba
Em
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
23
49.0
51.0
3.2
4.6
32.9
54.4
3.5
41.7
58.3
89.7
10.3
80.4
1.5
9.2
8.4
0.4
0.2
Actual
15
20
Female
Male
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Two or more races
Not Eligible
Not on IEP
Expected
48.7
51.3
3.4
4.8
34.5
52.5
3.5
43.1
56.9
89.8
10.2
78.8
1.5
10
9.1
0.4
0.2
Who Participated?
High School Math
Em
Expected
ed
go
r
ba
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
24
48.7
51.3
3.0
5.2
33
53.7
3.1
37.5
62.5
90.6
9.4
81.7
1.3
6.4
9.9
0.5
0.2
15
20
Female
Male
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Two or more races
Not Eligible
Not on IEP
Actual
47.6
52.4
3.2
5.6
37.9
48.6
2.9
42.3
57.6
90.4
9.6
77.4
1.6
8.1
12.1
0.5
0.2
PARCC Results Overall - ELA
35
34
37
33
10
11
29
34
30
27
29
Level 5
30
19
25
25
19
19
21
15
16
11
11
12
15
18
24
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
19
23
17
10
11
15
20
20
20
25
21
2,
r1
be
19
25
28
28
19
20
10
em
23
40
30
ov
N
60
50
12
il
nt
70
ed
80
go
90
r
ba
Em
100
Level 1
PARCC Results Overall By Test Math

4
28
26
28
25
1
18
29
22
26
24
17
21
25
19
ed
go
31
r
ba
25
30
29
34
14
27
13
27
14
26
13
29
29
15
24
24
Level 5
23
27
34
27
10
23
19
Level 4
Level 3
36
15
20
10
26
21
2,
r1
be
22
32
em
30
26
ov
N
27
30
il
nt
26
Em
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
36
Level 2
Level 1
Percent Met or Exceeded

Expectations by Gender - ELA
r
ba
Em
70
60
go
ed
50
U
il
nt
40
ov
N
Female
Male
2,
r1
be
em
30
20
15
20
10
0
3
27
10
11

Expectations by Gender - Math
2,
r1
be
15
20
28
Male
em
Female
ov
N
10
il
nt
20
30
ed
40
go
50
r
ba
60
Em
70

Expectations by Race - ELA
r
ba
Em
70
ed
go
60
50
Asian
il
nt
40
ov
N
Black
Hispanic
em
30
White
2,
r1
be
20
15
20
10
0
3
29
Two or More
10
11

Expectations by Race - Math
2,
r1
be
15
20
30
Hispanic
em
Black
ov
N
10
Asian
il
nt
20
30
ed
40
go
50
r
ba
60
Em
70
White
Two or More
Percent Met or Exceeded Expectations by

Economic Disadvantaged Status - ELA
r
ba
Em
70
ed
go
60
50
il
nt
Free/Reduced Lunch
Eligible
ov
N
40
Not Eligible
2,
r1
be
em
30
20
15
20
10
0
3
31
10
11

Economic Disadvantaged Status - Math
2,
r1
be
15
20
32
em
ov
N
10
Free/Reduced Lunch
Eligible
Not Eligible
il
nt
20
30
ed
40
go
50
r
ba
60
Em
70

Expectations by IEP Status - ELA
r
ba
Em
70
ed
go
60
50
U
il
nt
IEP
ov
N
40
Not IEP
2,
r1
be
em
30
20
15
20
10
0
3
33
10
11

Expectations by IEP Status - Math
2,
r1
be
15
20
34
Not IEP
em
IEP
ov
N
10
il
nt
20
30
ed
40
go
50
r
ba
60
Em
70

Language Proficiency- ELA
r
ba
Em
70
ed
go
60
50
U
il
nt
ov
N
40
Fluent English Proficent
2,
r1
be
em
30
20
0
3
35
10
15
20
10
FELL/PHLOTE/NA
11
* Data suppressed to protect

student privacy

Language Proficiency- Math
2,
r1
be
*
FELL/PHLOTE/NA
*
15
20
36
Fluent English
Proficent
em
Limited English
Proficient
ov
N
10
il
nt
20
30
Not English
Proficient
ed
40
go
50
r
ba
60
Em
70
* Data suppressed to
protect student privacy
ed
go
r
ba
Em
Accountability
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
Accountability Implications
Em
go
r
ba
H.B. 15-1323 created a one-year pause in accountability
ed
No 2015 school or district performance frameworks

Accountability set to resume in 2016, but CDE is required to present
il
nt
to the Joint Education Committees about whether or not the

assessment results are ready to be used
ov
N
em
2,
r1
be
Impact of participation/parent refusals
Districts cannot be held liable for parent refusals, per State Board
15
20
of Education motion from February 2015

Federal requirement of 95 percent participation remains
38
Participation Rates and Parent

Refusals English Language Arts
ed
go
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
39
r
ba
Em
Test
Grade
3
English
Language
4
Arts
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
Records
65,951
65,718
65,476
65,821
64,631
64,146
65,116
62,190
58,991
Number of Rate of
Participation Parent
Parent
Rate
Refusals Refusals
95.0%
1,617
2.5%
94.8%
1,992
3.0%
94.6%
2,146
3.3%
92.4%
2,996
4.6%
88.7%
4,846
7.5%
85.0%
6,452
10.1%
70.5%
12,077
18.5%
61.7%
15,286
24.6%
50.4%
18,446
31.3%
Participation Rates and Parent

Refusals - Math
ed
go
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
40
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
r
ba
Em
Test
Math
Number of Rate of
Total
Participation Parent
Parent
Records
Rate
Refusals Refusals
66,974
95.2%
1,648
2.5%
65,763
94.8%
1,979
3.0%
65,457
94.6%
2,169
3.3%
65,829
92.3%
3,031
4.6%
64,625
88.5%
4,887
7.6%
64,109
84.9%
6,393
10.0%
65,122
69.8%
12,195
18.7%
62,183
60.3%
15,550
25.0%
Accountability Next Steps

Em
r
ba
SBE sets state level performance expectations for the
ed
go
frameworks
Achievement expectations on CMAS assessments
Anticipating conversations in February
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
41
go
r
ba
Em
ed
Release Schedule
U
il
nt
ov
N
em
2,
r1
be
Release dates for state-level and subsequent schooland district level results
15
20
Released
State Data
Em
ed
U
Overall
By subgroup
go
r
ba
Achievement by performance level for each test
il
nt
Gender
Race/ethnicity
Economic status (free and reduced lunch)
English Learner status
IEP (disability) status
ov
N
15
20
43
2,
r1
be
em
Participation information
Number of participants
Number of non-participants; including parent refusals (in data file)
Overall and by subgroups
Release Schedule (expected)

Em
go
r
ba
School- and District-level results
ed
Nov. 30: Districts receive their embargoed district and school results
Dec. 4:
il
nt
Districts receive access to all embargoed files

Media receive access to all embargoed files
Dec. 11: Embargo lifts
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
44
ed
go
r
ba
Em

il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20

Em
r
ba
Sample score reports available to help educators and parents
ed
go
know what to expect

Algebra II
il
nt
http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/parccmockscorecardmath
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
English language arts, grade 6
15
20
http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/parccmockscorecardenglish
46
ed
go
r
ba
Em
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
47
Draft Student Performance Report

PARCC Math
ed
go
r
ba
Em
U
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
48
Draft Student Performance Report

Sub Claim Performance -PARCC Math
ed
go
r
ba
Em
U
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
49
Draft Student Performance Report Subscale

and Subclaim Performance PARCC ELA
ed
go
r
ba
Em
U
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
50
go
r
ba
Em
ed
Resources
U
il
nt
ov
N
em
2,
r1
be
Parent Resources and Tools for Districts
15
20
Parent Resources
Em
r
ba
Resources to help parents understand their students scores:
ed
go
http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/resourcesforparents
il
nt
Parents Guide to Understanding the new Score Reports
ov
N
English and Spanish

How to Use the Test Results to Support your Student
English and Spanish
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
52
ed
go
r
ba
Em
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
53
ed
go
r
ba
Em
il
nt
ov
N
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
54
Communications Tools
Em
ed
go
parents:
r
ba
Additional Resources to help districts communicate with
http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/tools
il
nt
ov
N
Understanding the New Score Reports (Prezi)

Key Messages
Drop-in articles
2,
r1
be
em
15
20
55

CMAS PARCC Score Release 2015 Board Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CMAS PARCC Score Release 2015 Board Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

go

PARCC English Language Arts and Math

Joyce Zurkowski, Executive Director of Assessment

Why do we have new tests and

Why did we transition

34% of graduates from the class of 2013 who went to public

colleges in Colorado needed remediation in at least one class

Why did we transition

Colorado Academic Standards were fully implemented

consortium of states known as PARCC, or the Partnership for

What makes these tests

CMAS tests, including PARCC, are aligned to the Colorado

TCAP vs. CMAS

Middle School CMAS: You

Middle School TCAP

have read a passage from The

What are the purposes of state

Serve as one indicator of student mastery of the grade-

level standards by the end of the year

English language arts administered in grades 3

New Test, New Baseline

are testing different things than past tests.

This years scores will serve as a baseline to measure future

Performance Level Setting

For purposes of PARCC reporting, performance level cut scores

were set this past summer/early fall.

participated in developing recommendations

Note: Each state will make its own accountability decisions.

What are the

Set by teachers, higher education professionals and content

Performance Level Crosswalk

Science and Social Studies

English Language Arts and Math

Did not yet meet expectations

Partially Met Expectations

Participation by Grade Level

*Not all 11th graders were required to take a math exam.

Primary Home Language Other than English

Primary Home Language Other than English

Primary Home Language Other than English

Primary Home Language Other than English

Primary Home Language Other than English

Primary Home Language Other than English

PARCC Results Overall - ELA

PARCC Results Overall By Test Math

Percent Met or Exceeded

Percent Met or Exceeded

Percent Met or Exceeded

Percent Met or Exceeded

Percent Met or Exceeded Expectations by

Percent Met or Exceeded Expectations by

Percent Met or Exceeded

Percent Met or Exceeded

Percent Met or Exceeded Expectations by

Not English Proficient

Fluent English Proficent

Limited English Proficient

* Data suppressed to protect

Percent Met or Exceeded Expectations by

H.B. 15-1323 created a one-year pause in accountability

No 2015 school or district performance frameworks

to the Joint Education Committees about whether or not the

Impact of participation/parent refusals

of Education motion from February 2015