Thursday, November 13, 2014

ESEA Flexibility Waiver Renewal Guidance is Posted

This afternoon (Thursday, November 13) the U.S. Department of Education posted the guidance on applications for renewal of state flexibility under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and No Child Left Behind. States have until March 31, 2015, to file their applications for renewal. Those Window 1 and 2 states (which includes SC) that want expedited review must submit by January 30, 2015.

States can request a three-year renewal, and those from Windows 1 and 2 that are "fully meeting" commitments to timelines and principals can request a four-year renewal to School Year 2018-29.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Legal Implications of Educator Performance Assessment

Dr. Diana Pullin will discuss the issues in her recent paper, Performance, Value, and Accountability: Public Policy Goals and Legal Implications of the Use of Performance Assessments in the Preparation and Licensing of Educators. The paper was published by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, & Equity (SCALE). 

Webinar - Thursday, November 20
11:00 a.m. Eastern
To access the webinar you can click here starting at 10:45am on 11/20.
Meanwhile, you can review the paper here. It covers constitutional, statutory, and civil rights issues, as well as questions about the quality of assessments, privacy, intellectual property, and whistleblower situations. 


Meeting number:
719 710 419
Audio connection:
1-866-469-3239 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada)
1-650-429-3300 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
Access code: 719 710 419

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

$C Intent to Award to SAS

Following what appears to be the MMO MO (e.g., the ACT - DRC procurement), SC has issued an intent to award a contract to the highest - not lowest - bidder in the quest to have a value-added measure for principals and teachers of "tested" grades and subjects. Executive Information Systems, LLC, reseller for SAS EVAAS, bid $3.8 million for a three-year contract. Rumor has it at least one other contestant bid $2.1 over three years.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Test Topics

UDPATED
You've heard the rumbles about the amount of testing in schools, teaching to the test, test cheating scandals, testing boycotts by parents, and the use of test results to evaluate teachers. Now there is a move to reduce the volume and increase the quality of assessments, at the same time that districts are being asked to create more pre- and post-tests for every grade and subject for "student growth" measures used in educator evaluation. This movement is layered over state accountability testing requirements, and the federal ESEA requirement of testing ELA and math (grades 3-8 and once in high school) and science (once in elementary, middle, and high school).

On October 15, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) issued a joint statement of commitments on high-quality assessments with statements of support from education leaders of states and large-city schools. While the organizations are not moving away from "assessments given at least once a year," they are saying that assessments should be

  • high quality
  • part of a coherent system and 
  • meaningful
What does that mean? In 2013, CCSSO issued its definition of "high quality" for ELA and math college- and career-ready standards, as did the U.S. Department of Education in its requirements for ESEA flexibility waivers ("high-quality assessment" is required in principle 1). As to coherence:
Assessments should be administered in only the numbers and duration that will give us the information that is needed and nothing more.
And meaningful relates to improving instruction and informing parents -  "timely, transparent, disaggregated, and easily accessible."

Both organizations are inventorying the assessments given. CGCS preliminarily reported that students take 113 assessments between K-12, most in 11th grade. The ultimate plan is to
Streamline or eliminate assessments that are found to be of low quality, redundant, or inappropriately used.
In the accompanying webinar there was explicit reference to eliminating multiple tests with overlapping purposes, or assessments that are no longer aligned to mastery of the content being measured.

Meanwhile, districts are scrambling for student growth measures to include in teacher evaluation student learning objectives (SLOs) for the ironically named "non-tested" grades and subjects. And the "next generation" innovators are moving away from one summative test towards learning progressions with mastery assessments. EdWeek reports New Hampshire is proposing a pilot in which the summative SMARTER Balanced Assessments would be used in some grades/subjects but the state-developed PACE performance assessments would be used in others. Linda Darling-Hammond, Gene Wilhoit, and Linda Pittenger recently published a call for a new paradigm for accountability and assessment (here are links to the long version  and the brief).

So here we are with the sometimes conflicting purposes of wanting better student measures, better information on teacher effectiveness, less "seat time," more "personalized" learning, and more meaningful accountability systems.

Meanwhile in SC, we've come up with an innovative way to avoid having teachers "teaching to the test" - don't select the test until ?November? The September intent to award a statewide contract to ACT was protested by DRC. The hearing started October 23. No one is predicting when a decision will be made on which assessments students will take in Spring 2015.

UPDATED 10/27: For an interesting take on what might be behind all of this, check out the EdWeek Politics K-12 team's post.
And apparently the ACT-DRC procurement protest hearing went late on Friday (10/14); SCDE posted a "Supplemental Statement" objecting to a few things.
The Consortium of Large Countywide and Suburban Districts (which includes Greenville, SC) has also come out with a letter to Secretary Duncan in support of fewer summative assessments of higher quality.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

SC Requests Flexibility on Use of Test Score Measures in Evaluation

The actual request for the flexibility to use the test score measures for informational purposes only was sent by the SC State Superintendent today.

Monday, September 22, 2014

ACT - The New SC Assessment Provider?

UPDATED
Although it appeared that ACT Aspire had won the bid to become the new vendor of English language arts and mathematics assessments for grades 3-8 and high school in SC, DRC filed a protest on September 30. The award would be $58.4 million through 2019. Act 200 of 2014 required that the State withdraw from the SMARTER Balanced consortium (which Dr. Zais had already done) and select a new assessment by September 30.
DRC submitted the only other proposal. Rumor has it that the DRC proposal was at substantially lower cost. 

SC would become the second state (first being Alabama) to have statewide adoption of ACT.

In terms of educator evaluation, according to its website the ACT Aspire suite uses student growth percentiles, and can aggregate growth statistics. Meanwhile, the vendors who submitted proposals to do value added measures are making presentations this week. 

Stay tuned for more fun changes. 

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

SC may hold off use of test scores in evaluation?


Updated
On September 16, Alyson Klein of Politics K12 - Edweek published an blog on "Which NCLB Waiver States May Delay Using Test Scores in Teacher Evaluations?" In that day's version South Carolina was not mentioned other than as a state on the map at the bottom (the map is very helpful,
btw).
Then on September 17, the article showed as "UPDATED" and SC was listed here:
Seventeen states told Education Week that they are likely to ask for the flexibility, or were already planning to hold off on using test scores in evaluations, including: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah.
So the good news was that Dr. Zais is apparently thinking about applying for that additional flexibility.

But then on September 23, SC was moved to the "no-with an asterisk" category. "And South Carolina is a special case, in that the state uses multiple years of growth in student test scores."

So what could have been great news for SC educators is now back in limbo.  Keep sending those requests to Dr. Zais.

UPDATE: Dr. Zais did send in the request on October 2, 2014.