ISBE’s Proposed Assessment System for Grades K-8

Legislative Briefing

Illinois Families for Public Schools

9 June 2021

1

What we’ll cover today

1. Background: Federal reqs for standardized testing
2. Challenge: The promise and the problem with standardized ‘interim” testing
3. ISBE’s RFP: What’s in it
4. Our recs: New process, new proposal
5. Q&A

2

1. Quick background

Federal requirements for standardized testing

3

Federal involvement in test-based accountability

4

What does state testing in Illinois look like now?

5

Federal requirements

ACCESS (K-12 English language learner proficiency)

IAR (3-8 math and reading, formerly known as PARCC)

ISA (5, 8, 11 science)

SAT (11)

DLM (alternative for IAR/PSAT/SAT for students with most sig. cognitive disabilities)

State requirements

KIDS (observational assessment for kindergarten)

PSAT (9-10)

SAT diploma requirement

These are almost all summative tests used for accountability purposes.

2. Challenge

The promise and problem with standardized “interim” testing

6

2. The Challenge

A Vacuum of Actionable Information

7

• Race to the Top and Illinois’ Professional Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) increased the demand for actionable testing information
• Standardized interim assessments promised to fill the void by:

​

• shortening turnaround times
• measuring standardized growth and attainment over time
• highlighting inequitable access to deep learning across student groups
• providing diagnostic information that could help teachers improve day-to-day teaching and learning

​

• 70% of Illinois school districts now spend $50 million annually from local revenues to purchase standardized interim assessments

For two decades, state tests have failed to report results in ways that educators and parents find helpful

2. The Challenge

A Vacuum of Actionable Information

8

• Race to the Top and Illinois’ Professional Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) increased the demand for actionable testing information
• Standardized interim assessments promised to fill the void by:

​

• shortening turnaround times
• measuring standardized growth and attainment over time
• highlighting inequitable access to deep learning across student groups
• providing diagnostic information that could help teachers improve day-to-day teaching and learning

​

• 70% of Illinois school districts now spend $50 million annually from local revenues to purchase standardized interim assessments

For two decades, state tests have failed to report results in ways that educators and parents find helpful

Impact on Student Growth and Achievement

​

9

• Over a decade of independent research shows no evidence . . . . none . . . that standardized interim assessments have any positive impact on student growth or achievement

​

• Growing evidence from Chicago and other Illinois districts that linking standardized interim to high stakes accountability actually depresses student growth and achievement over time across grades four through eight

Competing Requirements

10

The Problem:

No single test can do it all

11

• State standards are big, “high-altitude” competencies; district curricula are the specific, “low altitude” tools that schools use to help develop those competencies
• Tests that are valid for one purpose are typically not valid for another. That’s because the things you need to measure big competencies compete with the things you need to measure specific skill and content mastery. The better you do one job, the worse you do the other.
• Despite their popularity, commercial interim assessments have never been able to overcome this problem.

Just like unicorns, tests that can “do it all” are a product of wishful thinking

Strengths and limits of large-scale standardized testing

12

CAN DO:

• Provide useful information about growth and achievement over time for groups of students
• Provide useful examples of the skills, content information and ways of thinking that state standards require for different subjects at different grade levels
• Help identify broad themes of where students are getting stuck and why
• Provide initial screening to identify students who may be academically at-risk

CAN’T DO:

• Can’t provide valid diagnostic information to inform day-to-day instruction
• Can’t provide valid diagnoses of skills mastery for individual students

​

3. ISBE RFP �What’s in it: content, timeline

13

ISBE’s proposed new system

In grades 3-8, replace a single spring test (currently IAR) with three, high-stakes “interim” tests in (fall, winter and spring) that “roll-up” into a single year-end accountability score

​

• Piloted in 20% of all districts beginning fall 2022 while still taking the year-end IAR exam through spring 2025
• Fully implemented in all districts in fall 2025
• Districts may choose which state standards will be tested on each interim test
• Optional new K-2 testing 3x/year funded by state
• Spanish language testing for English language learners

14

Probable K-8 Testing Calendar with �New 3-Test Model

15

Sept/Oct

​

• Interim test #1
• KIDS test
• Optional K-2 testing

Oct-Dec

Local re-teach

& test prep activities for state tests (Interim #2)

Dec/Jan

• Interim test #2
• Optional K-2

testing

Apr./May

• Interim test #3
• Optional K-2

testing

• ACCESS testing
• DLM testing

March

​

• ACCESS testing
• DLM testing

STATE TESTS

LOCAL DECISIONS

Feb-Apr

Local re-teach

& test prep activities for state tests (Interim #2)

5th Grader’s School Testing Calendar

Implications on the ground

17

ISBE’s pitch

​

• Reduces overall testing time by eliminating the IAR
• Individualizes test content and returns results immediately with computer adaptive technology (CAT)
• Allows state testing to“drive instruction” throughout the school year
• Increases equity by giving all districts access to interim testing

​

• Saves districts money

​

The reality

​

• Increases mandated, high-stakes testing from one time to three times
• Standardized tests cannot provide diagnostic information detailed enough to inform day-to-day instruction
• Interim testing disrupts normal curriculum and encourages teaching to the test
• Undermines equity by discouraging teaching for deep learning: Curriculum isn’t just a list of discrete skills!
• Diverts money away from systematic improvement of classroom assessment

4. Our recommendation: �New process,

new proposal

18

Contract Timeline

19

August 18 2021

Likely Date for State Board to Consider a Revised RFSP

Vetted More Fully by

TAC and SARC

Fall 2021/ June 2025

​

New tests developed and piloted in at least 20% of districts

May 19, 2021

Original Date for State Board Approval of Proposed RFSP

Late Summer/

Early Fall 2021

​

State Superintendent award contract to successful bidder

5-year renewal of

3-Test vendor contract

3-Test vendor contract begins

June 30, 2025

IAR contract expires

July 2026/

June 2031

​

5-year contract extension option

July 2025/

June 2026

​

All 3-8th students use new test system*

*Pending approval by US Dept. of Education

IAR vendor contract expires

Cost in New State Dollars

New RFP: $228 million through 2031 in addition to previously authorized expenditures...

...$30 million per year to continue IAR through spring 2025:

• $22M/year with Pearson
• $8M/year with New Meridian

20

Systematic Process:

Transparency and Engagement

• More time: In 2010-2011, RFSP for improving teacher & administrator evaluation took >1.5 years to develop with deep stakeholder input
• More input: So far there’s been no engagement of public and little input from ISBE’s own expert advisors—TAC and SARC—much less from educators, families and legislators
• More transparency: Webinars for ISBE senior staff (led by National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment) need to be widely accessible to SARC members and all major stakeholders

21

Another reality is possible.

• Faster, more detailed reports from summative standardized test that meets federal requirements
• Focus on formative assessment in the classroom while teaching and learning are happening
• Support for professional development on:
• What standardized tests can and can’t do
• Improving classroom assessments via teacher collaboration
• End use of standardized test data for teacher evaluation

22

A balanced assessment system that includes:

What can legislators do?

Demand that this once-in-a-generation change in statewide assessment will be informed and vetted by assessment experts

✶ Sign group letter urging ISBE to delay vote on RFSP

✶ Ensure that the Statewide Assessment Review Committee is fully supported in carrying out its statutory duties

✶ Subject matter hearing?

23

5. Questions?

24

Unanswered questions about RFP

• Mix-and-match standards: How will districts be able to select separate state standards for each interim test when most standards are taught in different ways throughout the year?
• One score from three tests:
• How will it be possible calculate a meaningful,“rolled-up” 3-test accountability score in schools and districts with high mobility rates
• Will students who test poorly on a standard during Interim #1 and or Interim #2 be penalized by “roll-up” scoring even if they do well on the same standard during Interim #3?
• No other states have done this yet: What is Plan B if US DOE does not approve the new 3-Test model for federal accountability purposes in 2025?
• Interim-interim tests? Will ISBE limit the amount of additional, large-scale testing that is not required by the state?
• Burden on ISBE: Three times as much to administer for 3-8th math and reading

25

Why this matters:

Impact on quality of

teaching and learning

Why this matters

​

1 - Ignores last decade of research on impact of interim assessments on student growth and achievement

• Study after study shows interim assessments have no impact—none—on improved student achievement

​

• Recent research on growth and achievement in Chicago and other Illinois districts shows clear signs of a negative relationship between high-stakes interim testing and student achievement.

​

27

Why this matters

2 - Perpetuates equity gaps by encouraging one-skill-a-time teaching and learning

• A major source of equity gaps is limited opportunity to engage in deep learning about complex subject matter
• Reporting high-stakes test results using long lists of discrete skills creates a hard link between school and district accountability and one-skill-at-a-time instruction practices.

28

Sample data from interim testing in Chicago

Sample data from interim testing in Chicago

​

Based on results from one test, teachers are given 40-50 leveled skills a student should be working to develop in order to make progress

​

​

Why this matters

3 - Misses a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redesign statewide assessment in the way assessment experts recommend

Opportunity cost for investing high-stakes interim testing: Another decade of failing to invest in supports that help individual teachers and grade/departmental teams get more proficient with higher-quality forms of classroom assessment

31

The Problem: No single test can do it all

32

The Problem: No single test can do it all

33

The Problem: No single test can do it all

34

What are testing experts saying today?

​

It Might Just Be a Pile of Bricks

​

“. . .I do not see a place for interim assessments unless they can somehow make the critical connection between curriculum and assessment. Widely-used commercial interim assessments, in particular, generally are not tied to any specific curriculum and are not necessarily coherent with instruction and other assessments in the system . . .”

​

Scott Marion, Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment (April 2021)

​

​