February  2013

Overview
•   PARCC  Design  and  Cri/cal  Advances
•   The  PARCC  Assessment  System:  An  Interconnected
Approach
•   Technology
•   Suppor/ng  Students
•   Policy  Levers

3
PARCC’s  Fundamental  Advance
PARCC  is  designed  to   reward  quality   instruc0on  aligned  to  the  Standards,   so  the   assessment  is  worthy  of  prepara/on  rather   than  a  distrac/on  from  good  work.

4
Partnership  for  Assessment  of  Readiness   for  College  and  Careers  (PARCC)

The  PARCC  Assessment  System:

6
Key  Advances  of  the  Common  Core
MATHEMATICS
Focus,  coherence  and  clarity:   emphasis   on  key  topics  at  each   grade  level  and  coherent  progression  across  grades
Balance  between  procedural  fluency  and  understanding  of   concepts  and  skills
Mathema/cal  prac/ces:
Applica/on,  reasoning,  modeling,
ANCHORED  IN  COLLEGE  AND  CAREER  READINESS

Master  Claim:  On-­‐Track  for  college  and  career  readiness.  The  degree  to  which  a  student  is  college  and  career   ready  (or  “on-­‐track”  to  being  ready)  in  mathema/cs.  The  student  solves  grade-­‐level  /course-­‐level  problems  in   mathema/cs  as  set  forth  in  the  Standards  for  Mathema/cal  Content  with  connec/ons  to  the  Standards  for
Mathema/cal  Prac/ce.
Total  Exam  Score  Points:
92  (Grades  3-­‐8),  107  (HS)
Sub-­‐Claim  A:  Major  Content 1   with
Connec,ons  to  Prac,ces
The  student  solves  problems   involving  the  Major  Content 1  for  her   grade/course  with  connec/ons  to   the  Standards  for  Mathema/cal
Prac/ce.
~40  pts  (3-­‐8),
~50  pts  (HS)
Sub-­‐Claim  B:  Addi,onal  &  Suppor,ng
Content 2  with  Connec,ons  to
Prac,ces
The  student  solves  problems  involving   the  Addi/onal  and  Suppor/ng
Content 2  for  her  grade/course  with   connec/ons  to  the  Standards  for
Mathema/cal  Prac/ce.
~18  pts  (3-­‐8),
~25  pts  (HS)
Sub-­‐Claim  C:  Highlighted  Prac,ces  MP.
3,6  with  Connec,ons  to  Content 3
(expressing  mathema,cal  reasoning)
The  student  expresses  grade/course-­‐ level  appropriate  mathema/cal   reasoning  by  construc/ng  viable   arguments,  cri/quing  the  reasoning  of   others,  and/or  aZending  to  precision   when  making  mathema/cal  statements.
14  pts  (3-­‐8),
14  pts  (HS)   Sub-­‐Claim  D:  Highlighted  Prac,ce  MP.4  with  Connec,ons  to  Content  (modeling/ applica,on)
The  student  solves  real-­‐world  problems  with  a  degree  of  difficulty  appropriate  to  the   grade/course  by  applying  knowledge  and  skills  ar/culated  in  the  standards  for  the   current  grade/course  (or  for  more  complex  problems,  knowledge  and  skills   ar/culated  in  the  standards  for  previous  grades/courses),   engaging  par0cularly  in  the
Modeling  prac0ce ,  and  where  helpful  making  sense  of  problems  and  persevering  to   solve  them  (MP.  1),reasoning  abstractly  and  quan/ta/vely  (MP.  2),  using  appropriate   tools  strategically  (MP.5),  looking  for  and  making  use  of  structure  (MP.7),  and/or   looking  for  and  expressing  regularity  in  repeated  reasoning  (MP.8).
12  pts  (3-­‐8),
18  pts  (HS)
Sub-­‐Claim  E:  Fluency  in  applicable   grades  (3-­‐6)
The  student  demonstrates  fluency  as  set   forth  in  the  Standards  for  Mathema/cal
Content  in  her  grade.
7-­‐10  pts  (3-­‐6)
2
1  For  the  purposes  of  the  PARCC  Mathema/cs  assessments,  the  Major  Content  in  a  grade/course  is  determined  by  that  grade  level’s  Major  Clusters  as  iden/fied  in  the   PARCC  Model  Content  Frameworks  v.3.0   for
Mathema/cs.    Note  that  tasks  on  PARCC  assessments  providing  evidence  for  this  claim  will  some/mes  require  the  student  to  apply  the  knowledge,  skills,  and  understandings  from  across  several  Major  Clusters.
3
The  Addi/onal  and  Suppor/ng  Content  in  a  grade/course  is  determined  by  that  grade  level’s  Addi/onal  and  Suppor/ng  Clusters  as  iden/fied  in  the   PARCC  Model  Content  Frameworks  v.3.0   for  Mathema/cs.
For  3  –  8,  Sub-­‐Claim  C  includes  only  Major  Content.    For  High  School,  Sub-­‐Claim  C  includes    Major,  Addi/onal  and  Suppor/ng  Content.

English  Language  Arts/Literacy  and  Mathema/cs,  Grades  3-­‐11
2  Op,onal  Assessments/Flexible  Administra,on
Diagnos,c  Assessment
•   Indicator  of  student   knowledge  and  skills   to  inform  instruc/on,   supports,  and  PD
•   Non-­‐summa/ve
Mid-­‐Year  Assessment
•   Performance-­‐based
•   Emphasis  on  hard-­‐ to-­‐measure   standards
•   Poten/ally     summa/ve
Performance-­‐Based
Assessment  (PBA)
•   Extended  tasks
•   Applica/ons  of   concepts  and  skills
•   Required
End-­‐of-­‐Year
Assessment
•   Innova/ve,   computer-­‐based   items
•   Required
Speaking  And  Listening  Assessment
•   Locally  scored
•   Non-­‐summa/ve,  required
8

The  PARCC  Assessment  System:
An  Interconnected  Approach

Evidence-­‐Centered  Design  (ECD)  for  the
PARCC  Assessments
Model  Content  Frameworks
Evidence  Statements
Tasks
To  make  claims   about  what   students  know,  we   must  opera/onalize   the  standards
Based  on  analysis,   evidence  drive  task   development
Tasks  are  designed   to  elicit  specific   evidence  from   students
10
ECD  is  a  deliberate  and  systema/c  approach  to  assessment  development  that   will  help  to   establish  the  validity   of  the  assessments,   increase  the   comparability  of  year-­‐to  year  results,  and   increase  efficiencies/reduce  costs .

Approach  of  the  Model  Content
Frameworks  for  Mathema/cs
11
•   PARCC  Model  Content  Frameworks  provide  a  deep  analysis  of   the  CCSS,  leading  to  more  guidance  on  how  focus,  coherence,   content  and    prac/ces  all  work  together.
•   They   focus  on  framing  the  cri,cal  advances  in  the  standards:
–   Focus
–   Coherence
–   Rigor:  Conceptual  Understanding,  Fluency,
Applica/on/Modeling

Evidence-­‐Centered  Design  (ECD)  for  the
PARCC  Assessments
Model  Content  Frameworks
Evidence  Statements
Tasks
To  make  claims   about  what   students  know,  we   must  opera/onalize   the  standards
Based  on  analysis,   evidence  drive  task   development
Tasks  are  designed   to  elicit  specific   evidence  from   students
12
ECD  is  a  deliberate  and  systema/c  approach  to  assessment  development  that   will  help  to   establish  the  validity   of  the  assessments,   increase  the   comparability  of  year-­‐to  year  results,  and   increase  efficiencies/reduce  costs .

Overview  of  Evidence  Statements:
Types  of  Evidence  Statements
13
Several  types  of  evidence  statements  are  being  used  to   describe  what  a  task  should  be  assessing,  including:
•   Those  using   exact  standards  language
•   Those  transparently   derived  from  exact  standards   language,   e.g.,  by  splijng  a  content  standard
•   Integra,ve  evidence  statements  that  express  plausible  direct   implica/ons  of  the  standards  without  going  beyond  the   standards  to  create  new  requirements
•   Sub-­‐claim  C  &  D  evidence  statements ,  which  put  MP.3,  4,  6  as   primary  with  connec/ons  to  content

14
Overview  of  Evidence  Statements:
Examples
Several  types  of  evidence  statements  are  being  used  to   describe  what  a  task  should  be  elici/ng  from  students,   including:
1.
Those  using   exact  standards  language
Key
8.EE.1
Evidence  Statement  Text
Rela,onship  to
Mathema,cal
MP.7
Prac,ces
Know and apply the properties of integer exponents to generate equivalent numerical expressions .
For example, 3 2
×
3 -5 = 1/3 3 = 1/27.
Clarifications, limits, emphases, and other information intended to ensure appropriate variety in tasks   i) Tasks do not have a context.
ii) Tasks center on the properties and equivalence, not on simplification. For example, a task might ask a student to classify expressions according to whether or not they are equivalent to a given expression.

Overview  of  Evidence  Statements:
Examples
Several  types  of  evidence  statements  are  being  used  to   describe  what  a  task  should  be  elici/ng  from  students,   including:
2.
Those  transparently   derived  from  exact  standards   language,   e.g.,  by  splijng  a  content  standard
Key   Evidence  Statement  Text
Clarifications, limits, emphases, and other information intended to ensure appropriate variety in tasks
8.F.5-1   Describe qualitatively the functional relationship between two quantities by analyzing a graph (e.g., where the function is increasing or decreasing, linear or nonlinear).   i) Pool should contain tasks with and without contexts.
Rela,onship  to
MP
MP.2, MP.5
15
8.F.5-2   Sketch a graph that exhibits the qualitative features of a function that has been described verbally.   i) Pool should contain tasks with and without contexts.
MP.2, MP.5, MP.7

Overview  of  Evidence  Statements:
Examples
16
Several  types  of  evidence  statements  are  being  used  to   describe  what  a  task  should  be  elici/ng  from  students,   including:
3.
Integra,ve  evidence  statements  that  express  plausible  direct   implica/ons  of  the  standards  without  going  beyond  the   standards  to  create  new  requirements
Key   Evidence  Statement  Text
4.Int.1 Solve one-step word problems involving adding or subtracting two four-digit numbers.
Clarifications, limits, emphases, and other information intended to ensure appropriate variety in tasks
The given numbers are such as to require an efficient/standard algorithm (e.g., 7263 + 4875, 7263 – 4875, 7406 – 4637). The given numbers do not suggest any obvious ad hoc or mental strategy (as would be present for example in a case such as16,999 + 3,501 or 7300 – 6301, for example).
Rela,onship
MP.1 to  MP   i) Grade 4 expectations in CCSSM are limited to whole numbers less than or equal to 1,000,000; for purposes of assessment, both of the given numbers should be limited to 4 digits.

Overview  of  Evidence  Statements:
Examples
17
Several  types  of  evidence  statements  are  being  used  to   describe  what  a  task  should  be  elici/ng  from  students,   including:
4.
Sub-­‐claim  C  &  Sub-­‐claim  D  Evidence  Statements ,  which  put
MP.3,  4,  6  as  primary  with  connec/ons  to  content
Key   Evidence  Statement  Text
HS.C.5.11 Given an equation or system of equations, reason about the number or nature of the solutions.
Content scope: A-REI.11, involving any of the function types measured in the standards.
Clarifications, limits, emphases, and other information intended to ensure appropriate variety in tasks   i) For example, students might be asked how many positive solutions there are to the equation ex = x+2 or the equation ex
= x+1, explaining how they know. The student might use technology strategically to plot both sides of the equation without prompting.
Rela,onship   to  MP
MP.3

Overview  of  PARCC  Mathema/cs  Task
Types
Task  Type
I.  Tasks  assessing   concepts,  skills  and   procedures
Descrip,on  of  Task  Type
•   Balance  of  conceptual  understanding,  fluency,  and  applica/on
•   Can  involve  any  or  all  mathema/cal  prac/ce  standards
•   Machine  scorable  including  innova/ve,  computer-­‐based  formats
•   Will  appear  on  the  End  of  Year  and  Performance  Based  Assessment   components
•   Sub-­‐claims  A,  B  and  E
II.  Tasks  assessing   expressing   mathema,cal   reasoning
•   Each  task  calls  for  wriZen  arguments  /  jus/fica/ons,  cri/que  of   reasoning,  or  precision  in  mathema/cal  statements  (MP.3,  6).
•   Can  involve  other  mathema/cal  prac/ce  standards
•   May  include  a  mix  of  machine  scored  and  hand  scored  responses
•   Included  on  the  Performance  Based  Assessment  component
•   Sub-­‐claim  C
III.  Tasks  assessing   modeling  /   applica,ons
18
•   Each  task  calls  for  modeling/applica/on  in  a  real-­‐world  context  or   scenario  (MP.4)
•   Can  involve  other  mathema/cal  prac/ce  standards
•   May  include  a  mix  of  machine  scored  and  hand  scored  responses
•   Included  on  the  Performance  Based  Assessment  component
•   Sub-­‐claim  D
For more information see PARCC Task Development ITN Appendix D.

Evidence-­‐Centered  Design  (ECD)  for  the
PARCC  Assessments
Model  Content  Frameworks
Evidence  Statements
Tasks
To  make  claims   about  what   students  know,  we   must  opera/onalize   the  standards
Based  on  analysis,   evidence  drive  task   development
Tasks  are  designed   to  elicit  specific   evidence  from   students
19
ECD  is  a  deliberate  and  systema/c  approach  to  assessment  development  that   will  help  to   establish  the  validity   of  the  assessments,   increase  the   comparability  of  year-­‐to  year  results,  and   increase  efficiencies/reduce  costs .

20
High  School  Sample  Type  III  Task
•   MP.4:  Model  with  Mathema/cs
•   MP.  2:  Reason  Abstractly  and  Quan/ta/vely
•   F-­‐LE.A.2:Construct  linear  and  exponen/al  func/ons,  including   arithme/c  and  geometric  sequences,  given  a  graph,  a   descrip/on  of  a  rela/onship,  or  two  input-­‐output  pairs
(include  reading  these  from  a  table).
★
•   F-­‐BF.A.2:  Write  arithme/c  and  geometric  sequences  both   recursively  and  with  an  explicit  formula,  use  them  to  model   situa/ons,  and  translate  between  the  two  forms.
★

High  School  Sample  Item,  part  a
21

High  School  Sample  Item,  part  b
22

High  School  Sample  Item,  part  c
23

High  School  Sample  Item,  part  d
24

26
Addi/onal  Sample  Items  for  ELA/Literacy   and  Mathema/cs
Addi/onal  PARCC  Sample  Illustra/ve  Items  for
Mathema/cs  are  available  at  the  following  link:
hZp://www.parcconline.org/samples/item-­‐task-­‐ prototypes

The  PARCC  Assessment  System:

Next  Steps  on  Technology
•
•
•
•
•

The  PARCC  Assessment  System:
Outreach  and  Engagement

Outreach  and  Engagement
•
–   K-­‐16;  Teachers,  Superintendents,  Regional
Superintendents,  IHE  Faculty,  State  DOE  staff
•
•
•

New  Mexico

How  ELC  Members  are  Using  PARCC
Tools  with  Stakeholders  in  Your  States
Curriculum  Development
•   Guide  the  direc/on  of  curriculum  and  the  appropriate  emphases/refine   curriculum  maps
•   Guide  development  of  instruc/onal  outcomes  aligned  to  the  standards
Professional  Development  and  Instruc,on
•   Provide  PD  on  recognizing  the  shins  necessary  in  teaching  and  thinking,   raising  cogni/ve  demand  of  tasks/items,  incorpora/ng  reasoning  and   discussion  into  lessons,  increasing  rigor  of  instruc/on  and  assessment,   understanding  demands  of  the  CCSS
Assessment
•   Guide  development  of  grade  level/course  level  common  assessments
•   Compare  old  state  assessment  items  with  the  new  prototypes
32

How  ELC  Members  are  Using  PARCC
Tools  with  Stakeholders  in  Your  States
Communica,on  and  Awareness
•   Demonstrate  cri/cal  shins
•   Make  presenta/ons  to  raise  awareness  and  share  resources  with   teachers
•   Build  understanding  of  the  expecta/ons  of  the  CCSS  from  grade  to  grade
33

The  PARCC  Assessment:
Suppor,ng  All  Students

Strategies  for  Increasing  Student  Access
•   Provide  item  developers  with  clear   guidelines   for  wri/ng  items  that  are  free  of   bias,  are  sensi/ve  to  diverse  cultures,  are  stated  clearly,    and  use  consistent   formats
•   Drawing  on  na/onal  experts  through  the   Equity  Technical  Working  Group .
•   Require  item  developers  to  use   principals  of  Universal  Design   to  allow   par/cipa/on  of  the  widest  possible  range  of  students,  and  increase  the  likelihood   that    test  ques/ons  measure  only  what  they  are  intended  to  measure
•   Conduct  bias  and  sensi/vity   reviews  and  sta,s,cal  procedures   that  are  designed   to  detect  bias  as  part  of  the  item  development/field  tes/ng  process
•   Develop   common  test  accommoda,on  and  par,cipa,on  policies   for  SWDs  and
ELLs
•   Use   technology   to  provide  and  increase  access  to  tes/ng  accommoda/ons
•   Conduct   research   to  determine  factors  that  promote  or  hinder  accessibility

Latest  News

Latest  News
•
•
•
•
•

www.parcconline.org