Achieve’s ADP
Algebra I and
Algebra II
Exams: A MultiState Effort
Tracy Halka, Achieve, Inc.
thalka@achieve.org
Susan Hudson Hull, Charles A. Dana
Center
shhull@mail.utexas.edu
Today’s Topics
 Background:
Achieve and America Diploma Project (ADP)
 Background:
Charles A. Dana Center
 Background:
ADP Assessment Consortium
 ADP Algebra I End-of-Course Exam
 ADP Algebra II End-of-Course Exam
 Implications and Results
 Resources
5/4/09
2
Background:
Achieve and American Diploma
Project (ADP)
5/4/09
3
About Achieve
 Achieve, Inc., was created by the nation’s
governors and business leaders in 1996 following
the first National Education Summit.
 Achieve is a bipartisan, non-profit organization
that helps states raise academic standards,
improve assessments, and strengthen
accountability to prepare all young people for
postsecondary education, work, and citizenship.
4
An Expectations Gap
 Historically, we haven’t expected all students to
graduate from high school college- and careerready
 State standards reflect consensus about what is
desirable, not what is essential
 Few states required advanced math for
graduation
 State tests measure 8th and 9th grade knowledge
and skills
 High school accountability rarely focuses on
graduation rates or on college- and workreadiness
5
American Diploma Project
 The American Diploma Project (ADP) was created to
ensure all graduates leave high school ready for
college and careers.
 Early research by ADP sought to identify “musthave” knowledge and skills graduates will need to be
successful in college and the workplace.
6
American Diploma Project
 Found a convergence between the skills that high
school graduates need to be successful in college
and those they need to be successful in a job that
supports a family and offers career advancement.
 Developed ADP benchmarks that include the core
content and skills in mathematics and English all
students should have when they graduate high
school.
7
Key findings
 In mathematics, graduates need strong
computation skills, ability to solve challenging
problems, reasoning skills, geometry, data
analysis, statistics, and advanced algebra.
 Essentially, they need the knowledge and skills
typically taught in courses such as Algebra I,
Algebra II and Geometry, as well as data
analysis and statistics.
 In English, graduates need strong reading,
writing and oral communication skills equal to
four years of grade-level coursework, as well as
research and logical reasoning skills.
8
The ADP Benchmarks:
Challenging Content for All Students
To cover the content in the ADP benchmarks, high
school graduates need:
 In Mathematics:
 A rigorous four-year
course sequence
 Content* equivalent to a
sequence that includes
Algebra I and II,
Geometry, and Data
Analysis & Statistics
* can be taught via different
pathways
 In
English:
 Four courses
 Content equivalent to
four years of gradelevel English or higher
with a strong focus on
oral and written
communication skills
and considerable
research and analysis
9
“For too many graduates, the
American high school diploma
signifies only a broken promise.”
 The American Diploma Project (ADP) report
Ready or Not: Creating a High School
Diploma That Counts (2004) called attention
to the critical gap between the expectations
for high school graduation and those of
postsecondary institutions and employers.
 At the National Education Summit on High
Schools in 2005, Achieve launched the
American Diploma Project Network of 13
states working toward the common goal of
closing the expectations gap.
10
American Diploma Project Network
Agenda
 ADP Network states have committed to four
policy actions to better prepare students for
college, the workplace and citizenship.
 Align high school standards with the demands
of college and careers.
 Require students to take a college- and careerready curriculum to earn a high school diploma.
 Build college- and career-ready measures into
statewide high school assessment systems.
 Develop reporting and accountability systems
that promote college and career readiness.
11
The ADP Network now includes 34
states educating nearly 85 percent of
the nation’s students.
VT
WA
ND
MT
OR
MI
PA
IA
NE
UT
NY
WI
WY
NV
CO
NH
MA
MN
SD
ID
ME
IL
KS
IN
NJ
DE
WV
VA
KY
MO
CA
OH
RI
CT
MD
DC
NC
TN
AZ
OK
NM
SC
AR
MS
TX
AL
GA
LA
FL
AK
HI
5/4/09
12
Background:
Charles A. Dana Center
5/4/09
13
Charles A. Dana Center
The University of Texas at Austin
• We work at all levels of the
education system—school
districts, state, and national—to
strengthen teaching and learning.
• We focus on enhancing system
capacity to provide every student
with a rigorous and relevant
education, particularly in
mathematics and science. 5/4/09
14
Charles A. Dana Center
The University of Texas at Austin
We create resources and support for…
• mathematics and science teachers
• administrators and leaders
• districts
• higher education mathematics faculty
5/4/09
15
Charles A. Dana Center
The University of Texas at Austin
We work in collaboration with and
through…
• National networks (UMLN, Aspen
Supts, CAOs, MSAN, UMELA)
• National organizations (Achieve,
CCSSA, NGA, MCEC)
• State departments of education (RI,
IN, WA)
• District-level leadership
5/4/09
16
Charles A. Dana Center
The University of Texas at Austin
Current research and development initiatives
from the Dana Center
• Advanced Mathematical Decision Making—a 4th year
alternative to Precalculus
• Support for Algebra II—Advanced Mathematics for All
(Alg II with Agile Mind)
• Support for Algebra I students—Academic Youth
Development
• Intensified Algebra I—resources for double-block
Algebra I
• Agile Mind course supports (middle school–Calculus)
5/4/09
17
Background:
ADP Assessment Consortium
5/4/09
18
ADP Assessment Consortium
 In 2005, ADP states began to explore
possibility of collaborating on common
assessment goals:
 To measure “college-ready” content
 To ensure consistent content and rigor in
Algebra II courses within and among states
 To enable comparisons in performance among
the states
 To reduce test development costs by working
together
 To indicate readiness for entry into creditbearing mathematics courses
19
ADP Assessment Consortium
In summer 2006, nine states issued RFP for
the development of an Algebra II EOC
Exam:
Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island
Ohio acted as “lead state” in unprecedented
multi-state
procurement arrangement
Vendor (Pearson) selected in Feb 2007
Since the consortium began, six additional
states have joined:
Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota,
North Carolina, and Washington
More states are expressing
interest in the exam and
joining the consortium…
5/4/09
20
ADP Assessment Consortium
 States worked together to agree on test content
and design specifications
 Involved high school teachers and higher
education mathematics faculty
 Content aligned with ADP mathematics
benchmarks, which represent what students
should know to be prepared for postsecondary
success
 Performance levels will be common across
states
 Consortium cross-state report will be
published each year
21
ADP Assessment Consortium
 A subset of states expressed an interest to create
an Algebra I End-of-Course Exam. Its goals
support the Algebra II goals:
   To improve curriculum and instruction.
To help high schools determine if students are ready
for a rigorous Algebra II course and higher level
mathematics.
To compare performance and progress among the
participating states.
 Current states involved in ADP Algebra I EOC
development:
 Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania and Kentucky
22
State Usage Varies
 Some states require all students who take the
course(s) to take the exam(s)
 Most states allow districts to make decisions
about whether to require exam(s)
 Some states make the exam(s) part of certain
state initiatives
23
ADP Algebra I End-of-Course
Exam
5/4/09
24
Algebra I End-of-Course Exam
To date, over
41,000
students
across 5 states are registered to
take the ADP Algebra I End-ofCourse Exam!
5/4/09
25
Algebra I End-of-Course Exam Content
 The Exam Standards were created in the
same spirit of the Algebra II Exam
Standards. Four standards are assessed on
the Algebra I Exam:
 Operations on Numbers and Expressions
 Linear Relationships
 Non-linear Relationships
 Data, Statistics, and Probability
26
Algebra I End-of-Course Exam Content
 2 sessions, one calculator, one noncalculator
 Each session is untimed, although 60
minutes per session is recommended.
27
Algebra I End-of-Course Exam Content
5/4/09
28
ADP Algebra I End-of-Course
Exam Items and Tasks
5/4/09
29
Algebra I Assessments
Your turn!
 Do the ADP Algebra I End-of-Course
exam items reflect content appropriate
to Algebra I?
 Do these tasks reflect what you want
students to know from Algebra I?
 How do these tasks relate to summative
assessments items?
 How could you use these tasks with
teachers or students?
5/4/09
30
ADP Algebra II End-of-Course
Exam
5/4/09
31
Algebra II End-of-Course Exam
To date, over
132,000
students
across 13 states are registered to
take the ADP Algebra II End-ofCourse Exam!
Last year at this time, 111,000 students were
registered, with nearly 90,000 scores reported.
5/4/09
32
Algebra II End-of-Course Exam Content
Core Exam:
 Operations on Numbers and Expressions
 Equations and Inequalities
 Polynomial and Rational Functions
 Exponential functions
 Function Operations and Inverses
Modules:
 Data & Statistics
 Probability
 Trigonometric
Functions
 Logarithmic
Functions
 Matrices
 Conic Sections
 Sequences &
Series
33
Algebra II End-of-Course Exam Content
 2 sessions, one calculator, one noncalculator
 Each session is untimed, although 90
minutes per session is recommended.
34
Algebra II End-of-Course Exam Content
5/4/09
35
ADP Algebra I End-of-Course
Exam Items and Tasks
5/4/09
36
Algebra II Assessments
Your turn!
 Do the Algebra II End-of-Course exam
items reflect content appropriate to
Algebra II?
 Do these tasks reflect what you want
students to know from Algebra II?
 How do these tasks relate to summative
assessments items?
 How could you use these tasks with
teachers or students?
5/4/09
37
Results and Implications
5/4/09
38
Spring 2008 Administration:
Who Took the Exam?
*MD and MA did not administer the exam in Spring 2008.
5/4/09
39
2008 Results:
How Did Students Perform?
Interpretation challenges in 1st year
 the number of test takers varied
significantly across the states
 performance standards or “cut scores” have
not yet been established
Although scores cannot yet be used to
compare one state’s performance to
another, the results of the first
administration provide some interesting
insight when taken in aggregate.
5/4/09
40
2008 Results:
How Did Students Perform?
5/4/09
41
Achieve
Annual Cross-State Report
Findings
 Student performance was low across all states and in
all content strands
 Constructed response items are a particular challenge
for students
 Students who take Algebra II in earlier grades tend
to perform better
www.achieve.org/files/ADPAlgebraIIEnd-Of-CourseExam2008AnnualReport.pdf
5/4/09
42
The Majority of Graduates Would Have Taken
Harder Courses, Particularly in Mathematics
Knowing what you know today about the expectations of college/work …
Would have taken more
challenging courses in at
least one area
Would have taken
more challenging
courses in:
Math
Science
English
Source: Peter D. Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies. (2005) Rising to the
Challenge: Are High School Graduates Prepared for College and Work? Washington, DC: Achieve.
5/4/09
43
Implications
Algebra I for all…
• Need for rigorous and accessible Algebra I
• Need student support to ensure students
understand Algebra I
Algebra II for all…
• Need for rigorous and accessible Algebra II
After Algebra II for all…
• Does this mean Precalculus for all?
5/4/09
44
Algebra II Assessments
Implications
What are implications for…
 Your campus?
 Your district?
 Your state?
5/4/09
45
Resources
5/4/09
46
www.achieve.org
Tracy Halka~thalka@achieve.org
Link for
ADP
Algebra
Consortium
information
www.achieve.org/ADPAssessmentConsortium
5/4/09
47
ADP Assessment Consortium
http://www.achieve.org/ADPAssessmentConsortium
Algebra I Overview
Algebra II Overview
 Fact Sheet
 Exam Standards
 Expected Knowledge
 Test Blueprint
 Notation Document
 ADP Calculator Policy
 Released Items and
Commentaries
 Fact Sheet
 Exam Standards
 Expected Knowledge
 Test Blueprint
 Notation Document
 ADP Calculator Policy
 Released Items and
Commentaries
5/4/09
48
www.utdanacenter.org
Susan Hudson Hull~shhull@mail.utexas.edu
5/4/09
49
5/4/09
50
5/4/09
51
5/4/09
52
4th year course:
Audience/Purpose
Advanced Mathematical Decision Making:
 Rigorous, relevant course to follow Algebra II
 Important math not currently addressed;
assumes some fluency with
Algebra I and Geometry
 4th-year math requirement for non-STEM majors
or for workforce-training-program-intending
 Possible elective for calculus-intending students
 Coherent part of PK-12 math program
5/4/09
53
4th year course: Philosophy/
Approach
Advanced Mathematical Decision Making:
 Modeling and reasoning throughout
 Range of contexts
 Strong financial strand
 Students communicating and presenting
 Projects, extended problems appropriate
 Appropriate technology used to extend
mathematical understanding and allow
complex problem solving
5/4/09
54
4th year course: Five content topics
proposed
Advanced Mathematical Decision Making:
 Using the Statistical Process
 Analyzing Information with Probability and Data
 Modeling Change and Relationships
 Mathematical Decision Making in
Finance and Society
 Spatial and Geometric Modeling for
5/4/09
Decision Making
55
For more information,
please visit Achieve, Inc., on the Web at
http://www.achieve.org
and the Dana Center website at
http://www.utdanaceter.org
Information on Achieve’s standards are
also available on a joint Achieve/Dana
Center Website at
http://www.utdanacenter.org/k12mathbenchmarks/
5/4/09
56
For more information or handouts
Contact:
Tracy Halka, Achieve, Inc.
thalka@achieve.org
Susan Hudson Hull, Charles A. Dana Center
shhull@mail.utexas.edu
5/4/09
57
Achieve’s ADP
Algebra I and
Algebra II
Exams: A MultiState Effort
Tracy Halka, Achieve, Inc.
thalka@achieve.org
Susan Hudson Hull, Charles A. Dana
Center
shhull@mail.utexas.edu