MCAS 2.0 Test Administration Workgroup
SUMMARY
Workgroup Members’ Names and Professional Affiliations
First
Name
Michol
Last Name
District/School Affiliation
Title
Stapel
Bob
Lee
Jodie
Zalk
Acting Associate Commissioner for
Student Assessment
MCAS Chief Analyst and PARCC
Coordinator
Test Administration Coordinator
Matt
Deninger
Valerie
Annear
MA Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education, Student Assessment Services
MA Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education, Student Assessment Services
MA Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education, Student Assessment Services
MA Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education Office of Planning and Research,
Delivery Unit
East Longmeadow Public Schools
Melissa
Amanda
Jessica
Rocco
Kerry
Michelle
Eakins-Ryan
Gorham
Greenfield
Grover-Silvestri
Hutchins
Kane
Michelle
Denise
Massa
Matuszczak
Bourne Middle School
Worcester Public Schools
The Learning Center for the Deaf
Roberts Elementary School, Medford
Hill-Roberts Elementary School, Attleboro
Col. John Robinson School and John Crisafulli
School, Westford
Adams School, Everett
Springfield Public Schools
Josh
Tracy
Murphy
Oliveira
Burlington Public Schools
Dartmouth Public Schools
Charles
Pouliot
Lowell High School
Kristyn
Brittany
Linda
Sullivan
Vetter
Weber
Lawrence Public Schools
Excel Academy Charter School
Natick High School
Lisa
White
Plymouth Public Schools
Sharon
Wolder
Brockton High School
Planning and Implementation
Coordinator
Director of Curriculum, Instruction,
and Assessment
Principal
Testing and Evaluation Specialist
MCAS/State Testing Coordinator
Assistant Principal
Math Coach
Assistant Principal
Principal
Administrator of Digital Learning
and Assessment
Director of Student Information
Director of Curriculum, Title I, and
Mentoring
Instructional Specialist/MCAS Test
Coordinator
Coordinator of Assessment
Sixth Grade English Teacher
Science Department Head and
Science Teacher
K–12 English Language Arts and
Library Media Curriculum
Coordinator
Principal
MCAS 2.0 Test Administration Workgroup meetings were held at the Department on the following
dates:


January 29 (2 ½ hour meeting)
March 10 (2 hour meeting)
1
MCAS 2.0 Test Administration Workgroup Summary – March 2016
Discussions centered on policies related to testing time, testing windows and scheduling, phasing in
computer-based testing, professional development, and other future directions for the emerging MCAS
2.0 assessments.
Members were selected for the workgroup based on their experience in scheduling MCAS and PARCC
tests, including those with experience with PARCC computer-based testing. Group members provided
comments based on their perspectives and experiences administering either or both tests, and they
developed recommendations they felt would best address the needs of Massachusetts students on
future assessments. Members understood that they served in an advisory role, and that the Department
and the Board would ultimately make determinations on which policies and recommendations were
adopted.
Department staff and workgroup members together prioritized their first meeting agenda to address
topics that would inform the immediate development of a Request for Responses for a test contractor
to conduct the MCAS 2.0 assessment; additional topics were addressed at the second meeting. The
group addressed all of the topics listed below and provided extensive comments and recommendations.
In addition to convening the workgroup, the Department solicited input on several key questions via an
online survey that was emailed to individuals who had expressed interest in serving on this workgroup.
Survey results are appended to this document.
 Discussion question: When should testing and reporting occur?
o Recommendation: In general, there was support for testing to occur during one longer
window in late spring, as opposed to the current MCAS schedule of two shorter windows at
different times in the spring semester. The group preferred this schedule, for the following
reasons: it allows for adequate instructional preparation, minimizes disruptive periods
during the school year, and decreases the chances for interruptions and issues related to
weather. At the high school level, there are some concerns about moving ELA testing to
May, since school resources would be stretched thin for Advanced Placement testing at the
same time.
Department staff informed the workgroup that the testing schedule is anchored to the
reporting schedule. Some workgroup members use preliminary results to plan summer
supports and fall placements, but most felt that if there are competing priorities,
preliminary reporting could be pushed out a little later than has been traditionally done.
 Discussion question: Should there be fewer/longer sessions, or more/shorter sessions?
o Recommendation: Workgroup members were split on this question by the grades they
serve. It was generally felt that it is more developmentally appropriate to have
more/shorter sessions for the elementary grades (grades 3–5) and to have fewer/longer
sessions for middle and high schools.
 Discussion question: What are thoughts on timed vs. untimed tests?
o Recommendation: Although the group was somewhat split over the issue of timed testing,
there was a general acknowledgement that, with limited computer resources in schools,
2
MCAS 2.0 Test Administration Workgroup Summary – March 2016
timed tests should be considered for logistical planning; e.g., schools will likely need to
administer two sessions in one day (either with the same group of students or different
groups). However, most of the members said that timed tests would be acceptable only if
the tests are “generously” timed and provided that untimed testing continues to be
permitted for students with disabilities, ELL students, and perhaps other students at the
principal’s discretion (similar to PARCC accessibility features or administration
considerations).
Some of the workgroup members who were in favor of continuing untimed testing
recommended that the Department prioritize certain tests to remain untimed – those tasks
that do not assess fluency, or tests for elementary school students.
 Discussion question: What are some thoughts on phasing in computer-based testing?
o Recommendation: Concerns regarding digital readiness for staff as well as students were
expressed, along with concerns on the aggressive timeline. Members asked for professional
development and support in ramping up for computer-based testing.
 Discussion question: What are some thoughts on the future directions listed below?
A. Which option would be preferred for field testing – an embedded field test or
standalone?
B. What kinds of resources are needed to make school communities comfortable with
automated essay scoring being used?
C. How are essay images used?
D. What professional development opportunities would be worthwhile?
o Recommendations:
A. Workgroup members liked the idea of a standalone field test in the first year of a
program so that they could gain experience in administering new test questions and so
students could experience new item types. Beyond that, they preferred to have an
embedded field test design (similar to the current MCAS design).
B. Some members supported automated essay scoring, while others were unsure of the
state of the technology. All the members recommended providing resources and
information to school communities, with some members asking if a scoring tool could
be made available for diagnostic purposes.
C. Currently, the Department makes available to schools the images of students’ responses
to the ELA Composition writing prompt. The workgroups members thought that it was
essential to continue this practice for constructed-response items in the future,
particularly in relation to the introduction of new item types and methods of scoring.
D. Workgroup members recommended professional development on topics including
digital readiness and making meaningful connections between curriculum and
assessment. Recommendations were also made for leveraging networks – e.g.,
delivering training via DSACs or MOEC, or perhaps developing a model similar to the
MCAS-Alt teacher specialists who train teachers in other districts.
3
MCAS 2.0 Test Administration Workgroup Summary – March 2016