PARCC Higher Education Webinar: Reviewing State-Level
Stakeholder Engagement Strategies and Feedback for the
CRD and PLDs
August 2012
Presented by:
Allison Jones, Vice President for Postsecondary Collaboration, Achieve
Callie Riley, Program Associate, Postsecondary Engagement, Achieve
Lynn Brabender, Policy Intern, Postsecondary Engagement, Achieve
Overview of Today’s Session
• Introduction and Welcome: 3 minutes
• Review of Initial Feedback: 10 minutes
—Q and A: 10 minutes
• Review of State Strategies: 10 Minutes
—Q and A: 10 Minutes
• Areas of Additional Support Needed: 15 Minutes
• Revised Timeline: 2 minutes
2
Review of Initial Feedback
3
Public Feedback Survey Questions
• Each state received an identical survey to
disseminate to its key stakeholder groups
• Many states have used the surveys to solicit
feedback on issues related to the CollegeReady Determination policy and Performance
Level Descriptors by adding questions
• States are receiving varying levels of
responses—for this webinar, we will focus on
concerns from the field
4
Question 1: Key Takeaways
• PARCC is planning to use five performance levels to report
student results on the PARCC assessments. These levels are
currently named Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, and Level 5.
Level 5 is the highest performance level. To what extent do you
agree that five levels is the appropriate number for use on the
PARCC assessment?
—Too many levels
• Suggest 4 levels
• 1-3 are too similar, how will we differentiate and will this lead to
problems
• Will students in level 2 be overlooked by interventions
—Will scale scores be available?
5
Question 1a: Key Takeaways
• If PARCC were to name the levels, what names do you believe
would best align with the descriptions contained in the policylevel descriptors?
– Suggestions for naming the levels fell into the following
categories:
• College Readiness Based
• Knowledge/skills Based
• Remediation Based
6
Question 2: Key Takeaways
• Each PARCC performance level descriptor includes two components: (1) a
policy claim, which describes the educational implications for students at a
particular performance level; and (2) general content claims, which describe
the academic knowledge and skills students performing at a given
performance level are able to demonstrate, regardless of grade level. To
what extent do you agree that the language of the policy claims at all grade
levels clearly describes a student’s academic preparedness and ability to
pursue further study at each performance level?
— Wording is vague and definitions adequate but not strong enough
— May be interpreted to indicate that students below level 3 need
remediation
— Performance level descriptors do not reflect that students who fall in the
1-3 range might need non-academic supports and interventions
— Acceptance of scores across states
7
Question 3: Key Takeaways
• In order to inform the standard-setting process that will be used to
identify the threshold scores students will need to achieve on the
PARCC high school assessments to earn a College-Ready
Determination, and to conduct future studies to validate the efficacy
of those Determinations, the draft policy states that at least 75% of
students performing at Level 4 will earn college credit by attaining at
least a grade of C or its equivalent in introductory courses in English
and mathematics. To what extent do you agree with these criteria
(i.e., 75% will earn at least a C)?
—Validation
• Where is the research?
• What is the rational?
—Likelihood of achieving a “C” might differ by institution
8
Question 4: Key Takeaways
• To what extent do you agree that College Algebra or
Introductory Statistics are the appropriate entry-level, creditbearing courses to which the mathematics College-Ready
Determination should apply?
—Liberal Arts Math and/or other entry level math courses
should be included
—Consider broadening the definition rather than prescribing
particular courses
9
Question 5: Key Takeaways
• To what extent do you agree that College English Composition
or Literature and introductory courses that require college-level
reading, such as the social sciences and history, are the
appropriate entry-level, credit-bearing courses to which the
ELA/literacy College-Ready Determination should apply?
– States generally agree with the ELA/literacy College-Ready
Determination
– The definition was well received due to perceived flexibility
10
Questions and Discussion
11
Review of State Strategies
12
The Purpose of the Stakeholder
Input Process
1. Strengthen the draft PARCC CRDs and PLDs through strong
and targeted feedback from multiple perspectives.
2. Build awareness and understanding of the draft policies
among critical stakeholders.
3. Encourage support and buy-in for the draft policies by giving
critical players and the public the opportunity to engage in
the development process.
4. Inform the decisions of the Governing Board and ACCR
members when they finalize the PARCC college-ready
determination policy and PLDS later this fall.
13
Postsecondary Stakeholders
• State Directors and Commissioners of Higher Education
• Presidents of Two- and Four-Year Colleges
• Directors of Developmental Education Programs at Two and
Four Year Colleges
• Governor’s Office
• Education Advocacy Organization Representatives
• Foundations/Philanthropy
• Legislative Leaders
• Faculty Leaders
• Department Chairs
14
What States Are Doing…
•
New York
— Developed a set of documents and guiding questions to use with SUNY and
CUNY representatives instead of the online survey
— Consolidating the feedback received both in conversations and in writing to
submit to PARCC, Governing Board and ACCR reps
•
Massachusetts
— Enhanced state-specific survey to ask additional key questions
— Using existing in-state structure to solicit responses
•
New Jersey
15
— Convened Council of Presidents PARCC Committee
— Presidents and VPAAs tasked with communicating to individual campuses and
collecting feedback
— Committee to review comments from all campuses to create a “New Jersey
higher education response”
Expectations for Collaborating with
K-12 to Compile and Report Survey
Data
• Assemble K-12 and postsecondary teams of critical stakeholders
• Disseminate draft College-Ready Determination policy and
Performance Level Descriptors via multiple communication and
engagement methods
• Continuous access and review of feedback and responses collected
on the state-specific survey
• K-12 and Higher Education Leadership Team members will work
together to analyze and report state responses
• K-12 and Higher Education Leadership Team members will present
state responses to state Governing Board and ACCR members
• State K-12 and Higher Education leadership team members will
provide a state-level summary of feedback and recommendations for
16
revisions to the draft policies by September 21, 2012
Questions and Discussion
17
Areas of Additional Support
Needed
18
Key Questions
1.
Has your state identified or established a feedback team for the PLDs and College
Ready Determination (CRD)?
What strategies or activities have you pursued to gain feedback on the PLDs and
CRD?
What key stakeholders have been involved in these strategies or activities?
What have you learned so far about the process of gathering feedback on the
PLDs and CRD – what is working well and what strategies or activities need
adjustments?
What are your plans for gathering additional feedback by August 24? By
September 21?
What are your plans for compiling and synthesizing feedback and communicating
it to your Governing Board member or ACCR representative? To PARCC?
What additional support do you need from PARCC for stakeholder engagement on
the PLDs and CRD in your state?
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
19
Public Review Timeline:
Summer/Fall 2012
• August 24, 2012: Preliminary feedback from states due (for inclusion in September
12th Joint ACCR/GB meeting information)
• September 12, 2012: Present preliminary aggregated feedback to Joint ACCR/GB
• September 21, 2012: End of public feedback/review period
• September 22 – October 12, 2012: Review feedback and revise CRD/PLDs policy
proposal (with Performance Level Operational Working Group)
• October 15, 2012: Send revised CRD/PLDs policy proposal to ACCR/GB for review
• October 25, 2012 (in conjunction with Transition and Implementation Institute):
Hold special face-to-face session with ACCR/GB members (conference in remote
members) for final vote on CRD/PLD policy
• Duration of Fall 2012: Create content-level descriptors for review by K-12 and
higher education
20
Contact Information:
Allison Jones: ajones@achieve.org
Callie Riley: criley@achieve.org
Lynn Brabender: lbrabender@achieve.org
www.parcconline.org/crd-pld-survey
www.parcconline.org/highered-webinars
21