RTTT testing consortia applications due June 23

[Monty Neill <monty@fairtest.org>]

 This blog by Ed Week provides some update on what the two main
 consortia are thinking, tho still in quite vague terms. Anyway, we
 should (may?) know more tomorrow when the applications to the Dept of
 Ed are due. I'll be at the US Social Forum, so likely won't be
 weighing in on these - certainly not in any depth - till next week. Monty


 A Sneak Peek at Race to Top Assessment Plans

By Catherine Gewertz 
<http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/high-school-connections/> on June 21, 
2010 4:43 PM

If you want an advance glance at the testing systems that are being 
sketched out by the consortia of states applying for Race to the Top 
money, you have to get on a plane to Detroit.

That's what I found out by flying up here for the Council of Chief State 
School Officers' annual conference on student assessment. 
<http://www.ccsso.org/projects/national_conference_on_student_assessment/1843.cfm> 
One of the sessions at this event was a presentation by the two main 
consortia 
<http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2010/05/race_to_top_assessment_competi_2.html> 
that we know are applying for $320 million in RTT money to design 
comprehensive assessment systems. (Another $30 million is being awarded 
for high school level exams, but no one gave a presentation on that 
here. And by the way, we've heard that the career-tech-ed consortium, 
one of the two groups that filed an intent to apply 
<http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2010/05/more_on_that_mystery_consortiu.html> 
for the high school exam money, decided not to apply after all. That 
leaves a consortium organized by the National Center on Education and 
the Economy 
<http://www.ncee.org/index.jsp;jsessionid=aDOnPl3tvxba?setProtocol=true> 
as the sole applicant, unless a surprise contender pops up.)

We'll have more complete details of what all the consortia have planned 
once they release their applications, which are due on June 23. But in 
the meantime, some interesting tidbits emerged at the presentation here 
in Detroit.

We found out that the Smarter/Balanced consortium has 30 states, and the 
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) 
has 26. Each has a subset of governing states that must commit to full 
implementation of the assessment systems its group designs.

The two consortia have elements in common. Both are capitalizing on 
technology to make better tests. Both will design not just one test, but 
a family of summative, formative, and interim assessments that will work 
together to provide data for many purposes, from state accountability to 
adjusting instruction in real time. Both are using the idea of a 
"distributive" approach to testing, meaning that it's not just one shot 
and you're done. They're talking about incorporating into their testing 
systems student work that spans multiple periods, days or weeks.

Susan Gendron, Maine's former commissioner of education who now is 
policy director 
<http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2010/04/maines_schools_chief_steps_dow.html>of 
the Smarter/Balanced consortium, and Laura Slover, who oversees research 
for Achieve, which is the managing partner of the PARCC consortium, 
pointed out that while the two consortia's plans have common 
elements---and that they plan to work together on some things if both 
win grants---key differences exist between the two. While the 
Smarter/Balanced folks are developing computer-adaptive tests, the PARCC 
group is developing computer-delivered tests---not the same thing. Deep 
teacher involvement in development and scoring of assessments is central 
to the Smarter/Balanced group's work, whereas the PARCC's approach uses 
both human and artificial scoring and allows states to decide how 
involved teachers will be, Gendron and Slover said.

The extent of the change these consortia are attempting to bring about 
was reflected in the two women's answers to a question about test 
security. They said that it was an important question, with much 
grappling yet to come. But Slover said that part of the answer could 
involve "turning the security thing on its head" by moving in a 
direction that might actually require less secrecy. Gendron seemed to 
suggest that being explicit about what students are expected to know, 
and asking them to apply that knowledge in new ways, might shift the 
security question significantly, since the answers aren't just 
fill-in-the-bubble responses, but analytical ones.

Assessment is, of course, big business, so one audience member asked 
when the groups anticipated releasing requests for proposals for the 
work. (I gathered that many test-developer types were in the 
full-to-overflowing room, since ripples of laughter and nods accompanied 
this question.) PARCC plans to have its RFPs out the door in February, 
Slover said, and Smarter/Balanced anticipates havings its own done by 
this fall. (All this planning without even knowing if you will get some 
of that federal money. Just imagine.)

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2010/06/a_sneak_peek_at_race_to_top_as.html 


--
Monty Neill, Ed.D.; Interim Executive Director, FairTest; 15 Court Sq., 
Ste. 820; Boston, MA 02108; 857-350-8207 x 101; fax 857-350-8209; 
monty@fairtest.org; http://www.fairtest.org; Donate to FairTest: 
https://secure.entango.com/donate/MnrXjT8MQqk