Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Continued discussion on assessment

Doherty: my head is filled with numbers
"there's no real predictive" on PARCC and MCAS
"if we're going to go through Door number 3...are we going to do more than just rename PARCC to MCAS 2?"
"it sounds to me as if we want to keep PARCC but drop the consortium?"
would like to know if there's more to it than that
"I'm not looking for the answer now, but I'd like it more than fifteen minutes before we're going to vote."
is it the development of a new test?
If it is, who is going to develop it?
if we go through Door #3, what is our relationship with the consortium?
Sagan: do you envision reacting in writing?
Chester: those are great questions that you asked
"I'm only in a thinking through it phase"
"recommending to the Board that we not just stick with MCAS as it is now; that we not just adopt PARCC and hope that it's a great test, but that we go down a path of developing our own test"
that we go off of the development that has been done of PARCC, but "not limit ourselves to PARCC"
"going down that path means going through" ann RFP, possible to think of that as a mulit-stage
build MCAS 2.0, capturing as much of the intellectual capital that we've invested
"outline a multi-year process for building a refreshing and updating our MCAS exam"
what's not clear to me right now is if that means everyone takes PARCC this coming spring? That's one possibility.
Not interested in going back to MCAS 1.0 "I think that's a step backward"
how do we advance in the direction of MCAS 2.0?
"And there will be an expense to the state...and it won't be a trival expense"
Sagan: and what will be the relationship to the PARCC entity?
previously seemed as if you're in the club or you're not in the club; now sounds as if there may be different levels of membership
need to have a legal agreement with them
Chester: we were successful in winning a grant to build the test we wanted
"it's work that we did; it's work that Massachusetts did."
Willyard: what are we even voting on next month?
thought we were either voting to stay in consortium or not
Sagan:used to be a binary model but PARCC has raised that they're experimenting with other models
Noyce: I'm not comfortable making a decision along the lines the Commissioner has presented to us
other members concerned that we'd lose autonomy
"I'm less concerned about that, as it seemed to be largely at the margins"
timeline for getting MCAS 2.0?
Morton: what is the remaining work of PARCC? How are we going to rely on PARCC moving forward?
Chester: responding in a dialogue:
if we were building a next generation MCAS from scratch...that's probably...and we'd very much want Massachusetts educators involved...that's easily a three year timeframe
wait, what else takes three years?
could be four years, til we're up and running
building off of the development of PARCC, we're talking a much more accelerated timeline
PARCC has developed about four years of content
"if we decide that we want a feature that is not part of the consortiums, we can develop it"
if there are elements of the PARCC asssessment that don't make sense, we can move those out
membership in the consortium: issue "we need to be smart about and keep our eye on"
has never been a static entity, has changed over time
commitment from the states has been to do what's in the best interests of the states
Moriarty: does this have some valuable help in closing the achievement gap and advancing learning? I'm hearing not.
Sagan: not what I heard at all, may be predictive in the same way, but underlying very different
Moriarity "I just don't see these quantitative differences in the data" as described
"The one thing I would have hoped...there's was always going to be an MCAS 2.0"
what can the administration do for us in MCAS 2.0? "or do we lanquish for seventh and eighth graders in two or three years?"
Peyser: if this appears as if we're kicking the can down the road, then I agree.
what MCAS 2.0 is supposed to look like
part of that is showing us that this kind of assessment is the basis for which we should be building MCAS 2.0
governance questions have been an overlay of that
perhaps RFP to go out and clarify what it will take to get us to MCAS 2.0, what's the timeline going to be, what's the costs
"if that's the decision we make, it won't be drift, it will be a clear fork in the road that we've taken"
Wulfson says at a minimum, DESE would need to know what test would be conducted in the spring
Noyce: "I don't know that a test can close gaps, but one of the important arguments for me on PARCC is it's a much deeper signal for college"
"to me, calling something MCAS 2.0 is just a way of putting a Massachusetts stamp on it"
would like to see us give PARCC in the spring, and say to the state that we've developed this test, but going forward, we'd like to take this test and make it our own Massachusetts test
Sagan: that we have to call it MCAS by law
Moriarity: summative test puts lights on them so you can close them
Willyard: always saw us as forwarding the MCAS
Morton: couple of concerns: one is the technology issue
"recognize it isn't only on this assessment" but something beyond
"looking for places where it could be in the budget" as it isn't yet
"we're going to want as a department and a board about what we're going to do on the technology piece"
"get our schools across the Commonwealth up to speed so all children can have the benefit"
other concern I have is "collaboration on any level is different, but I think that collaboration on all levels is important"
"if only to pull those states together for a test that works for all children across the country"
achievement gap "is a national issue"
"owe it to be part of these efforts across the country"
Chester: honest set of expectations across states
"goes to Penny's question: is there an opportunity to remain part of a cooperative" if there are areas that we think don't do justice to what we think are covered, we can set our own destiny
don't think we've done justice to the efforts on the technology gap
talked to MSBA about floating low interest loans for technlogy
"a number of pieces in motion for support to districts for technology"

No comments: