Message: EOC FAQ

EOC FAQ
EOC FAQ

From | Bowles, Nancy | Date Wednesday, September 13, 2017 4:31 PM

To | Preis, Stacey
Cc |
Subject | EOC FAQ

EOC FAQ final merge.docx (62 Kb )

Stacey,

Jeff just stopped by, so now we have all our answers. Please let me know if I can help with anything else.

Nancy Bowles | Communications Specialist | 573-522-8311 | dese.mo.gov | facebook.com/MOEducation | twitter.com/MOEducation | youtube.com/MODeptofEducation

EOC FAQ

INTRODUCTION

We are extremely frustrated with our vendor’s inability to deliver usable results. We know that Missouri students, teachers and districts work hard throughout the year, and they are counting on us to get this right. We know you have questions. Below are the most common questions we heard from districts in our discussions about this issue.

RAW V. DISTRICT EOC SCORES

1. Is it possible to release the state's passing percentages for EOCs in spring 2017 in order to understand the comparability issue?

State totals for English II and Algebra I were not released this year.

1. Can you clarify with more detail exactly what was wrong that triggered the review? You keep mentioning the pattern. What exactly was the pattern?

Toward the end of the spring testing window, DESE began to hear from districts that their Algebra I and/or English II scores were lower than anticipated. This pattern – unexpected overall scores – was not visible to us until we received statewide results from the EOC vendor, Questar. The difference between the two years was large enough to prompt questions about whether the scores reflected a true change in performance from year to year.

1. 2018 is the first year the new Missouri Learning Standards in math and ELA are to be assessed. Is there a chance that was a reason for the assessment not comparing? Did teachers start teaching the new standards too soon?

Although it is possible curricular shifts toward new standards could have affected student performance, there is no evidence this is the case.

The questions under number 4 all address the results of the assessments and issues with comparability.

1. Why are raw scores okay, but final EOC scores are not? Do we disregard the previous data that we saw? Are raw scores still valid to use for student grades in Algebra I and English II?

Why weren’t the assessments comparable from 2016 to 2017? Does that not indicate a problem with the scale but not a problem with the scores? Why not adjust the scale? From previous correspondence, we understand that the forms issue was within the forms of the 2017 Algebra I and English II EOCs, but was it really between the forms from 2016 to 2017? If these were not new forms, one could assume that they have been used more than once in the past. How do the scale-score data on these differ from when these forms were used in the past? What do we do with the data? Are the scores comparable across students?

Algebra I and English II are not comparable between 2016 and 2017. Achievement levels in 2017 were notably lower than in 2016. Raw score performance was not notably different from one year to the next. After its analysis, DESE’s Assessment Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) concluded that the cut scores on one form appeared to be more stringent than those on the other form. Since the 2017 cut scores do not align with cut scores from the 2016 assessments, comparisons would be unreliable. The TAC considered a number of options, including adjustments to scale scores, and could not reach agreement on a psychometrically sound approach for modifying the 2017 results in such a way that they could be used for year-to-year comparison.

The Algebra I and English II assessment forms were administered in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Scale- score data indicate that the assessments were not comparable from 2016 to 2017.

Assessments are built from blueprints, documents that specify the content standards that should be tested, the range of score points tested, and the types of assessment questions that are included. It is common for an assessment such as the Algebra and English EOCs to be made up of multiple assessment forms that follow the master blueprint. Although the content tested is the same in each form of the assessment, the questions themselves may differ. In this case, the measures used to ensure comparability between the assessment forms did not function.

The raw scores accurately reflect student performance on the individual assessment forms. The individual assessment forms themselves were deemed accurate and reliable by DESE’s TAC. There were no issues with comparability of raw scores from year to year. Consistent with previous DESE guidance, raw scores may be used for local purposes, including student grade calculations. The 2017 achievement level designations should not be compared to prior years.

The questions under number 5 address score reports and data files.

1. What about other EOC assessments? We give the English 1 EOC also. Is E1 also not comparable? What about Algebra II?

English II and Algebra I are the only EOCs that are not comparable.

Do we need to send home new reports with only the raw scores for the Algebra 1 and English 2 EOCs? What type of data/file set will we receive from DESE? We upload EOC scores to our school information system to track completed EOC assessments. Will we receive a file for Algebra I and ELA II for 2016-17 to upload?

Reports are currently being developed and/or updated. We welcome specific contact about what data you wish to upload (raw score, participation, etc.). Raw scores may be used for local purposes, including student grades. The achievement levels contained in ISRs, student record labels and score rosters provided by Questar should not be characterized as “wrong.” They simply cannot be compared from 2016 to 2017.

A+ ELIGIBILITY

1. Please address how this will impact A+.
   Student record labels may be used as appropriate. DESE reminds the public that the responsibility to designate students as A+ eligible is at the local district level and is to be done in accordance with guidance from the Department of Higher Education (DHE), the agency charged with administering the scholarships. DHE guidance is found at http://dhe.mo.gov/ppc/grants/aplusscholarship.php. Students must receive a proficient score on an EOC of Algebra I or higher. Students who meet all other criteria may meet this requirement through the ACT math subscore or other methods outlined on the DHE website, depending on their graduation year and/or postsecondary status.
2. But you ARE comparing forms when all A+ students are being held accountable to the same achievement levels. One student may have had a harder assessment and scored lower, missing proficient, compared to a student who may have taken an easier assessment.
   More than one avenue exists for A+ scholarship eligibility. Refer to DHE guidance for other means to establish eligibility.

1. Since A+ requires proficiency on Algebra I, can that be changed to a required raw score expectation since the achievement levels seem to be bad?
   No.
2. Since this will be valid for A+ scholarship eligibility, does this mean we will get a list of the results and include it in our assessments scores/upload it in SIS?

Districts have already received this information.

1. For students who did NOT attain a status in Algebra I that would allow for A+ scholarship money, what rights do they have? Will they be allowed to appeal? How can you throw out the entire assessment, but tell certain kids their score will still count?
   Alternative methods of meeting the mathematics proficiency requirements are outlined on the DHE website: http://dhe.mo.gov/ppc/grants/aplusscholarship.php.

1. Who will pay for the re-take for A+ if needed? Are you asking for us to all email you the dollars spent on Algebra I and ELA II for the 2016-17 EOCs?

Students may qualify for A+ status through demonstrating proficiency on any EOC at or above Algebra I. Retaking Algebra I is not likely the best alternative. However, if no other method of qualification is workable, DESE will fund retaking the Algebra I assessment for the purposes of A+ eligibility.

1. Is it fair to tie A+ money to assessment scores when the validity of assessment scores can be called into question like this? Especially considering (a) some students have already graduated and not met the Algebra I requirement; and (b) the students who might be forced to retake the assessment aren't in Algebra I class anymore, so how can they reasonably be expected to "test better" now?
   The validity of the assessment has not been questioned. It is also important to be clear that there are a number of alternative methods of meeting the mathematics requirements for A+ eligibility outlined on the DHE website http://dhe.mo.gov/ppc/grants/aplusscholarship.php.

ALGEBRA I/ALGEBRA II/EIGHTH GRADE MATH

1. Why does the assessment change each year? Isn't Algebra I the same concepts that need to be taught each year and be tested on? Why change if the past worked?

Missouri’s assessments are aligned to the Missouri Learning Standards Grade- and Course-Level Expectations. The EOC assessments in English language arts and mathematics have remained the same since 2015. Each assessment covers the content in the standards related to the course, such as Algebra I. Statewide assessments, like Algebra I, are commonly made up of more than one individual form.

1. Were not the eighth grade Algebra I scores used in the place of eighth grade MAP math scores for those eighth graders taking the Algebra I EOC?

Yes. Eighth-grade students who took the Algebra I EOC are not included in eighth grade math scores.

1. By throwing out all Algebra I, does that mean students who were required to take Algebra II are shouldering all the accountability?

The accountability for mathematics at the district level is spread across grades three through eight, plus the Algebra II students.

1. Will the fall 2017 Algebra I assessment be like the past spring 2017 assessment, or will it be comparable to the new 2018 spring Algebra I assessment?

Fall 2017 will be the first administration of new EOCs in math and English language arts under the new Missouri Learning Standards.

1. Since this is the first year that Algebra II was being used for graduation requirements, could it be entertained to drop this from APR (taking it in isolation without the Algebra I EOC)?

We are currently deciding how to calculate the APR, but the loss of Algebra II would further complicate solution development. The Algebra II assessment outcomes were not questioned and should not be excluded.

1. Is excluding eighth grade math overall in the APR calculation an option on the table?

While completely excluding eighth grade math is an attractive solution for some LEAs, that action would have significantly different effects across LEAs and consequently does not appear to be a preferred path forward.

1. Explain the "no effect" for a middle school. The eighth grade MAP scores will then carry the weight for the building. Usually the Algebra I scores HELP middle schools overall.

If “no effect” for a middle school was stated, it was probably not accurate. We have been trying to eliminate or at least minimize negative effects of this exclusion. However, it is important to keep in mind that no serious consideration has been given to the challenges around any building APR at this point.

1. How does this issue affect eighth graders who took the Algebra I EOC instead of the eighth grade MAP?

For purposes of grades, raw scores from the Algebra I EOC may be used. The raw scores are accurate and give students, teachers and parents an idea how students are performing.

1. If the majority of our eighth graders take the EOC, how can that not affect us in a negative way?

The effects of excluding Algebra I cannot be accurately predicted based on the proportion of students taking the examination alone. Their outcomes, in addition to the weighting or proportion, both affect MPI calculation. The MPI, while affected by these factors, is not the end of the calculation. For progress and growth, MPIs are converted to NCEs, an effect that mitigates the exclusion. For status calculations, the average MPI is compared to status targets. Solutions being debated include reprogramming the status targets.

1. For districts that have the eighth grade Math/Algebra I issue, what will be done to overcome the gaping hole that the Algebra I EOCs traditionally fill?

We are still working to determine how APRs will be calculated.

1. All of our eighth graders take Algebra I. We utilize their scores to determine eligibility to take the Algebra II EOC for high school accountability or re-take Algebra I (if received Basic or BB). How will this be affected?

Local decisions can continue to be made with regard to Algebra II eligibility. The district may also wish to provide an alternative method of meeting the requirement.

1. Will all districts receive eighth grade math scores?

Yes. The eighth grade Grade-Level Assessment results will be used in the APR.

1. Since eighth grade scores are so district dependent regarding Algebra I, have you considered the possibility of looking more at grades 3-7? LEAs are more alike on those variables.

This idea may be considered. However, other solutions that do not entirely exclude eighth grade math are more likely to be selected.

1. What is the impact to the APR for K-8 with Algebra I High School Readiness and Grade-Level Math?

We are still working to develop APR calculations.

1. Will Algebra II count towards the APR for the kids who took Algebra I prior to high school?

Yes, Algebra II is the required high school mathematics assessment for accountability purposes for students who took the Algebra I EOC assessment prior to high school.

1. Our high school Algebra I scores were the highest math scores in our district. How will that impact our APR?

APR calculations have not yet been determined.

1. Due to the disruptions that occurred during testing, will students who did not score proficient on Algebra I have the opportunity to take the assessment again?

The students’ participation is sufficient for state purposes. For A+ eligibility purposes, students must receive a proficient score on an EOC of Algebra I or higher. Students who meet all other criteria may meet this requirement through the ACT math subscore or other methods outlined on the DHE website, depending on their graduation year and/or postsecondary status. For local purposes, districts will need to determine whether or not there is a need to retake the assessment.

1. If we have students re-take the Algebra I EOC, is there anything we need to do to retract the old score?

If a student were to retake the assessment this fall, it would be sufficient for A+ eligibility purposes. However, the APR will likely be complete before the assessment results are available. The APR solutions will need to operate without additional assessment data.

1. What about seniors who have already graduated? How will they retake the Algebra I assessment?

Seniors who are otherwise qualified and who failed to score proficient in Algebra I may still be qualified under the alternate criteria found on the DHE A+ Scholarship page.

1. Algebra II is optional for some. If we are negatively impacted by the inclusion of those scores, will there be an appeal process?

It is too soon to say. We are working to determine how APRs will be calculated.

1. We gave our eighth grade students who took Algebra I the eighth grade MAP assessment this past spring rather than the Algebra I assessment. If we give those students the Algebra I assessment this December, will this assessment be a valid assessment? OR should we wait until the spring and test them on Algebra I and Algebra II so that the kinks in the new testing system can be worked out?

EOC assessment should occur as close to the end of instruction as possible. EOCs in Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, English I and English II are new assessments aligned to the MLS Expectations in fall 2017. DESE’s TAC has provided guidance for our assessment contractors so that, in the future, EOC assessment forms will be built to ensure that the forms are not only reliable and valid but also comparable.

2017 APRs

1. If the MPI of Algebra II in isolation brings down our APR, would you consider exempting it for a district?

It is unlikely that the exclusion of more mathematics data will be part of the solution for district APR calculations.

1. As a single high school district, can you explain how APR will be calculated?

We have not yet determined the method of APR calculation.

1. What about the statute that states that if a change occurs to the assessment or the MSIP standard, the previous year's APR can remain in place?

Statute indicates that a district’s classification cannot be lowered based solely on a new assessment or when MISP changes standards. Neither of these events occurred. Hold Harmless has been DESE’s method of ensuring that district’s APRs do not compel reduced classification when a new assessment occurs.

1. As we communicate with our stakeholders (staff, parents, community), we always like to convey our message with confidence. When do you estimate we can confidently provide some concrete information about APR? Is there a chance that there could just be NO APR for 2016-17?

We plan to release APRs in mid- to late November.

1. When our district is judged by overall APR scores, taking away these scores will again negatively impact our performance. Once the APR is released to the media, how do we respond?

The commissioner’s statement that we will eliminate or minimize additional negative consequences is the guiding principle for reprogramming the APR. We do not yet believe that the loss of scores will automatically result in a reduced APR.

1. Please elaborate on this statement: Status targets and progress calculations will be adjusted to accommodate the loss of the two EOCs.

The calculations have not yet been determined.

1. If you take out some of the scores, won't that in effect increase the impact of the remaining scores (Biology and Government)?

This question appears to be based on a high school building APR. Decisions about how to compensate for the effect of reduced mathematics and English data have not yet been made.

1. If we scored higher on the English II can we use that for our APR?

DESE is considering the possibility of allowing this by appeal.

1. Can we substitute geometry for Algebra II?

This substitution is not likely to be needed in APR calculations at the district level. Building level APR decisions have not yet been made.

1. Will additional EOCs be used for APR as stated in the commissioner’s video message yesterday?

In the video message, the commissioner indicated that the Biology and Government EOCs would still be used and that additional EOCs would be reported. This is consistent with past practice.

1. What will the impact be for districts that do not take the optional EOCs? What impact will this have on districts that rely on high school scores as a part of achieving full progress/status points to achieve full accreditation points?

Two calculations in academic achievement and subgroup achievement are connected to the excluded assessment results. Initial analysis of the progress calculation indicates that little or no adjustment will be needed because it is based on NCE rather than MPI metrics. Solutions for the status calculation are currently being evaluated.

1. To clarify, will the middle school APR be based only on eighth grade MAP since Algebra I is taken out?

No decisions have been made about building APRs.

1. So, prior year APR won't be recalculated?

That is correct.

1. If English II and Algebra I were our highest scores, then how will this impact our APR?

APR calculation methods have not yet been determined.

1. What will be used in APR calculation if we only take the required Algebra I and English II EOC and do not take the optional EOC's?

At the LEA level, mathematics and English language arts are still based on the six Grade-Level Assessments in each area. Calculations for the APR have not been determined, and no decisions have been made about building-level APRs.

1. Now that the Assessment TAC has given advice, will the MSIP Advisory Committee visit about what this means to the 2017 APR?

The MSIP Advisory Committee convened on Sept. 12. Decisions informed by their recommendations are forthcoming.

1. Can you explain in detail how a district-level decision has been made about withholding scores, but DESE is unable to make the same decision for building-level APRs?

LEA-level solutions are being considered for APR production. Decisions about these solutions are being made now that the MSIP Advisory Committee has met. Building-level decisions have not yet been made.

1. What data will be used in the 2018, 2019, & 2020 APRs with different data sets in all three years?

Decisions about future APRs have not been made. However, part of the consideration of current solutions is the impact on future calculations.

1. Is there a process to contest our APR if it is negatively affected?

As in prior years, preliminary APRs will be shared with districts by secure release. Also consistent with prior years, following that release, districts may appeal errors in data.

HOLD HARMLESS

1. Grade-Level Assessments changed forms several times and those were used in APR calculations over time with Hold Harmless in place. What is different about this situation? If the decision is to remove Algebra I and English 2 from previous years MPI calculations, will the new Hold Harmless policy still be used to calculate 2017 APR points? Will Hold Harmless now include 2014 results?

Hold Harmless is a method that is attractive at an intuitive level. However, the exclusion of the Algebra I and English II scores does not provide a basis for comparison. Hold Harmless allows the selection of the highest score (current or past). Since current scores are not available, the method is not usable.

1. During the APR review period, will each district's result be looked at individually to give the best scenario possible....similar to Hold Harmless?

We will strive to develop a single best method for the greatest number of districts.

WHAT’S NEXT?

1. For planning purposes, what is your estimate on timelines?

Achievement data was made available to districts and charter schools during the week of Sept. 5. The appeals window for data corrections for EOCs closes Sept. 22.

1. Will there be a comment/feedback period after DESE and TAC have come up with possible solution/changes to the formula?

Comprehensive Guide revisions will be made during the week of Sept. 18. A public hearing on the Comprehensive Guide will be held on Oct. 4.

1. Moving forward, are assessment coordinators supposed to attend the trainings for Nextera?

The EOC assessment platform transitions from iTester to Nextera beginning with the fall 2017 assessment window. Districts should take advantage of the opportunities to learn about the new platform.

ASSESSMENT CONTRACT

1. How will this affect fall and spring assessments? Questar is the vendor for Nextera. Is the state confident that Questar will not repeat this problem with 2018 results? What procedures are being put in place to ensure this does not happen again? Is DESE in litigation with Questar? Does the department plan to begin collecting data points from vendors more than once a year, to monitor quality assurance? Bottom line, what happened last year is bad, but we are scheduled for Fall EOC testing. What do I tell my counselor and teachers? How should we move forward?

General Counsel has advised DESE to abstain from discussing the details of the ongoing communications with the vendor, Questar.

The current interactions between DESE and Questar are discussions about how to correct past issues, how to prevent future issues, and implications related to current and future contracts. These topics would be at the heart of future litigation if the current talks fail to produce a satisfactory conclusion. The desired conclusion is to ensure creditable assessments for the students and school districts of Missouri.

There are current contracts between the vendor and the Office of Administration – Purchasing, on behalf of DESE. Attorneys for Questar, OA and DESE are actively involved with the communications and negotiations. It would be inappropriate to discuss those details in a public forum at this time.

When the talks result in a conclusion and don’t position the parties for future litigation, DESE would be happy to share those outcomes.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. How does this connect to federal reporting for math and ELA?

DESE and the U.S. Department of Education recently had a conference call regarding federal reporting and accountability. We are working through this situation with them.

1. How much will removing a large group of scores change the thresholds for 2020 Target/On Track/Approaching”?

We thought changing the thresholds might be possible but have determined that it is not the best solution.

1. Are summer (2016 or 2017) assessments affected?

Yes. The forms used in summer 2016 and summer 2017 were found to have comparability issues.

1. Was this an issue in the fall? If so, wasn't the issue apparent at that point?

The number of students who take EOC assessments during the fall windows ranges from 3 to 7 percent of the total students who test each year. Trends in statewide data are not evident in small populations.

1. Were the scores higher or lower?

In 2017, statewide rates of proficient and advanced were 6 percent lower than in 2016 in Algebra I and nearly 9 percent lower in English II.

1. Were the assessments easier or harder?

DESE’s assessment TAC concluded that the cut scores on one form appeared to be more stringent than those on the other form. Raw score performance was not notably different from one year to the next.

1. How do we need to record EOC levels and scores on student transcripts/records?

EOC outcomes can be transcribed or included in student records consistent with practice in previous years.

1. Are we still going to receive item analysis? When?

We are not releasing Algebra I or English II information in the IARs.

1. Will we see item analysis on Grade-Level Assessments?

Yes

1. Will DESE be providing a press release to the media?

DESE has talked with reporters who cover education for wire services and major newspapers.

1. Will DESE be providing talking points when talking with media requests or parent questions?

The talking points were sent to administrators on Friday, Sept. 1, in an email from Commissioner Vandeven.

1. Do we need to change the student reports from the EOCs?

No.

1. With adjustments to APRs --has DESE run the data across multiple districts to see possible impact of draft changes?

Yes.

1. How does this affect C.T.E. Perkins summary data?

It should not have any impact at this time; most likely it will impact summary data beginning in the 2019-20 school year. We use Algebra I and English II scores as measures of academic attainment for Perkins funding accountability. There will be no impact this year because we don’t pull scores for students until they have graduated from high school. Usually, students take Algebra I and English II in their freshman or sophomore years in school, therefore the impact of not having these scores available will not be a factor until two or three years from now. Our plan at this time is to ask for a waiver from the U.S. Department of Education when these scores become reportable.

1. Has DESE considered taking the outages that took place during the testing process into consideration for their validity?

DESE and the Assessment TAC reviewed data from students affected during the EOC platform issues that occurred on April 25. When their results were compared with those of the entire group of students tested, no clear pattern of disadvantage was discernable. The Assessment TAC was not in favor of statistical adjustment to scores.

1. Do we distribute the scores to students/parents?

Local districts are free to make decisions around these issues. The Assessment TAC did not express any reservation about local uses of these results.

1. Will districts be reimbursed for the cost of last year's EOC assessments in these two subjects? The district cost for EOCs is not included in the state contract. At least one district has contacted the vendor directly regarding this issue.

1. Can you share all the possible solutions on the table?

Discussions are continuing, but no solutions have been determined.

1. If our scores are already in our Student Information System should we remove them?

No.

1. Should we contact parents and let them know what happened?

DESE prepared a letter to parents notifying them of the current situation and how the changes affect their students. The letter was sent to administrators on Sept. 1 in an email from Commissioner Vandeven. Districts may use this in their communications to the extent they find it helpful.

1. How can cut scores be released in May but you do not see it until late July?

Cut scores are established after the initial operational administration of new assessments. For the Algebra I and English II EOCs, this happened in 2015. Although districts receive ISRs and score rosters shortly after their district assessment windows close, DESE receives a single delivery of statewide data from its vendors. This happens after the statewide assessment window closes, responses are scored, and data are combined and validated, never before early July.

1. How do we explain this situation to teachers and students?

We would encourage you to share the messages from the commissioner with your teachers.

1. Will districts be able to review data after adjustments have been made?

Yes. Consistent with previous practice, LEAs have the opportunity to review and correct data once securely released preliminary APRs are available.

1. Am I correct in my understanding that we should not expect to see an updated workbook until October?

Workbooks will be made available as soon as possible.

1. Will Algebra 1 and English 2 be available this fall?

Yes. EOCs in Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, English I and English II are new assessments aligned to the MLS Expectations beginning in the fall 2017 assessment window.

1. We post the scores directly to our transcripts. Should we remove these scores for Algebra I and English II?

Consistent with previous guidance from DESE, we encourage districts to use raw scores.

1. We reimburse students half their tuition based on achievement level. How are we able to do this if the assessment is invalid?

The results of this assessment can be used for these purposes. However, local decision making must prevail in this instance. It is important to remember that the Assessment TAC indicated that the assessment is valid and reliable but lacks comparability.

1. Why are we waiting for multiple iterations of MSIP to achieve our "desired state" rather than initiating change through MSIP 6?

The development of MSIP 6 has been informed by a large number of representatives, including educators and others. While this iteration of MSIP will represent progress on the continuum of school accountability and improvement, we also expect that future leaders will wish to improve it.

1. Has there been discussion about possibly using ACT instead of EOC?

In its current form, ACT cannot replace EOC in Missouri since it does not meet federal requirements for assessment of science and does not show evidence of alignment to the MLS Expectations.

1. When will the decision be made and updated MSIP progress/status information be shared with districts?

DESE will communicate changes to LEAs as soon as practical. DESE will hold a public hearing on the updated MSIP Comprehensive Guide on October 4.

1. How do we know that the other assessments were not affected?

The interpretation of results of the other EOC assessments is not being called into question.

1. When will we have state proficiency levels for all other EOCs?

These kinds of reports and data will be published following the freeze of the preliminary APR.

1. We are thinking of additional EOCs as being Algebra II and Geometry and English I. Will these be used?

Yes. These assessments will be used as normal.

1. Will reports be updated that show which EOCs students have taken so that we know which seniors need to be tested in which areas before they graduate?

Yes. This information is available now.

1. Can we expect this webinar, with all questions and answers, to be posted on DESE's website?

The links to both the morning and afternoon webinars were included in an email to administrators from Commissioner Vandeven on Friday, Sept. 1.

1. I have ninth graders that took MAP math 8 instead of Algebra I. They are currently in Algebra II. Should I have them take the Algebra I EOC in the spring for A+ purposes? We usually test them in the fall of their ninth grade year.

DHE guidance on A+ eligibility indicates that proficiency on any mathematics EOC at or above Algebra I may be used to determine eligibility. The Algebra II EOC can qualify the student.

http://dhe.mo.gov/ppc/grants/aplusscholarship.php

1. How will we track mandated EOCs between districts - still the EOC History Report?

Yes.

1. Any thought into using this as a platform to illustrate concerns regarding standardized testing and impact MSIP 6?

It is important to remember that only two of the 27 assessments provided through MAP were questioned. The MSIP 6 development team did not recommend the elimination of standardized testing. Consideration will be given to how to provide a balanced picture of LEAs, one that includes material not easily captured on a standardized assessment.

1. Since the Q&A indicated that the participation level was met, will we receive a file that shows that students took the assessment in order to meet the requirement that graduates take the four required assessments?

Yes, this information is now available.

1. Appreciate the comment about DESE taking a step back to reconsider our approach to assessment, but haven't you received significant feedback from school districts in how best to approach assessment through the MSIP revision feedback?

Convening advisors regarding assessment is necessary to focus on the near term. The MSIP 6 development process provided input but did not address the issues we need for our immediate future. We have received feedback from various stakeholders regarding the future of assessment. We consider each recommendation carefully. Some recommendations may have potential for consideration in the short term. Other recommendations would require a change to federal and/or state law to implement.

1. How can we use the student reports from the EOCs that list the "wrong" proficiency levels?

Raw scores may be used for local purposes, including student grades. The achievement levels contained in ISRs, student record labels and score rosters provided by Questar should not be characterized as “wrong.” They simply cannot be compared from 2016 to 2017.

100. When will MPI scores for grades 3-8 be released? Or are we able to forecast our own MPI based on the data we have received for grades 3-8?

Districts may project their own MPIs based on the data received. DESE has not yet posted MPI information.

101. Should we put the Algebra I and English II scores on the student's permanent records?

Consistent with previous guidance from DESE, we encourage districts to use raw scores.

102. What will be the process for district input on APR proposed solutions?

Please email Chris.Neale@dese.mo.gov with any proposed solutions.

author:Bowles, Nancy
last saved by:Bowles, Nancy
revision number:7
last print date:2017-09-13T20:12:00Z
creation date:2017-09-08T16:42:00Z
Last Saved Date:2017-09-13T21:29:00Z
document template:Normal
edit minutes:732
page count:13
word count:5327
character count:30369
source:Microsoft Office Word
security:0
Count Lines:253
Count Paragraphs:71
Scale Crop:no
company:State of Missouri
links up to date:no
Count Characters with Space:35625
shared doc:no
Links Dirty:no
Application Version:14.0000
_DocHome:3031134010