Message: EOC FAQ from webinar_9.1.2017 cn ls

EOC FAQ from webinar_9.1.2017 cn ls
FromSireno, LisaDate  Wednesday, September 6, 2017 2:50 PM
To
Bates, Shaun
Cc
SubjectEOC FAQ from webinar_9.1.2017 cn ls

Any comments, suggestions, corrections?

Lisa


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

Is it possible to release the state's passing percentages for EOCs in spring 2017 in order to understand the comparability issue? Lisa/Stacey (?)

What triggered the review?

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 DESE until it received statewide results. Upon receipt of cumulative statewide data from the EOC vendor, Questar, DESE was able to see for the first time that Algebra I and English II scores across the state were lower than in 2016. 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.

Why weren’t the tests comparable from 2016 to 2017?

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 test not comparing? Did teachers start teaching the new standards too soon?

What specifically was not comparable?

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? Lisa

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? Lisa

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. Although it is possible curricular shifts toward new standards could have impacted student performance, there is no evidence this is the case. After its analysis, DESE’s assessment 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 test forms were administered in 2015, 2016, and 2017. Scale score data indicate that the tests were not comparable from 2016 to 2017.

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

What do we do with the data?

Why are raw scores okay, but final EOC scores are not?

So we do disregard the previous data that we saw?

Are raw scores still valid to use for student grades in Algebra I and English II?

Are the score comparable across students?

The raw scores accurately reflect student performance on the individual test forms. The individual test 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.

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 16-17 to upload? Chris

A+ ELIGIBILITY

Please address how this will impact A+.

Districts may use EOC raw scores for determining A+ scholarship eligibility. 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 End-of-Course assessment 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.

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 test and scored lower, missing proficient, compared to a student who may have taken an easier test.

More than one avenue exists for A+ scholarship eligibility. Refer to DHE guidance for other means to establish eligibility.

Will districts be able to make their own proficiency levels for the A+ levels or should they use a lower proficiency cut score?

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?

The requirement for proficiency is associated with the state assessment rather than a local decision.

Since this will be valid for A+, does this mean we will get a list of the results and include it in our assessments scores/upload it in SIS? Lisa or Chris

Districts have already received raw scores, scale scores, and achievement levels in the ISRs, student record labels, and score rosters delivered by Questar.

For students that 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 test, 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.

Who will pay for the re-take for A+ if needed? (Chris, please group as many of the A+ questions together that you can and provide a response that can address them to the extent we can.) We need to discuss this with ELT and Lisa. I suspect that the vast majority of test takers are not exiting seniors. We there is much time ahead of them in school and may find other opportunities.

Is it fair to tie A+ money to test scores when the validity of test 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 test aren't in Algebra I class anymore, so how can they reasonably be expected to "test better" now? We certainly understand the feeling of unfairness. It is important to be clear about the technical meaning of validity and that it has not been questioned. It is also important to be clear that there are a number of alternative methods of meeting the mathematics requirements outlined on the DHE website http://dhe.mo.gov/ppc/grants/aplusscholarship.php. We should be prepared for our answer about if we will pay for any exiting seniors.

ALGEBRA I/ALGEBRA II/8th GRADE MATH

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

Missouri’s assessments are aligned to the Missouri Learning Standards Grade- and Course-Level Expectations. The EOC tests in English language arts and mathematics have remained the same since 2015. Each test 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.

Were not the 8th grade Algebra I scores used in the place of 8th grade MAP Math scores for those 8th graders taking the Algebra I EOC?

Yes. Eighth-grade students who took the Algebra I EOC are not included in 8th grade math scores.

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.

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

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

 

 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)? At least three solutions for calculating the APR without Algebra I are under serious consideration. The loss of Algebra II would further complicate solution development. The Algebra II assessment outcomes were not questioned and should not be excluded.

Is excluding 8th 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 superior path forward.

Explain the "no effect" for a middle school - the 8th grade MAP scores will then carrying 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.

How does this issue affect 8th graders who took the Algebra I EOC instead of the 8th 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.

If the majority of our 8th 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.

For districts that have the 8th grade Math/ Algebra I issue, what will be done to overcome the gaping hole that the Algebra I EOCs traditionally fill? One of the solutions being debated for LEA level APR calculations includes a one-year adjustment to the MPI. While this solutions provides comparability at the district level, the loss of Algebra I data cannot be artificially reconstructed for other purposes.

All of our 8th 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.

Will all districts receive 8th grade math scores?

Yes. The 8th grade Grade-Level Assessment results will be used in the APR.

Since 8th grade scores are so district dependent regarding Algebra I, have you considered the possibility of looking more at grades 3-7? LEA's are more alike on those variables. This idea is being considered in the solution identification process.

What is the impact for K-8 with Algebra I High School Readiness and Grade-Level Math? A couple of possible solutions for the HSR standard have been identified and are being explored. The essence of these is the use of prior year proficiency or something akin to a hold harmless treatment.

 

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.

Our high school Algebra I scores were the highest math scores in our district. How will that impact our APR? Until a solution has been identified, it is difficult to answer this question accurately. It is sufficient to say that the Commissioner’s charge is to do everything we can to eliminate or at least minimize negative impacts.

Due to the disruptions that occurred during testing, will students that did not score proficient on Algebra I have the opportunity to take the test again? We need to discuss this at ELT

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

What about seniors that have already graduated? How will they retake the Algebra I test? We need to discuss this at ELT

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

We gave our 8th grade students who took Algebra I the 8th MAP test this past spring rather than the Algebra I test. If we give those students the Algebra I test this December, will this test be a valid test? 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 test contractors so that, in the future, EOC assessment forms will be carefully built so that the forms are not only reliable and valid but also comparable.

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.

2017 APRs (Chris, this whole section is yours.)

As a single high school district, can you explain how APR will be calculated? Until the MSIP Advisory Committee has met the method of APR calculation cannot be identified firmly. The solutions being considered to overcome the loss of data include reprogramming of status targets or developing some other manner of adjusting the status calculation.

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.

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.

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 is necessarily tied to a reduced APR.

Please elaborate on this statement: Status targets and progress calculations will be adjusted to accommodate the loss of the two EOCs. One of the solutions being debated is the reprogramming of status targets to adjust for the loss of Algebra I scores. This is just one of the solutions being debated. Initial statistical analysis indicates that the progress calculations, both of which use NCEs instead of MPIs, do not appear to need adjustment.

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.

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.

Can we sub in 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.

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.

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.

How will this affect K-8 districts APR scores for high school readiness?

Solutions for the HSR standard are being considered. While one early possibility was the exclusion of the standard, this did not prove to be a workable method.

To clarify, will the middle school APR be based only on 8th grade MAP since Algebra I is taken out?

No decisions have been made about building APRs.

So, prior year APR won't be recalculated?

No. One possibility would use new a new data set that excludes EOCs across all years to avoid an artificial decline. However, other solutions are also being considered.

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

After the best method for calculating the APR is selected, DESE is reserving the possibility of allowing for appeals if necessary.

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. The inclusion of optional EOCs has not been considered as part of the solution set for LEA level APRs. No decisions have been made about building level APRs.

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

The MSIP TAC will convene on Sept. 12.

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 will be made following the MSIP Advisory Committee meeting on September 12. Building level decisions have not yet been made.

What data will be used in the 18, 19, & 20 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.

Is there a process to contest our APR if ours is negatively impacted?

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. DESE is considering allowing additional appeals around the excluded data.

HOLD HARMLESS (Chris, this whole section is yours.)

GLA 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 utilized 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.

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. We are seriously considering handling the exceptions by appeal.

WHAT’S NEXT?

Bottom line, what happened last year is bad, but we are scheduled for Fall EOC testing. What do I go tell my counselor and teachers? How should we move forward? Stacey or Sarah

For planning purposes, what is your estimate on timelines?

We plan to have achievement data to districts and charter schools during the week of Sept. 5. The appeals window for data corrections for EOCs closes Sept. 22.

Will there be a comment/feedback period after the department 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.

Moving forward, are test coordinators supposed to attend the trainings for Nextera?

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

GENERAL QUESTIONS

How does this connect to federal reporting for math and ELA? Lisa or Chris

How much will removing a large group of scores change the thresholds for 2020 Target/On Track/Approaching”? If this method is selected for calculating the APR, we project the shift in Status targets to be in the range of 2 to 6 MPI points.

Are summer (2016 or 2017) assessments affected?

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

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

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

Were the scores higher or lower?

In 2107, statewide rates of proficient and advanced were six percent lower than in 2016 in Algebra I and nearly 9 percent lower in English II.

Were the tests 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. 

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

Are we still going to receive item analysis? When? Lisa – Based on conversations at Thursday’s MSIP meeting, we are not planning to release Algebra I or English II information in the IARs.

Yes.

Will we see item analysis on Grade-Level Assessments also? Yes

 

Will DESE be providing a press release to the media?

DESE will be talking with reporters who cover education for wire services and major newspapers.

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

Yes

Do we need to change the student reports from the EOCs? No.

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

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

Has DESE considered taking the outages that took place during the testing process into consideration for their validity? Lisa/Stacey

DESE and TAC reviewed data from students impacted 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 TAC was not in favor of statistical adjustment to scores.

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.

Will districts be reimbursed for the cost of last year's EOC tests in these 2 subjects? Stacey/Bill

Can you share all the possible solutions on the table? Two primary methods of compensating for the lack of data are being considered. First is the adjustment of status targets. This method requires excluding the same assessments from prior years and altering the boundaries of the status targets. The second method is a statistical adjustment of the MPI. This method would allow for status targets to remain stable. Hold Harmless was considered early in the process but had to be rejected because the exclusion of data does not provide a basis for choosing the better of current or past performance.

If our scores are already in our Student Information system should we remove them? No. 

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. Districts may use this in their communications however they choose.

Should we still send out score reports for Algebra I and English II to parents? Lisa A similar question is answered above.

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.

How will this impact next year's tests? Isn't the same vendor in line to do them? Stacey/Bill

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 test windows end, 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 in July.

How do we explain this situation to teachers and students? We would encourage you to share the messages from the Commissioner with your teachers.

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.

Questar is the vendor for Nextera. Is the state confident that Questar will not repeat this problem with 2018 results? Stacey/Bill

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. or Lisa (I’m not sure what “workbook” means.)

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

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

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. (Lisa, Yes, I believe this is fine. response OK?)

We reimburse students half their tuition based on achievement level. How are we able to do this if the test is invalid? Tuition?? Ideas anyone? This is probably a dual credit or dual enrollment situation. I would believe that LEAs can still do this. The thing to address is the premise that the tests were invalid.

 

Why are we waiting for multiple iterations of MSIP to achieve our "desired state" rather than initiating change through MSIP VI? The development of MSIP 6 has been informed by a large number of representatives, both educators and others. While this iteration of MSIP will represent progress on the continuum of school accountability and improvement, we also expect future leaders to wish to improve it.

Has there been discussions 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.

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 after the MSIP Advisory Committee. DESE will hold a public hearing on the updated MSIP Comprehensive Guide on October 4.

What procedures are being put in place to ensure this does not happen again? What level of confidence do you have that this irregularity will be corrected for the 2017-18 school year? Stacey/Bill

How do we know that the other tests were not impacted?

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

When will we have state proficiency levels for all other EOCs? While we can produce this report, we understand that this may also be one for OCCR?

We are thinking of additional EOCs as being Algebra II and Geometry and English I. Will these be used? Yes. These tests will be used as normal.

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? Chris

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

You should receive a link to the webinar by email.

I have 9th 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 9th grade year. DHE guidance on A+ eligibility indicates that proficiency can be on any mathematics EOC at or above Algebra I. The Algebra II EOC can qualify the student (http://dhe.mo.gov/ppc/grants/aplusscholarship.php).

Is DESE in litigation with Questar? Aren't they the same vendors for the new test this fall? Stacey/Bill

Are you asking for us to all email you the dollars spent on Algebra I and ELA II for the 2016-17 EOCs? Stacey/Bill

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

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

Does the department plan to begin collecting data points from vendors more than once a year, to monitor quality assurance? Stacey/Bill

Since the Q&A indicated that the participation level was met, will we receive a file that shows that students took the test in order to meet the requirement that graduates take the 4 required tests? Chris

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. STACEY – This is the place to consider what we do with MASA’s work.

How can we use the student reports from these EOC's 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.

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? These will be released after the MSIP Advisory Committee as soon as possible.

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.

What will be the process for district input on APR proposed solutions? Please email Chris.Neale@dese.mo.gov with any proposed solutions.

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 16-17 to upload? Jeff, Chris, and/or Lisa