Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Andre: Reiterates (I don't know why he always has to restate what someone has said!) Their
group will review Teds report, and come to consensus. Agreed that the work teams process
has been transparent, that there has been feedback and input throughout the process and they
are taken seriously. Some feedback is complimentary, some critical, they should respect that
and be forthright when communicating with the stakeholders that all input is taken seriously
and will be evaluated and included in the deliberations. Ted's team deliberated on this
particular feedback and found an area that a change does need to be made and reflected in the
final report, however, there were other things that they have a difference of opinion on. As
Commissioners, in reviewing Teds report, they will have a chance to weigh in and vote on the
final recommendations. There will be consensus on what they believe the final
recommendation will be.
English Language Arts:
Update, Olivia: They are making slow but steady progress on putting together a full draft report.
They had conference call meeting last Friday, talked about things they are corralling a lot of
information to incorporate into the final report. There are various sections to their report, all
the information from focus groups, surveys, today's data, going back to state analysis of other
state recommendations (Fla, VA, CALIF, and NC) that were vetted and it is a monumental task.
Lots of data in various places. Tentatively talk about a timeline considering, rather ambitious
and aggressive timeline, asks for a full draft (both Math and ELA) by the first of Dec. Wants this
done by Dec 1, release this to the commission, called a draft, the commission would then have
week to read it, make comments, corrections, additions, deletions, clean it up, and resubmit to
commission by December 9, calling it the final report that is to be read, adopted and approved
on the 18th of Dec. It will require nonstop writing for her and other members of the team.
Ted: Said he is mostly done, will not take today's test score data into account. (My comment:
you could hear the gasp from DPI)
Olivia asks, you will not draw implications from the test data?
Ted said he looked at it and there is only one place he can draw any implication from and that is
in the end of grade and end of course Math data over time, outside that he doesn't see much.
Andre: To be clear, you ARE taking it into account, you just don't see it changes your report.
Ted: If you want me to comment on that and put it in my report I will, I just hadn't thought of
that.
Andre: For consistency you should, because we want to be consistent between ELA and Math.
The point you are making is you looked through scores and dont see scores having significant
bearings on the findings you and your team reported.
Ted: Except for possibly for the end of grade data.
Jeff: I don't know that as a commission we have come to full agreement on the standard
recommendations, to him we have not even hashed out some of this so he appreciates what
Olivia said, Doesn't see how they can get this done
Tammy said they have had the opportunity to hash things out, the interim preliminary findings
were released a few months ago, since then, and they have had opportunity to discuss. A lot of
the findings that were released have been discussed and a lot of the gathered information that
Olivia speaks to is a wealth of information that has been gathered and it does support the
preliminary findings, she doesn't see there will be significant disagreement in the report
discussions. She asks Jeff if he disagrees with the preliminary findings and what has been put
forth so far.
Jeff: wants to see all the drafts, then have discussions on those drafts......,
Andre: Hold on a minute, what we are talking about is we need to get a full draft of everything
to each commissioner, then have them go through the full draft and have a chance to weigh in
on the full draft, and turn that into a final set of documents. You will have a chance once again
to voice your opinion on it. We still need to vote on any recommendation to make sure that we
all have a document in the end that we agree to by a majority not that any individual will agree
to everything inside the report, but at least have a quorum.
Olivia: Had problems the entire time even trying to wrap her head around a cogent set of
recommendations because this process is not easy, the nature of the work to do and the way
they have had to get it done has been very piecemeal, if we were to have another life as a
commission, they would probably do this work differently. What she is proposing is what Andre
said, get a full draft to commission By Dec 1, within it will be a full set of recommendations.
Those will include ELA and Math. Some of those recommendations have been talked about for
the last couple of months. Would then have a week to read and consider what is in it, send lots
of feedback, I don't like it, it needs to be re worded, it isn't what I thought it should be, I agree
with this recommendation, etc. This is when they as a commission will have to hunker down
and read the full report. There is tons of information there. We will have to come together and
then get the full draft to commission by 8 or 9 Dec. Between then and the 18th, will have the
time to do a clean report. Commissions will vote and agree or not, deliver report or continue to
work.
Andre: To Tammy's point, we have all been meeting for a long time and we shouldn't be that
far apart, remember the guiding principles that they agreed upon, clarity and simplicity,
developmentally appropriate, sequentially correct, teacher and LEA flexibility. We need to get
to the point as a commission weighing in, we have the opportunity to voice opinion, as we
refine our draft, what are we missing and how do we fix it. If there is a sticking point, there will
be a vote.
Jeff, wants the draft looked at like that of an elected official, where generally there is a first
second, and sometime third reading of policies under consideration. We don't have a full draft
policy yet. To him a week is not enough time with a draft,
Andre: do you agree with the process that we are submitting, that we submit a full draft for the
commissioners to review.
Jeff, wants a full draft first, give time to read, process, absorb it, then meet, at first reading
where there is feedback as a public body. Thats not where approve this. To him we need at
least 1 or 2 more readings to go over that.
Tammy: We are a commission, not a legislative body, they are making recommendations the
purpose of draft policy is to get feedback from the community which is what they have done all
along, the bulk of the work is summarizing a years worth of work that has already been done.
The draft report should not be a surprise.
Jeff: disagrees, says this will possibly lead to policy issues. Legislative policy action by the state
board, so it holds the same amount of weight even if it is it is coming for an independent
commission.
Andre: If this is a concern about having enough time, and they (Jeff) don't think that 8 days is
enough time to review the document and as a body, decide they need more time, then they
need to discuss that, there is no disagreement between the commissioners that they all need to
look at a complete document before they are put in the position to vote on the
recommendations set forth.
Jeannie: As an elected official with a lot of experience dealing with policy, that process in these
cases are to introduce policies that we haven't seen before, this is different, it is not like a first
reading is to learn about it, the second reading to discuss it and the third reading to take action.
We have seen this for over a year so I don't look at it that way. If we have 8 or 9 days to look at
the draft, meet on the 18th to talk about this, they may all agree, we are assuming there will be
contentious sections and parts of the report that they want to tear apart and that is not
necessarily true, he may be anticipating something that may not be reality.
Jeff: doesnt want to be difficult. We have not had any real work sessions as a full commission
to really go through the document, is it possible to have a work session as a full commission?
Andre: Saying what we have shared between the work groups has been out, everything has
been posted, once we got the draft document and got back together as a commission this
discussion would happen. His point to Jeff is that if they as a body they feel they need more
time, an extension, he and Tammy can pursue that and find out if that is possible. They may
find they are not that far apart. (Personal Comment: Like I said, an extension is not probable
since the General Assembly is not in session, looks to me like Jeff is trying to stall the
commission report so Senate bill 812 would "sunset" with no action taken, actually "die". If Jeff
can keep the report from coming out, he could sabotage the commissions work and
recommendations over the past year, and keep Common Core intact. I smell a conspiracy. All
the work group meetings were open to all the Commissioners, if he was so concerned about
what was going on in them, why didn't he show up? If he is so concerned in what will be written
in the report, why isn't he helping write the report? What work team did Jeff work on? The
answer is neither)
Jeff: Draw a timeline for me, how do we make that decision?
Andre: When we have the full document
Tammy: Jeff, if you are implying they schedule a work session in the interim, that can be done,
however, coordinating everyone can be difficult. She is totally comfortable with that if it can
give him a better degree of comfort. She wants to work towards a draft report first of Dec. If at
that time they think they need an extension, than start discussions with legislators to see if that
is an option.
Jeff: is it possible that we get a draft document by your date and have a work session at our
next meeting? (Personal comment, stalling again Jeff, you dont want the final report out on
the 18th, you want a work session on the 18th, when do you think the report could be finalized
with the holidays?)
Andre: I don't think we want to do that only because it is not fair to the legislature for them to
expect a deliverable by the end of December and then a week before Christmas we say sorry,
not going to happen.
Jeff: said the legislature doesn't necessarily do what's best for the people (Personal Comment,
cheap shot Jeff)
Bill Cobey: States that at a minimum, they should get a hold of Representative Horne and
Senator Tillman, to start a discussion about a possible extension, legislature is not in session so
they cant change the law and he doesnt know if government operations committee that
meets next week is empowered to do that sort of thing when the legislature is not in session so
I recommend you have the discussion, I dont know how they operate.
Tammy: Talked to Tillman today, she had emailed him for guidance on the deliverables. Tillman
indicated they are anticipating a final report in Dec. She asked how did the General Assembly
expect this report to be delivered, do they drop it on his desk? The General Assembly will want
an opportunity to digest what they (the commission) puts forth, then invite the commissioners
to come back and appear before the Joint Education Oversight Committee in Jan of Feb. To
answer questions. The commission could probably work in those 2 months before going to the
LEOC Legislative oversight and make some adjustments to the report if necessary. What is
important is a deliverable on the record, in December.
Andre: I think thats good, I dont want to send anything outside our commission that
everybody doesnt agree with, even if its a draft because of danger of any expectation of
change, would rather be in the position of being in agreement and just having to clean it up.
With that said, we could probably have an extra 4 weeks without running into problems,
Tammy: Technically we could us 18th as a work session, hash out issues, possibly do a
conference call later on to do a more formal approval prior to the Dec. 31 deadline. This
commission expires on Dec 31. We are getting into the holidays
Andre: suggests Tammy and he formalize this point with Senator Tillman and Representative
Horne, to go on record by the end of December, but indicate they need more time to clean up
the final deliverable, but get it done in month of January, so we have it on record in December,
and then work through the schedule. The commission would still meet on Dec. 18th with final
document being prepared. See where it is, assess time that is needed. Doesn't want to put
anything forth that they all don't agree on. (Personal Comment, Andre sure is hard to decipher
today!)
Tammy: Disagrees, states the bill sponsors are anticipating and expecting final report by end of
Dec. Thinks they can deliver, wants to stick with that date, does not anticipate there being any
kind of serious disagreement in direction they are heading, as an elected official, I spent more
time on this than in her role on the school board in New Hanover County. Does feel they can
compile, the information and finish putting it in a document in summary report and forward on
by the deadline.
Andre: Askes what if they are at an impasse.
Tammy: They may have some disagreement, but this commission is going to be a majority vote I
may disagree with the direction were going on a specific recommendation, but if the majority
of the commission agrees, it is what it is. They will have a majority vote, if the majority agrees,
it is what it is. Never get 100% consensus on everything
Jeannie: Speaks to Laurie, Katie Olivia; if any of the commission ever wanted to go to any of the
meetings, they were able to. Would have been welcomed to share the workload. She
appreciates work done on her behalf, and would not want to take the last day of the session to
be the one to come in at the last minute and ask why are they doing this, the people on the
board trusted those that have put on the work teams, they have already hashed this out
beforehand. I trust these guys, and when I see the final report if I dont feel that way, I will
certainly speak up, but I dont want to take away from any of the work they have done and
insert herself at this point when she had ample opportunity in the beginning and chose not to.
I think we need to wrap it up. Does not think there will be any surprises when she sees the final
report because of the discussions all along.
(Representative Speciale and Representative Pittman are in attendance today, and Larry
Pittman asked if he could address the commission)
Larry Pittman: gave a draft outline to the commission at Js request. Stated that he and
Michael were the beginning of all of this, not Tillman and Horne. Stated that they would be glad
to work with the commission on this. I will insert Representative Pittmans suggestion on what
Andre: We do recognize you and Representative Speciale have been here throughout the
process and appreciate that and obviously you are the audience that we are charged to answer
to, thank you so much for your input.
Andre: The bottom line, make sure we all agree to this, we do want to wrap up, hold the
timeline and complete the draft by end of December. We will have a document to review, we
will have a vote individually on the content of that document that represents our individual
views, and I think that is what I heard? Is everyone in agreement with that? We are agreeing
that we are not going for extra time past December 31. We will vote on whatever we have.
That says we need to see the document by the first of Dec. to give us the time to read, and get
our individual feedback documented. .
Tammy, with the draft complete, they can pull all the pieces together. When the preliminary
drafts were released it was with the purpose of giving teachers an opportunity for feedback so
we were giving them some information to draw from. There has been allot of people that
looked at the drafts and made comments on incomplete documents they dont have the
evidence to support the recommendations of findings within them, so you do have to be careful
and be sure that whatever document we put forth as a final draft agreed upon by the
commission is really what we want to put forward I a public way.
Jeff: All Im saying with all reason and prudence, all members of this commission have a full
version of this draft, read it holistically, then digest it, then feedback on it, not piecemeal and
fragment aspects of things. That is impractical to do.
Tammy: That is what we are trying to do with the draft document is pull all those pieces
together in a succinct way so it is understood where we are headed with this report.
Olivia: Askes Jeff if he remembers writing his dissertation?
Jeff: Yes, and it took a number of years to finish that document. I dont have years to go
through this.
Olivia that is what this report is, on steroids.
Andre: To wrap up, by Dec 1, complete draft will be complete it will include entire framework
with glossary, introduction, and summary, will incorporate summary feedback from the survey
and work focus groups. With the Math sections, with the ELA sections. Joe will distribute, work
with Olivia, once done on Dec 1, all of them take time to fully digest so when they get back
together we will have a meeting and discussion that will lead to a vote. If after receiving all of
this information you think there is substantial element that needs to be discussed in order to be
prepared to express your vote, editing, something missing, not understandable, that needs to
be shared as soon as possible, give them an opportunity in advance of that meeting to address
it, do not wait till the 18th to address. Anything else on timeline, on ELA, Olivia you are going to
take the lead to get the definition on standards.
Olivia: that will be nothing compared to the reset of the task.
Andre: Summary reports on accountability Dr. Howard, her bio follows:
http://www.doa.nc.gov/asrc/documents/11132015/TammyHoward_Short_Vita_080315.pdf
She has slides to hit high points her presentation on the data from included reports.
The evidence links:
http://www.doa.nc.gov/asrc/documents/11132015/AcademicStandardsReviewCommissionEO
G-EOGDataRequest10232015.pdf
http://www.doa.nc.gov/asrc/documents/11132015/AP2013-2015.xlsx
http://www.doa.nc.gov/asrc/documents/11132015/ASRC_EOG-EOC_By_Race_10232015.xlsx
http://www.doa.nc.gov/asrc/documents/11132015/HSMathSurveySummaryuntilSept162015.p
df
http://www.doa.nc.gov/asrc/documents/11132015/NAEPALLSUBJECTSALLGRADESSCALESCORESOVERTIMEWITH2015.xls
http://www.doa.nc.gov/asrc/documents/11132015/NAEP2015ELA4.pdf
http://www.doa.nc.gov/asrc/documents/11132015/NAEP2015Math4.pdf
http://www.doa.nc.gov/asrc/documents/11132015/NAEP2015Math8.pdf
http://www.doa.nc.gov/asrc/documents/11132015/NAEP2015Reading8.pdf
http://www.doa.nc.gov/asrc/documents/11132015/SAT2005-2015.xlsx
http://www.doa.nc.gov/asrc/documents/11132015/SAT2005-2015.xlsx
-
Dr. Howard: Did provide the requested reports to the committee, the first piece of data that
was requested was looking at the end of grade, and the end of course tests that assed student
proficiency. Going back from 2005 to 20015 refers to the chart. Looking at the data presented,
there are vertical double thick lines that indicate when content standards changed. The testing
program as it is now began in 1992, 93 since that time there have been 3 previous content
standard changes and when that happens you accept that tests are being developed. The first
step in test development is to align tests to the new content standards you will see the breaks
between 05 and 06 in both reading and math, end of grade and between 12 and 13 as well.
One area that does need to be noted for end of grade in 2008 and 2009 is there is not a double
bar on the chart, but there is an obvious increase in the percent of students that are proficient
that was due to a State Board policy that allowed for retesting after the initial test
administration and the first year that was in place we saw an increase in the percent of the
scores that were proficient. For the end of course, that change took place in 2009, 10, so that
again for algebra 1, math 1, English 1 and English 2 you will see that that jump in 2010 school
year.
The 2nd piece of data that was requested was the National test of educational process often
referred to as NAEP. All the way back to the 1960s there was something referred to as State
NAEP that is administered through a representative sample of the population within the state
so that we can have state level results to work for NAEP there are not student level results and
there are not district level results or school level results, the results that are state level only. In
the early 2000s it became the practice through federal law that all states participate in NAEP.
Reading and Math tests are administered in odd numbered years. You can see in data it goes
back to 2005 to 2015, we just released the most recent NAEP results in October, 2 or 3 weeks
ago. Looking at this information in addition to the chart that is provided, we are also providing
the slides looking at each of the grades and the content Areas that were assessed through NAEP.
Of course NAEP is administered at grade 4 and 8 in reading and math for what we call State
NAEP. There are other neap content areas that are assessed, but they are assessed at the
National level and there are not state level results available for those other areas. Were
looking at reading going back to 1998, NC has participated prior to it being required through
Federal legislation which is why we have results back to 1998 you can see that NC has had a
steady increase particularly looking at 1998 to 2003, a true success for NC. If you follow trend
line, you can see for the most recent release in 2015 that NC was above the nation which was
really good for grade 4 reading. Grade 8 reading again going back to 1998 you can see its kind
of flat in some instances there, we had a bit of a bump then it came down and went back up. Of
course course the most recent results showed that NC was below the Nation in reading and
these results were really very similar to results across the nation with respect to 8 th grades
reading. Reading at the middle Scholl nationally has been flat for a very long time and there has
been a lot of conversation around this about why is this the case. And part of it is considered to
be that reading is very much a fundamental skill and once that is accomplished then the
challenge then is to increase the complexity of the reading and it gets more challenging. The
students can read even more difficult text and can draw inferences and make conclusions.
Andre: interesting, because we talked about then we had a focus on the whole idea of early
childhood development and formative years and had someone come in and present to us the
whole concept of getting off to a good start in reading and writing skills, this suggests we were
doing good in 4th grade but somehow that foundation that we began with we were not able to
sustain. Why is that, what is the root cause of that you would point to explain that 10 years of
data.
Howard, one thing that is important to remember not a content expert, doesn't have final
answer. Very complicated answer and involves many factors, I do have an ELA background,
again, not a content expert. L looking at reading, first task is kids can read, as they go through
the years, up into high school, require deeper understanding of for complex tasks. Perhaps we
are reading at a lower level. Reading is reading, and being able to fine tune the skill at a higher
level as you go through your education experience and through your professional experience
than that is the difference, so if we think about the fact that most mass media, that newspapers
are written to a certain grade level to a 6th or 8th grade level, written to a level that the general
public can read and understand, very simple, easy to digest. Short, simple sentences. The long
term goal of being successful post high school in that emphasis has to be on having more
complex text. What is interesting in the challenge is to find a way to transfer that skill and that
accomplishment from 4th grade as you go up through the grade levels. Of course what we are
really about is seeing that same performance in grade 8 and beyond that we see at grade 4, so
the answer is not that you are better in 4th grade and they just dont do better, the question is
how do we increase student achievement which is the purpose of assessment, is show what the
status is so we can have these conversations.
Andre: What has changed? (My comment, the standards!!!!) Let me jump to the point that I
am hearing from the other commissioners especially the ELA, the importance of writing and it
was pointed out that without attention to writing, it doesnt challenge them to read and
understand, they dont have to demonstrate understanding. I was wondering if in your analysis
if you have seen that kind of dynamic where reading is taught instead of understanding. In
business we write Manuals and test our manuals for technology, how to unpack a lap top, how
to set it up, it is written to an 8th grade level. We found that is the best place to be, but is not
helpful to increase efficiency and skills. I was wondering if in your data, you make these
inferences between reading and understanding. There has to be a connection with writing,
they have to demonstrate understanding and what we are challenging the kids with.
Howard: First step of this is to have content standards that do challenge students and the role
of the content standards is to have that in place, to challenge the kids, to increase their
performance. So that when they are measured, not that we just have a measurement of what
is taught, but what is taught increases the performance and measures the achievement so that
students have the ability to learn more and do more. The measurement is all about seeing what
the students know and are able to do, content standards tell us what we want the students to
know and be able to do, the tests are to see if it was achieved.
Setting the expectation is the first task at hand, your comment about writing is very important,
we did have them for many years. Writing assessments at grade 4, 7 and 10 are not in place
now, it is our understanding that we have a process that we refer to as peer review. They have
a process USDE where they review our assessments to make sure that they are sound and in
line with Federal law, (COMMENT: did you hear her say align to Federal law! There are 3 bills
that prohibit the intrusion into states rights) now we are at the point of going back to peer
review and sharing our assessments and will have to see if writing is in the content standards
and if writing has to be measured. Often times states including NC, have not measured writing
because you cant do that in a multiple choice format. That is expensive and time consuming.
Andre: To Laure and Olivia, a way of input to the ELA work, I would be interested to see as we
focus on ELA recommendations, as we look at these gaps, and be mindful of our charge and the
recommendations of accountability that we are tying your recommendations to.
Olivia, In being sensitive teachers meeting, some feedback from the surveys, sporadic
comments requesting writing tests, we can certainly include those comments in our report,
however I dont think that is substantial enough to include in our recommendations. (My
Comment SAY WHAT!! On one had the kids cant write, cant defend an opinion, cant
comprehend, but we dont want to include that??!!)
Andre: The only point I am on is we are concerned that some of the formative skills that we
develop in the early grades and we have no figures there, it seems like we are kind of
misleading ourselves because it looks like were doing great in the 4th grade and by 8th grade we
regress, did we miss the point in the 4th grade on what the foundation is and not get the skills
needed or is it because you dont have a progression of continuing progression to develop on
that foundation. Kids forget tools from early. I would like to see that reflected in the report.
Jeff: Look at this data in a diagonal fashion. Says there is progress made at end of grade/course
assessments, students make good progress about the time they scores get better, and they
change the standards and assessment, so those that align with NAEP through the years. We
start to get it right and you change it on us.
Andre: Says I understand the point you are making but when you change the measurements,
but you don't forget how to read just because the standard changed.
Jeannie: Always seems to be a movement to re norm the tests, because the test scores too high
re norm the test, the scores go down. Does that mean the next year the kids got dumber? The
skills scores dont change, the arbitrary bar of what is considered proficient gets moved, now
they have added a level of proficiency. Levels 3, 4 5 now proficient, so the actual scale score
number of proficiency has been lowered and now we have 5 levels. This gets manipulated all
the time. This is manipulation. Is arbitrary. I dont put much faith in numbers. Look at skills
scores. NAEP always tells us that the scores were not real because our curriculum standards
were not in line with NAEP.
Jeff: Until recently you are saying that we were in alignment with NAEP?
Howard: Several pints to be made here, one is going back to 98, early 2000, NC developed own
content standards. In math it developed those content standards keeping in mind the NAEP
framework and the national mathematics standards. You can see here in math the significant
increase over the years partly because the content standards that were taught in NC were lined
up with the high expectations of NAEP and that showed up very well, NC versus the Nation, NC
was consistently above the nation going back to the early 2000 NAEP is a state level result
assessment, the math standards have very consistently be aligned with those expectations.
Reading and math are very different. Math is specific, reading is reading, as you move up the
scale, reading is expected to be more difficult. An 8th grade reader should be able to read more
complex material and draw more inferences and conclusions at a deeper level than that of a
4th grader, not to minimize the 4th grade performance, though it is outstanding that in 2015 the
4th graders outperformed the nation. The 2 content areas are very different and teachers
approach it differently in applying those content standards and doing the professional
development on those content standards. They are not the same. So going back to what
happens when we change content standards, the first step in test development is to adopt
content standards. We are in 4th edition of assessments, they do not meet the same
expectations that we are setting for 2015, they continually increase, like a runner, once you go
around the block and not get out of breath, and you go a bit further. A credit to NC when you
look at state assessments compared to NAEP which is considered the Gold Standard, to
national results, and TIMMS, which is the international assessment showing NC at top in the
world in math and science, when you look at that it tells you we are moving the bar forward on
expectations for students in NC students going back to the 1990's. So the scale scores are very
useful, but if you notice on the state chart, when you look at the scale score you cant compare
the scale score across editions. Look at when we introduced re testing, note in 2008 and 2009
you will see the scales in grade 3 increased from 344 to 345 so that is more than a difference in
a scale score, but if you look at it compared to other years it is more of a jump. There is
renorming and resetting of the scale, when we change standards and assessment we are
changing the expectations on the students based on the current standards. What is expected
and what is measured.
Olivia, comment, thanks her for her presentation on the data and walking them through it.
Looking at 2015, paying attention to math at top of the page, and she knows a lot of things
happen in classroom in the minds of the students and the way teachers teach and prepare
students for testing In this data we will not be able to capture all this in the data. If you look at
grade 3 to 8, the everyday person would look at this data and say we have to be about 49% of
the students in NC grades 3 to 8, to about 64% of the NC students who are not proficient in
Mathematics. That is pretty dramatic. (My comment, I think what she is saying is the spread of
non-proficient student s ranges from 49 to 64% of our student population) An overarching
statement is our students appear not to be doing very well in Mathematics, not posing a
question, but is something to ponder for the commission
Andre: how will our recommendations address this that is what we should be looking as we are
evaluating our work?
Ted talking, we cant hear a word, he said, but had to do with score deviation between 2008
and 20012 where there was not such a drop in the scores.
Howard. Responding to what Ted said, that we couldnt hear, : That is an excellent observation,
what is happening there is the content standards are expecting students at the higher grades, 6
7 and 8 is trying to prepare them as they go into high school. Refers to Dr Curtis to talk,
Dr. Curtis: All based on content standards and testing changes, look at 2012 grades 3 to 8 those
content standards were different requirements per grade level but not necessarily lay in a
foundation issue as you go up to get more rigorous so that more students will be prepared
and successful in high school mathematics. So the goal is to be successful in HS math so they
can be successful in college.
Ted, all previous data shows prior to 1012, there was not much of a change in grade 3 to 8,
now all of a sudden we have this huge drop.
Dr Curtis: These standards require more conception understanding and thinking and they
assume mastery of previous topics.
Ted: Interrupts, did this not happen in previous years,
Dr Curtis: Not necessarily.
Ted: Its kind of hard for me to believe that in teaching all these things you didnt require
mastery to move forward?
Dr. Curtis: Were talking about 2 different things, curriculum and assessment.
Ted: Im talking about the grades and what I see.
Dr Curtis: what would you like me to respond to Dr Scheik?
Ted: Well, I asked why the scores went down going from 3 to 8th grade post common core and
why they did not in 2012 and 2005.
Dr. Curtis: In higher education there are some variables, I can make some conjectures but that
doesnt mean that they will be accurate, I can tell you that we have had standards changes and
also testing changes. Something you might want to look at, first of all is 2 years of data for any
group is not enough to talk about a trend in data, so how we look at pre common core we have
several years of data.
Ted Interrupts: I beg your pardon, but all years previous to 2012, not much change from grade
3 to 8, all of a sudden there is a drop
Dr Curtis: We have our assessment items now that she sees and reviews both current forms
and pretest. Speak to the fact that the assessments that they currently have, regardless of the
standards are a much high level of rigor, and our test in Math standards as a whole, not a test
per standard. Look holistically, the rigor of the test has been increased where students are
accountable for multiple standards in one test item. With a full blown implementation of
standards, right or wrong all at once, when we do that, change lock stock, one time, we will
have will have students with gaps, no matter what the standards are. So the students and
teachers work really hard to close those gaps it gets smaller over time.
Ted: Dr. Curtis, I understand all of that , I mean I can very well see when they introduce new
standards the scores have a significant drop, and it takes, 6 or 7 years to recover to the prior
level, so I think what you are trying tell me is that after CC was invented, we made the tests
harder. Is that what you are telling me?
Dr. Howard: If I could please interject. The tests are aligned to the content standards. The test
part of the alignment, we are talking about saying that an item measures two digit
multiplication, then that is what the standard calls for. The standards are also written to
require a certain level of rigor. So the other piece of the alignment is it is not just measuring
two digit multiplication, it is measuring the rigor. What we are seeing here, in my test and
measurement opinion, is the difference, 2 things, one as the content standards go up they do
require more conceptual understanding. The rationale for that was to prepare the students to
be successful in high school and beyond.
Tammy: to your point though Dr Scheik.He interrupts
Ted: You are not answering my question. My question is from 2003 to 2015, one of you said
that the tests got harder, boiling it down to plain English you added more to the tests as you
progressed through progressive grades. So the tests got harder, yes or no.
Dr. Howard: Yes, but because is aligned to the content standards. So the decision on how
difficult an item is, is not made just by someone sitting in a room and saying we are going to
make all these items hard that is not how it is made. Its made in consistency with the adoption
of standards by the State Board of Education. That is a technical quality for test items. Im
sorry.
Tammy: Arent the reformed items supposed to prepare the students for the more rigorous
standards? I think if they were properly prepared, we would not see that dip.
Dr. Howard: You are absolutely right, what we would expect to see as time goes on for that to
occur but if we back map from this years current 8th graders, then the 2014-15 8th graders,
who had their first exposure to these content standards in 6th grade, one of the things we are
watching and we would hope to see is as these kids progress with consistent content standards,
there is time for the instructional practices to catch up with the content standards, and that is
one of the important things about having consistency is to give it time for the instructional
practices to catch up with the content standards so the students become familiar and then to
see those increases, that is why you do see those increases over time. For example when you
look at 2006 to `12, and remembering to factor in re test as well.
Tammy: In grade 6, essentially you have students taking the test that have had 3 previous years
of higher standards, correct? I dont understand why if they were prepared in previous years
suddenly now they are not prepared. In other words you are saying that in grades 6, 7, and 8
grade you are preparing them for more rigorous high school standards, but shouldnt the
elementary grades reflect that as well, that doesnt jive with me and to Dr. Scheiks point, this is
consistent for the past 3 years. You would anticipate that over that time frame there would be
steady improvement, but there isnt.
Jeff: If I remember correctly Dr. Garland told us before that there was a gap at middle
education level and above, so theoretically it would take 10 years to catch up based on the
current standards. My point has always been that it is not fair to teachers, or children in the
way and how we are judging folks across the state. What is the increase in the number of
standards currently accessed? Is there an increase? Does DPI say we are testing this number of
standards now?
Dr. Curtis: Speaking to the test holistically, she would defer to Dr. Howard but I do know that
test items test multiple standards because we look at a test holistically, not item by item.
Jeff: I understand that.
Dr. Curtis: Our last set of standards were more general, they are comparable to what we have
now, not that much of a difference except in the way they are written is different,
Jeff: that being said, are our teachers across the state of NC confident in what students are
going to be assessed on at the end of each year or course, if there is an increase in specificity
are the teachers confident in your opinion? Based on the alignment of these numbers, I dont
see that confidence in the classrooms.
Dr. Howard, 2 clarifications I think are very important, if you compare the school year 2014 to
15, every grade went up, not a lot, it didnt go up 5 points, which is what we like to see, right?
But at the state level with such large numbers it is significant. That does not necessarily look
like we want it to look, we would rather see 48.3 go up to 52 then 48.8, but never the less this
level is significant.
Jeff: It is significant unless you are on the other side of that number as a child and you did not
pass that exam.
Dr. Howard: I agree with that wholeheartedly.
Jeanie Metcalf: If there are 200 standards and we cant test them all on the test maybe that is
something we should look at. My other comment is about the statement that standards are
driving the tests, and I am so tired of people saying that standards dont drive curriculum, well,
if the standards drive the test, then standards drive the curriculum.
Andre: We need to get our standards aligned to our tests then it will align to the curriculum as
well. But right now we fail. Standards are one thing but we have to follow through on the
others.
Dr. Howard: Can I clarify the 200? I think it is important to clarify, the comment about having
200 standards. The example that we often get, and youll probably agree Dr. Isenhour, is that
teachers want to know how their students do on these tests. They want to know that at what
we call the content standard level. They want to know what percentage of their students
performed well on the items that measured X standard. To do that, we would have to have a
very long test with multiple items and that is where I think the comment comes from that it
would take 200 items and a long time to measure at that level to say with confidence that at a
student level, these tests are developed for the school level ideally. So the student level the
entire score on the test is a reliable score that we are unable to get teachers the standard level
information, we do give them groups of standard information because we have more items.
The standard level information would be huge. The example that I give to illustrate this is if we
have a basketball game, and we have a free throw shooter, then we pick some someone
randomly off the bench, he makes the shot, the next time we need a free throw shooter, we
could get him and he could get the shot, or miss the shot, we have no way of knowing what will
happen next time. That is why they get a % of free throws listed across the bottom of the
screen. It is the same with test items. To say that a student has mastered a content standard,
you have to have enough items to say they demonstrated at a student level. The student level
assessment for that type of reporting is very different from a state assessment that is reporting
on the entire test. Also while we have an assessment system that includes formative
assessments, for teachers to have daily in their classroom, to see how students are doing at
that standard level. While we also have benchmark assessments that measure fewer standards
on an assessment rather than the entire years breadth of standards. We have to remember
this comprehensive assessment system and the Summative assessment is a snapshot, at the
end of the year to get this kind of data to have state level conversations, to have district level
conversations depending upon the population.
Jeff: I hear what youre saying, I just want to make a point of this, and you are certainly
welcome to disagree with me. I think we have created a standardized culture in this state with
the number of assessments and the way we give assessments and we have not created a
diagnostic culture in the state to give feedback to the teachers and the students on how well
they are progressing, because when those summative assessments come up at the end of the
year, the feedback, the data that we get, it's worthless. They are not able to serve kids well
because of this standardized culture. They are just now getting teachers understanding the
system, my concern is that we have kids every year that go through the process and it may not
seem that way to us, but it belittles kids taking the tests, these long drawn out assessments that
they do not do well on. That process in this state needs to be changed dramatically.
Andre: So heres what I think we need to do, we have talked about this for a while. I am not
satisfied that we have gotten to the point of clarity that we want to achieve just in the point of
what Dr. Sheik was asking and I think what would help us to do that better is if you could come
back to us with a written response in that particular point. Let me be clear on what we are
saying here. In both reading and math, the same thing is being portrayed, which is when you
look, and I get your point about going horizontally on this chart, year to year, that horizontal
year to year is in a particular grade, but one of the things we are concerned about is
progression. So when a student goes from K to 12, we saying that our standards are helping us
to make sure that they are better prepared to get from K -12 and progress into college and
career , that is what the premise is, but when you look at this, vertically you are actually
declining . I dont want you to explain it to us here now, weve tried that.
Dr Curtis: Interrupts, telling him she wants us to look at it diagonally, follow cohorts of
students, not vertically.
Andre: Thats what Im saying is that that is not on this chart, right? I want to see it written
out very clearly , because what I want to see here is why is it that this is happening, I think what
you are arguing is not particularly the way we are looking at it, what you are arguing is that
actually in a certain grade level the students are improving year to year
Dr.Curtis: Im not arguing that.
Andre: Why is it, Tammy made the point, if that is the case then why is it that they are doing
worse in the other grades. I just want you to come back and be real clear with us on the
dynamics underlined on that. I want to have the discussion here so that is clearly documented.
It is important because once again as we try to address how standards reflect the outcome, it is
not clear right now, based on the questions I am hearing.
Dr. Curtis: Can I share one thing before they close, Look at grade 8 and look all the way across
to 2014, you see 34.6, follow those kids to 2015 and math 1 and you see 48.6, that is the same
group of students, that is the type of year to year comparisons we should be looking at because
over time those gaps will get smaller. The growth will increase.
Andre: Right, but that is the point you need to give us chart showing us that way that is the
more relevant way for this to be looked at.
Ted I have one more comment, when you changed standards in 2005-6 scores dropped from
around 88 to 63 and it took 7 years to recover. When you changed the standards in 2012, it
dropped form low 80s to about 45, which is a much bigger drop. My other comment is, and I
dont want to have any further discussion on this, because we are just going around in circles.
But I want to point out that if you look at any of the grades in 2006 they had a big drop and
had gradually went up, and went up faster than what has happened after Common Core. The
rate of increase is substantially less. Understands drop and recovery time, that is clear, wants
to emphasize recovery seems to be slower with Common Core than otherwise, Can we end this
conversation now.
Andre: You understand what we are looking for. We want to see the trend analysis, the trend
as standards change, and the cohorts as they go through the progression.
Jeff: The cohort we need to look at has not been tested yet, the 2016.
Andre: There is something else going on here, you know this discussion we are having is exactly
what parents are seeing and asking about now. You get a letter telling you that your level 3-4
student is now a level 2 student, and you cant understand what happened? No explanation,
How did they get dumber that fast? I think the dynamic we are talking about is, it is not bad
news, its just that we raised the bar and all of these things that we claim, we can talk about
that here, but we have to communicate that to the parents. (My comment, why would they
want to raise the bar and lower proficiency.......then go to a 10 point grading scale for the
student, and a 15 point scale for the school, smells to me)
Dr. Curtis: You are right about that, we could have done a much better job at the state level,
local level, all over the place. I can say this, we adopted the highest standards.
Andre: I am the parent of a child, and I get those reports.
Dr. Curtis, I understand sir, I am too
Andre: I am just stating that I dont feel like this has been communicated well.
Dr. Curtis: I was agreeing with you sir, that we could have done a much better job. What I will
say is we adopted very high standards for the students in our state, hoping to make them
college and career ready, because the previous standards were not near as rigorous.