1 Achievement, Standards, and Assessment in Iowa and in Iowa Districts.

1

Achievement, Standards, and Assessment in Iowa

and in Iowa Districts

Achievement, Standards, and Assessment in Iowa

and in Iowa Districts

2

Presenter – Dr. Tony VanderZyl,

Assessment ConsultantIowa School Boards Foundation (ISBF)

Presenter – Dr. Tony VanderZyl,

Assessment ConsultantIowa School Boards Foundation (ISBF)

3

Did you know that:• Students in Iowa are not achieving as

well as they should/could.• 20-25% of Iowa students are not meeting

the relatively low standard of proficiency on the Iowa Tests.

• Scores on the Iowa Tests have remained relatively flat for two decades.

• Only about one-third of Iowa students are proficient on the national assessment.

4

Did you know that:• While Iowa’s scores on the national

assessment (NAEP) have remained relatively flat over the 15 years of testing, Iowa’s rank among the states has dropped from the top five to the middle.

• Iowa’s state standards and assessment are rated among the lowest of the states.

• The Iowa Core Curriculum (ICC) is among the most rigorous and comprehensive state standards.

5

Education Week – Quality Counts

Ed Week’s Quality Counts 2011 is the 15th annual study of states’ education quality:•Iowa ranks 33rd in K-12 achievement, based on performance, improvement trends, and achievement gaps.•Iowa ranks 45th in standards, assessments, and accountability policy.

6

Did you know that:• Only about one-third of Iowa districts

currently have local standards that are rigorous and comprehensive.

• Most Iowa districts do not have a comprehensive assessment plan .

• It will take significant leadership and effort for Iowa districts to implement the ICC with fidelity .

7

Iowa Students’ Achievement?

Iowa Students’ Achievement?

8

Iowa Student Proficiency

79 8174 77

3441

32 34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

4th Reading 4th Math 8th Reading 8th Math

% P

rofi

cien

t

I TBS

NAEP

9

PISA Mathematics Literacy 15 Year Olds, 2009(US is tied for 25th out of 34)

Korea, Republic of 546 Austria 496Finland 541 Poland 495Switzerland 534 Sweden 494

Japan 529Czech Republic 493

Canada 527United Kingdom 492

Netherlands 526 Hungary 490New Zealand 519 Luxembourg 489Belgium 515 Ireland 487Australia 514 Portugal 487

Germany 513United States 487

Estonia 512 Italy 483Iceland 507 Spain 483Denmark 503 Greece 466Slovenia 501 Israel 447Norway 498 Turkey 445France 497 Chile 421Slovak Republic 497 Mexico 419

10

Iowa Testing TrendsIowa Testing Trends

11

Iowa 4th Grade ITBS Reading% of Students Proficient

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1995

-97

1996

-98

1997

-99

1998

-00

1999

-01

2000

-02

2001

-03

2002

-04

2003

-05

2004

-06

2005

-07

2006

-08

2007

-09

2008

-10

2009

-11

2010

-12

2011

-13

2012

-14

Biennium

AMO Actual Projected

Data adjustedfrom 1992 normsto 2000 norms

2000 Norms

12

Iowa 8th Grade ITBS Math% of Students Proficient

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Biennium

AMO Actual Projected

2000 NormsData adjustedfrom 1992 normsto 2000 norms

13

NAEP TRENDSNAEP TRENDS

14

Iowa 4th Grade NAEP Reading* Note: Intervals between testing years

are not equal

225 221221223223223223225

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

Year

Sca

le S

core

15

Iowa’s Rank among the States4th Grade NAEP Reading

16

Iowa 4th Grade NAEP Math * Note: Intervals between testing years

are not equal

243243240238231229230

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

290

1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009

Year

Sca

le S

core

17

Iowa’s Rank among the States4th Grade NAEP Math

18

Iowa 8th Grade NAEP Reading * Note: Iowa did not have adequate data

prior to 2003

267 265267268

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

280

1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009

Year

Sca

le S

core

19

Iowa’s Rank among the States8th Grade NAEP Reading

20

Iowa 8th Grade NAEP Math * Note: Intervals between testing years

are not equal

284285284284284283278

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1990 1992 1996 2003 2005 2007 2009

Year

Sca

le S

core

21

Iowa’s Rank among the States8th Grade NAEP Math

22

ISBF Researchon

State Standards, Assessments and the

Iowa Core Curriculum (ICC)

23

Standards in Iowa(Past, present, and future)

• Legislated rigorous local standards

• “Iowa Standards” adopted (2007)

• The Iowa Core Curriculum (ICC) Essential Concepts and Skills must be learned by all students (2013-14)

• “Common Core” national standards

24

The ISBF Study of Local Standards

1. Many districts had trouble finding their standards.

2. Many district standards were missing significant content.

3. There was wide variation in the rigor of district standards.

25

Education Week’s “Quality Counts”Ratings of Education Policy in the

States

1. Iowa ranks 45th in standards, assessment, and accountability policy.

2. Key deficiencies noted are the lack of grade and course-specific standards and the lack of rigorous assessment items.

26

The ISBF Study of State Standards

1. There is considerable variability in the quality of state standards, assessment, and accountability.

2. Iowa’s state standards and assessment are less rigorous than most states.

3. There is a significant relationship between states’ standards, assessment, and accountability and student achievement gains and gap closure on NAEP.

27

The ISBF Study of the ICC

1. We focused on the rigor and comprehensiveness of the ICC.

2. Rigor requires a mix of levels of cognitive demand (Bloom’s Taxonomy, rev. 2001).

3. Comprehensiveness requires strands specified in national standards/reports.

4. Structured review process.

28

Findings on the ICC

• In general, the ICC is significantly more rigorous and comprehensive than the Iowa Standards.

• ICC is roughly as rigorous as the state standards of the states we identified as strong in improving achievement and closing gaps.

• No major areas of content are missing from the ICC.

29

Relationship between Ed Week’s QC Ratings and

NAEP Gains

The scattergram on the following slide shows Ed Week’s QC ratings and NAEP gain for each of the fifty states

There is a significant positive relationship (r = 0.51) between higher QC ratings and greater NAEP gains

On average, each 1 point gain in QC rating is associated with 2 points in NAEP score gain

30

Relationship between QC Ratings and NAEP Score Gains (4th & 8th Reading & Math Ave., All 50 States)

IA

MN

WI

IL

IN

OHKY

MOMI

0

24

68

1012

1416

18

0 2 4 6 8 10

QC Rating

NA

EP

Gai

n

31

Math Standards Rigor by State (Bloom's Taxonomy)

3%

30% 30%35% 38% 35%

67%

30%

39%

54% 42%36%

54%

33%

25%

16%

13%18%

8%

0%

29%

6% 9% 2%0%

7%

0%6%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13%7%

1%4%0% 2%0%0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DE MA MN NY VA IA ICC

State

% o

f It

ems

Create

Evaluate

Analyze

Apply

Understand

Remember

32

Literacy Standards Rigor by State (Bloom's Taxonomy)

4% 3%

17% 7%

45% 43%34%

55% 47%

9%

7%

10% 18%

25%

0%20%

47%

30%26%

35% 44%6%

7% 6%

2%

3%

7% 7% 4%

21%

0% 0%0%0%0%

55%

0%

7%14%

0%

19%14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DE MA MN NY VA IA ICC

State

% o

f It

ems

Create

Evaluate

Analyze

Apply

Understand

Remember

33

Dr. Tony VanderZyl, ISBF Assessment [email protected]

800.795.4272

Dr. Tony VanderZyl, ISBF Assessment [email protected]

800.795.4272

34

Achievement, standards, and assessment in Iowa

and in Iowa districts

Achievement, standards, and assessment in Iowa

and in Iowa districts