From jsuggs at pps.net Mon Nov 2 13:21:03 2015 From: jsuggs at pps.net (Joseph Suggs) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:21:03 +0000 Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] Assessment Advisory: Opt-Out Form Feedback In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here's my input (kind of long - sorry): On the information side of the page: * I disagree with the statement "Our new tests take about the same amount of time as previous state tests." I also think parents who are choosing to opt-out will take extreme exception to the accuracy of this statement. I'd recommend striking that sentence. * Next paragraph - the use of "new baseline" and "next school" year are confusing. This paragraph reads as if the 2015-16 results are being considered baseline even though we have 2014-15 results. This needs clarification, particularly around the use of "baseline." * Under "When will my child test?" - I recommend changing "Your child's school district will determine the specific dates . . ." to "will determine your district's windows" or that "Your child's school [strike district] will determine . . ." As worded, this will confuse parents and teachers. Districts determine the windows and schools the specific testing dates (at least in our case, that's how it works). * Right side - I like the third bullet (one piece of . . .) and like to see that repeated everywhere we talk about summative tests. Thanks for including that. * Fourth bullet - "they are considered on track to graduate" is a little different than language we've heard and have been using. Our language has been "on track to be college and career ready." Suggest reviewing the message here and consider revising wording if appropriate. * Under Statewide Testing Windows, I recommend adding a note underneath the windows or at the top, something like, "Local district testing windows may vary from the broad state windows." * In that same box, it lists both SBA and Extended windows. I thought from prior communications this form applies only to SBA. If that's true, then I recommend removing the Extended dates. If that's been revised and it now applies to both tests then that's news to me and maybe needs better or more explicit communication. * Under Stay Informed at the bottom, I'd recommend more generic language like "Talk to your child's school" rather than specifying roles like teacher or principal as the point of contact specifically around testing (the STC) will be different roles in different schools. On the opt-out side of the form: * Remove "Understanding Your Child's Progress" from the header. I'm guessing this is repeated from the other page, but doesn't really fit here. * Add an * behind "adult students" in the Description of Rights section and then again at the end of "This section must be completed . . ." so that it references the note at the bottom about the definition of an adult student. * Strike the comma in the first sentence under Description of Rights. * I would recommend the form be submitted to the school office rather than the district. This may present different challenges in large versus smaller districts, but in PPS we want everything to go through the school first then to us so that we know the school is aware of (and had an opportunity to answer questions if needed) the form, can make sure it is filled out correctly, etc., and because the school should be the primary point of contact for parents anyway. So, I recommend changing "school district" to "school" in the first sentence or have the ability to edit certain parts of this form to meet local needs. * I strongly recommend adding a place for both Student ID (either local or SSID, I don't care which, although we'd probably prefer local ID) and school name. * Recommend adding "Smarter Balanced" in front of the ELA and Math boxes to check unless this really does also apply to the Extended Assessment, in which case, ignore this suggestion. * I recommend adding a sentence somewhere to the effect of "To opt-out of any other state require tests see . . ." I'm not sure the best wording, but that will direct parents a bit for ELPA, KA, etc. and reduce some confusion. * "To best support school district planning" paragraph is confusing/inconsistent. The first sentence "encourages" submission by January 9. The next sentences uses "should" language. If this is a required deadline (and I fully support a required deadline) then the language should reflect it as a requirement. * The January 9 date does not allow any time (if it is a requirement) for submitting forms after the district-required notification date. Can districts have the ability to modify the due date on this form? Again, I would like to have a due date; I feel that January 9 is too soon. * In the "I understand that by signing" sentence, I think most or all of our opt out parents will take strong exception to agreeing that they are losing "valuable" information. I'd recommend striking "valuable" or using a different adjective there. Some more general questions: * What are the distribution requirements? Does it have to be mailed, etc? * Who are the required recipients? Only parents of students in grades 3-8 and 11 or must we also distribute to students who will take ELPA, Science, etc.? What about 12th graders (presumably they wouldn't opt-out as that's voluntary, but clarification would be good). * Will this be translated? I presume just into Spanish. What is the timing of translations? Thanks for asking for input. As you know this was a pretty big deal in PPS last year and while we really appreciate a district form, the comments above are a reflection of a lot our experience and learning on this topic from last year. Joe From: Assessment_Advisory_Committee [mailto:assessment_advisory_committee-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us] On Behalf Of CARTER Holly Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:33 PM To: assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Cc: KOCH Meg Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] Assessment Advisory: Opt-Out Form Feedback Importance: High Hi All, As communicated in a numbered memo released on September 10th, ODE will be publishing a combined Opt-Out form and 30-day notice for districts to access on November 9th. To date, ODE has shared drafts of the form with parent focus groups and partners such as OEA, the Chief Education Office, OSBA, Stand for Children, and the Chalkboard Project. Based on feedback from these groups, ODE has made several revisions in order to address concerns about the language, accessibility, format, and content. These changes include, but are not limited to: * Removing redundant or ineffective phrases, like college- and career-readiness * Simplifying page 1 text * Providing additional information about state tests * Encouraging parents to talk to their child's teachers and school principals * Providing links to resources and acknowledging House Bill 2655 * Moving away from overselling the results of Smarter Balanced * Broadening the language for opting out to include Smarter Balanced ELA and math tests and the extended assessments * Remove and soften the language on page 2 about when parents/adult students should return the form * Add the qualifier "may" to the bolded statement above the parent signature Before finalizing the form for publication, we wanted one last opportunity to gather feedback. We value your input, and request that you please send any feedback to Meg Koch (meg.koch at state.or.us) no later than end of day next Wednesday, November 4. Once finalized, we will disseminate the form to schools and districts November 9 as planned. In our message to schools, we will include additional resources to assist them in communicating with parents and students. Thank you, Holly Carter Interim Director of Assessment Office of Learning | Inst., Stand., Asmt, &Acc. Unit | Oregon Department of Education Phone: 503.947.5739 | Fax: 503.378.5156 | *holly.carter at state.or.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us Mon Nov 2 14:54:26 2015 From: bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us (Bain, Brian) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 22:54:26 +0000 Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] Assessment Advisory: Opt-Out Form Feedback In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <016B0BFF1DF04E44B5C8ED9AACF3243A805AE224@EX3.ttsd.ttsd.k12.or.us> I see Joe gave his feedback, but I haven't read it yet, just to be un-affected by his viewpoints. I'm unsure of the extend of our feedback you're looking for. If I hadn't seen a prior version, I would have said this was fine, not great, but fine. Having seen the prior version, I would encourage ODE to go back to the September 28th version. That version was clear, gave good rationale and motivation, and had very friendly and appealing formatting. I mostly worry about the tone and formatting of this notification. It's very cut and dry, here's what we've got to tell you, and lacks much of the approachability and is harder to relate to than the earlier draft. For example the old draft gives rationale as to why we raised standards: "...previous standards did not adequately prepare our students for the rigorous demands of the 21st century. With a shift to new standards, we also shifted our statewide tests...." Those "for the better good" type of statements are missing from the presented document. But I suspect that's not the level of feedback you're looking for this late in the game. Here's some more concrete feedback: This statement to be completely untrue and should be fixed: * "If your child receives a 3 or 4 on the tests, they are considered on track to graduate." I believe that statement to be untrue. They are on track to be prepared for college and career, but they'll graduate with a 2. >From an implementation at the district level standpoint: * Districts need to be able to specify where and how the form gets submitted. Parents should return them to their school, not to the district office. There's limited opportunity to address parent concerns at the district office, and the schools are the ones who ultimately need to prepare to offer an alternative to that student. * Districts need to be able to specify the date by which the form must be returned. We've been told we have until January 8th to send them out, this says they must be returned on that date. In terms of simple readability and formatting: * Are we still using the term opt-out?! I thought we were going back to "Parent Refusal" which is the original and official term. * When printed in B&W, the first place your eye falls is "How much time do the tests take?" Which isn't the message we want to highlight first. It's a challenge to even see the dark boxes and the content contained therein. * "Why Does Participation Matter" doesn't talk about the rationale for requiring 95% participation at schools, that it's really a matter of equity, when participation is low, achievement gaps can be obscurred * Change "Your child will take the tests once after..." to "Your child will take the tests a single time after..." once indicate a sequence rather than a frequency. * Why include both the SBAC and Extended windows? One incorporates the other, and that much detail isn't pertinent to the message. * Consider putting all the bit.ly links on a single ODE page and then using something like tinyurl.com where you can specify some plain English links like "http://tinyurl.com/ode-smarterbalanced" Something people can transcribe from paper. I messed up twice trying to get to the 1nO2Vkt link. Alternatively: http://ode.state.or.us/go/optout * Change "In addition, opting out may impact my school and district's efforts to target school improvement." to "In addition, opting out may impact my school's public rating by the Oregon Department of Education and my school and district's efforts to target school improvement." Brian Bain District Assessment Coordinator Tigard-Tualatin School District 6960 SW Sandburg St, Tigard, OR 97223 503-431-4120 - bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us From: Assessment_Advisory_Committee [mailto:assessment_advisory_committee-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us] On Behalf Of CARTER Holly Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:33 PM To: assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Cc: KOCH Meg Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] Assessment Advisory: Opt-Out Form Feedback Importance: High Hi All, As communicated in a numbered memo released on September 10th, ODE will be publishing a combined Opt-Out form and 30-day notice for districts to access on November 9th. To date, ODE has shared drafts of the form with parent focus groups and partners such as OEA, the Chief Education Office, OSBA, Stand for Children, and the Chalkboard Project. Based on feedback from these groups, ODE has made several revisions in order to address concerns about the language, accessibility, format, and content. These changes include, but are not limited to: * Removing redundant or ineffective phrases, like college- and career-readiness * Simplifying page 1 text * Providing additional information about state tests * Encouraging parents to talk to their child's teachers and school principals * Providing links to resources and acknowledging House Bill 2655 * Moving away from overselling the results of Smarter Balanced * Broadening the language for opting out to include Smarter Balanced ELA and math tests and the extended assessments * Remove and soften the language on page 2 about when parents/adult students should return the form * Add the qualifier "may" to the bolded statement above the parent signature Before finalizing the form for publication, we wanted one last opportunity to gather feedback. We value your input, and request that you please send any feedback to Meg Koch (meg.koch at state.or.us) no later than end of day next Wednesday, November 4. Once finalized, we will disseminate the form to schools and districts November 9 as planned. In our message to schools, we will include additional resources to assist them in communicating with parents and students. Thank you, Holly Carter Interim Director of Assessment Office of Learning | Inst., Stand., Asmt, &Acc. Unit | Oregon Department of Education Phone: 503.947.5739 | Fax: 503.378.5156 | *holly.carter at state.or.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us Mon Nov 2 14:58:32 2015 From: bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us (Bain, Brian) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 22:58:32 +0000 Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] Assessment Advisory: Opt-Out Form Feedback In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <016B0BFF1DF04E44B5C8ED9AACF3243A805AE251@EX3.ttsd.ttsd.k12.or.us> OK. Now I've read Joe's response... and I agree, we need a spot for the student ID and/or school. I actually had written those down, and forgot to include it. I also thought it was odd to include a link to House Bill 2655. I wasn't sure the purpose of doing that. Brian Bain District Assessment Coordinator Tigard-Tualatin School District 6960 SW Sandburg St, Tigard, OR 97223 503-431-4120 - bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us From: Assessment_Advisory_Committee [mailto:assessment_advisory_committee-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us] On Behalf Of Joseph Suggs Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 1:21 PM To: CARTER Holly; assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Cc: KOCH Meg Subject: Re: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] Assessment Advisory: Opt-Out Form Feedback Here's my input (kind of long - sorry): On the information side of the page: * I disagree with the statement "Our new tests take about the same amount of time as previous state tests." I also think parents who are choosing to opt-out will take extreme exception to the accuracy of this statement. I'd recommend striking that sentence. * Next paragraph - the use of "new baseline" and "next school" year are confusing. This paragraph reads as if the 2015-16 results are being considered baseline even though we have 2014-15 results. This needs clarification, particularly around the use of "baseline." * Under "When will my child test?" - I recommend changing "Your child's school district will determine the specific dates . . ." to "will determine your district's windows" or that "Your child's school [strike district] will determine . . ." As worded, this will confuse parents and teachers. Districts determine the windows and schools the specific testing dates (at least in our case, that's how it works). * Right side - I like the third bullet (one piece of . . .) and like to see that repeated everywhere we talk about summative tests. Thanks for including that. * Fourth bullet - "they are considered on track to graduate" is a little different than language we've heard and have been using. Our language has been "on track to be college and career ready." Suggest reviewing the message here and consider revising wording if appropriate. * Under Statewide Testing Windows, I recommend adding a note underneath the windows or at the top, something like, "Local district testing windows may vary from the broad state windows." * In that same box, it lists both SBA and Extended windows. I thought from prior communications this form applies only to SBA. If that's true, then I recommend removing the Extended dates. If that's been revised and it now applies to both tests then that's news to me and maybe needs better or more explicit communication. * Under Stay Informed at the bottom, I'd recommend more generic language like "Talk to your child's school" rather than specifying roles like teacher or principal as the point of contact specifically around testing (the STC) will be different roles in different schools. On the opt-out side of the form: * Remove "Understanding Your Child's Progress" from the header. I'm guessing this is repeated from the other page, but doesn't really fit here. * Add an * behind "adult students" in the Description of Rights section and then again at the end of "This section must be completed . . ." so that it references the note at the bottom about the definition of an adult student. * Strike the comma in the first sentence under Description of Rights. * I would recommend the form be submitted to the school office rather than the district. This may present different challenges in large versus smaller districts, but in PPS we want everything to go through the school first then to us so that we know the school is aware of (and had an opportunity to answer questions if needed) the form, can make sure it is filled out correctly, etc., and because the school should be the primary point of contact for parents anyway. So, I recommend changing "school district" to "school" in the first sentence or have the ability to edit certain parts of this form to meet local needs. * I strongly recommend adding a place for both Student ID (either local or SSID, I don't care which, although we'd probably prefer local ID) and school name. * Recommend adding "Smarter Balanced" in front of the ELA and Math boxes to check unless this really does also apply to the Extended Assessment, in which case, ignore this suggestion. * I recommend adding a sentence somewhere to the effect of "To opt-out of any other state require tests see . . ." I'm not sure the best wording, but that will direct parents a bit for ELPA, KA, etc. and reduce some confusion. * "To best support school district planning" paragraph is confusing/inconsistent. The first sentence "encourages" submission by January 9. The next sentences uses "should" language. If this is a required deadline (and I fully support a required deadline) then the language should reflect it as a requirement. * The January 9 date does not allow any time (if it is a requirement) for submitting forms after the district-required notification date. Can districts have the ability to modify the due date on this form? Again, I would like to have a due date; I feel that January 9 is too soon. * In the "I understand that by signing" sentence, I think most or all of our opt out parents will take strong exception to agreeing that they are losing "valuable" information. I'd recommend striking "valuable" or using a different adjective there. Some more general questions: * What are the distribution requirements? Does it have to be mailed, etc? * Who are the required recipients? Only parents of students in grades 3-8 and 11 or must we also distribute to students who will take ELPA, Science, etc.? What about 12th graders (presumably they wouldn't opt-out as that's voluntary, but clarification would be good). * Will this be translated? I presume just into Spanish. What is the timing of translations? Thanks for asking for input. As you know this was a pretty big deal in PPS last year and while we really appreciate a district form, the comments above are a reflection of a lot our experience and learning on this topic from last year. Joe From: Assessment_Advisory_Committee [mailto:assessment_advisory_committee-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us] On Behalf Of CARTER Holly Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:33 PM To: assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Cc: KOCH Meg Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] Assessment Advisory: Opt-Out Form Feedback Importance: High Hi All, As communicated in a numbered memo released on September 10th, ODE will be publishing a combined Opt-Out form and 30-day notice for districts to access on November 9th. To date, ODE has shared drafts of the form with parent focus groups and partners such as OEA, the Chief Education Office, OSBA, Stand for Children, and the Chalkboard Project. Based on feedback from these groups, ODE has made several revisions in order to address concerns about the language, accessibility, format, and content. These changes include, but are not limited to: * Removing redundant or ineffective phrases, like college- and career-readiness * Simplifying page 1 text * Providing additional information about state tests * Encouraging parents to talk to their child's teachers and school principals * Providing links to resources and acknowledging House Bill 2655 * Moving away from overselling the results of Smarter Balanced * Broadening the language for opting out to include Smarter Balanced ELA and math tests and the extended assessments * Remove and soften the language on page 2 about when parents/adult students should return the form * Add the qualifier "may" to the bolded statement above the parent signature Before finalizing the form for publication, we wanted one last opportunity to gather feedback. We value your input, and request that you please send any feedback to Meg Koch (meg.koch at state.or.us) no later than end of day next Wednesday, November 4. Once finalized, we will disseminate the form to schools and districts November 9 as planned. In our message to schools, we will include additional resources to assist them in communicating with parents and students. Thank you, Holly Carter Interim Director of Assessment Office of Learning | Inst., Stand., Asmt, &Acc. Unit | Oregon Department of Education Phone: 503.947.5739 | Fax: 503.378.5156 | *holly.carter at state.or.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us Wed Nov 4 09:15:01 2015 From: bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us (Bain, Brian) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:15:01 +0000 Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] Assessment Advisory: Opt-Out Form Feedback References: Message-ID: <016B0BFF1DF04E44B5C8ED9AACF3243A805B0FAC@EX3.ttsd.ttsd.k12.or.us> Just to be clear, we (districts) have until January 9th to mail the letter, but it says that parents must return it to the district office by January 9th. Those dates don't work together. Brian Bain District Assessment Coordinator Tigard-Tualatin School District 6960 SW Sandburg St, Tigard, OR 97223 503-431-4120 - bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us From: Bain, Brian Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 2:59 PM To: 'Joseph Suggs'; CARTER Holly; assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Cc: KOCH Meg Subject: RE: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] Assessment Advisory: Opt-Out Form Feedback OK. Now I've read Joe's response... and I agree, we need a spot for the student ID and/or school. I actually had written those down, and forgot to include it. I also thought it was odd to include a link to House Bill 2655. I wasn't sure the purpose of doing that. Brian Bain District Assessment Coordinator Tigard-Tualatin School District 6960 SW Sandburg St, Tigard, OR 97223 503-431-4120 - bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us From: Assessment_Advisory_Committee [mailto:assessment_advisory_committee-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us] On Behalf Of Joseph Suggs Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 1:21 PM To: CARTER Holly; assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Cc: KOCH Meg Subject: Re: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] Assessment Advisory: Opt-Out Form Feedback Here's my input (kind of long - sorry): On the information side of the page: * I disagree with the statement "Our new tests take about the same amount of time as previous state tests." I also think parents who are choosing to opt-out will take extreme exception to the accuracy of this statement. I'd recommend striking that sentence. * Next paragraph - the use of "new baseline" and "next school" year are confusing. This paragraph reads as if the 2015-16 results are being considered baseline even though we have 2014-15 results. This needs clarification, particularly around the use of "baseline." * Under "When will my child test?" - I recommend changing "Your child's school district will determine the specific dates . . ." to "will determine your district's windows" or that "Your child's school [strike district] will determine . . ." As worded, this will confuse parents and teachers. Districts determine the windows and schools the specific testing dates (at least in our case, that's how it works). * Right side - I like the third bullet (one piece of . . .) and like to see that repeated everywhere we talk about summative tests. Thanks for including that. * Fourth bullet - "they are considered on track to graduate" is a little different than language we've heard and have been using. Our language has been "on track to be college and career ready." Suggest reviewing the message here and consider revising wording if appropriate. * Under Statewide Testing Windows, I recommend adding a note underneath the windows or at the top, something like, "Local district testing windows may vary from the broad state windows." * In that same box, it lists both SBA and Extended windows. I thought from prior communications this form applies only to SBA. If that's true, then I recommend removing the Extended dates. If that's been revised and it now applies to both tests then that's news to me and maybe needs better or more explicit communication. * Under Stay Informed at the bottom, I'd recommend more generic language like "Talk to your child's school" rather than specifying roles like teacher or principal as the point of contact specifically around testing (the STC) will be different roles in different schools. On the opt-out side of the form: * Remove "Understanding Your Child's Progress" from the header. I'm guessing this is repeated from the other page, but doesn't really fit here. * Add an * behind "adult students" in the Description of Rights section and then again at the end of "This section must be completed . . ." so that it references the note at the bottom about the definition of an adult student. * Strike the comma in the first sentence under Description of Rights. * I would recommend the form be submitted to the school office rather than the district. This may present different challenges in large versus smaller districts, but in PPS we want everything to go through the school first then to us so that we know the school is aware of (and had an opportunity to answer questions if needed) the form, can make sure it is filled out correctly, etc., and because the school should be the primary point of contact for parents anyway. So, I recommend changing "school district" to "school" in the first sentence or have the ability to edit certain parts of this form to meet local needs. * I strongly recommend adding a place for both Student ID (either local or SSID, I don't care which, although we'd probably prefer local ID) and school name. * Recommend adding "Smarter Balanced" in front of the ELA and Math boxes to check unless this really does also apply to the Extended Assessment, in which case, ignore this suggestion. * I recommend adding a sentence somewhere to the effect of "To opt-out of any other state require tests see . . ." I'm not sure the best wording, but that will direct parents a bit for ELPA, KA, etc. and reduce some confusion. * "To best support school district planning" paragraph is confusing/inconsistent. The first sentence "encourages" submission by January 9. The next sentences uses "should" language. If this is a required deadline (and I fully support a required deadline) then the language should reflect it as a requirement. * The January 9 date does not allow any time (if it is a requirement) for submitting forms after the district-required notification date. Can districts have the ability to modify the due date on this form? Again, I would like to have a due date; I feel that January 9 is too soon. * In the "I understand that by signing" sentence, I think most or all of our opt out parents will take strong exception to agreeing that they are losing "valuable" information. I'd recommend striking "valuable" or using a different adjective there. Some more general questions: * What are the distribution requirements? Does it have to be mailed, etc? * Who are the required recipients? Only parents of students in grades 3-8 and 11 or must we also distribute to students who will take ELPA, Science, etc.? What about 12th graders (presumably they wouldn't opt-out as that's voluntary, but clarification would be good). * Will this be translated? I presume just into Spanish. What is the timing of translations? Thanks for asking for input. As you know this was a pretty big deal in PPS last year and while we really appreciate a district form, the comments above are a reflection of a lot our experience and learning on this topic from last year. Joe From: Assessment_Advisory_Committee [mailto:assessment_advisory_committee-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us] On Behalf Of CARTER Holly Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:33 PM To: assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Cc: KOCH Meg Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] Assessment Advisory: Opt-Out Form Feedback Importance: High Hi All, As communicated in a numbered memo released on September 10th, ODE will be publishing a combined Opt-Out form and 30-day notice for districts to access on November 9th. To date, ODE has shared drafts of the form with parent focus groups and partners such as OEA, the Chief Education Office, OSBA, Stand for Children, and the Chalkboard Project. Based on feedback from these groups, ODE has made several revisions in order to address concerns about the language, accessibility, format, and content. These changes include, but are not limited to: * Removing redundant or ineffective phrases, like college- and career-readiness * Simplifying page 1 text * Providing additional information about state tests * Encouraging parents to talk to their child's teachers and school principals * Providing links to resources and acknowledging House Bill 2655 * Moving away from overselling the results of Smarter Balanced * Broadening the language for opting out to include Smarter Balanced ELA and math tests and the extended assessments * Remove and soften the language on page 2 about when parents/adult students should return the form * Add the qualifier "may" to the bolded statement above the parent signature Before finalizing the form for publication, we wanted one last opportunity to gather feedback. We value your input, and request that you please send any feedback to Meg Koch (meg.koch at state.or.us) no later than end of day next Wednesday, November 4. Once finalized, we will disseminate the form to schools and districts November 9 as planned. In our message to schools, we will include additional resources to assist them in communicating with parents and students. Thank you, Holly Carter Interim Director of Assessment Office of Learning | Inst., Stand., Asmt, &Acc. Unit | Oregon Department of Education Phone: 503.947.5739 | Fax: 503.378.5156 | *holly.carter at state.or.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From staplesd at newberg.k12.or.us Wed Nov 4 17:27:13 2015 From: staplesd at newberg.k12.or.us (Don Staples) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:27:13 -0800 Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] Assessment Advisory: Opt-Out Form Feedback In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If it is not too late ... The title on in the footer, 2015-16 Notice for Oregon's Summative Tests, is more accurate than that actual title at the top. If the purpose is to meet the notification requirement - it should be more plain at the top. On the side that the parent signs, I encourage a quicker cut to the point approach by moving the paragraph below the subjects chart to just below the Description of Rights. One person who reviewed this for me felt like the flow of the from was trying to bury the message. I would reduce the first sentence of that paragraph to, "It is preferred that you submit this form no later than January 9, 2016." This also leaves it open for the school district to determine if forms will initially go to the school office or the district office. Since it will be extremly rare for a high school junior to be 18 by January, can the rights box be headed as Parent Rights instead of Description of Rights? Other Side: Not sure what to do with the Testing Windows box. The February 9 test date is going to cause lots of confusion since my district will not be starting Smarter Balanced tests until late March - early April. *I also disagree with the answer to how long the test take. Our credibility will be hurt if we say it takes about the same amount of time as previous state test. That is only true at best for students who took OAKS multiple times.* The last bullet under what the state tests do: Why does it include high performing schools when the it ends with receiving the supports to improve? That does not make sense to me. A thought for the future when seeking input. I appreciate the list of groups that had a chance to review the document. I recommend that that school district communication specialists be givin these opportunities as a collective group to provide feedback when ODE is working on a document because they are a helpful bridge between the community/parents and the educators. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. Don Staples Newberg SD On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:33 PM, CARTER Holly wrote: > Hi All, > > > > As communicated in a numbered memo released on September 10th, ODE will > be publishing a combined Opt-Out form and 30-day notice for districts to > access on November 9th. To date, ODE has shared drafts of the form with > parent focus groups and partners such as OEA, the Chief Education Office, > OSBA, Stand for Children, and the Chalkboard Project. Based on feedback > from these groups, ODE has made several revisions in order to address > concerns about the language, accessibility, format, and content. These > changes include, but are not limited to: > > ? Removing redundant or ineffective phrases, like college- and > career-readiness > > ? Simplifying page 1 text > > ? Providing additional information about state tests > > ? Encouraging parents to talk to their child?s teachers and > school principals > > ? Providing links to resources and acknowledging House Bill 2655 > > ? Moving away from overselling the results of Smarter Balanced > > ? Broadening the language for opting out to include Smarter > Balanced ELA and math tests and the extended assessments > > ? Remove and soften the language on page 2 about when > parents/adult students should return the form > > ? Add the qualifier ?may? to the bolded statement above the > parent signature > > > > Before finalizing the form for publication, we wanted one last opportunity > to gather feedback. We value your input, and *request that you please > send* *any feedback to Meg Koch **(meg.koch at state.or.us > ) no later than end of day next Wednesday, November 4*. > Once finalized, we will disseminate the form to schools and districts > November 9 as planned. In our message to schools, we will include > additional resources to assist them in communicating with parents and > students. > > > > Thank you, > > > > *Holly Carter* > Interim Director of Assessment > > Office of Learning | Inst., Stand., Asmt, &Acc. Unit | Oregon Department > of Education > > Phone: 503.947.5739 | Fax: 503.378.5156 | *holly.carter at state.or.us > > _____________________________________________________ > Assessment_Advisory_Committee mailing list > Assessment_Advisory_Committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us > > http://listsmart.osl.state.or.us/mailman/listinfo/assessment_advisory_committee > Hosted by the Oregon State Library. The Library is not responsible for > content. > Questions related to message content should be directed to list owner(s) > or the sender of the message, by phone or email. > Technical questions? Call 503-378-8800. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From holly.carter at state.or.us Mon Nov 23 14:14:01 2015 From: holly.carter at state.or.us (CARTER Holly) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:14:01 +0000 Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration Message-ID: To: Assessment Advisory Committee Subject: Classroom Activity administration Background: Last Thursday, the Smarter Balanced consortium formally voted to give member states the option whether to continue requiring the classroom activity as a precursor to the performance task or whether to make the classroom activity optional for schools and districts to implement. As we discussed at our meeting last month, the original rationale behind requiring the classroom activity was to ensure that all students had an opportunity to gain shared contextual information in advance of taking the performance task. The rationale behind removing the consortium-wide requirement is twofold. First, the consortium engaged in a comprehensive review of the performance tasks to ascertain whether they would be accessible to all students without the classroom activity if supported by other accessibility supports such as the embedded glossary. Second, the consortium has identified removing the classroom activity requirement as a way to shorten the amount of time required to administer the Smarter Balanced assessments; removal of the 30-minute classroom activity for both math and ELA reduces the total testing footprint by 60 minutes. Options: ODE is now seeking your input to decide whether it is in the best interest of Oregon's students to: a) Continue requiring administration of the classroom activities for all students as a state-level policy Pros: Maintains consistency with training provided to the field and logistical plans already made/underway in schools/districts. Avoids new burden that would otherwise be caused by removing accessibility option without sufficient time/guidance for schools to ensure appropriate access for all students (e.g., assignment of glossaries or other supports to compensate for removal of classroom activity). Cons: Retains a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity. Creates a burden on the state to communicate to the field why the state is adopting a policy to require a resource that is not required by the consortium and increases the testing footprint beyond the consortium requirement. b) Offer the classroom activities but make it optional at the district or school level whether to require them for all students in the school/district Pros: Potentially reduces testing time and logistical planning for those schools/districts who choose not to offer it while still allowing schools/districts to make it available if they choose. Cons: For those schools/districts that choose to administer the classroom activity, retains a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity and creates a burden on schools/districts to communicate to students, parents, etc why the school/district is adopting a policy to require a resource that is not required by the consortium or the state and increases the testing footprint. Requires revision of TAM and training resources to update the field on the change in policy. c) Offer the classroom activity as a non-embedded designated support, leaving it to the school level to determine which individual students would benefit from the classroom activity Pros: Potentially reduces testing time and logistical planning for many students while ensuring that those student who would benefit from the classroom activity still have access. Cons: Puts schools and teachers in a difficult position of having to make a choice affecting the fairness and accessibility of the test without knowing what background knowledge the PT requires that the classroom activity would provide. Creates a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity to those students identified to receive it as a designated support. Requires revision of TAM , OAM, and training resources to update the field on the change in policy and provide guidance on appropriately identifying which individual students would benefit from the classroom activity. d) Remove support of the classroom activity altogether for Oregon students Pros: Reduces testing time and logistical planning for schools/districts. Cons: Requires revision of TAM and training resources to update the field on the change in policy. Removes accessibility option without sufficient time/guidance for schools to ensure appropriate access for all students (e.g., assignment of glossaries or other supports to compensate for removal of classroom activity). To support timely communication to the field should we adopt a change in policy, we are requesting your input by COB this Wednesday, Nov. 25th. Please reply to holly.carter at state.or.us with your vote (options a, b, c, or d) along with your rationale and any suggestion regarding how to communicate to the field. Given the potentially sensitive implications this policy could have in our state's discussion around testing, we also respectfully request that you not discuss this potential policy shift with others outside of the committee pending a decision and official communication by ODE. Thank you as always for your thoughtful and timely and consideration. Holly Carter Interim Director of Assessment Office of Learning | Inst., Stand., Asmt, &Acc. Unit | Oregon Department of Education Phone: 503.947.5739 | Fax: 503.378.5156 | *holly.carter at state.or.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From holly.carter at state.or.us Tue Nov 24 08:51:36 2015 From: holly.carter at state.or.us (CARTER Holly) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:51:36 +0000 Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration Message-ID: Hi all, To further inform your review of the options before us, attached are some talking points that Smarter Balanced put together after the vote to support communication about the new flexibility they are offering to states. Holly From: CARTER Holly Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 2:14 PM To: assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Subject: input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration To: Assessment Advisory Committee Subject: Classroom Activity administration Background: Last Thursday, the Smarter Balanced consortium formally voted to give member states the option whether to continue requiring the classroom activity as a precursor to the performance task or whether to make the classroom activity optional for schools and districts to implement. As we discussed at our meeting last month, the original rationale behind requiring the classroom activity was to ensure that all students had an opportunity to gain shared contextual information in advance of taking the performance task. The rationale behind removing the consortium-wide requirement is twofold. First, the consortium engaged in a comprehensive review of the performance tasks to ascertain whether they would be accessible to all students without the classroom activity if supported by other accessibility supports such as the embedded glossary. Second, the consortium has identified removing the classroom activity requirement as a way to shorten the amount of time required to administer the Smarter Balanced assessments; removal of the 30-minute classroom activity for both math and ELA reduces the total testing footprint by 60 minutes. Options: ODE is now seeking your input to decide whether it is in the best interest of Oregon's students to: a) Continue requiring administration of the classroom activities for all students as a state-level policy Pros: Maintains consistency with training provided to the field and logistical plans already made/underway in schools/districts. Avoids new burden that would otherwise be caused by removing accessibility option without sufficient time/guidance for schools to ensure appropriate access for all students (e.g., assignment of glossaries or other supports to compensate for removal of classroom activity). Cons: Retains a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity. Creates a burden on the state to communicate to the field why the state is adopting a policy to require a resource that is not required by the consortium and increases the testing footprint beyond the consortium requirement. b) Offer the classroom activities but make it optional at the district or school level whether to require them for all students in the school/district Pros: Potentially reduces testing time and logistical planning for those schools/districts who choose not to offer it while still allowing schools/districts to make it available if they choose. Cons: For those schools/districts that choose to administer the classroom activity, retains a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity and creates a burden on schools/districts to communicate to students, parents, etc why the school/district is adopting a policy to require a resource that is not required by the consortium or the state and increases the testing footprint. Requires revision of TAM and training resources to update the field on the change in policy. c) Offer the classroom activity as a non-embedded designated support, leaving it to the school level to determine which individual students would benefit from the classroom activity Pros: Potentially reduces testing time and logistical planning for many students while ensuring that those student who would benefit from the classroom activity still have access. Cons: Puts schools and teachers in a difficult position of having to make a choice affecting the fairness and accessibility of the test without knowing what background knowledge the PT requires that the classroom activity would provide. Creates a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity to those students identified to receive it as a designated support. Requires revision of TAM , OAM, and training resources to update the field on the change in policy and provide guidance on appropriately identifying which individual students would benefit from the classroom activity. d) Remove support of the classroom activity altogether for Oregon students Pros: Reduces testing time and logistical planning for schools/districts. Cons: Requires revision of TAM and training resources to update the field on the change in policy. Removes accessibility option without sufficient time/guidance for schools to ensure appropriate access for all students (e.g., assignment of glossaries or other supports to compensate for removal of classroom activity). To support timely communication to the field should we adopt a change in policy, we are requesting your input by COB this Wednesday, Nov. 25th. Please reply to holly.carter at state.or.us with your vote (options a, b, c, or d) along with your rationale and any suggestion regarding how to communicate to the field. Given the potentially sensitive implications this policy could have in our state's discussion around testing, we also respectfully request that you not discuss this potential policy shift with others outside of the committee pending a decision and official communication by ODE. Thank you as always for your thoughtful and timely and consideration. Holly Carter Interim Director of Assessment Office of Learning | Inst., Stand., Asmt, &Acc. Unit | Oregon Department of Education Phone: 503.947.5739 | Fax: 503.378.5156 | *holly.carter at state.or.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Chiefs_meeting_one_pager_final.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 2783860 bytes Desc: Chiefs_meeting_one_pager_final.docx URL: From stewartw at bctonline.com Wed Nov 25 09:05:37 2015 From: stewartw at bctonline.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:05:37 -0800 Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5B9E83A8-E7FD-44FA-B380-7DB208F7FD5A@bctonline.com> Holly, Thanks for the added information, it helped me a lot?especially the indication that PTs found to be inaccessible for all students without the classroom activity would not be deployed this year. Without the supplemental information, I would have landed on option ?a? as the only way to effectively maintain equity. However, given the intent to only deploy ?accessible? PTs I can now consider options ?b? & ?c??.?d? is (and always was) off the table for me. In light of the tremendously varied district, school, classroom and student level needs across the state, my ideal preference would be a combination of ?b? & ?c?. Some/many districts may find it most effective to make district or school level decisions about using the CA. However, in other cases, it may be essential for schools to deploy the CA for students in unique circumstances, even if just a few. I can?t support placing limits on either approach, hence my wish for a combined ?b & c? approach. One other caveat?I hope that whatever decision is made and implemented, that SBAC, AIR and ODE will closely monitor the impact of this change, especially at the subgroup level, to be CERTAIN that there are no unintended consequences at the student level. I hope that we can receive/review the results of this monitoring at our Fall meeting next year. I hope this provides useful feedback for you. Happy Thanksgiving?and I?m thankful that you asked for our input! Bill Bill Stewart 503-805-8680 - c > On Nov 24, 2015, at 8:51 AM, CARTER Holly wrote: > > Hi all, > > To further inform your review of the options before us, attached are some talking points that Smarter Balanced put together after the vote to support communication about the new flexibility they are offering to states. > > Holly > > From: CARTER Holly > Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 2:14 PM > To: assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us > Subject: input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration > > To: Assessment Advisory Committee > Subject: Classroom Activity administration > > Background: Last Thursday, the Smarter Balanced consortium formally voted to give member states the option whether to continue requiring the classroom activity as a precursor to the performance task or whether to make the classroom activity optional for schools and districts to implement. As we discussed at our meeting last month, the original rationale behind requiring the classroom activity was to ensure that all students had an opportunity to gain shared contextual information in advance of taking the performance task. The rationale behind removing the consortium-wide requirement is twofold. First, the consortium engaged in a comprehensive review of the performance tasks to ascertain whether they would be accessible to all students without the classroom activity if supported by other accessibility supports such as the embedded glossary. Second, the consortium has identified removing the classroom activity requirement as a way to shorten the amount of time required to administer the Smarter Balanced assessments; removal of the 30-minute classroom activity for both math and ELA reduces the total testing footprint by 60 minutes. > > Options: ODE is now seeking your input to decide whether it is in the best interest of Oregon?s students to: > a) Continue requiring administration of the classroom activities for all students as a state-level policy > Pros: Maintains consistency with training provided to the field and logistical plans already made/underway in schools/districts. Avoids new burden that would otherwise be caused by removing accessibility option without sufficient time/guidance for schools to ensure appropriate access for all students (e.g., assignment of glossaries or other supports to compensate for removal of classroom activity). > Cons: Retains a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity. Creates a burden on the state to communicate to the field why the state is adopting a policy to require a resource that is not required by the consortium and increases the testing footprint beyond the consortium requirement. > > b) Offer the classroom activities but make it optional at the district or school level whether to require them for all students in the school/district > Pros: Potentially reduces testing time and logistical planning for those schools/districts who choose not to offer it while still allowing schools/districts to make it available if they choose. > Cons: For those schools/districts that choose to administer the classroom activity, retains a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity and creates a burden on schools/districts to communicate to students, parents, etc why the school/district is adopting a policy to require a resource that is not required by the consortium or the state and increases the testing footprint. Requires revision of TAM and training resources to update the field on the change in policy. > > c) Offer the classroom activity as a non-embedded designated support, leaving it to the school level to determine which individual students would benefit from the classroom activity > Pros: Potentially reduces testing time and logistical planning for many students while ensuring that those student who would benefit from the classroom activity still have access. > Cons: Puts schools and teachers in a difficult position of having to make a choice affecting the fairness and accessibility of the test without knowing what background knowledge the PT requires that the classroom activity would provide. Creates a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity to those students identified to receive it as a designated support. Requires revision of TAM , OAM, and training resources to update the field on the change in policy and provide guidance on appropriately identifying which individual students would benefit from the classroom activity. > > d) Remove support of the classroom activity altogether for Oregon students > Pros: Reduces testing time and logistical planning for schools/districts. > Cons: Requires revision of TAM and training resources to update the field on the change in policy. Removes accessibility option without sufficient time/guidance for schools to ensure appropriate access for all students (e.g., assignment of glossaries or other supports to compensate for removal of classroom activity). > > To support timely communication to the field should we adopt a change in policy, we are requesting your input by COB this Wednesday, Nov. 25th. Please reply to holly.carter at state.or.us with your vote (options a, b, c, or d) along with your rationale and any suggestion regarding how to communicate to the field. Given the potentially sensitive implications this policy could have in our state?s discussion around testing, we also respectfully request that you not discuss this potential policy shift with others outside of the committee pending a decision and official communication by ODE. > > Thank you as always for your thoughtful and timely and consideration. > > Holly Carter > Interim Director of Assessment > > Office of Learning | Inst., Stand., Asmt, &Acc. Unit | Oregon Department of Education > Phone: 503.947.5739 | Fax: 503.378.5156 | *holly.carter at state.or.us > > > _____________________________________________________ > Assessment_Advisory_Committee mailing list > Assessment_Advisory_Committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us > http://listsmart.osl.state.or.us/mailman/listinfo/assessment_advisory_committee > Hosted by the Oregon State Library. The Library is not responsible for content. > Questions related to message content should be directed to list owner(s) or the sender of the message, by phone or email. > Technical questions? Call 503-378-8800. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us Wed Nov 25 09:09:26 2015 From: bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us (Bain, Brian) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:09:26 +0000 Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration In-Reply-To: <5B9E83A8-E7FD-44FA-B380-7DB208F7FD5A@bctonline.com> References: <5B9E83A8-E7FD-44FA-B380-7DB208F7FD5A@bctonline.com> Message-ID: <016B0BFF1DF04E44B5C8ED9AACF3243A805BE343@EX3.ttsd.ttsd.k12.or.us> Bill, if B, C or a B/C blend is chosen, how will you monitor which students received the CA and which didn't in order to best monitor the effects? Brian Bain District Assessment Coordinator Tigard-Tualatin School District 6960 SW Sandburg St, Tigard, OR 97223 503-431-4120 - bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us From: Assessment_Advisory_Committee [mailto:assessment_advisory_committee-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us] On Behalf Of Bill Stewart Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:06 AM To: CARTER Holly Cc: assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Subject: Re: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration Holly, Thanks for the added information, it helped me a lot?especially the indication that PTs found to be inaccessible for all students without the classroom activity would not be deployed this year. Without the supplemental information, I would have landed on option ?a? as the only way to effectively maintain equity. However, given the intent to only deploy ?accessible? PTs I can now consider options ?b? & ?c??.?d? is (and always was) off the table for me. In light of the tremendously varied district, school, classroom and student level needs across the state, my ideal preference would be a combination of ?b? & ?c?. Some/many districts may find it most effective to make district or school level decisions about using the CA. However, in other cases, it may be essential for schools to deploy the CA for students in unique circumstances, even if just a few. I can?t support placing limits on either approach, hence my wish for a combined ?b & c? approach. One other caveat?I hope that whatever decision is made and implemented, that SBAC, AIR and ODE will closely monitor the impact of this change, especially at the subgroup level, to be CERTAIN that there are no unintended consequences at the student level. I hope that we can receive/review the results of this monitoring at our Fall meeting next year. I hope this provides useful feedback for you. Happy Thanksgiving?and I?m thankful that you asked for our input! Bill Bill Stewart 503-805-8680 - c On Nov 24, 2015, at 8:51 AM, CARTER Holly > wrote: span.org {mso-style-name:org;} span.locality {mso-style-name:locality;} span.region {mso-style-name:region;} span.postal-code {mso-style-name:postal-code;} span.EmailStyle25 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:windowtext;} span.EmailStyle26 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} span.EmailStyle27 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} span.EmailStyle28 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} span.EmailStyle29 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:windowtext;} span.EmailStyle30 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} span.EmailStyle31 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:1426417618; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:1563998500 493917212 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower; mso-level-text:"%1\)"; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; color:#1F497D;} @list l0:level2 {mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level3 {mso-level-number-format:roman-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:right; text-indent:-9.0pt;} @list l0:level4 {mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level5 {mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level6 {mso-level-number-format:roman-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:right; text-indent:-9.0pt;} @list l0:level7 {mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level8 {mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level9 {mso-level-number-format:roman-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:right; text-indent:-9.0pt;} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} --> Hi all, To further inform your review of the options before us, attached are some talking points that Smarter Balanced put together after the vote to support communication about the new flexibility they are offering to states. Holly From: CARTER Holly Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 2:14 PM To: assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Subject: input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration To: Assessment Advisory Committee Subject: Classroom Activity administration Background: Last Thursday, the Smarter Balanced consortium formally voted to give member states the option whether to continue requiring the classroom activity as a precursor to the performance task or whether to make the classroom activity optional for schools and districts to implement. As we discussed at our meeting last month, the original rationale behind requiring the classroom activity was to ensure that all students had an opportunity to gain shared contextual information in advance of taking the performance task. The rationale behind removing the consortium-wide requirement is twofold. First, the consortium engaged in a comprehensive review of the performance tasks to ascertain whether they would be accessible to all students without the classroom activity if supported by other accessibility supports such as the embedded glossary. Second, the consortium has identified removing the classroom activity requirement as a way to shorten the amount of time required to administer the Smarter Balanced assessments; removal of the 30-minute classroom activity for both math and ELA reduces the total testing footprint by 60 minutes. Options: ODE is now seeking your input to decide whether it is in the best interest of Oregon?s students to: 1. Continue requiring administration of the classroom activities for all students as a state-level policy Pros: Maintains consistency with training provided to the field and logistical plans already made/underway in schools/districts. Avoids new burden that would otherwise be caused by removing accessibility option without sufficient time/guidance for schools to ensure appropriate access for all students (e.g., assignment of glossaries or other supports to compensate for removal of classroom activity). Cons: Retains a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity. Creates a burden on the state to communicate to the field why the state is adopting a policy to require a resource that is not required by the consortium and increases the testing footprint beyond the consortium requirement. 2. Offer the classroom activities but make it optional at the district or school level whether to require them for all students in the school/district Pros: Potentially reduces testing time and logistical planning for those schools/districts who choose not to offer it while still allowing schools/districts to make it available if they choose. Cons: For those schools/districts that choose to administer the classroom activity, retains a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity and creates a burden on schools/districts to communicate to students, parents, etc why the school/district is adopting a policy to require a resource that is not required by the consortium or the state and increases the testing footprint. Requires revision of TAM and training resources to update the field on the change in policy. 3. Offer the classroom activity as a non-embedded designated support, leaving it to the school level to determine which individual students would benefit from the classroom activity Pros: Potentially reduces testing time and logistical planning for many students while ensuring that those student who would benefit from the classroom activity still have access. Cons: Puts schools and teachers in a difficult position of having to make a choice affecting the fairness and accessibility of the test without knowing what background knowledge the PT requires that the classroom activity would provide. Creates a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity to those students identified to receive it as a designated support. Requires revision of TAM , OAM, and training resources to update the field on the change in policy and provide guidance on appropriately identifying which individual students would benefit from the classroom activity. 4. Remove support of the classroom activity altogether for Oregon students Pros: Reduces testing time and logistical planning for schools/districts. Cons: Requires revision of TAM and training resources to update the field on the change in policy. Removes accessibility option without sufficient time/guidance for schools to ensure appropriate access for all students (e.g., assignment of glossaries or other supports to compensate for removal of classroom activity). To support timely communication to the field should we adopt a change in policy, we are requesting your input by COB this Wednesday, Nov. 25th. Please reply to holly.carter at state.or.us with your vote (options a, b, c, or d) along with your rationale and any suggestion regarding how to communicate to the field. Given the potentially sensitive implications this policy could have in our state?s discussion around testing, we also respectfully request that you not discuss this potential policy shift with others outside of the committee pending a decision and official communication by ODE. Thank you as always for your thoughtful and timely and consideration. Holly Carter Interim Director of Assessment Office of Learning | Inst., Stand., Asmt, &Acc. Unit | Oregon Department of Education Phone: 503.947.5739 | Fax: 503.378.5156 | ?holly.carter at state.or.us _____________________________________________________ Assessment_Advisory_Committee mailing list Assessment_Advisory_Committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us http://listsmart.osl.state.or.us/mailman/listinfo/assessment_advisory_committee Hosted by the Oregon State Library. The Library is not responsible for content. Questions related to message content should be directed to list owner(s) or the sender of the message, by phone or email. Technical questions? Call 503-378-8800. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From holly.carter at state.or.us Wed Nov 25 09:17:41 2015 From: holly.carter at state.or.us (CARTER Holly) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:17:41 +0000 Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration In-Reply-To: <016B0BFF1DF04E44B5C8ED9AACF3243A805BE343@EX3.ttsd.ttsd.k12.or.us> References: <5B9E83A8-E7FD-44FA-B380-7DB208F7FD5A@bctonline.com> <016B0BFF1DF04E44B5C8ED9AACF3243A805BE343@EX3.ttsd.ttsd.k12.or.us> Message-ID: Good question, Brian. To clarify, under either B or C (or a combination), we do not have an effective way of tracking at the state level which students (or which schools) offer the CA. We could enquire with AIR whether we would have the ability to track which schools download the activities, but we would not have a way of tracking who used it or which students received it. I also wanted to let you all know that Smarter Balanced is developing some additional communication resources that should be available early next week that explains in greater detail the rationale behind the consortium?s change in policy and the consortium?s longer range plans for ensuring universal accessibility for the performance tasks. I will share that with you all as soon as we get it. Thank you all for engaging on this question, and happy Thanksgiving! Holly From: Bain, Brian [mailto:bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:09 AM To: Bill Stewart; CARTER Holly Cc: assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Subject: RE: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration Bill, if B, C or a B/C blend is chosen, how will you monitor which students received the CA and which didn't in order to best monitor the effects? Brian Bain District Assessment Coordinator Tigard-Tualatin School District 6960 SW Sandburg St, Tigard, OR 97223 503-431-4120 - bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us From: Assessment_Advisory_Committee [mailto:assessment_advisory_committee-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us] On Behalf Of Bill Stewart Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:06 AM To: CARTER Holly Cc: assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Subject: Re: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration Holly, Thanks for the added information, it helped me a lot?especially the indication that PTs found to be inaccessible for all students without the classroom activity would not be deployed this year. Without the supplemental information, I would have landed on option ?a? as the only way to effectively maintain equity. However, given the intent to only deploy ?accessible? PTs I can now consider options ?b? & ?c??.?d? is (and always was) off the table for me. In light of the tremendously varied district, school, classroom and student level needs across the state, my ideal preference would be a combination of ?b? & ?c?. Some/many districts may find it most effective to make district or school level decisions about using the CA. However, in other cases, it may be essential for schools to deploy the CA for students in unique circumstances, even if just a few. I can?t support placing limits on either approach, hence my wish for a combined ?b & c? approach. One other caveat?I hope that whatever decision is made and implemented, that SBAC, AIR and ODE will closely monitor the impact of this change, especially at the subgroup level, to be CERTAIN that there are no unintended consequences at the student level. I hope that we can receive/review the results of this monitoring at our Fall meeting next year. I hope this provides useful feedback for you. Happy Thanksgiving?and I?m thankful that you asked for our input! Bill Bill Stewart 503-805-8680 - c On Nov 24, 2015, at 8:51 AM, CARTER Holly > wrote: span.org {mso-style-name:org;} span.locality {mso-style-name:locality;} span.region {mso-style-name:region;} span.postal-code {mso-style-name:postal-code;} span.EmailStyle25 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:windowtext;} span.EmailStyle26 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} span.EmailStyle27 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} span.EmailStyle28 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} span.EmailStyle29 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:windowtext;} span.EmailStyle30 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} span.EmailStyle31 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:1426417618; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:1563998500 493917212 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower; mso-level-text:"%1\)"; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; color:#1F497D;} @list l0:level2 {mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level3 {mso-level-number-format:roman-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:right; text-indent:-9.0pt;} @list l0:level4 {mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level5 {mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level6 {mso-level-number-format:roman-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:right; text-indent:-9.0pt;} @list l0:level7 {mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level8 {mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level9 {mso-level-number-format:roman-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:right; text-indent:-9.0pt;} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} --> Hi all, To further inform your review of the options before us, attached are some talking points that Smarter Balanced put together after the vote to support communication about the new flexibility they are offering to states. Holly From: CARTER Holly Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 2:14 PM To: assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Subject: input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration To: Assessment Advisory Committee Subject: Classroom Activity administration Background: Last Thursday, the Smarter Balanced consortium formally voted to give member states the option whether to continue requiring the classroom activity as a precursor to the performance task or whether to make the classroom activity optional for schools and districts to implement. As we discussed at our meeting last month, the original rationale behind requiring the classroom activity was to ensure that all students had an opportunity to gain shared contextual information in advance of taking the performance task. The rationale behind removing the consortium-wide requirement is twofold. First, the consortium engaged in a comprehensive review of the performance tasks to ascertain whether they would be accessible to all students without the classroom activity if supported by other accessibility supports such as the embedded glossary. Second, the consortium has identified removing the classroom activity requirement as a way to shorten the amount of time required to administer the Smarter Balanced assessments; removal of the 30-minute classroom activity for both math and ELA reduces the total testing footprint by 60 minutes. Options: ODE is now seeking your input to decide whether it is in the best interest of Oregon?s students to: 1. Continue requiring administration of the classroom activities for all students as a state-level policy Pros: Maintains consistency with training provided to the field and logistical plans already made/underway in schools/districts. Avoids new burden that would otherwise be caused by removing accessibility option without sufficient time/guidance for schools to ensure appropriate access for all students (e.g., assignment of glossaries or other supports to compensate for removal of classroom activity). Cons: Retains a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity. Creates a burden on the state to communicate to the field why the state is adopting a policy to require a resource that is not required by the consortium and increases the testing footprint beyond the consortium requirement. 2. Offer the classroom activities but make it optional at the district or school level whether to require them for all students in the school/district Pros: Potentially reduces testing time and logistical planning for those schools/districts who choose not to offer it while still allowing schools/districts to make it available if they choose. Cons: For those schools/districts that choose to administer the classroom activity, retains a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity and creates a burden on schools/districts to communicate to students, parents, etc why the school/district is adopting a policy to require a resource that is not required by the consortium or the state and increases the testing footprint. Requires revision of TAM and training resources to update the field on the change in policy. 3. Offer the classroom activity as a non-embedded designated support, leaving it to the school level to determine which individual students would benefit from the classroom activity Pros: Potentially reduces testing time and logistical planning for many students while ensuring that those student who would benefit from the classroom activity still have access. Cons: Puts schools and teachers in a difficult position of having to make a choice affecting the fairness and accessibility of the test without knowing what background knowledge the PT requires that the classroom activity would provide. Creates a logistical burden on schools to administer the classroom activity to those students identified to receive it as a designated support. Requires revision of TAM , OAM, and training resources to update the field on the change in policy and provide guidance on appropriately identifying which individual students would benefit from the classroom activity. 4. Remove support of the classroom activity altogether for Oregon students Pros: Reduces testing time and logistical planning for schools/districts. Cons: Requires revision of TAM and training resources to update the field on the change in policy. Removes accessibility option without sufficient time/guidance for schools to ensure appropriate access for all students (e.g., assignment of glossaries or other supports to compensate for removal of classroom activity). To support timely communication to the field should we adopt a change in policy, we are requesting your input by COB this Wednesday, Nov. 25th. Please reply to holly.carter at state.or.us with your vote (options a, b, c, or d) along with your rationale and any suggestion regarding how to communicate to the field. Given the potentially sensitive implications this policy could have in our state?s discussion around testing, we also respectfully request that you not discuss this potential policy shift with others outside of the committee pending a decision and official communication by ODE. Thank you as always for your thoughtful and timely and consideration. Holly Carter Interim Director of Assessment Office of Learning | Inst., Stand., Asmt, &Acc. Unit | Oregon Department of Education Phone: 503.947.5739 | Fax: 503.378.5156 | ?holly.carter at state.or.us _____________________________________________________ Assessment_Advisory_Committee mailing list Assessment_Advisory_Committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us http://listsmart.osl.state.or.us/mailman/listinfo/assessment_advisory_committee Hosted by the Oregon State Library. The Library is not responsible for content. Questions related to message content should be directed to list owner(s) or the sender of the message, by phone or email. Technical questions? Call 503-378-8800. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stewartw at gladstone.k12.or.us Wed Nov 25 09:18:32 2015 From: stewartw at gladstone.k12.or.us (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:18:32 -0800 Subject: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration In-Reply-To: <016B0BFF1DF04E44B5C8ED9AACF3243A805BE343@EX3.ttsd.ttsd.k12.or.us> References: <5B9E83A8-E7FD-44FA-B380-7DB208F7FD5A@bctonline.com> <016B0BFF1DF04E44B5C8ED9AACF3243A805BE343@EX3.ttsd.ttsd.k12.or.us> Message-ID: Brian, I'm expecting that we would have a relatively small number of students (option c) and would monitor in-house (exact process TBD). I can also see the possible need for some sort of SIS 'flag' option, especially for districts that use 'b'. Maybe something at the AIR level would be possible too? All or nothing is easier, but not always the best at the student level, which is one of the main reasons for my position. On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Bain, Brian wrote: > Bill, if B, C or a B/C blend is chosen, how will you monitor which > students received the CA and which didn't in order to best monitor the > effects? > > > > > > Brian Bain > > District Assessment Coordinator > > Tigard-Tualatin School District > > 6960 SW Sandburg St, Tigard, OR 97223 > > 503-431-4120 - bbain at ttsd.k12.or.us > > > > *From:* Assessment_Advisory_Committee [mailto: > assessment_advisory_committee-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us] *On > Behalf Of *Bill Stewart > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:06 AM > *To:* CARTER Holly > *Cc:* assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us > *Subject:* Re: [Assessment_Advisory_Committee] input requested by 11/25: > classroom activity administration > > > > Holly, > > > > Thanks for the added information, it helped me a lot?especially the > indication that PTs found to be inaccessible for all students without the > classroom activity would not be deployed this year. > > > > Without the supplemental information, I would have landed on option ?a? as > the only way to effectively maintain equity. However, given the intent to > only deploy ?accessible? PTs I can now consider options ?b? & ?c??.?d? is > (and always was) off the table for me. > > > > In light of the tremendously varied district, school, classroom and > student level needs across the state, my ideal preference would be a > combination of ?b? & ?c?. Some/many districts may find it most effective > to make district or school level decisions about using the CA. However, in > other cases, it may be essential for schools to deploy the CA for students > in unique circumstances, even if just a few. I can?t support placing > limits on either approach, hence my wish for a combined ?b & c? approach. > > > > One other caveat?I hope that whatever decision is made and implemented, > that SBAC, AIR and ODE will closely monitor the impact of this change, > especially at the subgroup level, to be CERTAIN that there are no > unintended consequences at the student level. I hope that we can > receive/review the results of this monitoring at our Fall meeting next year. > > > > I hope this provides useful feedback for you. > > > > Happy Thanksgiving?and I?m thankful that you asked for our input! > > > > Bill > > > Bill Stewart > 503-805-8680 - c > > On Nov 24, 2015, at 8:51 AM, CARTER Holly > wrote: > > > > span.org {mso-style-name:org;} span.locality {mso-style-name:locality;} > span.region {mso-style-name:region;} span.postal-code > {mso-style-name:postal-code;} span.EmailStyle25 {mso-style-type:personal; > font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:windowtext;} span.EmailStyle26 > {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; > color:#1F497D;} span.EmailStyle27 {mso-style-type:personal; > font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} span.EmailStyle28 > {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; > color:#1F497D;} span.EmailStyle29 {mso-style-type:personal; > font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:windowtext;} span.EmailStyle30 > {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; > color:#1F497D;} span.EmailStyle31 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; > font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} .MsoChpDefault > {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 > {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.WordSection1 > {page:WordSection1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 > {mso-list-id:1426417618; mso-list-type:hybrid; > mso-list-template-ids:1563998500 493917212 67698713 67698715 67698703 > 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;} @list l0:level1 > {mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower; mso-level-text:"%1\)"; > mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; > text-indent:-.25in; color:#1F497D;} @list l0:level2 > {mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; > mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level3 > {mso-level-number-format:roman-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; > mso-level-number-position:right; text-indent:-9.0pt;} @list l0:level4 > {mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; > text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level5 {mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower; > mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; > text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level6 {mso-level-number-format:roman-lower; > mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:right; > text-indent:-9.0pt;} @list l0:level7 {mso-level-tab-stop:none; > mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level8 > {mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; > mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level9 > {mso-level-number-format:roman-lower; mso-level-tab-stop:none; > mso-level-number-position:right; text-indent:-9.0pt;} ol > {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} --> > > Hi all, > > > > To further inform your review of the options before us, attached are some > talking points that Smarter Balanced put together after the vote to support > communication about the new flexibility they are offering to states. > > > > Holly > > > > *From:* CARTER Holly > *Sent:* Monday, November 23, 2015 2:14 PM > *To:* assessment_advisory_committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us > *Subject:* input requested by 11/25: classroom activity administration > > > > To: Assessment Advisory Committee > > Subject: Classroom Activity administration > > > > Background: Last Thursday, the Smarter Balanced consortium formally voted > to give member states the option whether to continue requiring the > classroom activity as a precursor to the performance task or whether to > make the classroom activity optional for schools and districts to > implement. As we discussed at our meeting last month, the original > rationale behind requiring the classroom activity was to ensure that all > students had an opportunity to gain shared contextual information in > advance of taking the performance task. The rationale behind removing the > consortium-wide requirement is twofold. First, the consortium engaged in a > comprehensive review of the performance tasks to ascertain whether they > would be accessible to all students without the classroom activity if > supported by other accessibility supports such as the embedded glossary. > Second, the consortium has identified removing the classroom activity > requirement as a way to shorten the amount of time required to administer > the Smarter Balanced assessments; removal of the 30-minute classroom > activity for both math and ELA reduces the total testing footprint by 60 > minutes. > > > > Options: ODE is now seeking your input to decide whether it is in the best > interest of Oregon?s students to: > > 1. Continue *requiring* administration of the classroom activities > for all students as a state-level policy > *Pros:* Maintains consistency with training provided to the field and > logistical plans already made/underway in schools/districts. Avoids new > burden that would otherwise be caused by removing accessibility option > without sufficient time/guidance for schools to ensure appropriate access > for all students (e.g., assignment of glossaries or other supports to > compensate for removal of classroom activity). > *Cons:* Retains a logistical burden on schools to administer the > classroom activity. Creates a burden on the state to communicate to the > field why the state is adopting a policy to require a resource that is not > required by the consortium and increases the testing footprint beyond the > consortium requirement. > > > > 2. Offer the classroom activities but make it *optional* at the > district or school level whether to require them for all students in the > school/district > *Pros:* Potentially reduces testing time and logistical planning for > those schools/districts who choose not to offer it while still allowing > schools/districts to make it available if they choose. > *Cons:* For those schools/districts that choose to administer the > classroom activity, retains a logistical burden on schools to administer > the classroom activity and creates a burden on schools/districts to > communicate to students, parents, etc why the school/district is adopting a > policy to require a resource that is not required by the consortium or the > state and increases the testing footprint. Requires revision of TAM and > training resources to update the field on the change in policy. > > 3. Offer the classroom activity as a *non-embedded designated > support*, leaving it to the school level to determine which individual > students would benefit from the classroom activity > *Pros:* Potentially reduces testing time and logistical planning for many > students while ensuring that those student who would benefit from the > classroom activity still have access. > *Cons:* Puts schools and teachers in a difficult position of having to > make a choice affecting the fairness and accessibility of the test without > knowing what background knowledge the PT requires that the classroom > activity would provide. Creates a logistical burden on schools to > administer the classroom activity to those students identified to receive > it as a designated support. Requires revision of TAM , OAM, and training > resources to update the field on the change in policy and provide guidance > on appropriately identifying which individual students would benefit from > the classroom activity. > > 4. *Remove *support of the classroom activity altogether for Oregon > students > *Pros:* Reduces testing time and logistical planning for > schools/districts. > *Cons:* Requires revision of TAM and training resources to update the > field on the change in policy. Removes accessibility option without > sufficient time/guidance for schools to ensure appropriate access for all > students (e.g., assignment of glossaries or other supports to compensate > for removal of classroom activity). > > > > To support timely communication to the field should we adopt a change in > policy, we are requesting your input by COB this *Wednesday, Nov. 25th*. > Please reply to holly.carter at state.or.us with your vote (options a, b, c, > or d) along with your rationale and any suggestion regarding how to > communicate to the field. *Given the potentially sensitive implications > this policy could have in our state?s discussion around testing, we also > respectfully request that you not discuss this potential policy shift with > others outside of the committee pending a decision and official > communication by ODE.* > > > > Thank you as always for your thoughtful and timely and consideration. > > > > *Holly Carter* > Interim Director of Assessment > > Office of Learning | Inst., Stand., Asmt, &Acc. Unit | Oregon Department > of Education > > Phone: 503.947.5739 | Fax: 503.378.5156 | *holly.carter at state.or.us > > > > > > > _____________________________________________________ > Assessment_Advisory_Committee mailing list > Assessment_Advisory_Committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us > > http://listsmart.osl.state.or.us/mailman/listinfo/assessment_advisory_committee > Hosted by the Oregon State Library. The Library is not responsible for > content. > Questions related to message content should be directed to list owner(s) > or the sender of the message, by phone or email. > Technical questions? Call 503-378-8800. > > > > _____________________________________________________ > Assessment_Advisory_Committee mailing list > Assessment_Advisory_Committee at listsmart.osl.state.or.us > > http://listsmart.osl.state.or.us/mailman/listinfo/assessment_advisory_committee > Hosted by the Oregon State Library. The Library is not responsible for > content. > Questions related to message content should be directed to list owner(s) > or the sender of the message, by phone or email. > Technical questions? Call 503-378-8800. > > -- Bill Stewart Special Projects Gladstone SD stewartw at gladstone.k12.or.us 503-805-8680 - cell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: