How was LAA 2 developed

1
(No Transcript)
2
(No Transcript)
3
How was LAA 2 developed?

• Committee of Louisiana educators (general
  ed and special ed)
• Two meetings (July and August 2005)
• Facilitated by contractor West Ed

4
LAA 2 Development

• Content and grade-level committees identified
• Range of abilities/capabilities of LAA 2
  population
• Range of appropriate sample items taken from LEAP
  and GEE item banks
• Appropriate grade level expectations (GLEs)
  regarding breadth and depth
• Reviewed proposed assessment design and made
  recommendations regarding
• Content depth, breadth, and difficulty
• Item types (MC and CR)
• Test length
• Test accommodations
• Test format

5
LAA 2 Development

• LAA 2 Items
• Selected from LEAP and GEE item banks
• Reviewed by LDE staff assessment development and
  special populations
• Prior review of items by Content and Bias
  Committees

6
How does LAA 2 differ from LEAP, GEE, and iLEAP?

• LAA 2 has
• fewer questions
• less reading
• less writing
• a modified format
• fewer questions per page
• more white space
• larger font

7
Most Significant Format Change

• English Language Arts
• Using Information Resources (UIR)
• The test question follows the resource it
  references.
• Proofreading
• Each of the 8 items is a complete sentence with
  an underlined part to edit.
• (no intact passage for students to read)

8
How is LAA 2 like LEAP, GEE, and iLEAP?

• LAA 2
• Based on Louisiana content standards (modified
  content standards)
• Includes both multiple-choice and
  constructed-response questions
• Requires the same procedure for test
  administration and test security

9
Who took LAA 2 in 2006?

• Student whose IEP reflected a functioning grade
  level in ELA and/or Mathematics at least three
  (3) grade levels below the grade in which he/she
  is enrolled
• Student who scored Unsatisfactory in ELA and/or
  math on the previous years LEAP/GEE or one who
  participated in LAA 1
• Student whose instructional program is
  predominantly academic in nature
• Student who met the criteria listed on the LAA 2
  Participation Criteria Form (www.louisianaschools.
  net)

10
LAA 2 in 20052006

• Grades 4, 8, and 10
• English Language Arts
• Mathematics
• Grade 11
• Science
• Social Studies

11
LAA 2 in 20062007

• Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10
• English Language Arts
• Mathematics
• Grade 11
• Science
• Social Studies

12
LAA 2 in 20072008

• Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10
• English Language Arts
• Mathematics
• Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11
• Science
• Social Studies

13
Standard Setting for LAA 2

• Convened Standard Setting Committee
• June 8-9, 2006 in Lafayette
• Educators representing general and special
  education
• Content and grade-level expertise
• Parent and community representatives
• Selection based on ethnicity, geographic
  location, and past experience in development
  activities related to standards and assessments
• Facilitated by testing contractors
• Data Recognition Corp. and West Ed content and
  psychometric staff
• LDE staff present in each group

14
Standard Setting for LAA 2

• Purpose
• To establish the level of ability students would
  be required to have to be placed into any one of
  the four achievement categories, which are
• Basic
• Approaching Basic
• Foundational
• Pre-Foundational

15
LAA 2 Achievement Levels

• Top two LAA 2 achievement levels
• Basic
• Approaching Basic (AB)
• Align with the Basic and AB levels for LEAP and
  GEE
• Students scoring at these 2 levels on LAA 2 have
  similar performance to students scoring at Basic
  and Approaching Basic on LEAP or GEE.

16
LAA 2 Achievement Levels

• Lower two levels of LAA 2
• Foundational
• Pre-Foundational
• Intent is to differentiate the performance of LAA
  2 students who would fall into the
  Unsatisfactory level on LEAP and GEE

17
Alignment of Achievement Levels LEAP/GEE and
LAA 2
18
LAA 2 Achievement Level Policy Definitions

• Basic A student at this level has demonstrated
  only the fundamental knowledge and skills needed
  for the next level of schooling (same as for
  LEAP, GEE, and iLEAP)
• Approaching Basic A student at this level has
  only partially demonstrated the fundamental
  knowledge and skills needed for the next level of
  schooling (same as for LEAP, GEE, and iLEAP)

19
LAA 2 Achievement Level Policy Definitions

• Foundational A student at this level has not
  demonstrated the fundamental knowledge and skills
  needed for the next level of schooling but has
  demonstrated the foundational knowledge and
  skills that can be built upon to access the
  grade-level curriculum.
• Pre-Foundational A student at this level has not
  demonstrated the fundamental knowledge and skills
  needed for the next level of schooling. However,
  the student may be developing the foundational
  knowledge and skills that can be built upon to
  access the grade-level curriculum.

20
LAA 2 Accountability Points
21
Standard Setting Process

• Panelists were trained extensively in large group
  setting Bookmark Method
• The method used to set the standards (cut
  points).
• A tried, true, and defensible standard setting
  methodology
• Method used to set standards for LEAP, GEE, and
  iLEAP
• (Preliminary) Achievement Level Descriptors
  (ALDs)
• ALDs describe the content and skills students
  taking LAA 2 should know and be able to do at
  each achievement level.
• They guide the bookmark process.
• Small group setting (content and grade level)
• Took the LAA 2 assessment

22
Bookmark Procedure

• Panelists were given a LAA 2 Ordered Item Booklet
  (OIB).
• LAA 2 test items, ordered from easiest to
  hardest, based on 2006 scale score data

23
Bookmark Procedure

• Using the Preliminary ALDs to guide their
  decisions, panelists placed a bookmark (post-it)
  in a location where they thought there was a
  separation between achievement levels.
• Ex To place a cut between the Approaching Basic
  and Basic level, panelists reviewed the items in
  the OIB, starting at the beginning, and asked
  themselves, Would I expect a student at the top
  of the AB level to answer questions like this
  accurately most of the time?
• Reminder Focus is what a student should be able
  to do, not what he/she can do.

24
Bookmark Procedure

• Panelists had at least 2 rounds to place their
  bookmarks at each cut.
• Round 1 Panelists made judgments individually,
  then discussed their cuts as a small group
  (approx. 5) and as a large group (approx. 10).
• After round 1, panelists were presented with
  percentages of students that would fall within in
  each achievement level, based on group
  recommended cuts. Further discussion ensued.

25
Bookmark Procedure

• Round 2 Panelists had another opportunity to
  place bookmarks the same procedures were
  followed.
• Round 3 If necessary, a 3rd round was conducted.
  (seldom occurred)
• Group consensus was not required.

26
Standard Setting Results

• Psychometric staff (contractor and LDE) reviewed
  the final recommended cut points.
• Final cuts were converted into scale score
  ranges.

27
SBESE Approval of LAA 2 Achievement Levels

• August 2006, SBESE approved
• Recommended cut points for the four LAA 2
  Achievement Levels
• Final Achievement Level Descriptors

28
????? Questions ?????

• Claudia.Davis_at_la.gov
• Phone [phone]
• Jeanne.Johnson_at_la.gov
• Phone [phone]

29
(No Transcript)