Tag Archives: Science Assessment

Wyoming Science Assessment Letter

August 25, 2008

The Honorable Jim McBride
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Wyoming Department of Education
2300 Capitol Ave, 2nd Floor
Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002-0050

Dear Superintendent McBride:

I am writing regarding our review of Wyoming’s science assessments under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).

As outlined in my letter of February 28, 2008, states had to meet four basic requirements in science for the 2007-08 school year. In particular, each state was required to: (1) have approved content standards in science; (2) administer a regular and alternate science assessment in each of three grade spans; (3) include all students in those assessments; and (4) report the results of the regular and alternate science assessments on state and district report cards. After reviewing the evidence submitted, I am pleased to note that it appears that Wyoming has met these requirements for 2007-08. However, Wyoming must submit final participation data to ensure that all students were included in the assessment system. Please let us know within 10 days of receipt of this letter when Wyoming will have those data available so that we can confirm that Wyoming has, in fact, met the basic requirements for administering science assessments in 2007-08. States that do not provide the outstanding evidence to verify that they have met the four criteria for the 2007-08 school year have not met the basic requirements of the statute and will be subject to consequences, such as withholding of Title I, Part A administrative funds.

In 2008-09, Wyoming must provide evidence for peer review that demonstrates full compliance of its science standards and assessments. In anticipation of that required peer review, Wyoming chose to participate in an optional technical assistance peer review in May 2008. I appreciate the efforts that were required to prepare for the technical assistance peer review and hope that the process provides useful feedback that will support Wyoming’s efforts to monitor student progress toward meeting challenging science standards.

Based on the evidence received from Wyoming, which was reviewed by the peers and Department staff, we have concluded that Wyoming does not yet meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements of section 1111(b)(1) and (3) of the ESEA. Specifically, Wyoming must submit evidence of its science academic achievement standards, alignment of those standards with grade-level content, and technical quality of the science assessments that were administered for the first time in 2007-08. The complete list of evidence needed to address these concerns is enclosed with this letter. We have scheduled peer reviews for states’ science assessments for the weeks of October 25 through November 2, 2008, and March 23 through 27, 2009. All materials for review must be provided to the Department three weeks before the peer review is scheduled.

Please keep in mind that science standards and assessments represent one piece of a state’s complete standards and assessment system, which also includes regular and alternate assessments for reading/language arts and mathematics. As stated in my letter to you on November 13, 2007, Wyoming’s standards and assessment system for reading/language arts and mathematics is currently designated Approval Pending. In order to be fully approved, Wyoming must demonstrate that all components of its standards and assessment system as administered in 2008-09, including general and alternate assessments for reading, mathematics, and science, comply with all ESEA requirements for standards and assessment systems.

We look forward to working with Wyoming to support a high-quality standards and assessment system, of which science standards and assessments are an integral part. If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact Don Watson (Don.Watson@ed.gov) or Lauren Prehoda (Lauren.Prehoda@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

Enclosure

cc: Governor Dave Freudenthal
Joe Simpson
Lesley Wangberg


SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT WYOMING MUST SUBMIT TO MEET ESEA REQUIREMENTS FOR WYOMING’S SCIENCE STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS

2.0 – ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS

  1. Evidence of final adoption of cut scores for the PAWS and the PAWS-Alt.
  2. Final achievement level descriptors that differentiate across grade spans and that are content specific.
  3. Evidence of alternate academic achievement standards, descriptors, and cut scores for the PAWS-Alt.
  4. Evidence demonstrating how the state ensures that parents are informed that students are participating in the PAWS-Alt, along with evidence of how the state ensures that parents are informed of the implications of that participation.
  5. Documentation of the number and percentage of students with disabilities enrolled, the number and percentage assessed on the PAWS-Alt, and the number and percentage assessed on PAWS, either with or without accommodations.
  6. Evidence of diverse stakeholders’ representation in the standards-setting process in June 2008, including participants’ demographic information, such as content area knowledge, special expertise (i.e., limited English proficient students and students with disabilities), and grade taught.

3.0 – FULL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

  1. Evidence of alignment for the PAWS and PAWS-Alt. [Evidence submitted for element 5 will satisfy this concern.]

4.0 – TECHNICAL QUALITY

  1. Documentation of a final, comprehensive technical manual that addresses the critical elements contained within this section.
  2. Plans for examining intended and unintended consequences.
  3. Evidence of the methodology and plan for demonstrating the reliability of the PAWS-Alt, particularly the Portfolio of Student Work (PSW) component.
  4. Documentation of the monitoring system.
  5. Plans for analyses that evaluate the use of accommodations.
  6. Evidence of an overarching framework and management plan that ensures critical components of the assessment system are operating in a coherent manner, thus establishing evidence that operational forms are developed in a consistent manner from one assessment cycle to another; alignment results are integrated within the upcoming assessment cycle; monitoring the intended implementation of the assessments, including the appropriate use of accommodations, provides feedback to state and school officials; and evaluations of intended and unintended consequences produced by the implementation of the assessment system are used to improve overall system quality.

5.0 – ALIGNMENT

  1. Evidence of the alignment study and a plan to address any findings from that study.
  2. Evidence of a plan to address any alignment deficiencies noted in the study and ensure alignment over time.
  3. Evidence that the state’s alternate academic achievement standards are aligned with the state’s academic content standards.

6.0 – INCLUSION

  1. Data demonstrating that all students are included in the science PAWS and PAWS-Alt assessments.
  2. Evidence to address the consistency and accuracy of assessment translations provided for limited English proficient (LEP) students in their native language(s).

7.0 – REPORTING

  1. Documentation of PAWS-Alt reports and interpretative guides which demonstrates and/or explains performance level scale scores, the use of an error bands, and the elimination of non-essential technical terms.
  2. Evidence of revised PAWS reports and interpretative guides which demonstrates and/or explains performance level scale scores, the use of an error bands, and the elimination of non-essential technical terms.
  3. Documentation that districts provide all necessary information in reports to parents.
  4. Evidence of the timeframe for the districts to deliver reports to parents.

Return to state-by-state listing

Top

West Virginia Science Assessment Letter

July 21, 2008

The Honorable Steve Paine
State Superintendent of Schools
West Virginia Department of Education
Building 6, 1900 Kanawha Blvd. E.
Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0330

Dear Superintendent Paine:

Thank you for submitting evidence on West Virginia’s science assessment by April 21, 2008. We appreciate your efforts in putting together this information. As I noted in my letter on February 28, for the 2007-08 school year, each state was required to demonstrate that it satisfied the following basic requirements: (1) it has approved content standards in science; (2) it administered a general and alternate science assessment in each grade span (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12); (3) it included all students in the general or alternate science assessments; and (4) it reported the results of the general and alternate science assessments on state, district, and school report cards.

My staff has reviewed the evidence submitted and determined that West Virginia has met the basic requirements for administering science assessments for 2007-08. In 2008-09, West Virginia must submit complete evidence of its science standards and assessments for peer review. We have scheduled peer reviews for science standards and assessments for the weeks of October 25 through November 2, 2008, and March 23 through 27, 2009. Please plan accordingly. All materials for review must be provided to the Department three weeks before peer review is scheduled.

The Department remains committed to working with West Virginia to help it meet the full requirements of NCLB. If you have any additional questions, would like to discuss this further, or wish to request technical assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Grace Ross (Grace.Ross@ed.gov) or Abigail Rogers (Abigail.Rogers@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

cc: Governor Joe Manchin
Jan Barth

Return to state-by-state listing

Top

West Virginia Science Assessment Letter

October 30, 2008

The Honorable Steve Paine
State Superintendent of Schools
West Virginia Department of Education
Building 6, 1900 Kanawha Blvd. E.
Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0330

Dear Superintendent Paine:

Thank you for submitting assessment materials for peer review under the standards and assessment requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). We appreciate the efforts required to prepare for the latest peer review in August 2008.

Based on the evidence received from West Virginia regarding its alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS) for science, the West Virginia Alternate Performance Task Assessment (APTA), which was reviewed by the peers and Department staff, we have concluded that West Virginia’s science APTA does not yet meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements of section 1111(b)(1) and (3) of the ESEA. To demonstrate full compliance of its science APTA, West Virginia must submit evidence of the completion of the technical quality information, confirmation of the standards setting based on the spring 2008 operational administration of the science APTA, and data regarding the assessment of students with disabilities. The complete list of evidence that West Virginia must submit is enclosed with this letter.

Please keep in mind that the science APTA represents one piece of a state’s complete standards and assessment system, which also includes general and alternate assessments for reading and mathematics and general assessments in science. As stated in the June 26, 2006, letter to you from former Assistant Secretary Henry L. Johnson, West Virginia’s standards and assessment system is currently fully approved. To remain fully approved, West Virginia must demonstrate that all components of its standards and assessment system, including general and alternate assessments for reading, mathematics, and science, comply with all ESEA requirements for standards and assessment systems as administered in 2008-2009.

We look forward to working with West Virginia to support a high-quality standards and assessment system of which science standards and assessments are an integral part. If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact Grace Ross (Grace.Ross@ed.gov) or Abigail Rogers (Abigail.Rogers@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

Enclosure

cc: Governor Joe Manchin
Jan Barth

SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT WEST VIRGINIA MUST SUBMIT TO MEET ESEA REQUIREMENTS FOR ITS ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT BASED ON ALTERNATE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS FOR SCIENCE

2.0 – ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS

  1. The number and percentage of students with disabilities assessed in spring 2008 against alternate academic achievement standards in science and those included in the general science assessment (including those administered with appropriate accommodations).

4.0 – TECHNICAL QUALITY

  1. An updated technical manual for the 2008 operational alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards in science that includes operational data for reliability and validity.
  2. Evidence that the state reviewed and confirmed the standards setting based on the operational assessment and the process used to finalize the cut scores.

Return to state-by-state listing

Top

Washington Science Assessment Letter

September 25, 2008

The Honorable Terry Bergeson
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Washington Department of Public Instruction
P.O. Box 47200
Olympia, Washington 98504-7200

Dear Superintendent Bergeson:

I am pleased to approve Washington’s standards and assessment system under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). I congratulate you on meeting this important NCLB requirement; an assessment system that produces valid and reliable results is fundamental to a state’s accountability system.

My decision is based on input from peer reviewers external to the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) and Department staff who reviewed and carefully considered the evidence submitted by Washington. I have concluded that the evidence demonstrates that Washington’s standards and assessment system satisfies the ESEA requirements. Specifically, Washington’s system includes academic content and student academic achievement standards in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science; alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in those subjects; assessments in each of grades 3 through 8 and grade 10 in reading/language arts and mathematics; assessments in science in three grade spans; and alternate assessments for each subject.

Accordingly, Washington’s system warrants Full Approval with Recommendations. This status means that Washington’s standards and assessment system meets all statutory and regulatory requirements for reading/language arts and mathematics. There is, however, one component of the Washington assessment system that we believe could be strengthened. We recommend that Washington develop and implement a plan to continue the progress made and further improve the alignment of the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards, the WAAS-Portfolio, with Washington’s content standards, the Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs), and Grade-Level Expectations (GLEs) through continued training of participating teachers and periodic reviews of alignment evidence.

Please be aware that approval of Washington’s standards and assessment system under the ESEA is not a determination that the system complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Please remember that, if Washington makes significant changes to its assessment system, the state must submit information about those changes to the Department for review and approval. Finally, I know that Washington recently submitted evidence of its science assessments. The Department recently conducted a technical assistance peer review of that evidence and we will be in touch shortly with the results from that review.

We have found it a pleasure working with your staff on this review. Please accept my congratulations on your state’s approved standards and assessment system under the ESEA. I wish you well in your continued efforts to improve student achievement in Washington.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

cc: Governor Christine Gregoire
Bob Harmon
Joe Willhoft

Return to state-by-state listing

Top

Texas Science Assessment Letter

July 23, 2008

The Honorable Robert Scott
Commissioner
Texas Education Agency
1701 North Congress
Austin, Texas 78701

Dear Commissioner Scott:

I am writing regarding our review of Texas’ science standards and assessments under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).

As outlined in my letter of February 28, 2008, states had to meet four basic requirements in science for the 2007-08 school year. In particular, each state was required to: (1) have approved content standards in science; (2) administer a regular and alternate science assessment in each of three grade spans; (3) include all students in those assessments; and (4) report the results of the regular and alternate science assessments. After reviewing the evidence submitted, I am pleased to inform you that it appears that Texas has met these requirements for 2007-08. However, Texas must submit two additional pieces of evidence regarding its administration of science assessments in 2007-08: (1) final participation data demonstrating that all students were included in the assessments; and (2) district-level reports (including school-level information) for the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (TAKS-Alt) for science. Please let us know within 10 days of receipt of this letter when Texas will have those data available so that we can confirm that Texas has, in fact, met the basic requirements for administering science assessments in 2007-08. States that do not provide the outstanding evidence to verify that they have met the four criteria for the 2007-08 school year have not met the basic requirements of the statute and will be subject to consequences, such as withholding of Title I, Part A administrative funds.

In 2008-09, Texas must provide evidence for peer review that demonstrates full compliance of its science standards and assessments. In anticipation of that required peer review, Texas chose to participate in an optional technical assistance peer review in May 2008. I appreciate the efforts that were required to prepare for the technical assistance peer review and hope that the process provides useful feedback that will support Texas’ efforts to monitor student progress toward meeting challenging science standards.

Based on the evidence received from Texas regarding its general science assessments, which was reviewed by the peers and Department staff, we have concluded that Texas’ general science assessments do not yet meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements of section 1111(b)(1) and (3) of the ESEA. Specifically, we have concerns regarding the inclusion of all students in the state’s science assessments and the alignment of the assessments to grade-level content standards. The complete list of evidence needed to address these concerns is enclosed with this letter. We have scheduled peer reviews for states’ science assessments for the weeks of October 25 through November 2, 2008 and March 23 through 27, 2009. All materials for review must be provided to the Department three weeks before the peer review is scheduled.

Please keep in mind that science assessments represent one piece of a state’s complete standards and assessment system, which also includes general and alternate assessments for reading and mathematics. As stated in my letter to you on May 7, 2008, Texas’ standards and assessment system is currently designated Approval Pending. In order to be fully approved, Texas must demonstrate that all components of its standards and assessment system, including general and alternate assessments for reading, mathematics, and science, comply with all ESEA requirements for standards and assessment systems as administered in 2008-09.

We look forward to working with Texas to support a high-quality standards and assessment system, of which science standards and assessments are an integral part. If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact Grace Ross (Grace.Ross@ed.gov) or Patrick Rooney (Patrick.Rooney@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

Enclosure

cc: Governor Rick Perry
Criss Cloudt
Gloria Zyskowski


SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT TEXAS MUST SUBMIT TO MEET ESEA REQUIREMENTS FOR TEXAS’ SCIENCE STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS

4.0 – TECHNICAL QUALITY

  1. 1. A plan and a timeline for a consequential validity analysis that would yield data indicative of the intended and unintended consequences produced by the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) science assessments at grades 5, 8, and 10.
  2. Evidence on how the state monitors the availability of accommodations during test administration.
  3. Evidence of the comparability of the Spanish and English versions of the grade 5 science assessment.

5.0 – ALIGNMENT

  1. A description of the actions that have been taken to address any category that was rated “weak” or “no” alignment (e.g., depth of knowledge at grade 10) in the 2006 Webb alignment study for the TAKS science assessment at grades 5, 8, and 10.

6.0 – INCLUSION

  1. Data that show that all students in the grades tested are included in the science assessments, including the TAKS, TAKS-LAT, TAKS-Alt, and the TAKS-M.

Return to state-by-state listing

Top

Rhode Island Science Assessment Letter

July 21, 2008

The Honorable Peter McWalters
Commissioner of Education
Rhode Island Department of Education
Shepard Building
255 Westminster Street
Providence, RI 02903

Dear Commissioner McWalters:

Thank you for submitting evidence on Rhode Island’s science assessment by April 21, 2008. We appreciate the work you did to prepare the required evidence.

As I noted in my letter on February 28, for the 2007-08 school year, each state was required to demonstrate that it satisfied the following basic requirements: (1) it has approved content standards in science; (2) it administered a general and alternate science assessment in each grade span (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12); (3) it included all students in one of the science assessments (i.e., either the general or the alternate); and (4) it reported the results of the general and alternate science assessments on state, district, and school report cards.

My staff has reviewed the evidence you submitted and determined that, based on the evidence submitted to date, it appears that Rhode Island has met the basic requirements for administering science assessments in 2007-08. However, Rhode Island has not yet submitted data to the Department demonstrating that all students were included in the science assessments for 2008. Please let us know within 10 days of receipt of this letter when Rhode Island will have those data available so that we can confirm that Rhode Island has, in fact, met the basic requirements for administering science assessments in 2007-08. States that do not provide the outstanding evidence to verify that they have met the four criteria for the 2007-08 school year have not met the basic requirements of the statute and will be subject to consequences, such as withholding of Title I, Part A administrative funds.

In 2008-09, Rhode Island must submit complete evidence of its science standards and assessments for peer review. We have scheduled peer reviews for science standards and assessments for the weeks of October 25 through November 2, 2008, and March 23 through 27, 2009. Please plan accordingly. All materials for review must be provided to the Department three weeks before peer review is scheduled.

The Department remains committed to working with Rhode Island to help it meet the full requirements of NCLB. If you have any questions, would like to discuss this further, or would like to request technical assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Sue Rigney (Sue.Rigney@ed.gov) or Abigail Potts (Abigail.Potts@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

cc: Governor Donald L. Carcieri
Mary Ann Snider

Return to state-by-state listing

Top

Puerto Rico Science Assessment Letter

July 21, 2008

The Honorable Rafael Aragunde Torres
Secretary of Education
Puerto Rico Department of Education
Post Office Box 190759
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00919-0759

Dear Secretary Aragunde:

Thank you for submitting evidence on Puerto Rico’s science assessment by April 21, 2008. We appreciate the work you did to prepare the required evidence.

As I noted in my letter on February 28, for the 2007-08 school year, each state was required to demonstrate that it satisfied the following basic requirements: (1) it has approved content standards in science; (2) it administered a general and alternate science assessment in each grade span (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12); (3) it included all students in one of the science assessments (i.e., either the general or the alternate); and (4) it reported the results of the general and alternate science assessments on state, district, and school report cards.

My staff has reviewed the evidence you submitted and determined that, based on the evidence submitted to date, it appears that Puerto Rico has met the basic requirements for administering science assessments in 2007-08. However, Puerto Rico has not yet submitted data to the Department demonstrating that all students were included in the science assessments and the number tested by disaggregated groups; test administration manual; and evidence that the science results are reported at the state and district level. Please let us know within 10 days of receipt of this letter when Puerto Rico will have those data available so that we can confirm that Puerto Rico has, in fact, met the basic requirements for administering science assessments in 2007-08. States that do not provide the outstanding evidence to verify that they have met the four criteria for the 2007-08 school year have not met the basic requirements of the statute and will be subject to consequences, such as withholding of Title I, Part A administrative funds.

In 2008-09, Puerto Rico must submit complete evidence of its science standards and assessments for peer review. We have scheduled peer reviews for science standards and assessments for the weeks of October 25 through November 2, 2008, and March 23 through 27, 2009. Please plan accordingly. All materials for review must be provided to the Department three weeks before peer review is scheduled.

The Department remains committed to working with Puerto Rico to help it meet the full requirements of NCLB. If you have any questions, would like to discuss this further, or would like to request technical assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Valeria Ford (Valeria.Ford@ed.gov) or Jessica Morffi (Jessica.Morffi@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

cc: Governor Aníbal Acevedo Vilá
Carmen Ramos

Return to state-by-state listing

Top

Pennsylvania Science Assessment Letter

July 21, 2008

The Honorable Gerald L. Zahorchak
Secretary of Education
Pennsylvania Department of Education
333 Market Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126

Dear Secretary Zahorchak:

Thank you for submitting evidence on Pennsylvania’s science assessment by April 21, 2008. We appreciate the work you did to prepare the required evidence.

As I noted in my letter on February 28, for the 2007-08 school year, each state was required to demonstrate that it satisfied the following basic requirements: (1) it has approved content standards in science; (2) it administered a general and alternate science assessment in each grade span (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12); (3) it included all students in one of the science assessments (i.e., either the general or the alternate); and (4) it reported the results of the general and alternate science assessments on state, district, and school report cards.

My staff has reviewed the evidence you submitted and determined that, based on the evidence submitted to date, it appears that Pennsylvania has met the basic requirements for administering science assessments in 2007-08. However, Pennsylvania has not yet submitted data to the Department demonstrating that all students were included in the science assessments or evidence that science results for the general and alternate assessments are included at the state and district level. Please let us know within 10 days of receipt of this letter when Pennsylvania will have those materials available so that we can confirm that Pennsylvania has, in fact, met the basic requirements for administering science assessments in 2007-08. States that do not provide the outstanding evidence to verify that they have met the four criteria for the 2007-08 school year have not met the basic requirements of the statute and will be subject to consequences, such as withholding of Title I, Part A administrative funds.

In 2008-09, Pennsylvania must submit complete evidence of its science standards and assessments for peer review. We have scheduled peer reviews for science standards and assessments for the weeks of October 25 through November 2, 2008, and March 23 through 27, 2009. Please plan accordingly. All materials for review must be provided to the Department three weeks before peer review is scheduled.

The Department remains committed to working with Pennsylvania to help it meet the full requirements of NCLB. If you have any questions, would like to discuss this further, or would like to request technical assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Sue Rigney (Sue.Rigney@ed.gov) or Jessica Morffi (Jessica.Morffi@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

cc: Governor Ed Rendell
Shula Nedley

Return to state-by-state listing

Top

New Mexico Science Assessment Letter

July 21, 2008

The Honorable Veronica C. Garcia
Secretary of Education
State of New Mexico Public Education Department
300 Don Gaspar
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

Dear Secretary Garcia:

Thank you for submitting evidence on New Mexico’s science assessment by April 21, 2008. We appreciate the work you did to prepare the required evidence.

As I noted in my letter on February 28, for the 2007-08 school year, each state was required to demonstrate that it satisfied the following basic requirements: (1) it has approved content standards in science; (2) it administered a general and alternate science assessment in each grade span (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12); (3) it included all students in one of the science assessments (i.e., either the general or the alternate); and (4) it reported the results of the general and alternate science assessments on state, district, and school report cards.

My staff has reviewed the evidence you submitted and determined that, based on the evidence submitted to date, it appears that New Mexico has met the basic requirements for administering science assessments in 2007-08. However, New Mexico has not yet submitted to the Department evidence that science results for the New Mexico Alternate Performance Assessment (NMAPA) are reported at the district and the state level. Please let us know within 10 days of receipt of this letter when New Mexico will have those data available so that we can confirm that New Mexico has, in fact, met the basic requirements for administering science assessments in 2007-08. States that do not provide the outstanding evidence to verify that they have met the four criteria for the 2007-08 school year have not met the basic requirements of the statute and will be subject to consequences, such as withholding of Title I, Part A administrative funds.

In 2008-09, New Mexico must submit complete evidence of its science standards and assessments for peer review. We have scheduled peer reviews for science standards and assessments for the weeks of October 25 through November 2, 2008, and March 23 through 27, 2009. Please plan accordingly. All materials for review must be provided to the Department three weeks before peer review is scheduled.

The Department remains committed to working with New Mexico to help it meet the full requirements of NCLB. If you have any questions, would like to discuss this further, or would like to request technical assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Grace Ross (Grace.Ross@ed.gov) or Jessica Morffi (Jessica.Morffi@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

cc: Governor Bill Richardson
Carlos Martinez

Return to state-by-state listing

Top

New Jersey Science Assessment Letter

September 29, 2008

The Honorable Lucille E. Davy
Commissioner
New Jersey Department of Education
100 River View Plaza
P.O. Box 500
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0500

Dear Commissioner Davy:

I am writing regarding our review of New Jersey’s science assessments under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).

As outlined in my letter of February 28, 2008, states had to meet four basic requirements in science for the 2007-08 school year. In particular, each state was required to: (1) have approved content standards in science; (2) administer a regular and alternate science assessment in each of three grade spans; (3) include all students in those assessments; and (4) report the results of the regular and alternate science assessments on state, district, and school report cards. My staff has reviewed the evidence you submitted and determined that, based on the evidence submitted to date, it appears that New Jersey has met the basic requirements for administering science assessments in 2007-08. However, New Jersey has not yet submitted the actual data to the Department demonstrating that all students were included in the science assessments. Please let us know within 10 days of receipt of this letter when New Jersey will have those data available so that we can confirm that New Jersey has, in fact, met the basic requirements for administering science assessments in 2007-08. States that do not provide the outstanding evidence to verify that they have met the four criteria for the 2007-08 school year have not met the basic requirements of the statute and will be subject to consequences, such as withholding of Title I, Part A administrative funds.

In 2008-09, New Jersey must provide evidence for peer review that demonstrates full compliance of its science standards and assessments. In anticipation of that required peer review, New Jersey chose to participate in an optional technical assistance peer review in May 2008. I appreciate the efforts that were required to prepare for the technical assistance peer review and hope that the process provides useful feedback that will support New Jersey’s efforts to monitor student progress toward meeting challenging science standards.

Based on the evidence received from New Jersey, which was reviewed by the peers and Department staff, we have concluded that New Jersey’s science assessments do not yet meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements of section 1111(b)(1) and (3) of the ESEA. Specifically, we have concerns with the technical quality and alignment of the science component of New Jersey’s general assessment to New Jersey’s grade-level academic content standards as well as the technical quality and alignment of New Jersey’s alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards, the New Jersey Alternate Proficiency Assessment (APA), to grade-level content standards. The enclosed list of evidence describes the information and documentation that New Jersey will need to provide for peer review to be able to demonstrate that its science standards and assessments satisfy all relevant ESEA requirements. We have scheduled peer reviews for states’ science assessments for the weeks of October 25 through November 1, 2008, and March 23 through 27, 2009. A state must submit evidence to the Department three weeks prior to the review in which it is participating.

Please keep in mind that science assessments represent one piece of a state’s complete standards and assessment system, which also includes general and alternate assessments for reading and mathematics. As stated in my letter to you on June 27, 2007, New Jersey’s standards and assessment system is currently designated Approval Pending. To become fully approved, New Jersey must demonstrate that all components of its standards and assessment system as administered in 2008-09, including the general and alternate assessments for reading, mathematics, and science, comply with all ESEA requirements for standards and assessment systems.

We look forward to working with New Jersey to support a high-quality standards and assessment system, of which science standards and assessments are an integral part. If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact Sharon Hall (Sharon.Hall@ed.gov) or Jessica Morffi (Jessica.Morffi@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

Enclosure

cc: Governor Jon Corzine
Jay Doolan
Timothy Peters

SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT NEW JERSEY MUST SUBMIT TO MEET ESEA REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW JERSEY’S SCIENCE STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS

2.0 – ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS

  1. 1. Performance level descriptors (PLDs) for the general and the Alternate Proficiency Assessment science assessments in grades 4, 8, and high school biology), including content-based competencies associated with all three achievement levels and, for biology, for every cluster, including “application.”
  2. Evidence of Board approval of the PLDs and cut scores for the general and APA science assessments in grades 4, 8 and high school biology).
  3. Evidence that the scoring of the APA science addresses only academic content linked to grade level at the individual student level and does not include programmatic features.
  4. Documentation that New Jersey has reported separately the number and percentage of those students with disabilities assessed against alternate academic achievement standards and those included in the general science assessment (including those administered with appropriate accommodations).
  5. Evidence of diverse stakeholder involvement in the development of academic achievement standards, including content specialists and representatives for students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency for grades 4 and 8 and high school biology, for both the general and APA science assessments.

3.0 – FULL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

  1. Evidence that the results for the Spanish-language versions and the English version of the grade 8 science are comparable.
  2. Evidence that the science assessments, including the general assessment and the APA for grades 4 and 8 and high school biology, measure higher-order thinking skills and student understanding of challenging content. Such evidence may include test blueprints indicating numbers of items at different cognitive levels, alignment studies, and/or results of content reviews that include cognitive level reviews.

4.0 – TECHNICAL QUALITY

  1. Evidence of validity and reliability for all areas of the technical quality section of the Department’s Standards and Assessments Peer Review Guidance: Information and Examples for Meeting Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 for the biology end-of-course test, the Spanish-language version of the grade 8 science assessment, and the APA science (grades 4, 8, and high school biology).
  2. Information concerning intended and unintended consequences for the grade 4 science assessment.
  3. Reliability data for the science assessments in grades 4 and 8 for each reported subpopulation.
  4. Documentation of the conditional standard error of measurement for the grade 8 science assessment.
  5. Evidence that the use of accommodations and/or the APA yield meaningful scores.
  6. Evidence concerning how the state monitors the on-going quality of its science assessments.
  7. Evidence that appropriate accommodations are available to students with disabilities and limited English proficient (LEP) students and that these accommodations are used in a manner that is consistent with instructional approaches for each student, as determined by a student’s IEP or 504 plan.
  8. Evidence that the state monitors availability of accommodations during test administrations.
  9. Evidence that the state has determined that scores for students with disabilities and LEP students that are based on accommodated administration conditions will allow for valid inferences about these students’ knowledge and skills and can be combined meaningfully with scores from non-accommodated administration conditions.

5.0 – ALIGNMENT

  1. Evidence of alignment for with the 2005 Core Content Curriculum Standards (CCCS) for all general and APA science assessments in grades 4, 8, and high school biology. The evidence should include comprehensiveness, range, depth, degree of cognitive complexity, content knowledge and process skills, and degree and pattern of emphasis.
  2. PLDs for the APA that address alignment to the CCCS.
  3. Evidence, such as a plan and timeline, for improving and maintaining alignment between assessments and standards over time and how the state addresses gaps, both annually and when content standards are reviewed periodically.

6.0 – INCLUSION

  1. Definition for “Status 3 Students,” (referred to in APA Score Interpretation Manual, page 28), and the rationale for why they are excluded from the state reports.
  2. Guidelines or processes to assist IEP teams and teachers in the selection and administration of appropriate accommodations for the general and alternate science assessments.
  3. Evidence of training components and content for general and special education teachers for science assessments, particularly for the APA, which requires teachers to choose standards and activities.
  4. Science assessment data report confirming that all students in the grades tested are included in the science assessments.

7.0 – REPORTING

  1. Evidence of reports for the general and APA biology assessment, consistent with the reporting section of the Department’s Standards and Assessments Peer Review Guidance: Information and Examples for Meeting Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
  2. Student reports for both the general and APA science assessments in grades 4 and 8, including performance descriptions to show what students know and can do, so that parents, teachers, and principals can interpret and address a student’s specific academic needs.
  3. Documentation that the state ensures student confidentiality in reporting science assessment results.
  4. APA reports for science that provide analyses by subdomains or standards so that parents, teachers, and principals can interpret and address the specific academic needs of students.

Return to state-by-state listing

Top