CREST Session Transcript: TEA Update on the Student Success Tool (SST)
Presenters: Chelaine Marion, Deputy Director of Reading and Language Arts Assessment, and Joe Cisneros, Deputy Director, Assessment Design, Development, and Quality Division — Texas Education Agency (TEA) · Hosted by Tonja Gray (CREST)
We have two TEA people with us today, so I want to introduce them to you. First of all, we have Chelaine Marion, who serves as the Deputy Director of Reading and Language Arts Assessment within the Assessment Design, Development, and Quality Division at TEA. In this role she leads the development of statewide assessment resources that support educators across Texas, including the RLA TEKS Guide, annual STAAR scoring guides, and numerous reading language arts assessment tools. We also have with us Joe Cisneros. He is the deputy director in the Assessment Design, Development, and Quality Division at TEA, where he oversees content development for TELPAS, TELPAS Alternate, and the new SST Spanish Assessments that will be coming out soon. With more than 20 years of experience in educational assessment, he is recognized for his expertise in emergent bilingual and Spanish assessment development. He has led major statewide initiatives, including the transition to authentic Spanish texts in summative assessments, the STAAR Spanish redesign, and the development of the Spanish TEKS Guide. He currently leads content development for the TELPAS redesign initiative. So, thank you, Chelaine and Joe, for your time today, and I am going to turn it over to you.
Fantastic! Thank you so much, Tonja. We appreciate it. We're so happy to be here, partnering with our friends at CREST. So, thanks for your time and attendance this morning. I am going to get us started. We have a lot to get through today, but we do hope to take questions either throughout or at the end of our presentation. We do want to make sure we get through all of our slides, but we're also happy to answer questions as time permits.
This will allow for progress monitoring: beginning of year to middle of year, and middle of year to end of year. So the format of the beginning- and middle-of-year assessments is item-level adaptive for math, but for RLA those assessments are passage-level adaptive. What that means is that students will read a passage or a pair, and they will answer questions that go with that passage or pair. Based on how they perform on that passage or pair, they're going to be routed to another passage or pair for them to respond to. Now, the reason we do that in RLA is because in math it's easy for students to be able to be routed to a different item, but it wouldn't make sense to do that in RLA because what we're trying to avoid is students having to read 15 different passages. So if your students read a passage, answer one question related to that passage, and then are routed somewhere else, they're gonna have to read another passage, answer another question. Then they could be routed somewhere else. So the intent of that is for students to read a passage, answer a set of questions with that passage, and then be routed to another passage after that.
So, in cases in which the assessment window might in a particular year end on maybe a Wednesday, then those results can be provided within 48 hours — that is, two business days — of the close of the window. That would be the end of the day on Friday. However, if the window in a particular year closes on a Friday, assessment results then would be available within two business days, so not end of the day Sunday, but end of the day Tuesday. That's an important distinction to make there.
Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I'm glad to be here. As someone mentioned, I'm going to be walking you through some of the resources we have. If you wouldn't mind going to the next slide, Chelaine. Okay. So for those of you who have not visited our website recently, the site has been revamped, and it looks very different than it did a few months ago. Much of the information that we're going to be covering, and that you're likely to need if you're curious about assessments, can be found on either the main landing page, which will have links to resources in addition to assessment, like the curriculum webpages, EB resources as well. The second place where you can gain access to resources that RLA folks will be interested in is the STAAR Reading Language Arts Resources webpage. There you can find assessed curriculum documents, blueprints, rubrics, scoring guides, everything RLA-related that you are accustomed to using throughout the school year. Next slide, yeah. So here you have an example of one of those resources that you can find on that resources page. This particular one is the grade six scoring guide. As many of you are probably aware, that the ECR responses are meant to be aligned to classroom instruction, and as such, they require students to write an in-depth response by, for example, explaining, analyzing, or evaluating information that they read in the provided reading text. The writing rubrics in general for these ECRs include two main components, which you're probably familiar with: organization and development of ideas is one, and then conventions is the second of these two components, and if you're wondering, that will continue to be the case in SST. It will still have those two components. This resource will also include annotations that will accompany each one of the responses that are included, and these annotations were written to show, how the language of the rubric is applied to the elements included in the response, and how that helped determine the score for that response and the score it received. So it's a very good resource. Next slide, please. So circling back to some of the information that Tonja shared with you a few minutes ago, at the beginning, we have an HB 8 page with various resources related to HB 8, including an FAQ document, which you can maybe see on the resource there on the right. It's an excellent resource if you have questions about SST and things that will be coming to fruition in the next school year. So if there's something we don't cover, I'd encourage you to look through that document. Likely, you'll find information you're looking for there. This resource page—I'm sorry, not quite yet. The resource page will also include SST blueprints, rubrics, and other documents that you're accustomed to having access to throughout the school year. Now we can go to the next page. All right. So here's just a screenshot, and again, the link to that HB 8 FAQ. I think you guys have access to the slides. So if it's too small to see on your screen, certainly you can have access to it via the link in the presentation. And again, great resource, and we encourage you all to check it out. Next, all right. So moving on to the blueprints for SST, specifically the BOY and MOY blueprints that Chelaine mentioned for these two assessments, the SST blueprints use a range of items in the reporting strands. As you can see, there's a reading reporting strand and a writing reporting strand. There is a fixed number, however, of total items a student will see. So, as Chelaine mentioned, because these are adaptive, the testing experience for individual students will be different, so that's why there's a range. But the total number of items they will see will remain fixed. One important thing to mention or emphasize about the SST BOY and MOY is that they will not contain items that require any sort of adjudication of student responses. So think of your text entry type of questions; those will not be included, as Chelaine mentioned. It's really just machine-scoreable, simple items to score.
Some of the item types that are also included here in these BOY and MOY blueprints are multiple choice, inline-choice items, multipart and multiselect items. One thing worth noting is for SST, the short constructed responses are being eliminated. So again, just simple items to score, machine-scoreable items are all students will see in the BOY and MOY. Other things that I'll mention about this document: we have provided a link to the standards, not just the assessed curriculum, but just the standards overall. Make sure that folks have access to that easily, and we also maintain an explanation of the development process for folks who maybe are not familiar with it. I know that at the end of the presentation, we're going to make a little bit of a plug to encourage you all to participate if you never participated in one of the many steps that we have here for the assessment.
One last thing I'll mention: this is the grade three BOY/MOY. We included this particular grade because grades 3, 4, 5, and 6, the BOY/MOY blueprints remain similar or the same. In the next slide, we have the grade seven BOY/MOY, and we strategically included this one because the grade seven and the grade eight BOY/MOY blueprints are the same. So this document, again, just like I mentioned for the grade three one, includes the same sorts of information: both reporting strands. It shows you the range and the number of questions, as well as the total number, which it's a little bit higher than it is for the previous grade levels. All the remaining features, item types, etc. are exactly the same in all the BOY/MOY blueprints.
The next slide will have the English I information. There's two reporting strands. There's a range in the number of questions the students will see, but the total number of questions per test will remain fixed, and again, there's a little bit of an increase from the prior grade levels once you move on to that English I BOY/MOY.
Next slide, please. All right, so switching gears, moving on from the BOY/MOY blueprints, and now squarely looking at the summative SST blueprints. One thing that I will call out again, just for emphasis, because Chelaine mentioned it, for RLA, one of the unique aspects of RLA is that the SST will still include that ECR item, and so the RLA, if you recall from one of the earlier slides, is split into two. There will be an April admin where it's just a passage and the ECR, right? So short passage and ECR. That's all the students have to do in that April admin. And then there will be the May administration, which is largely what the blueprint you're seeing here includes, right? So similar to the BOY and MOY, it has reporting strands both for reading and writing. It tells you a range for number of questions, a range for a number of points within each one of the strands, and it also calls out the number of eligible readiness and supporting standards for either one of the strands, one of the additional features of this summative blueprint is that it also calls out the specific number of one-point items, two-point items, and the ECR, which will be a six-point question. Again, unlike the BOY and MOY, the summative is a fixed form. Hence, with this additional information, we can safely say you will see a fixed number of two-point questions, and so on. Like the other blueprints that you saw for this grade three summative, it will also include links and information as far as all the standards and all the TEKS information about the question types. Again, that will remain largely the same as in the BOY/MOY, with the exception of the ECR.
And again, we'll include some information as far as the development process and a link for folks to sign up. To keep on going with the same pattern as before, we're showing you the grade seven summative to be illustrative, right? Because it'll be the same for multiple grades. Again, same features, reporting strands, number of readiness and supporting standards are shown, number of questions within each one of those strands is shown, and the number of points within each one of those strands is shown. Likewise, the range of the number of points by item type is shown, and at the bottom you will see the total number of points. And one thing I will call out is that the number of questions, there's a range between 28 and 29, so there's a little bit of a range there, but the number of points will remain fixed. And so that's probably the number that you want to keep in mind that will be constant from year to year.
I will mention that subscores will not be reported for the reporting strands. So this will continue to be an RLA test. It's not a separate writing test and a separate reading test. It's an RLA test, so there won't be subscores reported, which is probably something you're all familiar with already. And with that, I will turn things over to Chelaine.
All right, thanks, Joe. So I am going to move us on and talk a bit about the new draft SST extended constructive response scoring rubrics. As you noticed on the blueprints that Joe shared with you, the ECR — once we transition to the SST — is now going to be worth a maximum of six points rather than the current maximum of 10 points. So I want to talk a little bit about what is and is not changing when we look at the new SST draft rubrics that are available online.
So let me talk a little bit about what's not changing, and then I'll run through some of the big things that are changing. So one is, as Joe mentioned, you're still going to see two traits. You're still going to have organization and development of ideas, and you're going to have conventions. Those performance descriptions have a similar design when comparing the two rubrics, as the categories or sections within each score point from the previous rubric have been maintained.
But what is changing, as you notice right off the bat, is the number of points. So, for example, in the organization and development of ideas, that section, rather than being worth zero to three points, is now going to be worth zero to two points. But you will notice that we are still maintaining a score point zero. It is still possible for students to earn zero points on an ECR response, and I'll get a little bit more into that, as I move on through this portion of the presentation.
So, and then when I get to the section that has to do with the conventions, you'll notice that section, rather than being worth zero to two points, will now be worth zero to one, and there are some real key differences in language in the conventions trait that I really want to make sure that I point out.
So again, organization and development of ideas is shifting from a possible zero to three to zero to two. The current rubric's scoring options are: zero is ineffective or not aligned, one is minimally effective, two is partially or basically effective, and three is satisfactory. Whereas the new rubric is going to include a zero which is ineffective or not aligned, one is minimal or limited effectiveness, and two is satisfactory to accomplished performance. So essentially, the current score point three and the new score point two descriptors really remain unchanged.
So currently, what students have to produce in order to earn that maximum of three points is still what they're going to have to produce in order to earn that maximum of two points with the new rubric, and then the current score point two and score point one were essentially collapsed into the new score point one, and those descriptors have been blended into a new hybrid descriptor that notates minimal to partial development, so there's a little change in the language that's used for those score points.
Then, if we look at the next slide, which is going to show us the conventions, as I mentioned, conventions now are going to be worth zero or one point rather than zero to two. It has been simplified, and minor changes in the language were made to de-emphasize readability and a perceived number of errors, and to focus on the use or command of conventions. So, for example, the current rubrics, when you look at the points for 0, 1, and 2, will say things like the response has few errors, but those errors do not impact the clarity of the writing, or the response has several errors, but the reader can understand the writer's thoughts, or the response has many errors, and these errors impact the clarity of the writing and the reader's understanding of the writing. That's what the current rubric says. But what we used to get, whenever we would go out to do presentations and talk about the scoring rubrics: Inevitably, folks would come up to us and ask how many errors can a student make to be considered few errors and get two points, or to be considered several errors and get one point, or to be considered many errors? And it's really never been about the number of errors.
It's been a lot more about the quality of the writing because the rubric is applied holistically, right? So we modified that language to try to help alleviate the questions about the number of errors and really focus more on the quality. So now you're going to see with this new rubric, the errors in the essay do not significantly disrupt the clarity of the writing or interfere with its meaning, and we've also taken out the emphasis on the reader specifically.
And then for zero, the errors in the essay may disrupt the clarity of the writing or interfere with its meaning. We also modified the language in the very first bullet a little bit. So currently, it says student writing demonstrates consistent command of grade-level-appropriate conventions, or demonstrates little to no command. And so, what we've done here, even though it might seem like a minor tweak, it really does kind of allow us to make the umbrella a little bit bigger for capturing some of those students who may previously have earned zero points into the new one. We've added “in general,” so now we say student writing in general demonstrates correct use of grade-level-appropriate conventions rather than consistent command versus little to no command, and so that tweak right there, like I said, casts a wider net for students.
You'll also notice, and I want to point this out at the bottom. This really kind of ties back to the organization and development of ideas, but I do want to point out the note that you see at the bottom of the rubric, there we did clarify that evidence can be either directly quoted from the text or paraphrased. That was probably the second most popular question we used to get when we would go out and talk about the scoring rubrics: there is a kind of wide misconception that in order for students to get those upper points, they had to directly quote text evidence, and that's not the case. They can directly quote it or summarize it. Students can incorporate that evidence however they prefer. What's more important is that the evidence that they have included is relevant and supportive of the answer that the student has provided in their writing.
So the other thing I want to point out here is the removal of the gatekeeper zero, and that is, in the current rubric, we all are very well aware that at the end or at the bottom of the organization and development of ideas trait, there's a note that says if a response receives a score point zero in the organization and development of ideas trait, the response will also automatically earn a zero in the conventions trait, and that has been eliminated from the new scoring rubrics, so it is possible for students to earn points in conventions, even if they earn zero points in the organization and development of ideas trait of the rubric. I can give a couple of quick examples as to how that might be the case. So, for example, if a student writes a response to a prompt that has nothing whatsoever to do with the prompt, and you can't even tell that they have read the passage that the prompt is tied to, the student can earn a zero. So, for example, if the passage is about kittens, and the student comes in and writes an essay or a response about their favorite day from summer vacation when they visited the beach or went roller skating, then that student can still earn zero in organization and development of ideas, but in this case they would earn an off-topic condition code, and that would render that response ineligible for earning points in conventions. However, if a student — and please know we would never ask a prompt like this; I'm giving you an extreme example — if the prompt is asking the student to identify how the use of onomatopoeia may have impacted something in the passage that they've read, and the student maybe misunderstands what onomatopoeia is, but they make an effort to respond to the prompt. They pull in text evidence from the text that they've read.
They just didn't quite get the answer correct. Then that student might earn zero points in organization and development of ideas, but they could still be eligible to earn points in conventions, depending on the quality of the writing or their command of conventions, so that's just a couple of examples of how students can still earn a zero versus how a student might earn points in conventions but a zero in organization and development of ideas.
Another thing I should point out, by the way, let me go back for just a quick second. Another thing I want to point out in the organization and development of ideas section is that the use of transitions has returned to this section of the rubric. That was another question that we used to get pretty frequently. The current rubric really does not explicitly address the role of transitions in student writing, but in this new rubric, the use of transitional phrasing has been added to the bulleted ideas section for consideration in scoring of middle school and EOC.. And so this is a grades three through five rubric, so that's probably not a good example. However, let me see. I think I have nope. It's still a three-through-five rubric. But give me a second, and I'll point out exactly where that is.
So, moving on to the informational rubric, it again looks very similar to the Argumentative rubric, same things apply. Organization and development of ideas is still worth zero to two. Conventions are still worth zero to one. The gatekeeper zero has been removed, and that clarification on how evidence may be presented has been added. Okay, so if we look at the argumentative writing rubric, then, for grades six through English I, let me point out a couple of things. First, for the argumentative rubric, it's the inclusion or the requirement to include a counter argument at grades eight and English one is still present in order for students to earn the maximum of two points when they are writing an argumentative response. Now, if we look at the second section here — well, let me go over here. You can see where, under this “organization is effective and coherent” under score point two, the last sentence reads “use of transitions contributes to the flow of the essay,” and that's an example of where transitions have been included explicitly now in the new writing rubrics. And then, if you look at score point one, that would say “the connections between sentences, paragraphs, and ideas may be weak or inconsistent. Okay, so that's the argumentative rubric for grades six through English I. Again, all of the same points that I pointed out a minute ago with the grades three through five rubrics still apply. Zero to two points in ideas, zero to one in conventions; the gatekeeper zero has been removed, and we have clarified the language in the convention section and added that note about evidence at the bottom. And the same for English, the argumentative rubric for grades six through English I. Oh, and it does still have that note at the top, by the way, that I neglected to point out. For grades six through English I, students may receive an ECR prompt asking them to respond by writing a letter correspondence to a specific audience, just as they see now. Okay, so the last thing I want to talk about is the assessed curriculum documents. So we have posted draft versions of the assessed curriculum documents for the purposes of our presentation today, and to follow the same format that we were using earlier. You'll see here that I've chosen to include a grade three example. Now, really, what has changed with the assessed curriculum documents is not which standards will be assessed. All of the standards that are currently eligible to be assessed on the STAAR assessment will remain eligible to be assessed on the SST assessments. We haven't removed any student expectations. We have requirements with the federal government and peer review to ensure that we are assessing all of the TEKS that can be assessed, and so that will remain the same. Oops. However, what has changed is at the beginning of each of these new assessed curriculum documents, there is a table that identifies which readiness and supporting labels have been modified. So, as Joe pointed out earlier, on the new SST EOY blueprints.
Of course, we still indicate the number of readiness and supporting standards. However, one of the things that we have to ensure, and just for illustrative purposes, let me go back. I'm sorry, this is going to be maybe hard on the eyes for a second, but I want to be able to point out specifically what I'm talking about. So, for example, on this end-of-year summative blueprint for English one, you'll notice that in reading we have nine readiness standards and 20 supporting standards. Currently, that number is much different. And if I even go back further and look at the grade seven, it would be an even more stark difference. So, the revised end-of-year blueprints and the revised assessed curriculum documents will now indicate that for grade seven, you have 10 readiness and 20 supporting standards under the reading reporting strand. Currently, that number of readiness standards is much higher, and what that means is that for us to be able to assess all of the readiness standards, we have to have more questions than we do readiness standards, because again, federally, we're required to assess those readiness standards typically at least once per year. Supporting standards we have to be able to assess those on a rolling basis over a number of years, three or four years. We couldn't do that with the number of readiness and supporting standards that we had identified with the current assessment, there were too many readiness standards and not enough questions on the new SST assessment for us to be able to do that. So we had to modify some of the readiness and supporting labels, and we carried that those changes pretty much throughout all of the grade levels with one key difference, and that is the student expectation that has to do with paired passages and the students being able to make connections across texts and to society. So in grades three through five, that student expectation, when you look at the new assessed curriculum documents, is now supporting. But in grades six through English I, that has remained a readiness standard. The other thing that we did that I will call out, and I'm going to go back over here to this picture. Oops, is for the ECR standards or the written essay standards in particular, what we've done is removed the readiness and supporting labels completely from those student expectations. Now the rationale for that is we already know that every year we are going to assess an ECR. Every assessment, every year, is going to include an ECR, whether that ECR is correspondence, argumentative, or informational is really irrelevant. We know that it's going to be assessed, so it really didn't make sense to have three or four readiness and/or supporting labels assigned to those student expectations, in particular, when we know that every year we're going to have one, and so that was another big change. But you'll see that table at the beginning of each assessed curriculum document that really identifies what was changed within that document. Okay, so that's the last thing I'm going to talk about. And before I move on, Joe, did you want to add something?
Yeah, just real quick, some context. And all these documents that you're seeing — assessed curriculum blueprints — all of this was presented to multiple committees over a period of several months to get input and to help us, for example, look at their readiness and supporting labels and determine which standards remain readiness and which could be switched to supporting. So just to emphasize that it hasn't been done in isolation; it has been done in collaboration with educators.
Thank you, Joe. Yes, hundreds of educators this summer did have the opportunity to view all of these documents and provide input and suggestions. So thank you for that reminder, Joe. Okay, so let's talk a little bit about educator involvement and how folks can continue to be involved in development of all these resources, review of these resources, review of passages, items, etc. So right now, the process that passages and items have to go through is very rigorous and is a multi-year process. So typically, from the beginning, when passages are first developed, and then subsequently when items are developed to those passages and field tested, and then can end up on a student's desk. Typically, that process is at least two years. So you'll see here on this flowchart in light blue exactly where it is that educators are involved in this process. So the first opportunity is educator advisory committees who provide feedback similar to what Joe is just talking about, where we had educator advisory committees this summer who provided input on all of these resources since they are undergoing revision and updates during passage and item development, educators do come in to review passages and items. For RLA, we have the added step of the passage review, whereas for math, science, and social studies, those are limited to item reviews that happen during the summer. But for RLA, we begin that process with passage reviews that typically happen in the fall. So this fall, in November and into December, we're actually going to have committees of Texas educators come in and review all of the reading passages before those move on to have items developed, and then at that point, educators will be able to come back in the summer and review the passages again now along with their associated items and that happens for every grade level. Every grade level has its own committee of educators who teach that grade level who come in and review those. And then after field testing during test construction, educators come in for what we call anchor approval or range finding to help us identify where those ranges for scoring really are, and that helps us to ensure consistent scoring. And those will happen typically in the early spring, late fall to early spring, depending if it's three through eight or high school, and then of course we have during scoring and reporting opportunities for educators to come in during standard setting, and that typically will happen in the summer because we're shifting to SST. Standard setting will have to occur again, so educators can participate in that, and I think it's two summers from now, in the summer of 2028. Okay, so for educators who participate on any of these assessment committees, things have changed a little bit with the passage of House Bill 8. Now teachers who participate receive a $200 per day stipend. They have to participate all day to be eligible for that stipend, and travel, accommodations, and substitutes are compensated if any of these meetings happen to fall during the school day. And educators earn CPE credit. And again, teachers, instructional coaches, specialists, administrators are all eligible to come in during passage review, item review, and range finding. And you can scan that QR code if you're interested in participating in any of these assessment committees. We highly encourage you to. We can't do it without you. We also have educators who help in the scoring of the extended constructed responses that students provide. So, if you want to be involved in scoring student essays, you may do that as well. Now, that is all handled through Pearson. They do all the hiring, but educators who participate in this will be trained in how to review anchor sets, practice sets, qualifying sets. All of those things are covered in trainings before they actually do any scoring, and you can apply to be a scorer using the link on this slide. Okay, our contact information does remain the same, so you can reach us via the Student Assessment Help Desk or at the phone number that you see on the slide here. I always encourage folks to use the help desk.
I feel like you have a much better opportunity of getting your question shifted to the person who can provide a better answer than if you happen to call. So I always encourage folks to submit requests or questions via the help desk. However, if you do that, it's really helpful to provide as much information as possible about your question. I have had folks send in questions before that will just say something like, "I have a question about SST. Please call me, and I'm happy to do that. But it's again, it'll save time if we know exactly what your question is about, what content area, If you have a question about an assessment, whatever it may be, so that again, hopefully, we can route your question to the right person the first time. Okay, with that, I do want to thank you all for attending. I'll go to our survey link here in just a second, but before we do, we've got a few minutes. So, Joe, do we have any questions in the chat that we might want to address first.
Sorry. Yeah, there's a couple of questions, and probably best to work from the bottom up. So one of them I just answered as far as having access to the actual responses, and that's not going to change. Folks will still have access to the individual student responses. So what you're used to in the platform and how you access them — that will remain the same. I explained the sub scores, so hopefully that was clear. I explained that the ECRs will continue to be associated to passages. One of the questions we had is if they're going to be revising and editing in BOY/MOY. I don't know, Chelaine, if you want to address it. I think you probably touched on it, but maybe just
Sure. I can more directly address that. And because you hit on something just a second ago, Joe, that reminded me to mention something else specific about ECRs. First question is yes, BOY/MOY will still include reading, revising, and editing. It just will not include an ECR. Students will not actually respond to a constructed response item, but all of those types of passages will still be included. One thing I neglected to mention when I was talking about the shift in the ECRs, there's another change that we have actually already implemented. So if you go back and look at all of the ECRs that students had for the spring 2026 STAAR assessments from grade three all the way through English II — ECRs will no longer be written to pairs, so ECRs moving forward will only be written to a single passage. And again, we already implemented that with the STAAR assessments this spring, and that will continue to be the case with SST. So, will the paired passage then be in the May? Correct. Yes, students still can see paired passages. They can still see them in the BOY/MOY, and they can also see them if it's end of year only in the May portion of the end-of-year assessment.
There's another question as far as the ECR scores prior to the May admin, so I'm not sure if that has been finalized. But the reason we're having two separate admins — or one of the reasons we have two separate admins — is that there needs to be a minimum amount of time to score those. So the idea, at least as it stands right now, is to report the April admin and the May admin together at the same time. I don't think you will have access to scores for the April admin prior to May. There simply won't be enough time between the two admins.
Right, and there's one more reason for that, Joe. Thank you, and that is because you all may be aware of the automatic rescore requirement, and so in order for the agency to properly identify the students that might qualify for that automatic rescore of the ECR based on their performance in the reading, revising, and editing — you have to have the results of the reading, revising, and editing in May in order to know which students we might need to automatically rescore the ECRs for. And so that's another reason why those ECR scores aren't going to come out until after the May administration, after the close of the windows because we've got to have time to identify and rescore the student essays for the students who qualify for that particular piece. Yes.
So there's a question here: Will the number of revising, editing, and comprehension questions be equal? I'm not sure if that's for BOY/MOY or the summative, but again, if you look at the blueprints, you'll see the range. So it may vary. It just depends if it's BOY/MOY because it's adaptive. It might be a little bit more in one — reading than writing — or vice versa. But what you can be certain of is that the number of questions within each one of the strands will remain within the bounds of that range. Chelaine, I don't know if you want to provide some info on this one. Someone is asking what data teachers will receive from BOY and MOY.
so that's one of the areas in which Joe and I are not experts. We really manage the content side of things and are far less involved in the scoring side of things. I do know that if you go to the TEA website in the same place where these draft resources have been posted. There is some draft information there related to scoring and reporting, and that's the best advice I can give is to go there. I don't want to give inaccurate information as far as the scoring and reporting goes. I apologize, but that's kind of out of our wheelhouse.
Yeah, and I can have maybe not specificity, but some context. The reports are being shared with various stakeholder groups, teachers, for example, being one of them. And so I'm not sure that those have quite been finalized yet. I know that, for example, we had a technical advisory committee that was kind of briefed on those and kind of weighed in on those as well. So they're still, I think, going through the process of being finalized.
We have about one more minute, and there were two questions that just popped in. One says, "Can they go back and change their answers once they hit submit on the BOY and the MOY, and the other one, how will this change once we get novels in the new booklets in 2030?
So as far as going back, once a student hits submit, I don't believe they're going to be able to go back in and adjust any of their answers, similar to how they do now. I think once you submit it, you've submitted it, and you can't go back in. As far as the book lists go, that we really can't comment on because the lists aren't even going to be implemented until the beginning of the 2030–31 school year, and what that's going to look like as far as the assessment landscape goes, we really don't have information on that quite yet.
Thank you guys so much for this very vital information that you shared with us today. This is going to help us as we start planning for the future and being proactive, beginning with that end in mind. So, thank you, Chelaine. Thank you, Joe, for this information, and thank you for being willing to share your slides with us. That's going to help us to really go back and dig in and make sure that we're fully understanding all of the changes that are happening.
Our pleasure, and we would really appreciate it if you all could take a minute or so. The survey that you see at this QR code here is like two or three questions. It's very quick and easy. We would appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to continuing to partner with you all. Thank you. Thank you.
So you've got your feedback QR code here. I want to remind everyone that nominations, if you want to nominate yourself to run for an office with CREST, have to be turned in before 12:30 because nominations will close at 12:30, and we are coming into our lunch stop, so we will have lunch from 11:45 to 12:45. When you return at 12:45, you will have a choice session. You will choose link number one if you would like to hear Lana Ceveda from College Board, and you will choose link number two if you would like to hear from Lakisha Ball on literacy in motion. So you have a choice session after lunch. You have to choose link one or link two when you come back in. If you need the agenda, the link is in the chat. If you need a nomination form, the link is also in the chat, and we will be closing nominations at 12:30. And then I hope that you guys have a fantastic lunch. Create a little FOMO. Go into your social media and hashtag CREST, and let people know what you have been learning this morning about the amazing information that you've heard from Kevin, from Tricia, from Joe, and Chelaine. Have a fantastic lunch, and we will see you in an hour. Transcribed by https://otter.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment