1. What’s New in PARCC
April 2013
Cory Shinkle and Mona Toncheff
AZ PARCC ELC

2. 2
That’s me…

3. Recent Major Developments
3
December 2011  Item Development RFP
June 2012  Minimum Technology Specifications, version 1.0
July 2012  Calculator Policy
August 2012  Item and Task Prototypes
September 2012
 Principles for Comparability with SBAC
 Mathematics Reference Sheets for Grades 3-8 and HS
October 2012  College- and Career-Ready Determination Policy
November 2012
 Item Tryout and Field Testing RFP
 High School Mathematics Model Content Frameworks
December 2012
 College- and Career-Ready Assessments in Mathematics
 Retest Policy
 Minimum Technology Specifications, version 2.0

4. Recent Major Developments
4
September 2012  Principles for Comparability with SBAC
 Mathematics Reference Sheets for Grades 3-8 and HS
• One key decision was to approve a set of principles for
establishing comparable assessment results with the Smarter
Balanced Assessment Consortium.
• Mobile student populations – students will move from PARCC states
to SBAC states and vice versa. These principles will allow PARCC
states to use data from new students’ prior assessments in an SBAC
state.
• Comparing performance state-to-state – governors, state chiefs,
business leaders, higher education leaders and other policymakers
want to know how well their students and school systems stack up to
other states.
• These principles will inform the development work of both
consortia over the next two years to help ensure that results on
both tests can be compared.

5. Recent Major Developments
5
October 2012  College- and Career-Ready Determination Policy
The CCR Determination policy also included important information
about the performance levels on the PARCC assessment for every
grade level:
• The PARCC assessments will have 5 performance levels – 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
• PARCC approved “policy-level performance level
descriptors” that describe (at a high level) what students
scoring at each level know and can do relative to the CCSS.
• The PLDs are an important tool for the PARCC assessment
development process and will be used to set performance
levels on the assessments in summer 2015.

6. Recent Major Developments
6
November 2012
 Item Tryout and Field Testing RFP
 High School Mathematics Model Content
Frameworks
• The HS Math MCF lay out how the HS math CCSS might be
articulated over two different course pathways (traditional
– Alg I, Geometry, Alg II; or integrated – Math I, II, III).
• This was an important step for finalizing the test
specifications for the end-of-course HS math assessments,
which will be offered for both course sequences.
November 2012 Model Content Frameworks for Mathematics

7. Recent Major Developments
7
December 2012
 College- and Career-Ready Assessments in
Mathematics
 Retest Policy
 Minimum Technology Specifications, version 2.0
• Algebra II is very important to student success after high
school, postsecondary clearly said it is also important that
students have command of content from earlier
grades/courses.
• PARCC’s approach will include on the final assessment in
each sequence (Alg II or Math III) some performance tasks
on those tests that draw on content from previous
grades/courses. This is NOT a comprehensive math exam;
rather, students will be asked to draw on that content and
apply it in the context of Algebra II or Math III.

8. Recent Major Developments
8
December 2012
 College- and Career-Ready Assessments in Mathematics
 Retest Policy
 Minimum Technology Specifications, version 2.0
• PARCC will make available retests to member states
• In grades 3-8, PARCC will offer 1 retest opportunity per
year
• In high school, PARCC will offer a max of 3 retest
opportunities per year
• Individual states will determine whether to offer
retests. If they do offer them, the state will determine
how many times per year and at what grade levels they
are provided.

9. Looking Ahead: The Next Six Months
9
March 2013 • Assessment Scheduling Guidance
April 2013
• Draft English Language Learner (ELL) policies and participation
guidelines for public review
• Draft Accommodations Manual for public review
• Draft Subject- and Grade-Level Performance Level Descriptors for
public review
Spring 2013
• Guidance on Participation in Item Tryouts, Field Test, and Practice
Tests
• Design of Diagnostic and K-1 Tools
• Design of Speaking and Listening Assessment
June 2013
• Final Subject- and Grade-Level Performance Level Descriptors
• Final Accommodations Manual for Students with Disabilities
• Final Accommodations Policies and Participation Guidelines for
ELL

10. Looking Ahead: 6 – 18 Months
10
Summer 2013
• Design of Assessment Professional Development
Modules
Fall 2013
• Design of Student Score Reports
• Minimum Technology Specifications, version 3.0
Spring 2014
• Field Testing Administration and Practice Test
• Methodologies for Standard Setting
Fall 2014 • Operational Assessment Administration Manual
Throughout
2013-14
• Release of Additional Sample Items, Item
Tryouts/Cognitive Labs, and Additional Guidance
to Districts on Assessment Administration

11. ECD is a deliberate and systematic approach to assessment development that
will help to establish the validity of the assessments, increase the
comparability of year-to year results, and increase efficiencies/reduce costs.
Evidence-Centered Design (ECD)
Claims
Design begins with
the inferences
(claims) we want to
make about
students
Evidence
In order to support
claims, we must
gather evidence
Task Models
Tasks are designed
to elicit specific
evidence from
students in support
of claims

12. Master Claim: On-Track for college and career readiness. The degree to which a student is college and career ready
(or “on-track” to being ready) in mathematics. The student solves grade-level /course-level problems in
mathematics as set forth in the Standards for Mathematical Content with connections to the Standards for
Mathematical Practice.
Sub-Claim A: Major Content1 with
Connections to Practices
The student solves problems
involving the Major Content1 for her
grade/course with connections to
the Standards for Mathematical
Practice.
Sub-Claim B: Additional & Supporting
Content2 with Connections to
Practices
The student solves problems involving
the Additional and Supporting
Content2 for her grade/course with
connections to the Standards for
Mathematical Practice.
Sub-Claim E: Fluency in applicable
grades (3-6)
The student demonstrates fluency as set
forth in the Standards for Mathematical
Content in her grade.
Claims Structure: Mathematics
Sub-Claim C: Highlighted Practices
MP.3,6 with Connections to Content3
(expressing mathematical reasoning)
The student expresses grade/course-
level appropriate mathematical
reasoning by constructing viable
arguments, critiquing the reasoning of
others, and/or attending to precision
when making mathematical statements.
Sub-Claim D: Highlighted Practice MP.4 with Connections to Content
(modeling/application)
The student solves real-world problems with a degree of difficulty appropriate to the
grade/course by applying knowledge and skills articulated in the standards for the
current grade/course (or for more complex problems, knowledge and skills articulated
in the standards for previous grades/courses), engaging particularly in the Modeling
practice, and where helpful making sense of problems and persevering to solve them
(MP. 1),reasoning abstractly and quantitatively (MP. 2), using appropriate tools
strategically (MP.5), looking for and making use of structure (MP.7), and/or looking for
and expressing regularity in repeated reasoning (MP.8).
Total Exam score – 107 points (PBA and EOY)
50 pts
25 pts
14 pts PBA only
18 pts PBA only

13. PARCC High Level Blueprints

14. Overview of PARCC Mathematics Task
Types
14
Task Type Description of Task Type
I. Tasks assessing
concepts, skills and
procedures
• Balance of conceptual understanding, fluency, and application
• Can involve any or all mathematical practice standards
• Machine scoreable including innovative, computer-based formats
• Will appear on the End of Year and Performance Based Assessment components
• Sub-claims A, B and E
II. Tasks assessing
expressing
mathematical
reasoning
• Each task calls for written arguments / justifications, critique of reasoning, or precision in
mathematical statements (MP.3, 6).
• Can involve other mathematical practice standards
• May include a mix of machine scored and hand scored responses
• Included on the Performance Based Assessment component
• Sub-claim C
III. Tasks assessing
modeling /
applications
• Each task calls for modeling/application in a real-world context or scenario (MP.4)
• Can involve other mathematical practice standards
• May include a mix of machine scored and hand scored responses
• Included on the Performance Based Assessment component
• Sub-claim D
For more information see PARCC Task Development ITN Appendix D.

15. Assessment Design
English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3-11
2 Optional Assessments/Flexible Administration
Diagnostic Assessment
Early indicator of
student knowledge and
skills to inform
instruction, supports,
and PD
Non-summative
Mid-Year Assessment
Performance-based
Emphasis on hard-
to-measure standards
Potentially
summative
Performance-
Based Assessment
(PBA)
Extended tasks
Applications of
concepts and skills
Required
End-of-Year
Assessment
Innovative,
computer-based
items
Required
Speaking And Listening Assessment
Locally scored
Non-summative, required
13

17. Arizona Department of Education

18. Arizona Department of Education

19. Assessment Evidence Tables RELEASED
19 For more information see PARCC Task Development ITN Appendix D.

20. Instructional Uses
20
• To see ways to combine standards naturally
when designing instructional tasks
• To determine and create instructional
scaffolding (to think through which
individual, simpler skills can be taught first
to build to more complex skills)
• To develop rubrics and scoring tools for
instructional tasks

21. Performance Level Descriptors:
Mathematics (DRAFT)
21
http://www.parcconline.org/math-plds

22. Factors that determine the performance
levels (Cognitive Complexity)
Cognitive
Complexity
Mathematical
Content
Mathematical
Practices
Stimulus
Material
Response
Mode
Processing
Demand
1. Mathematical Content
2. Mathematical Practices
3. Stimulus Material
4. Response Mode
5. Processing Demand
22

23. 23
Questions?
AZ PARCC to AIMS transition
http://www.azed.gov/standards-development-
assessment/aimsparcctransition/
AZ Latest News with PARCC
http://www.azed.gov/standards-development-
assessment/2013/01/18/parcc-whats-new/
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
www.parcconline.org