testing consortium report

7/31/2019 Testing Consortium Report

1/20

317 East 67th StreetNew York, New York 10065917-821-8592www.perormanceassessment.org

A practitioner-developed &student-ocused perormance

assessment system

Data Report on the

New York Perormance

Standards Consortium

Educaig

r he 21Ceury


2/20

ContEnts

i Frewrd

1 new Yrk Perrmace sadard Criumtime ad space Ivae

2 Muliple oucme nY Perrmace sadard CriumGraduai Rae adCllege Readie

3 ELL ad sude wih special needChar 1: Cmpari Crium ad nYC Public High schl Daa

4 Predicive Validiy ad Cllege PerieceChar 2: Periece i Cllege: 2d Year, Cmpari Bewee Crium,

naial ad nYs Rae, Cla 2008

5 Char 3: Crium CUnY Periece: 2d Year, Cla 2008

Miriy Male Cllege Daa

Char 4: Miriy Male Cllege Accepace Rae, 2011

6 supei DaaChar 5: supei Rae

teacher turver Daa

Char 6: teacher turver Rae

7 Ciai Crium succe (eleced)

9 the tak

Lieraure tak10 Mah tak

scial sudie tak

11 sciece taksupplemeary tak

the Ar

Ar Criicim

Ierhip

Freig Laguage

12 Rubric

Data Report on the New YorkPerormance Standards Consortium

Educating or the 21st Century

Credits: Photographs by Roy Reid, Design by Li Wah Lai


3/20

educating for the 21st centurY | Data Report on the New York Performance Standards Consortium

i

Foreword

As I read Educating or the 21st Century: Data Report on the New York Perormance Standards

Consortium, I thought so this is what accountability should look like: a model ocomplex

accountability. I admit I am prooundly suspect o prevailing claims o education progress measured

only by test scores, but I am equally hungry or a deep accountability ramework that speaks ethically

and honestly about the challenges and accomplishments o schools.

From this report we learn about the Perormance Standards Consortium, a network o public small

schools serving a range o students, with diverse needs and gits. Without being selective, these

schools beat the odds in New York City and the nation in rates or student graduation, college

going and college persistence or working class and poor youth. Designed with intentionality

toward intellectual inquiry and perormance, the schools challenge both high achieving studentsand those students who are most educationally vulnerable English language learners, students

receiving special education services, minority males. An astonishing counter-story to what we read

in the newspapers about public schools.

With this volume, the Consortium presents two gits to readers. First, we encounter a rich menu o

accountability indicators much more revealing, ethical, provocative and useul than simple counts

o standardized test scores. Second, at a time when I ear the public can no longer imagine what

good public education looks like, or all children, where teachers stay and students engage, the

Consortium has widened the public educational imagination or the schools our children deserve.

This is the investment our nation needs.

Michelle Fine

Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Urban Education,

The Graduate Center,

City University of New York

At a time when schools in New York City are struggling to nd ways to increase collegereadiness and insure that graduating students actually have the skills to succeed in college,the results achieved by schools within the New York Perormance Standards Consortium are not

just noteworthy, they are remarkable. On almost every measure o need and disadvantage theseschools are serving a more challenging population o students, yet they are nding ways to meet

their learning needs by ocusing on the types o skills that are too oten ignored: critical thinking,

problem solving, research and expository writing, public speaking, independent initiative.

These schools are showing us what might be possible i we broadened our view o assessment to

include a ocus on evidence that students are receiving a broad range o academic and social


4/20


ii

skills. They show us that truly innovative educational environments support great teaching andproduce committed teachers, and that it s possible to encourage students to take responsibility

or learning without relying upon pressure, threats and ear.

Pedro A. Noguera,

Peter L. Agnew Professor of Education

Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Development

NewYork University

What this slim volume teaches us is that strong proessional communities create powerul

schools. Although Educating or the 21st

Century: Data Report on the New York PerormanceStandards Consortium ocuses on the startling results o the Consortium member public school

studentstheir successul rates o graduation and college attendance and persistencewhat

caught my attention is the astonishing rate oteacherretention. That is a telling bit o datumit

means that in these schools, with their teacher-designed and revised assessment system, teachers

nally have the proessional respect, autonomy, and responsibility to make their schools work or

their students. And the results speak to their success.

Teachers thrive in such an environment. They arent there or a two-year stint and then go on to real

careers. They stay, and learn, and grow even better at what they do. Students can only benet rom

the thoughtul collaboration and collegiality o caring and intelligent teachers. This report testies to

that, and its something that those who have the power to implement education policy need to payclose attention to.

Deborah W. Meier

Senior Scholor

Steinhardt School of Education

New York University


5/20


1

New York PerormanceStandards Consortium

The New York Perormance Standards Consortium (Consortium) has developed a proven practitioner-developed, student-ocused perormance assessment system or its 28 member schools in New York

City and State. Its validity was conrmed by the NY State Education Department and the NY Board o

Regents in 1995 and rearmed in 2008 when additional schools were added. The main components o

the system are:

X Praciier-deiged ad ude-cued aeme ak

X Exeral evaluar r wrie ad ral ude wrk

X Mderai udie eablih reliabiliy

X Exeive preial develpme

X Predicive validiy baed graduae cllege ucce

Additional components include an emphasis on:

X Iquiry-baed eachig ad learig

X Dicui-baed clarm

Years beore the Common Core State Standards were

promulgated, Consortium schools had developed a

culture ocused on deeper learning skills. Freed o the

pressures to teach to the test, Consortium teachers

developed a multi-layered, student-ocused curriculum,

in addition to and beyond the assessment tasks. Not

only assessment but instruction, too, reects the values o

the Common Core: open-ended questioning; intensive

reading, writing, and discussion; student input; and

assignments extended over longer periods o time than the more conventional standardized approach

to assessment and instruction.

Time and Space to InnovateThe Consortium has been able to thrive in New York because the state provided it with time and a sae

space to innovate, develop, and rene its system. Over the past dozen years, while we have witnessed

the serious shortcomings o large-scale assessment systems imposed on teachers and classrooms rom

above, the Consortium systemteacher-designed and ourishing at the school and local levelshas

nurtured a committed cadre o practitioners who believe in the system and have devoted years o work

to grow it and rene it.


6/20


2

The Consortium includes a range o schools, rom transer schools (or second-chance schools) to

schools in the International Network to Title One schools and schools with both the urban poor and

the urban middle class. All types o schools and students have benetted, including schools with large

populations o students with IEPs, who have successully earned diplomas. Recently, the organization

Advocates or Children, in their proposal or multiple pathways to a diploma in NY State, has supported

expanding the NY Perormance Standards Consortium so that more students with special needs would

have access to other options or demonstrating college and career readiness.

Multiple Outcomes o NY PerormanceStandards Consortium

The Consortium approach produces ar better outcomes when compared with state and national

data. While standardized assessments limit targeted outcomes to grades on standardized exams, the

Consortium broadens the denition o outcomes by looking at:

X Graduai Rae ad Cllege Readie

X ELL ad special need

X Predicive Validiy ad Cllege Periece

X Miriy Male Cllege Daa

X supei Daa

X teacher turver Daa

Graduation Rates and College Readiness

The results or Consortium graduates have been ar-reaching and positive. The Consortium graduation

rate exceeds that o the overall NYC public schools (see Chart 1). And a study conducted by Dr. Martha

Foote (Keeping Accountability Systems Accountable, Phi Beta Kappan, January 2007) shows that the

Consortium has a proven record o producing graduates who go on to successul undergraduate

careers. Eighty-ve percent o Consortium graduates attended colleges rated competitive or better

according to Barrons Profles o American Colleges and persisted in college at rates higher than thenational average. All this was accomplished despite the act that the Consortium schools pool o

students include more students living at the poverty level, a higher percentage o Latinos and English

Language learners, and a higher percentage o students with lower English and math skills than the

overall NYC public high school population (see Chart 1).


7/20


3

ELLs and Students with Special Needs

An ongoing study o ELL students in the ten established NYC International Network schools ound that

the three International schools within the Consortium scored better on their ELA Regents exams than

those students in International schools that are not in the Consortium.

Also, the Consortium has developed a list o accommodations to meet the needs o students with IEPs

so that they can benet rom the PBA system even though it poses a greater academic challenge than

the standardized exams. As a result, the graduation rate o Consortium special ed students exceeds that

o special ed students in the general NYC public school population (see Chart 1).

Chart 1: Comparison of Consortium and NYC Public High School Data

Consortium NYC High Schools

% Black & Hispanic 71.95% 71.87%

% ELLs 12.7% 12.3%

% Students w/ special needs 14.3% 13.0%

% Students in poverty* 64.2% 63.6%

Average 8th grade profciency (out o 4.50) 2.71 2.76

4-Year Graduation Rate(based on 2 or more years o enrollment)

68.6% 59.0%

5-Year Graduation Rate

(based on 2 or more years o enrollment) 76.0% 66.1%

Dropout Rate 5.3% 11.8%

Black Graduation Rate 60.8% 53.9%

Hispanic Graduation Rate 64.9% 51.8%

Asian Graduation Rate 87.6% 76.8%

White Graduation Rate 77.9% 73.9%

ELL Graduation Rate 69.5% 39.7%

Students w/ special needs Graduation Rate 50.0% 24.7%

* Dened as qualiying or ree or reduced lunch

Statistics ound and derived rom: NYCDOE (2009): 2008-09 Progress Report Measures or high schools; NYCDOE(2010): 2008-2009 Progress Report Measures or schools or transer students; NYCDOE (February 2010): School registerdata, ound at each schools NYCDOE website; NYSED (April 2010): NYStart Accountability and Overview Reports oreach school; NYSED (2010): Public School Total Cohort Graduation Rate and Enrollment Outcome Summary - 2008-09School Year All Students; NYCDOE (March 2010): New York City Graduation Rates Class o 2009 (2005 Cohort).


8/20


4

Predictive Validity and College Persistence

The perormance-based assessment tasks (PBATs), which have become the basis o the Consortiums

assessment work, reect the complexity o learning that Conley reers to in his seminal work on

college readiness (Toward a More Comprehensive Conception o College Readiness, 2007): analyzingconicting phenomena, supporting arguments with evidence, solving complex problems that have no

obvious answer, and thinking deeply about what is being taught. These are the specic skills that Tony

Wagner has argued are needed to prepare students or the 21 st century (Rigor Redened, 2008).

National Student Clearinghouse data conrm that the Consortium schools are preparing students to

succeed post-graduation. A recent report on the Consortiums graduating class o 2008 documents

results that ar exceed national, state, and city norms. The rates or sustainability are remarkable,

particularly or Consortium students attending two-year colleges (see Charts 2 and 3).

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

93.3%

83.9%

74.7%

53.5%

80.8%

59.1%

4-Year Colleges

2-Year Colleges

Consortium Rate * National Rate ** NYS Rate **

Chart 2: Persistence in College: 2nd YearComparison Between Consortium, National and NYS Rates, Class of 2008

* National Student Clearinghouse, Jan. 2012 **Data obtained rom http://www.higheredino.org.


9/20


5

Minority Male College Data

In this category, too, the Consortium rates show much more positive results than comparable populations.

90%

37% o Arican-Americanmale graduates goingto college

86%

37%

Chart 4: Minority Male College Acceptance Rates, 2011

90% o Latinomale Consortiumgraduatesaccepted tocollege, 2011

86% o Arican-American maleConsortiumgraduates acceptedto college, 2011

Data based on college acceptances.

(http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cm?Section=Press_Releases2&TEMPLATE=/CM/

ContentDisplay.cm&CONTENTID=35338)

42% o Latino malegraduates goingto college

Chart 3: Consortium CUNY Persistence, 2nd year

0% 15% 30% 45%60% 75% 90%

85%

67%

85%- Percent o students in

a 4-year CUNY school, eithergraduated or remaining in (any)college, post 01/01/2011

67% - Percent o students ina 2-year CUNY school, eithergraduated or remaining in (any)college, post 01/1/2011

Consortium data based on National Student Clearinghouse, Feb. 2012

42%

Consortium

National

For comparison purposes: The American Council on Education report Gender Equity In Higher

Education: 2010 cites the ollowing national percentages:


10/20


6

Suspension Data

The Consortium has lower suspension rates than other NYC high schools.

0% 3% 6% 9% 12%

5%

9%

11%

12%

NY Performance Standards Consortium

Representative DOE Partnership Support Organization (PSO)

New York City High Schools

Charter High Schools and 5-12 Schools

Chart 5: Suspension Rate

Data were compiled rom the 2009-2010 NYSED individual state report cards or schools in each grouping.

New York City schools suspension rate is based on NYC DoE data reported or 2010-11.

Teacher Turnover Data

The Consortium has lower teacher turnover rates than other groups o NYC public schools.

Data were compiled rom the 2009-2010 NYSED individual state report cards or schools in each grouping.

New York City high schools teacher turnover rate is ound in The Research Alliance or New York City School

report The Middle School Teacher Turnover Project: A Descriptive Analysis o Teacher Turnover in New York Citys

Middle Schools (February 2011).

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

15%

25%

26%

58%

NY Performance Standards Consortium

Representative DOE Partnership Support Organization (PSO)

Charter High Schools and 5-12 Schools

New York City High Schools

sCHooL GRoUPs

sCHooL GRoUPs

Chart 6: Teacher Turnover Ratesfor teachers with less than 5 years experience


11/20


7

Citations o Consortium Success(selected)

American Educational Research Association (2011, April). Authentic Pedagogy:

Examining Intellectual Challenge in a National Sample o Social Studies Classrooms.

Best Paper Award. Researchers in a multi-state study o social studies classrooms ound high

levels o authentic intellectual work only in the Consortium schools, crediting the Consortiums

variance rom the state tests or teachers ability to delve deeply with students.

Foote, M. (2007). Keeping accountability systems accountable. Phi Delta Kappan,

88(5), 359-363.Dr. Footes study indicates that despite serving a more disadvantaged

student population than NYC high schools in general, Consortium schools have much higher

graduation rates, plus their students do well in college and persist at a rate better than thenational average.

Foote, M. (2012). Freedom rom high-stakes testing: A ormula or small school success.

In Critical small schools (Charlotte, NC: Inormation Age Publishing). Dr. Foote discusses

how Consortium schools, reed rom state testing mandates, prepare their students or college

by teaching them how to write papers, develop and deend theses, construct arguments, and

do oral presentations.

Mathews, Jay. (2011). Give us your ideal schools. Washington Post, 08/29/2011.

Columnist Jay Mathews highlights the Consortium schools or their success in graduating urban

students at high rates and preparing them or the academic rigors o college.

Regents Exam Review Panel (2002, October). Critique o Global and American History

Regents Exams. New York: New York Perormance Standards Consortium. Retrieved on

5/3/10 rom http://perormanceassessment.org/consequences/ccritiques.html. Historians

compare the Global and American History Regents exams with the Consortiums history

assessments and conclude that, unlike the Regents tests, the Consortiums assessments oster

the interpretive and critical thinking necessary or college-level history courses.

Regents Exam Review Panel (2002, November). Critique o Living Environment Regents

Exams. New York: New York Perormance Standards Consortium. Retrieved on 5/3/10

rom http:// perormanceassessment.org/consequences/ccritiques.html. Scientists

compare the Living Environment Regents exams with the Consortiums science assessments

and conclude that, unlike the Regents tests, the Consortiums assessments demand that

students employ the scientic method and use basic underlying scientic habits o mind

necessary or college-level science courses.


12/20


8

Schmoker, M. (2009). Schools must collect data that serve a 21st century agenda:

A consortium o New York schools show how. Educational Leadership, 66(4), 70-74.

The author discusses how Consortium schools, unconstrained by state standardized testingmandates, use data to support instruction or such complex learning as critical thinking and

problem solving.

Tashlik, P. (2010). Changing the national conversation on assessment. Phi Delta

Kappan, 91(6), 55-59.The author shows how Consortium schools use qualitative data to

make substantive decisions about students.

Teacher to Teacher Publications (New York: Teachers College Press). A series o books

and DVDs published by the Consortium, providing a valuable and practical resource or the

classroom teacher.

Back to the books: Creating a literacy culture in your school (2010)Inquiry in action: Teaching Columbus (2006)

Inquiry teaching in the sciences (2004)

Looking or an argument? (2004)

Serving the community: Guidelines or setting up a service program (2006)

Talk, talk, talk: Discussion-based classrooms (2004)

Teaching American history: An inquiry approach (2004)

United Federation o Teachers Task Force on High Stakes Testing (2007, April). Report

o the UFT Task Force on High Stakes Testing. New York: United Federation o Teachers.

Retrieved 5/6/10 rom http://www.ut.org/news/issues/reports/taskorce/index.

html. The task orce, concluding that high-stakes testing policies are harming teachingand learning, singles out the Consortiums assessment system as an alternative model or

improving instruction and developing strong learners.

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools dont

teach the new survival skills our children need and what we can do about it (New

York: Basic Books).The author, a Harvard education proessor, cites the Consortium or its

outstanding assessment and accountability systems that ensure students learn the skills they

need to survive in the 21st century.

Wolk, R. (2010). Education: The case or making it personal. Educational Leadership,

67(7), 16-21. The author discusses the inquiry-based learning and perormance assessmentat a Consortium school, concluding that they oster the complex skills needed to develop

lie-long learners.


13/20


9

The Tasks

Performance-based

Assessment Tasks (PBATs):

Multiple ways to

express learning

All Consortium schools require students to

complete academic tasks to demonstrate

college and career readiness and to qualiy

or graduation. Topics emerge rom class

readings and discussion. In some classes,

the tasks are crated by the teacher and

in other instances by the student. Thus,

each semester diferent questions may be

developed. All graduation level tasks are

evaluated using the Consortium rubrics.

Literature Task

The student will write a well-developed literary analysis,

using a text o appropriate complexity and showing

connections between the text and other substantial

issues, such as a larger issue or theme, another work o

literature, the historical or biographical context, a lmed

version o the text, or noted works o relevant criticism.

The paper is organized around a compelling argument

and thesis, uses relevant evidence and quotations

that support the argument, and provides meaningul

interpretation o texts. In addition to demonstrating

accepted conventions or writing, the paper also has

evidence o a students voice and style.

Each student also presents orally, either deending the

paper or by demonstrating ability to adapt skills to a new

text, which the student has read independently.

External evaluators assess both written and oral work

using the Consortium rubric.

Sample Literature PBATs:

X Wh i a America? De he America dreamchage depedig up he ideiy hedreamer? Wha qualie a a riumph r a ailure?Wh emerge heric ad wh allw he purui he dream ur him villaiu? Ue w he vel weve read hi emeer explrehee quei.

X I hi eay, A Image Arica: Racim i CradHeart of Darkness, Chiua Achebe argue haCrad i a bldy raci. Baed he idea madeexplici i hi eay ad he implici i Cradvel, d yu agree r diagree wih Achebe

argume? I he real mer i Heart of DarknessCrad himel? or did Achebe micrueCrad iei, which were expe he evil clialim?

X the cic bewee mral law ad ae law iAntigone adA View From the Bridge

X the rle geder i he ragedie Othello adAntigone


14/20


10

Math Task

The math PBAT is built around problem

solving and applications o higher levels o

mathematics.

The student is expected to use sound

mathematical procedures accurately when

solving problems; justiy all mathematical

statements eciently and accurately; and

create appropriate models, inherent to the

task, that represent the problem accurately

and elegantly.

Communication is an important aspect o the

mathematical task. Students are expected to

use mathematical terminology and notation,

communicate clearly the process and solution

used, and make predictions. Students will

also discuss how mathematical concepts

interconnect, build on each other, and apply to

real-world situations.

External evaluators assess both written and oral

work using the Consortium rubric.

Sample Math PBATs:

X texa tech -v- oklahma: A cmparaive

aiical aalyi ha exhibi hw daa

ca be maipulaed cvey a variey

meage.

X Plik: sude deig heir w

Plik bard, he ue Pacal thery

cmpare heir empirical daa agai

expeced ucme daa.

X Hw ca marice be ued lvemulivariable mahemaical iuai?

X Hw ca he prperie parabla be

emplyed i prducig lar eergy?

X Wha equai ca be ued r

parablic lar pael?

Social Studies Task

The social studies task requires students to develop

a text-based research and analytical paper in

history or the social sciences. The paper consists

o an argument organized around an idea, thesis

or question and is supported by accurate and

persuasive evidence rom both primary and

secondary sources. Alternative points o view are

presented, explained, and analyzed. In addition to

demonstrating accepted conventions o standard

English, the paper is also expected to show

evidence o a students voice and writing style.

External evaluators assess both written and oral

work using the Consortium rubric.

Sample Social Studies PBATs:

X Why did Licl uppr ablii? Did hiview chage ver ime, ad why?

X Lkig AbradFrace ad he headcarba i public chl.

X Hw ha Frace deed aial ideiyi cmpari wih he U.s.? Wha cichave arie whe difere culure

mee? Hw i muliculuralim deed rrericed? Dicu wha ca be leared rmhi cae udy abu ur w ciey.

X Why did he Uied sae le he VieamWar? Cider he rle he America media,he ai-war mveme, ad he PeagPaper.

X the simulu Package: I hi he declie he America Dream? A i-dephiveigai e apec he RecveryAc 2009, icludig udig urce,

allcai, ad argume r ad agaihe legilai.

X Wha are he ceci beweeppulai red ad immigrai law?Aalyzig U.s. Ceu aiic r race,laguage, icme, educai, ad herbaic demgraphic idicar, aiallyad r nYC.


15/20


11

SupplementaryTasks

In addition to the our required academictasks, schools may choose to include

supplementary tasks. Below are a ew o the

tasks that individual schools have chosen to

include among their curricular and graduation

requirements.

The ArtsExtensive work in one o the arts and public

presentation o accomplishments. Includesvisual arts, music, playwriting, theater, ceramics,

poetry, ction writing. Visiting artists provide

critiques and eedback.

Arts CriticismUsing the resources available in the city,

students visit galleries and museums, choose

an artist to study in-depth, develop and

conduct interviews o those active in the arts,

and present to students and others.

InternshipsIn-depth internship over a signicant amount

o time at an organizationprivate or public

or with an individual practitioner in an area o

concern and interest to the student. Followed

by a presentation to students and others.

Foreign LanguageStudents learn a language other than English

and develop comort and luency in the

language.

Science Task

The science task is an extended science

project or original experiment that grows

out o research studied in class. Students

contextualize and develop the hypothesis,

develop the design or carrying out their

research, and collect data consistent with

the problem. Necessary charts, tables,

and graphs are generated to acilitate

analysis o the data and interpretation o

the results. Finally, the students suggest

revisions or the experimental plan and

questions or uture research.

External evaluators assess both written and

oral work using the Consortium rubric.

Sample Science PBATs:

X Hw d paricle ize ad deiy

iuece he eri beach ad?

Wha are he aleraive beach

repleihme?

X Michdrial DnA Prjec: sude

reearche rigi mder huma,

explrig bh he Muli-Regial

ad ou Arica herie, creae

hyphei, he aalyze w

michdrial DnA equece

deermie i he daa uppr he

hyphei.

X Which digeive yem i he m

efecive: A cmpari eal pig,

huma, ad cw digeive yem.


16/20


12

New York Performance Standards Consortium Student ________________________________________________________________________________________Performance Assessment: Literary Analysis

Title/Texts ______________________________________________________________________________________Circle One: Written OralCircle One: Teacher External Evaluator (Print name) ____________________________________________________________________________________

Overall Evaluation _________________________ Signature _______________________________________________________________ Date__________________01/10/10

Performance Indicators Outstanding Good Competent Needs Revision

Thesis and organization Efficiently organizes paper around a clear,compelling argument

Develops argument thoughtfully andpersuasively

Uses relevant, convincing evidence andquotations that thoroughly supportargument

Has a clear argument

Effectively organized and developedcoherently around central argument

Uses relevant evidence & quotationsthat support central argument

Has a central idea

Mostly organized around a centralidea, but may lose focus at times

Uses relevant evidence andquotations to support central idea

Lacks a central idea

Unfocused organization

Little, irrelevant, or no evidenceused

Analysis Provides deep insight and createsmeaningful interpretation of texts

Elaborates on central argument andmeaning of supporting evidence;

answers question, So what? Considers authors language, craft, and/or

choice of genre Analysis drives discussion of literary

elements when relevant

Creates meaningful interpretation oftexts

Explores central argument andmeaning of supporting evidence;answers question, So what?

Analysis drives discussion of literaryelements when relevant

Provides basic interpretation oftexts

Develops central idea andexplains choice of evidence andquotations

Summarizes or uses faultyanalysis

Little or no interpretation oftexts

Little or no use of evidence orquotations

Style and voice Evidence of ambition, passion for subject,or deep curiosity

Writer willing to take risks Displays intellectual engagement Creative, clear, and appropriate use of

language and word choice

Evidence of a mind at work Evidence of interest in topic Clear and appropriate use of

language and word choice

Communicates ideas clearly Shows some awareness of

appropriate language and wordchoice

Relies on conversationallanguage

Little or no evidence of formalor appropriate use of languageand word choice

Connections Makes insightful connection between textand something outside the text:

Another work of literature or

Historical context or

Biographical context or

Larger issue or theme of importance(must be supported with relevantevidence) or

Film version of text, or

Substantial criticism

Makes appropriate connection betweentext and something outside the text:




Larger issue or theme ofimportance (must be supported withrelevant evidence) or



Establishes a connection betweentext and something outside the text:




Larger issue or theme ofimportance (must be supportedwith relevant evidence) or



Inappropriate or no connectionmade between the text andsomething outside the text

Conventions (for writingassignment only)

Mechanical and grammatical errors are rareor non-existent; follows acceptedconventions of quotations and citations;uses transitions effectively

Few mechanical or grammatical errors;follows accepted conventions ofquotations and citations; makes someuse of transitions

Some mechanical or grammaticalerrors but communication is notimpaired; demonstrates knowledgeof accepted conventions ofquotations

Communication is impaired byerrors; little or no use ofconventions or quotation andcitations; shows little awarenessof appropriate use of transitions

Presentation (for oralcomponent only)

Communicates ideas clearly in appropriate,sophisticated, and original way to audience;able to respond to questions and expand onideas; presents complex, accurate,substantive ideas and information clearly

Communicates clearly in appropriateand original way to audience; able torespond to questions and expandsomewhat on ideas; presents accurate,substantive ideas and informationclearly

Communicates clearly in appropriateway to audience; able to respondaccurately to questions; presentssome substantive ideas andinformation accurately

Neither clear nor appropriatepresentation to audience; cannotrespond well to questions; doesnot present accurate orsubstantive ideas or information

LiteraryAnalysis

RubricsRubrics provide the basis on which to review the quality o student work across our perormance tasks:

the analytic essay, social studies research paper, science experiment and applied mathematics.


17/20


13

New York Performance Standards Consortium

Student __________________________________________________________________

Performance Assessment: Mathematics Circle one: Written Oral

Project Title (e.g., Mathematical Modeling, The Can Project) ____________________________________________________________________

Project Topic (e.g., Linear programming, volume-surface area optimization) ________________________________________________________

Teacher or External Evaluator (circle one) ______________________________________________ Date _____________________________

Overall evaluation ___________________________ Signature ________________________________________________________________

07/10

PerformanceIndicators

Outstanding Good Competent Needs Improvement

Problem Solving

Selects appropriate and efficientstrategies to solve non-routineproblems.

Executes conceptually soundmathematical proceduresaccurately.

Selects appropriate and efficientstrategies to solve non-routineproblems.

Executes conceptually soundmathematical procedures withminor computational errors.

Selects appropriate, butinefficient, strategies, andexecutes conceptually soundmathematical procedures withminor computational errors.

or

Selects appropriate and efficient

strategies but executesmathematical procedures withminor conceptual andcomputational errors.

Selects an inappropriatestrategy.

or

Makes major conceptual errorsor procedural errors.

Reasoning andProof

Justifies all mathematicalstatements in an efficient andaccurate manner, and drawsvalid conclusions.

Constructs, uses, and tests oneor more generalizations, andmakes predictions.

Justifies most mathematicalstatements accurately, anddraws valid conclusions.

Constructs a generalization anduses it to make predictions.

Justifies some of themathematical statementsaccurately, and draws validconclusions.

Does not justify mathematicalstatements accurately, and doesnot draw valid conclusions.

Communication

Always uses mathematicalterminology andnotation appropriately.

Eloquently communicatesprocess and solution.

Writing is sophisticated andinteresting to read.

Mostly uses mathematicalterminology and notationappropriately.

Clearly communicatesprocessand solution.

Limited use of appropriatemathematical language andnotation.

Explainsprocess and solutionwith limited clarity.

Little or no use of mathematicallanguage and notation.

Little or no coherent explanationof process and solution.

Connections

Discusses, in depth, howmathematicalconceptsinterconnect and build on eachother.

Thoroughly applies concepts toreal-world situations.

Discusses how math conceptsinterconnect and build on eachother.

Applies concepts to real-worldsituations

Discusses superficially howmath concepts interconnect andbuild on each other.

Attempts to apply concepts toreal-world situations.

Does not discuss theinterconnection betweenconcepts.

Does not attempt to applyconcepts to real-worldsituations.

Representation

Creates appropriate models,inherent to the task, thatrepresent the problemaccurately and elegantly.

Creates appropriate models,inherent to the task, thatrepresent the problemaccurately.

Creates appropriate models,inherent to the task, thatrepresent the problem withminor errors.

Does not create appropriatemodels, inherent to the task.

M

athematics


18/20


14

New York Performance Standards Consortium Student _____________________________________________________

Extended Science Project or Original Experiment Title of Experiment ___________________________________________

Circle one: Teacher or External Evaluator ________________________________________________________ Date_________

Circle one: Holistic evaluation ___________________________ Signature ________________________________________

03/11

Performance Indicator Outstanding Good Competent Needs Revision

Contextualize Background research has beenthoroughly conducted using atleast two original sources.Sources are all appropriatelycited.The significance of the problemis clearly stated.The hypotheses/theses aregrounded in the backgroundresearch.

Background research has beenthoroughly conducted.Sources are appropriately cited.The significance of the problemis stated.The hypotheses/theses arerelevant to the backgroundresearch.

Background research isincluded in the introduction.Sources are cited.The significance of the problemis stated.The hypotheses/theses areclearly stated.

Background research is notincluded in the introduction.Sources are not cited.The significance of the problemis not stated.The hypotheses/theses are notstated.

Critique ExperimentalDesign

Identifies, describes andcontrols all relevant variables.Thoughtfully evaluates the

procedure and/or set upClearly describes bias in thedesign

Identifies, describes andcontrols most relevantvariables.Evaluates the procedure and/orset upClearly describes bias in thedesign

Identifies, describes andcontrols some relevantvariables.Evaluates the procedure and/orset upAttempts to describe bias in thedesign

Does not identify, describe orcontrol any variables.Does not evaluate the procedureand/or set upDoes not attempt to describe

bias in the design

Collect, Organize andPresent Data

Collects data in a reliable andvalid manner.Presents relevant data that isconsistent with the problem.Generates appropriate tables,charts and graphs with data andmakes appropriate calculations.Conducts thoroughmathematical analysis of thedata.

Collects data in a reliable andvalid manner.Presents relevant data that isconsistent with the problem.Generates appropriate tables,charts and graphs with dataand/or makes appropriatecalculations.Conducts mathematical analysisof the data.

Collects data in a reliable andvalid manner.Presents data that is consistentwith the problem.Generates tables, charts andgraphs with data.Conducts analysis of the data.

Collects data in a non-reliableand/or invalid manner.Does not present data or

presents data that is not relevantto the problem.Does not generate tables, chartsand graphs.Does not analyze the data.

Analyze and InterpretResults

Draws thoughtful conclusionsthat are supported by the data.Relates conclusions to originalquestion.Thoroughly describes sourcesof error and their effects on thedata.

Draws conclusions that aresupported by the data.Relates conclusions to originalquestion.Describes several sources oferror and their effects on thedata.

Draws conclusions that arepartially supported by the data.Attempts to relate conclusionsto original question.Describes sources of error andattempts to describe theireffects on the data.

Draws no conclusions or drawsconclusions that are notsupported by the data.Does not attempt to relateconclusions to original question.Does not describe sources oferror or does not attempt todescribe their effects on thedata.

Performance Indicator Outstanding Good Competent Needs Revision

Revise Original Design Proposes effective and relevantrevisions for the experimental

plan to lessen the effects of biasand sources of error.Poses thoughtful and relevantquestions for future research.

Proposes relevant revisions forthe experimental plan to lessenthe effects of bias and sourcesof error.Poses relevant questions forfuture research.

Proposes revisions for theexperimental plan to lessen theeffects of bias and sources oferror.Poses questions for futureresearch.

Does not propose revisions forthe experimental plan.Does not pose questions forfuture research.

Defense (for oral

component only)

Thoroughly answers questionsrelevant to the experiment andrelated topics.

Adequately answers questionsrelevant to the experiment andrelated topics.

Adequately answers questionsrelevant to the experiment.

Does not adequately answerquestions relevant to theexperiment.

Science


19/20


15

New York Performance Standards Consortium Student ________________________________________________

Social Studies Research Paper Title of Research ________________________________________

Circle one: Teacher or External Evaluator ________________________________________ Date______________________

Circle one: Written or Oral

Overall holistic evaluation ___________________________Signature ____________________________________________

03/11Performance Indicators Outstanding Good Competent Needs Revision

Viewpoint: Thesis/Claim Has sharply defined,compelling organizing idea,thesis or question.

Clear introduction presents

thesis in a highly engaging,compelling manner.

Coherent, complex,

sophisticated argumentsupports organizing idea/thesis.

Has clearly defined organizing

idea, thesis or question. Clear introduction presents

thesis in an engaging manner.

Coherent, sometimes complexarguments support organizingidea/thesis.

Organizing thesis, idea orquestion is comprehensible butnot especially clear.

Introduction presents thesis in a

mostly comprehensiblemanner.

Coherent but rarely complex orsophisticated arguments

support organizing idea/thesis.

Organizing idea, thesis, or

question is not clear. Introduction and the thesis it

contains are not clear.

Arguments lack coherenceand/or clarity.

Evidence and Sources Supporting arguments includespecific, relevant, accurate andverifiable, and highly

persuasive evidence, drawn

from both primary andsecondary sources.

Uses quotations and

paraphrasing appropriately tosustain an argument.

Supporting arguments includerelevant, accurate andverifiable, and mostly

persuasive evidence, drawn

from both primary andsecondary source.

Uses quotations and

paraphrasing appropriately tosustain an argument.

Evidence for supportingarguments is accurate andverifiable, mostly specific and

relevant, and generallypersuasive.

Use of quotations and

paraphrasing is mostly evident.

Supporting arguments may

include inaccurate evidenceand lack clear, persuasive, orrelevant evidence.

Quotations and paraphrasingdo not effectively supportarguments.

Analysis and Persuasion Argument draws on, explains,and critiques evidence from

alternative points of view. Clearly, thoughtfully, and

thoroughly explains andanalyzes the connection

between all evidence and

argument being made.

Argument draws on evidencefrom alternative points of view.

Mostly clear and thoughtfulexplanation or analysis of how

the evidence presented supportseach argument.

Counter-evidence may beintroduced.

Some alternative arguments are

presented but not always well

integrated. Some explanation of how the

evidence presented supportseach argument, but theexplanations are not always

clear and thorough.

Evidence supporting alternative

arguments is either missing or

poorly integrated. No explanation or analysis of

how or why the evidencesupports each argument.

Effective Organization Each argument clearly flows insupport of an overall structure.

Consistent, effective transitions

develop ideas and argumentslogically& build to a

compelling, persuasiveconclusion.

Distinct conclusionsynthesizes arguments that

support idea/general thesis.

Each argument presentedsupports an overall structure.

Usually uses effective

transitions to connect ideas andarguments, leading to a

persuasive conclusion. Distinct conclusion partly

synthesizes, but mostly re-presents the major arguments

to support idea/general thesis.

Most arguments presentedclearly support the overall

structure.

Transitions are sometimesabrupt but the arguments and

conclusion mostly connect. Conclusion represents major

arguments and connects them

to thesis; some synthesis.

Arguments presented are notclearly or supportively

connected to the overall

structure.

Transitions between argumentsare largely unclear.

Conclusion is either vague orunclear and poorly connected

to the papers major arguments.

Performance Indicators Outstanding Good Competent Needs Revision

Understanding ofImplications and Context

Arguments, ideas, and voicereflect a highly informedawareness of the largerhistorical, political, orcultural context surroundingquestions addressed in the

paper. Broader implications of the

central arguments are presentedand thoroughly explored.

Arguments, ideas, and voicereflect a somewhat informedawareness of the largerhistorical, political, or culturalcontext surrounding questionsaddressed in the paper.

Some broader implication ofthe central argument is

presented and explored.

Arguments, ideas, and voicereflect a very general,somewhat less informedawareness of the largerhistorical, political, or culturalcontext surrounding questionsaddressed in the paper

The broader implications of thecentral argument are alluded to

but not necessarily explored.

Arguments, ideas and voicereflect almost no awareness ofthe larger historical, political,or cultural context surroundingthe questions addressed in the

paper. The broader implications of the

central argument are neitherpresented nor explored.

Strong, Engaged Student

Voice

Confident, highly fluid writingstyle; lively, engaging,articulate language. Paper has

distinct, individual voice thatserves to develop and furtherthe argument throughout.

Confident writing style;engaging, mostly articulatelanguage. Paper has anindividual voice that manifestsitself at important points in thetext.

Engaged but somewhattentative or basic writing style.

Awkward, wooden, orconfusing writing style: studentvoice is buried at best.

Conventions (for writing

task only)

Grammar and punctuationnearly flawless.

Appropriate and consistentdocumentation of accessiblesources (complete, well-organized bibliography andcitations).

Grammar and punctuationmostly correct.

Appropriate and consistentdocumentation of accessiblesources (complete, well-organized bibliography andcitations).

Grammar and punctuationsometimes flawed, but not in amanner that undermines theclarity of the papers ideas.

Accessible, complete butsomewhat imprecise

bibliography and citations.

Consistently defectivegrammar and punctuation.

Inappropriate and/or mistakendocumentation of sources(poorly organized, incomplete

bibliography and citations).

Presentation (for oralcomponent only)

Communicates clearunderstanding of the papersideas and arguments in anappropriate, consistentlysophisticated way thatdemonstrates ownership ofwork.

Presentation and response toquestions reflect the coherenceand depth of the paper.

Answers questions accurately,thoughtfully, and effectively,developing new ideas whenthey are appropriate. Presentsrelevant evidence that may nothave appeared in the paper.

Communicates clearunderstanding of the papersideas and arguments in anappropriate, sometimessophisticated way thatdemonstrates ownership ofwork.

Presentation and response toquestions reflect the coherenceand depth of the paper.

Answers questions accurately,thoughtfully, and effectively,developing new ideas whenthey are appropriate.

Communicates a mostly clearand basic understanding of the

papers ideas and arguments inan appropriate, thoughtfulthough not necessarilysophisticated manner.

Presentation and response toquestions may not fully reflectthe coherence and depth of the

paper, but they are neverthelessclear and thoughtful.

Answers to questions aremostly accurate, thoughtful,and effective.

Fails to communicate a clearand basic understanding of the

papers ideas and arguments inan appropriate, thoughtfulmanner.

Presentation and response toquestions reflects theincoherence and generalweakness of the paper.

Answers questionssuperficially, inappropriately,or incorrectly.

SocialStudies


20/20

317 East 67th StreetNew York, New York 10065917-821-8592www.perormanceassessment.org

Commentators rom all parts o the political spectrum, rom Newt Gingrich to PresidentObama, have identied education as the civil rights issue o the 21st century. For too manystudents o color and special needs students, schools have unctioned as part o a school-

to-prison pipeline, unneling students rom the education system into the criminal andjuvenile justice system. But in the midst o the bad news, comes the New York Perormance

Standards Consortium report Educating or the 21st Century. The Consortium illustrates how

the education system can prepare all students to achieve their ull potential and take their

rightul place in society. Serving a population that mirrors the overall New York City high school

student population in terms o race, ethnicity, special needs and poverty, high schools in the

Consortium signicantly outperorm other schools. They graduate more students o every race

and ethnicity as well as English Language Learners and special needs students at signicantly

higher rates than those o other city schools, and their graduates persevere once they are in

college. And all o this is achieved through the development and implementation o a student

assessment system designed to oster innovative and meaningul learning rather than teaching

to standardized, high-stakes tests. I only more schools were to ollow their example, we would

be taking a serious step toward addressing the serious disparities in our education system.

Dennis D. ParkerDirectorRacial Justice Program

American Civil Liberties Union

We have long known, and now the data conrm, that the New York Perormance StandardsConsortium has opened pathways to a high school diploma or English LanguageLearners and students with disabilities who would not otherwise have graduated. What is mostimpressive is that these schools have not dumbed-down their curriculum, but given a broad

range o students alternative ways to show that they are meeting rigorous standards. And even

with those high standards, the Consortium schools graduation rates are 25 to 30 percentage

points higher than the overall city rate. That calls or celebration and protection o a valuable

addition to New Yorks public school options.

Kim SweetExecutive Director

Advocates for Children

testing consortium report

Documents