Truth in American Education

Fighting to stop the Common Core State Standards, their Assessments and Student Data Mining.

  • Home
  • About Us
    • TAE Advocates
    • Network Participants
    • Related Websites
  • Common Core State Standards
    • National Education Standards
    • Gates Foundation & NCEE Influence
    • State Costs for Adopting and Implementing the Common Core State Standards
    • National Curriculum
    • Common Core State Standards Content
      • Standard Algorithms in the Common Core State Standards
    • Myths Versus Facts
    • States Fighting Back Map
    • Closing the Door on Innovation
    • CCSSI Development Teams
  • Common Core Assessments
    • Opt Out Info
  • Race To The Top
    • District-Level Race to the Top–Race to the Top IV
  • Resources
    • Legislative Bills Against CCSS
    • Pioneer Institute White Papers
    • Model Resolutions
    • Parents’ & Educators’ Executive Order
    • CC = Conditions + Coercion + Conflict of Interest
  • Audio & Video
  • Privacy Issues and State Longitudinal Data Systems
    • Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems
  • ESEA/NCLB
    • Statements and Proposed Plans
    • Every Child Achieves Act July 2015
    • Student Success Act
    • Every Child Ready for College or Career Act
    • No Child Left Behind Waivers
    • ESEA Blueprint, Briefing Book, and Position Paper
  • Home School/Private School
  • Action Center
    • Parent and Community Action Plan
    • Stop CCSSI ToolKit
    • Sign Up or Contact TAE

Assessment Consortium Releases Math Content Specifications

August 30, 2011 By J.R. Wilson

Assessment Consortium Releases Math Content Specifications
Catherine Gewertz on August 30, 2011  Education Week

SMARTER Balanced’s math content specifications rest on four statements that describe the end goals of the assessment system. For each of those claims, the consortium specifies the types of evidence that would show that students have met those goals.  Here are the claims:

• #1: Students can explain and apply mathematical concepts and carry out mathematical procedures with precision and fluency.
• #2: Students can frame and solve a range of complex problems in pure and applied mathematics.
• #3: Students can clearly and precisely construct viable arguments to support their own reasoning and to critique the reasoning of others.
• #4: Students can analyze complex, real-world scenarios and can use mathematical models to interpret and solve problems.

For a taste of how the claims and evidence lay out, take a look at page 19 of the content specifications. It shows one of the claims (in this case, claim #1), details the different ways evidence of mastery might be collected (“… This content can be assessed using a combination of selected response and short constructed response items, but may also be evaluated at a deeper level within long constructed response items and performance tasks…”), lists types of evidence of learning (such as this: “factors & multiples: Determine factors and multiples of whole numbers (1-100); Identify prime and composite numbers”), and specifies which standards are addressed by those activities.

Content Specifications with Content Mapping
for the Summative assessment of the
Common Core State Standards for Mathematics

REVIEW DRAFT
Available for Consortium and Stakeholder Review and Feedback
August 29, 2011
Developed with input from content experts and SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium Staff, Work Group Members, and  Technical Advisory Committee
Project Facilitator:  Linda Darling-Hammond   Stanford University   Palo Alto, CA
Principal Authors
Hugh Burkhardt, Shell Centre, University of Nottingham
Alan Schoenfeld, University of California, Berkeley

APPENDIX C
Provided Conjunction with
Content Specifications with Content Mapping
for the Summative assessment of the
Common Core State Standards for Mathematics

Related

Filed Under: Common Core Assessments, SBAC

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • Phone
  • Twitter

States Fighting Back

https://app.box.com/s/10nl1409mkaf00zzzuyf

CCSS Opt-Out Form

  • Click here to download the CCSS Opt-Out Form

Follow us on Twitter

My Tweets

Campbell’s Law

"The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor."

- Donald Campbell

Copyright © 2018 Truth in American Education · Developed & Hosted by 4:15 Communications, LLC.