New Jersey School Boards Association 

AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON ASSESSMENT

OF
NEW JERSEY CORE CURRICULUM CONTENT STANDARDS 

PHASE II REPORT: SPECIAL REVIEW ASSESSMENTS 

And 

ISSUES PERTAINING TO SENDING-RECEIVING DISTRICTS 

BY
PETER J. CALVO 

DR. LOUISE MURRAY-HOFFMAN 

CO-CHAIRPERSONS 

Prepared for the New Jersey School Boards Association 

Board of Directors Meeting 

May 19, 2000

AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON ASSESSMENT
OF
NEW JERSEY CORE CURRICULUM CONTENT STANDARDS
May 19, 2000

Committee Charge  

In order to address the critical problem areas identified by the Standards and Assessment Task Force (relative to New Jersey Statutes Annotated 6A: 6-4) as well as concerns regarding the state testing program expressed in correspondence from the Franklin Township Board of Education (Somerset County) and the related resolution submitted by the Sayreville Board of Education (Middlesex County) for the November 1999 Delegates Assembly, NJSBA President Charles V. Reilly announced at the September 1999 Board of Directors Meeting that he had created an Ad Hoc Committee on Assessment of New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards (NJCCCS).  The Committee was to examine the issues related to the new assessments, develop a comprehensive policy on these issues and report to the NJSBA Board of Directors in January, 2000. 

Phase I: Recommendations Regarding the Assessments

In January, the committee presented a full report to the NJSBA Board of Directors which included 10 recommendations relating to the assessment instruments, the administration of the tests, and the monitoring, use and reporting of the test results.  The report also included necessary revisions in NJSBA policy language to bring existing policy into line with the Standards and Assessments and the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee.  The Board of Directors adopted the 10 recommendations and the policy language changes will go before the May Delegates Assembly. 

At the conclusion of the January report, the committee pointed out that they had spent the majority of their time investigating matters related to the Elementary School Proficiency Assessment and the Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment as these were the most pertinent issues because of their immediacy.  The committee asked for a continuance to examine two areas related to the High School Proficiency Test soon to become the High School Proficiency Assessment under the new Standards and Assessment code. Speciically, we asked to be allowed to look at the Special Review Assessment process and the communication between sending-receiving districts. 

In February 2000, Charles V. Reilly, President of NJSBA, granted the extension with the following charge:

By May 19, 2000 the committee should be prepared to report your findings and recommendations in the following three areas to the Board of Directors.

        the issues and concerns about the HSPA, including the administration of the test, the reporting of the results

        the implications of the Special Review Assessment of the HSPA

        the communication of ESPA and GEPA test results from elementary districts who are part of a regional high school district or who are in sending- receiving relationships. 

Committee Process

Once again, the committee decided to divide the tasks between a Southern group (examining the issues of sending-receiving) and a Northern group (examining the Special Review Assessments).  Both groups set a schedule of meetings, developed a list of common questions and decided the best ways to gather and process their information. 

Sending-Receiving Communication

The Southern Sub-Committee of the Ad Hoc Assessment Committee scheduled a meeting to discuss sending/receiving assessment concerns for April 4th in the southern office.  Only Peter Calvo from the committee was able to attend and only one school district responded that they would send a representative. That meeting was cancelled and rescheduled for April 19th.  Again only Peter Calvo indicated he was able to attend  and no districts responded that they were able to attend.  

The committee drew two possible conclusions from this lack of interest: either districts are not yet experiencing significant problems related to communications between sending elementaries regarding performance data on the GEPA, or the timing of our inquiries was unfortunate as districts were extremely busy with the budget process and upcoming election. 

Of the input that we received from direct phone contact or conversation with three district administrators, [Patricia Hoey, Superintendent, Harrison Twp (Gloucester Co,),  Linda Steenrod, Superintendent, Laurel Springs (Camden County), and Luke McGrath, Director of Guidance, Somerville High School (Somerset County)], two individuals indicated they had no problems with the sending-receiving relationship with respect to state assessment. One indicated that regional high school districts need to break out the test results for sending districts in order to help the sending districts revise their curriculum. 

Identification of the need for the secondary schools to be more communicative with the sending elementaries was an interesting twist to our original premise.  We had approached this task thinking that secondary schools would want more information from the elementaries about specific student performance.  The perceived necessity of reporting GEPA and HSPT/HSPA results by elementary sending districts renews an ongoing curricular concern.  Traditionally, most secondary receiving districts have been very reluctant to disaggregate and distribute any assessment results to the sending elementary districts.  

RECOMMENDATION:  The Committee suggests that the issues of communication (effective, appropriate, timely and two way) between the sending elementaries and the receiving secondary districts be monitored for future needs as the states assessments become integrated into the normal cycle of school districts.  NJSBAs Sending-Receiving Best Practices Committee could be alerted to any issues and be asked to investigate best practices to share with New Jersey districts. 

Special Review Assessments (SRA)

The Northern Sub-Committee decided to meet with a variety of individuals from a variety of districts/situations in order to explore the issues surrounding the administration and reporting of the results of the HSPT/HSPA and of the Special Review Assessments.  While the charge contained reference to the HSPT, we found no emergent issues with this test, as districts are quite familiar with the process and the reporting of the results. Since the new High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) has not yet begun, the issues and concerns we heard related to:

      the lack of current information on the actual implementation of assessments in the 7 areas of the Content Standards,

      the format of those assessments, and

      the timelines for practice tests and the arrangements for the Alternate Proficiency Assessments (APA) for classified students. 

It would be premature for this Committee to tackle those issues. 

In March and April, members of the sub-committee studying the current SRA process met with:

      The Hudson County Superintendent of Schools, Education Specialist and the County School Business Official

      The Union County Square Table (district curriculum and assessment specialists)

      The Director of Assessment for the New Brunswick Public Schools

      The Director of Guidance and SRA Supervisor at Somerville Public Schools

      The Curriculum Specialist of the Mercer County Department of Education 

During these conversations similar questions were asked regarding their experience with the SRA:

      any commonalities that they saw among the students taking the SRAs,

      specific initiatives regarding remediation for the SRA,

      general problems or concerns with the process, test materials or actual administration, and

      solutions / best practices for making this process more efficient. 

Full reports of the various meetings are attached to this report.  The Committee can summarize these findings into the following categories: 

1.      Profile of the SRA Student

There are two discernable groups of students needing SRAs:  those who are language deficient or those academically deficient. However, the majority of the SRAs are given in the more urban areas of the state. SRAs given in the north-eastern part of the state seem to be based more on language deficiency than on academic deficiency (although one does not preclude the other).

2.      Impact of Remediation Efforts

Even though districts identified numerous programs as being very effective for remediation, there remain serious concerns with pull-out programs. In pull-out remediation, students are missing valuable classroom instruction in academics. There is also considerable concern over the costs.

3.      Issues with the Translation of HSPT and the SRAs into Native Languages Students who have resided in the United States for less than three years are eligible automatically to take the SRA in their native language.  Finding appropriate and adequate translation services seems to be a problem for the districts that are dealing with assessment in students native languages.  More common translations, such as Spanish, do not cause the same difficulties as the more unusual languages (e.g., Amharic, specific Chinese dialects and Russian). It is not unusual for districts to spend up to $1,500 per student for translation and scoring services. Additionally, we also heard of problems with the translated test itself (e.g., difficulty in obtaining the tests, pages missing, poor duplication processes, culturally obscure references, and idiomatic expressions).

4.      Mobility and Transience Issues

Students entering districts unprepared for the assessments is a large concern for all districts.  This was an issue identified in the original report on the ESPA and the GEPA, and it remains a problem with the HSPT/HSPA and the SRA.

5.      Item Analysis for the GEPA, HSPT/HSPA

Whether it is for communication from the elementaries to the secondary schools or for specific deficiencies in the HSPT performance indicators, districts need more specific, and more timely, information about individual student performance in order to pinpoint remediation.  This was a major problem with the ESPA and the GEPA and one which we hope to see corrected quickly. 

Conclusions / Recommendations

The committee found overwhelming support for the continuance of the SRA process along with a firm belief that students deserve every opportunity to successfully pass the HSPT/HSPA and graduate with a state endorsed diploma.   The Committee also understands that the suggestions in this report are advisory in nature and could be addressed either through local district initiatives or, if necessary, through action at subsequent Delegates Assemblies. There are several significant improvements suggested by administrators and practitioners that could be made in the Special Review Assessment process, however, which would make the SRA more authentic and more effective for the students and less disruptive and less costly to the district. 

All of the following suggestions were cross-walked with relevant Association policy, particularly Policy 2255 and Policy 6147 which refer specifically to standardized testing, the Standards and Assessment, HSPT/HSPA; Policies 6142.2 (Bilingual, ESL) and 6171.1 (Remedial Instruction), and the recommendations contained in the January 2000 Ad Hoc Committee Report.  Where reference is made to state funding or support, this too is in line with Association policy. 

1.       Allow seniors who had at any time been designated English as a Second Language (ESL) or Limited English Proficient (LEP) students and who are taking the HSPT/HSPA for the third time to have either extended time or the opportunity to take an untimed test. If appropriate, allow them to use a cross language dictionary.                                                                              
Our reports from district personnel administering SRAs indicated that most
students who are still mastering English need additional time to mentally
translate from their native tongue before writing their answers. In these
administrators' view, about half of the non-native speakers could pass the
HSPT without extensive remediation if they were given additional test time. While special accommodation is allowed for students who are still classified as ESL students, no accommodation currently exists for students who have left that program.

Reducing the number of students requiring an SRA would have two advantages:

      the student could spend the time in more challenging course work rather than in remediation, and

      costs to the districts associated with administration of the SRA (time, staff coverage, remediation, materials) would be substantially reduced.

2. Develop a process whereby the districts would receive the fall HSPT test results of seniors much more quickly, so that districts could target
remediation resources to those students who will actually need an SRA.

Currently, the fall test results are sent to a district for all students at the same time, whether they are taking the test in the 11^th grade or in the 12^th grade.  We estimate that the proportion of seniors taking the fall HSPT is no more than 10% of all fall test takers. If the DOE could target the seniors' tests for prompt scoring and immediately notify the districts, the districts could better prioritize SRA resources, materials and time directly to the students affected.. 

3. Encourage districts to establish Saturday Schools or other alternative remediation programs that do not require students to be removed from regular classroom instruction.  Additional state aid or other dedicated state funding should be provided to districts having more than 25 SRAs over a three-year period.

In our discussions with practitioners, we heard consistent concerns about pulling students out of regular classroom instruction in order to make time during the school day for remediation.  We also had some feedback from the field to indicate that some students do not take the HSPT seriously, reasoning that if they fail, they can be excused from regular classes to take SRA remediation. Not only do districts holding Saturday and/or after school classes report considerable success because of the intensive remediation, but they also point out that these programs send an
important message about the priority of mainstream academics since they provide remediation in addition to regular classroom instruction, not in place of it. 

We understand that the Saturday programs have the potential for interfering with student employment or sports. We spoke with district administrators who had tackled these disruptions by working closely with employers to adjust student work hours and with coaches to stress the importance of academic progress over athletic events.

4. Encourage the development of a transitional ninth grade in those districts where:

      segments of the population experience consistently poor performance on the GEPA, or

      there is a high mobility or transience rate that manifests itself in the late elementary grades or in the ninth grade, or

      students who are entering a regional high school come from an elementary district with a traditionally lower-performing population 

Many districts are going to a transitional 1^st grade a blend of Kindergarten and first grade meant to give struggling youngsters a period of intensive remediation and time for growth before entering the real elementary program.  For those older students struggling with the achievement level expected at Eighth Grade Graduation, a transitional 9^th grade year would enable them to experience intensive remediation in specific subjects, get a head start on secondary school academics, and gain additional time before entering the real secondary program.  This would also give them extra time to master the Core Curriculum Content Standards prior to taking the HSPT in their junior year. In other words, these students would be given five years of high school and would take the "high stakes" test in their chronological fourth year. 

While the GEPA is intended to provide useful information to predict a student's success on the HSPT, some students, either because of language difficulties or academic deficiencies, need intensive remediation prior to entering into the full academic program of a high school.  Basic Skills Instruction, a pull out program in most districts, is the current choice for this remediation, but pulling students out of course work further limits the students' academic progress. Retaining adolescents in an upper elementary or middle school might be considered an option, but the administrators we spoke with feel that this retention has potential disadvantages to the student and larger school community. Providing a transitional ninth grade would accommodate these students as well as poorly performing students newly arrived to a district and those who have not passed eighth grade. 

We recognize that this suggestion has been explored at other times and for other situations, but we feel that, given the impact of high-stakes testing, this model should be revisited.  

5.      Transfer the responsibility for retaining foreign language translators to
 the county offices and fund these costs from the state.

All of our interviewees indicated that the logistics in finding and retaining translators for the more unusual languages were burdensome as well as costly. The county offices would be in a better position to "shop" for translators, much as is currently being done/encouraged with the joint purchasing agreements that districts use for buying supplies and services. 

We found no evidence that districts were attempting to share the translators that they were able to obtain. Having a common pool obtained and credentialed through the county office would reduce the difficulty that districts are experiencing, especially for some of the more unusual languages. 

6.      Adjust the county office documentation process to make it a process that truly validates the SRAs rather than just certifies that the test administration took place.

At present, the county offices only verify that the proper documentation is filed.
The county offices do not make an assessment about the authenticity of the test administration, scoring, or, if appropriate, or the accuracy of any translation skills, etc. As part of the review, the county verifies that the teacher, principal and superintendent have certified that the process for the SRA administration meets regulation standards. Using this standard, virtually all SRAs are approved. For example, in Hudson County where over 3,000 SRAs were submitted in 1999, only 3 were disapproved.

Limited county resources could be better utilized for other tasks, such as the assistance with the translators mentioned above, or perhaps coordination of the staff development process as mentioned in our January 2000 report. The authenticity of a district's SRA process should be included in monitoring. Eliminating the county "paper review" would have several advantages:

      overburdened county offices could obtain some relief from a cumbersome paper process

      districts would know immediately that their students had passed the SRA

      districts would be held accountable for the validity of the SRAs themselves rather than just the process that they are using, thus increasing the reliability of the SRAs as an authentic measure of student mastery 

Appended to this report are the summaries of the sub-committee meetings during March and April. The committee would like to thank the many educators and administrators who met with us and so cogently shared their experiences, their concerns and their suggestions with us.  We also thank the NJSBA Board of Directors, Charles V. Reilly, President of NJSBA, and Edwina M. Lee, NJSBA Executive Director, for allowing us to explore these issues and report our findings for further consideration.

Assessment\Phase II report: revised report

May 5, 2000 

Copyright 2000 New Jersey School Boards Association. All rights reserved.