MCAS vs PARCC
MCAS and PARCC Reporting on Student Performance: “…helpful feedback is goal-referenced; tangible and transparent; actionable; user-friendly (specific and personalized); timely; ongoing; and consistent.” From Seven Keys to Effective Feedback,Grant Wiggins, Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development, September 2012, Vol. 70
| MCAS | PARCC |
| Schools received preliminary scores in July, allowing administrators and curriculum specialists to do an initial analysis before the start of the school year. | Schools received preliminary scores in
October. No analysis was available at the start of the school year.
|
| Schools were able to compare one year’s performance on MCAS with previous MCAS test performance. | Schools can compare PARCC data to MCAS data from previous year, but the tests are significantly different. |
| A complete test that students took was released. Only one test was administered in each subject area. | No complete PARCC test was released, although sample items were released from 2 different tests that were administered in March and May 2015. |
| Schools received data scoring each student on each item on the test. This allowed teachers to pinpoint areas in which the student had difficulty and then design instruction to support students. | Schools received data that did not have an item analysis, so there was no information of which items students scored correct or incorrect. This made it impossible for teachers to design instruction to improve outcomes for students on a future test. |
| Schools got an overview showing if there were patterns of errors. This allowed teachers to address areas of concern with all students. | Schools can see levels of achievement but cannot pinpoint specific areas for improvement. Teachers do not get information on areas that need to be improved. |
| Schools received copies of the actual essays or narratives students had written so teachers could analyze student needs and strengths. | Schools did not receive copies of the actual essays or narratives. Teachers are not able to pin-point where students need to improve as writers. |
| Schools received a separate score for each open response, essay/narrative. This allowed teachers to figure out where students had strengths and weaknesses. | Schools received a composite writing score for 3 genres of writing: research writing, literary analysis and narrative writing. Teachers cannot identify area of strengths and weaknesses. |
| Schools received data comparing school performance to district and state from students using a single testing instrument: paper based MCAS. | Data compares schools that have used different instruments, namely paper tests and computer tests, MCAS and PARCC.
|
Please follow and like us:
