1. Maximizing AssessmentSystems for Student Success

2. The pursuit of compliance is exhaustingbecause it is always a moving target.Governors move on, the party in powergets replaced, a new president is elected,and all want to put their own stamp oneducation.It is saner and less exhausting to defineyour own course and align compliancerequirements to that. 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPLIANCE-BASEDASSESSMENT SYSTEMS 4. Control of the assessment system is assumed to be external testsare mandated and not chosen. 5. Assessments are focused on accountability and areperceived as punitive 6. Learning goals are focused on achievingcompliance (making AYP) 7. The districts assessment program changesanytime federal and state mandates change. 8. Seven prinicples to guide maximizingyour student assessment system 9. The 7 princples underlying maximized assessmentsystems1. The purposes of all assessments are defined and the assessments arevalid and useful for their purposes.2.Teachers are educated in the proper administration and application ofthe assessments used in their classrooms.3.Assessment results are aligned to the needs of their audiences.4.Redundant, mis-aligned, or unused assessments are eliminated.5.Assessment results are delivered in a timely and useful manner.6.The metrics and incentives used encourage a focus on all learners.7.The assessment program contributes to a climate of transparency andobjectivity with a long-term focus. 10. The purposes of all assessments aredefined and the assessments are valid1 and useful for their purposes. 11. Typical assessment purposes Identify student learning needs Identify groupings of students for instruction Guide instruction Course placement Determine eligibility for programs Award credits and/or assign grades Evaluate proficiency Monitor student progress Predict proficiency Project achievement of a goal Formative and summative evaluation of programs Formative evaluation to support school and teacherimprovement Report student achievement, growth, and progress to thecommunity and stakeholders. Summative evaluation of schools and teachers 12. Assessment Purpose Survey 13. Teachers are educated in the properadministration and application of the2assessments used in their classrooms. 14. Assessment results are aligned to theneeds of their audiences. 3 15. Assessment audiences School Board Students Teachers Parents Principals, school administrators, and teacherleaders District Administrators Community members State and federal officials 16. ITS GOOD TO KNOWYOUR TARGETAUDIENCE 17. WHAT KIND OF DATA TO PARENTSWANT?77%84%88%90%91%92%93%95%95%79%Providing activities for homeAdjust content to student needsHelping my child with homeworkMeasuring high quality teachingCommunicating with teacher/adminMonitoring standardsKnowing if I need to seek extra helpDetermining readiness for next0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Knowing when to be concernedMonitoring general progressSource Northwest Evaluation Association (2012) NWEA Assessment PerceptionsStudy. Survey conducted by Grunwald Associates LLC 18. QUESTIONS PARENTS WANT ANSWEREDFROM ASSESSMENT Core question Do you know and care for mychild? What are my childs strengths andweaknesses? Is my child on track for the next grade? Is my child on track for college? Is my child showing improvement? Should I be concerned? 19. QUESTIONS TEACHERS WANT ANSWEREDFROM ASSESSMENT What does each student know and not know? What does this student need to learn next? What resources will help this student? How can I group these students forinstruction? 20. QUESTIONS BUILDING ADMINISTRATORSWANT ANSWERED FROM ASSESSMENT Which students are struggling with school? Which students are not showing progress? Which grade levels/teachers are particularlyeffective or ineffective? How can we correct problems before or asthey occur? 21. Assessment Purpose and Audiences 22. Redundant, mis-aligned, or unusedassessments are eliminated. 4 23. Assessment Purpose Survey 24. Assessment results are delivered in atimely and useful manner. 5 25. The metrics and incentives usedencourage a focus on all learners. 6 26. Three reasons why metrics matter1. They frame problems 27. Why metrics matter2. They influence publicperceptions of schools 28. WHY METRICS MATTER3. They incentivize behavior 29. Case #1 - No Child Left Behindis responsiblefor redefining theterm BUBBLE KID. 30. Number of StudentsOne districts change in 5th grade mathperformance relative to Kentucky cut scoresMathematicsFall Score 31. Number of StudentsOne districts change in 5th grade mathperformance relative to Kentucky cut scoresMathematicsScale ScoreFailed growth targetMet growth target 32. Tests are not equally accurate for allstudentsCalifornia STAR NWEA MAP 33. Case #2 Manipulating test conditions to maximizeresultsIn New York the use of tests for high-stakesteacher evaluation coincidedwith changes in classroom testingconditions that may have inflatedstudent growth in some schools. 34. DIFFERENCES IN GRADE 7 MATHTEST DURATIONS706050403020100Math Fall 11 Spring 121 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19F11 Duration Spring 2012706050403020100Math Fall 12 Spring20131 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23F12 F13 35. DIFFERENCES IN NEW YORK SAMPLES GRADE7 MATH GROWTH RELATIVE TO CHANGE INTEST DURATION12.010.08.06.04.02.00.0Fall 11 Spring 121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Growth121086420Fall 12 Spring 131 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223Growth 36. Case #3Misidentification ofproblems 37. ESTIMATES OF NY PROFICIENCYCUT SCORES RELATIVE TO THENWEA SCALEGrade Mathematics ReadingCurrent Prior Current Prior3 205 199 210 1984 219 207 215 2055 233 214 222 2126 232 221 225 2167 242 224 228 2208 245 235 229 223 38. CHANGE IN PROFICIENCY LEVEL CUT SCORESON THE NEW YORK STATE MATHEMATICSASSESSMENT. 39. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF THECHANGE IN PROFICIENCY LEVEL ON THENEW YORK STATE ELA ASSESSMENT 40. MAP MATHEMATICS GRADE 5 MEANSSPRING 2012- SPRING 2013Spring 2012 Spring 2013District 1 226.9 229.7District 2 226.1 230.7District 3 232.4 240.6District 4 227.0 228.3District 5 208.6 212.1 41. ESTIMATED CHANGE IN MAP GRADE 5 ESTIMATEDPROFICIENCY RATES IN MATH BASED ON OLDAND NEW CUT SCORESActual Change Change if 2012 and 2013used the current cut scoreSpring 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2012 Spring 2013District 1 88% 40% 36% 40%District 2 85% 44% 34% 44%District 3 91% 72% 51% 72%District 4 86% 40% 34% 40%District 5 36% 7% 5% 7% 42. CHANGE IN PROFICIENCY LEVEL CUT SCORESON THE NEW YORK STATE MATHEMATICSASSESSMENT. 43. NEW YORK MATHEMATICSPROFICIENCY ON MAP30%36% 36%25%28% 30%50%43%30%35%26%30%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%3 4 5 6 7 8Proficiency based on calibrated cut scoreProficiency based on current NY cut score 44. The assessment program contributes toa climate of transparency and objectivity7with a long-term focus 45. Assessment Action PlanningTemplate 46. There is value in learningfrom past experience