Building Assessment Literacy in Michigan through Quality Common Assessment Development

1. Building Assessment Literacy in Michigan through Quality Common Assessment Development

2. Our Mission • …is to improve student learning and achievement through a system of coherent curriculum, balanced assessment and effective instruction. We do this by collaboratively: • Promoting assessment knowledge and practice. • Providing professional development. • Providing and sharing assessment tools and products.

3. The Trick Formative Assessment Summative Assessment …create a balanced assessment system

4. A Balanced Assessment System Assessment for… • Formative • Teacher-created • A ongoing picture • Informs classroom practice continually Essential Question: How can we help students learn more? Assessment of… • Summative • Norm referenced, standardized, often teacher created • A snapshot in time Essential Question: What have students already learned?

5. Our Beliefs • We believe… • Collaborativesand consortia advance the work • Balanced assessment is a valued enterprise • Students are the most important users of classroom assessment data • Teachers and administrators must engage students in the assessment process

6. Our Beliefs • We believe… • All educators can learn to implement a balanced assessment system • Teachers and principals and central office must be assessment literate • Development and use of a coherent system (CIA) ensures quality for each student • An effective assessment system includes a balance of school, district, and state measures and uses a variety of methods

7. MAISA Instructional Services Committee 2012-13 Assessment Goal "In cooperation with the Michigan Assessment Consortium and other statewide related projects, contribute to a high quality, comprehensive assessment system in the state of Michigan."

8. Assessment for Learning… …when done well, is one of the most powerful, high-leverage strategies for improving student learning that we know of. Educators collectively become more skilled and focused at assessing, disaggregating, and using student achievement as a tool for ongoing improvement. ~ Michael Fullan

9. Accurate assessments + Appropriate uses resulting in productive reactions STUDENT SUCCESS

10. Vision of Excellence in Assessment Balanced Assessment System • There is a balance of formative and summative assessments. • The assessments are of high quality. • Students are actively engaged in the assessment process.

11. Common Assessment Development Series What is a Common Assessment?

12. Common Assessment Module Content 1. Introduction and Overview of the MAC CADS Series 2. What Are Common Assessments? 3. Determining the Outcome of Assessment 4. Determining the Targets of Assessment 5. Matching the Assessment Methods to the Learning Targets 6. Assessing Students with Special Needs 7. Writing the Test Blueprint 8. Writing the Selected-Response Items 9. Writing Constructed Response Items 10. Writing Performance Assessment Items 11. Using Portfolios to Assess Students 12. Developing and Using Scoring Guides and Rubrics 13. Editing the Draft Assessment Items 14. Detecting and Eliminating Bias and Distortion 15. Assembling the Assessment Instrument 16. Field Testing 17. Looking at Field Test Data 18. Reliability 19. Test Validity 20. Assembling the Final Common Assessment 21. Assessment Administration, Scoring and Reporting 22. Standard Setting 23. Presenting the Results 24. Using Data to Improve Instruction

13. St. Joseph CountyCommon Assessment Project

14. Beginning at the Beginning Why did we begin this journey? • LEA’s desire to: • conduct Professional Learning Communities (PLC’s) • implement a multi-tiered system of support (RtI) • provide effective feedback to students around learning goals • fully implement a standards-based model of instruction/assessment

15. Beginning at the Beginning Our challenges: • “Faulty” data at PLC’s • Ineffective data to target the interventions for RtI • Ineffective feedback practices around data/grading and reporting • Assessments not designed for a standards based system

16. The “Vision” Began simply…. • Just pick the items from the CD with our text and use that! • Just find the best one and use it countywide! • Someone has to have one to buy! • There’s lots of software that has items we can use! Let’s just get that. • Teachers can just go online and find one to use! • Let’s just wait for Smarter Balanced!

17. Critical First Step Do you have a clear and appropriate purpose(s) for your assessment? • How will the assessment be used? • Who will use the results? • Which partners will help you? • What learning targets will you measure? • Local • State • Other

18. What Makes an Assessment “Common”? • It is more than an assessment given by one teacher • This is an insufficient definition • It is a method for creating a community of shared practice in a school, district, across districts, even across the state

19. The Power of the Common Assessment The use of common assessment results by two or more teachers in a PLC… • Provides data to inform interventions • Allows teachers to see how changes in instructional practice can lead to higher achievement • Look deeply at their own and others’ practice to ultimately improve student achievement

20. Common Assessments • are built on the same learning targets/goals, whether they were developed at the school, district or state levels • these targets needed to be those contained within the mathematics common core standards for Algebra I and Algebra II This was the first challenge – could they agree???

21. The Decisions • Create benchmark assessments (25 – 30 per course) • Use the traditional Algebra I and II course “outline” defined in the CC • Build the assessments by “standards cluster” – explicitly key each item • “Unpack” each standard within a cluster to determine appropriate cognitive demand and ensure alignment

22. CONTENT INSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT

23. Unpacked Document • Identification of key vocabulary within each standard • Determination of learning goals in the format of: • I know statements • I can statements • These statements determined the types of items to include on each assessment • Direct link to standards • Prerequisite skills yet to be filled in

24. Vetting of Content • Teams of 2-3 unpacked • Another team reviewed • An outside math consultant reviewed/edited • Final was used to develop assessment items • Assessments assess only one cluster and no more than 2 – 3 standards

26. CONTENT INSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT

27. Cognitive Demand • It is critical to be sure that assessments measure the correct cognitive demand of the learning goals represented in the standards. • It is critical that whoever is ‘building assessments’ understands this concept process and applies it in their work • The majority of classroom teachers have not received sufficient training in assessment design

28. Target/Method Match 28

32. The Outcomes of Quality Assessments • Clear, concise data being used in collaborative groups • Powerful data to provide feedback to teachers and students and parents • The ability to accurately inform curriculum and instructional changes • Closer alignment between grades/scores and actual proficiency levels of the students

33. The Pilot Test – 2012 / 2013 Agreements for Pilot Teachers • Assessments are to remain “intact” • Assessments assess only one cluster and no more than 2 – 3 standards and will be given whenever that content has been taught • Data is not to be used to determine grades or for teacher evaluation. These are draft! • Item level data will be collected and analyzed to determine edits needed at follow up sessions next year

34. Lessons Learned • This work takes a team! • Content area specialists • Assessment specialists • Data specialists • This work takes time! • This work takes commitment! • This work takes patience! • This work takes trust! • This work will help increase achievement if done well.

35. Thankyou!