Flexibility Allowed For Civics Teachers In Meeting New Requirements

This summer Governor Nixon signed into law legislation requiring all students who begin high school after July 2017 to pass a civics test to graduate. According to the legislation, the test should be similar to the tests immigrants must pass to gain citizenship.  While I definitely see the need for a renewed focus on citizenship in our country- for everyone, not just high school students- I wish the legislature recognized there other ways to demonstrate knowledge than a test. It is refreshing; however, that the state has allowed local educators to have flexibility in crafting the test. There will not be another "one size fits all" test required in the spring. Educators will be allowed choose when and how the test will be administered, as well as assign the cut scores.  I'm thankful the legislature trusted local educators enough to provide some flexibility in determining how this important knowledge is assessed.

Three Things I Want 3rd-8th Grade Teachers To Know About Testing In2015-16

Earlier this summer I posted notes from a meeting with a DESE official regarding state testing in Missouri. At the administrator's conference in July, I attended a session led by DESE's Michael Muenks and Shaun Bates. Below are three key points from both sessions. Overall, I believe teachers should have less anxiety regarding the administration of the tests this year.

1.) The technology used to deliver the tests this year will be similar to last year's. e Direct will be the portal, and tests will be administered by Insight. Teachers and students won't have to navigate a dramatically different system to take the test. We were successful in administering the tests last year, and I'm sure we will be able to do it again.

2.) The content and structure will be the same. This year's test is based on the same standards as last year. Although test items have been created by non-SBAC affiliated companies (in compliance with legislation), the tests will have a similar number of items and a similar ratio of constructed response to selected response.

3.) DESE worked to create tests that are less frustrating to administer. Resetting tests for students who are inadvertently logged out will be easier.  Classroom activities will not be a part of the tests this year.

In my opinion DESE has done as much as they can to provide stability, given the current political climate. I realize teachers, for good reason, worry about the interpretation of test results. I want the teachers with whom I work to know that, while I recognize the importance of test results, I find formal and informal observations, effective lesson and assessment design, and evidence of healthy relationships as more important marks of strong teaching than state test scores. When I see those in place, I am more than willing to support teachers when explaining test results to stakeholders.

The State of Testing in Missouri

A recent headline claiming the Missouri state legislature has dumped the common core added confusion to an already confusing year for teachers and students. Today I had the good fortune to attend an assessment Q and A session with two DESE officials, Sharon Helwig, assistant commissioner, and Shaun Bates, director.

Their comments to the North East Missouri Association of Secondary School Principals helped clarify some of the challenges Missouri schools faced this year in the shift to online testing. They also shared goals for testing this school year. 

A few notes from the meeting:

-Contrary to the headline, Missouri House Bill 1490 maintains the Missouri Learning Standards, which include Common Core Standards in mathematics and English for the 2015-2016 school year. Currently there are work groups developing new standards, but their progress has been inconsistent, and their deadline is not until October 1st.

-The Missouri legislature has prohibited DESE from working with the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium for future state testing.

-The relationship with Smarter Balanced was strained at best this year, as vendors failed to meet deadlines in delivering interim assessments and summative results to DESE. These vendors will not be paid for the services not delivered. 

-DESE is currently working to develop new tests, to comply with federal law, for the spring testing cycle in 2016. Several goals for those tests were communicated:

    New tests should be computer based and use the same platform as previous tests.

    New tests should be aligned to the same standards as previous tests.

    New tests should be comprised of roughly the same number of items as previous tests.

    New tests should include the same percentage of constructed response items as previous tests.

    New tests should be compatible with as many devices as possible.

-By having more control over which vendors are involved with test development, DESE hopes to avoid the confusion produced this year, as many changes were communicated in a short amount of time: unavailabilty of interim assessments, incorrect timelines for results, etc. 

-This year's test results will not be used for accountablility but they will be published. 

Helwig and Bates were gracious with their time and very understanding of the pressures that changes in testing place on students and teachers. They answered questions and took notes as they listened to stories of the challenges teachers faced in administering the test: faulty sign language applications for hearing impaired students on the listening portion, the absence of character counters when answers had character limits, difficulty with the equation editor. 

As a principal, I gained a new appreciation for the complexity involved in delivering state testing. While I know it's my responsibility to keep current on testing updates, I also felt an urge to serve as a good filter for the teachers in my district. While I should always be willing to serve as a source of information for teachers who desire details, I want to make sure teachers don't feel pressured to adjust their practice to every announcement that will inevitably come during the next year regarding testing. 

Our teachers need to be primarily concerned with using their professional judgment to provide the best learning environment possible for the unique learners before them. This is what teachers did with excellence last year and this is what they will undoubtably do next year. 

As for testing....last year in the spring we fulfilled our obligation to evaluate our students with tests that were computer based and contained constructed response questions. While it seems DESE has an enormous task before them, right now it appears next year's testing cycle will be very similar. 

Thoughts On SLO Implementation After RPDC Training

On November 24th I attended a workshop on Student Learning Objectives (SLO's). Here are a few reflections on the training. 

SLO's are DESE's response to the NCLB waiver, which requires student achievement data be part of teacher evaluation. Beginning in 2016 Missouri schools will be required to document, through core data, that achievement data is used in evaluation. Local districts have been given the responsibility for choosing what data will be used. This is certainly better than models which would mandate evaluations be based on state assessments. However any change to evaluation must be communicated clearly and followed by thoughtful support.  

A few bullet points on using SLO's for achievement data:

-SLO's should evaluate individual objectives/learning targets contained in the Missouri Learning Standards.

-SLO's should document achievement over two points in time.

-SLO's should incorporate "stretch." Formative and summative assessments should challenge students in appropriate ways.

-SLO's should be chosen by teachers.

-SLO's should allow teachers to communicate to administrators any unique learning challenges students have. 

-SLO's should allow teachers to set "growth targets" for individual students.

The formula for setting individual growth targets suggested by our trainers is illustrated below. Growth targets are set at half the distance between the student's baseline score and one hundred percent. This is a straightforward method, but it leaves me with a few questions. 

Thoughts, questions, and concerns:

-Using SLO's will come naturally to many teachers. Most elementary teachers already use assessment data in reading and mathematics. Secondary teachers in large departments have common assessments. Many teachers already submit results on locally created assessments to central offices. Data being tracked by assessments already in place is a perfect resource for meeting new evaluation requirements. However, for various reasons, not all teachers have had the same practice working collaboratively on data collection and evaluation. How will administrators support them? 

-What is the most efficient way to submit SLO data? Could a teacher's grade book be used to track SLO's. Administrators and teachers would need to have conversations along the way, but once the assessments have identified, could a teacher submit a printout of their grade book as part of the evaluation process?
-SLO's emphasize baseline data. How can administrators discourage teachers unfamiliar with best formative assessment practices from incorporating results of baseline assessments in a student's final grade?
-The "half the distance to the goal" strategy works on a points earned/points possible mindset, which runs counter to standards based grading. Wouldn't a rubric, with a high bar set for mastery, be a better model for incorporating both "stretch" and growth targets?

These are important questions that administrators and teachers should have sooner rather than later. I'd be interested in hearing from those who are further along in the conversation.

Imagining Assessment

An important way of considering of the true purpose of assessment.

A Few Thoughts On Assessment

Hattie's research demonstrates the importance of feedback. All of the individual techniques that yield high effect sizes do so because they are avenues for feedback. Because the quality of feedback depends on the quality of the assessment, time spent considering assessment practices is valuable. Rick Wormeli's Fair Isn't Always Equal provides guidance in this area.

Purpose
A core belief communicated by Wormeli is that the main purpose of education is to promote mastery. Most teachers embrace this concept in regards to instruction. However, remembering to extend the emphasis on the promotion of mastery to assessment is difficult. Often assessments are treated with finality. All teachers are forced to operate within fixed time frames for courses; the most thoughtful teachers extend the opportunities for mastery as much as possible within those parameters.

Differentiation
When teachers see assessment primarily as a tool for promoting mastery, they see the need for differentiation more clearly. Because all students are at different stages in the journey toward mastery, it is necessary to adjust assessments accordingly. If the goal is mastery for each student, the act of extending a deadline, allowing a second chance, or providing extra scaffolding becomes the most pragmatic response. If treating a student exactly the same as a peer does not move the student closer towards mastery, then alternative practices should be employed.

Three Practices Worth Scrutinizing
Wormeli identifies ten practices that do not lend themselves to differentiation or the promotion of mastery. I'll briefly discuss three. Assigning grades to homework or quizzes given immediately after a concept is introduced does not respect differentiation or mastery learning. This does not mean that feedback should not be given when a student has not mastered a skill. Students need feedback, but it should not come in the form of 4 out of 10 points. Similarly, forbidding second attempts on assessments limits mastery. If the goal is for the student to demonstrate knowledge and skill, it should not matter how many opportunities they take advantage of. Lastly, is the practice of assigning grades to behaviors. Behaviors should be addressed, but averaging in grades for "showing up to class prepared," will result in final grades that do not accurately communicate the student's mastery of the content.

Perspective
Wormeli acknowledges that differentiation is not easy. When teachers are asked to process grades for over 100 students a cycle, precise calibration for each one is impossible. Wormeli also grants that there are times when students will not perform without the threat of a grade penalty. The "ten practices to avoid" could perhaps be deemed "ten practices to minimize."

I won't take a dogmatic approach to specific practices; however, I believe the healthiest classroom cultures will be visibly influenced by the values of mastery and differentiation.