Assessment and Instruction
Assessment for accountability versus assessment to improve instruction. One wonders if the distinction between the two purposes for assessment was on the mind of Congress in 2002. That was the year the members reauthorized the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, commonly known as No Child Left Behind or NCLB. Whether they considered such distinction or not is a moot point. What matters is the reality: NCLB created a high-stakes environment that left educators torn between the demands for assessment for accountability and the need for assessment to improve
instruction. NCLB put unprecedented pressure on school districts to meet the demands for accountability as measured by a single yearly assessment. At the same time those knowledgeable about best practices in reading and assessment touted the importance of using data from multiple assessments to inform instruction. So, which data set holds greater sway? Do data from accountability-driven assessments set a district’s course, or, do the results from other assessments guide its work? To put it succinctly, how does a school district use assessment data to inform reading instruction?
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
The bipartisan 2002 reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), commonly known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), calls for each state to develop an accountability system that describes how the state will take responsibility for the academic achievement of all students, including subgroups of students considered most vulnerable to failure. Subgroups include groups of students defined by race or ethnicity, those eligible for subsided lunch, English language learners, and students with disabilities. Each state must set achievement standards and develop a system to measure progress toward meeting those standards. In Iowa, all public schools and Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) are held to the same process and criteria for making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward 100% proficiency by 2013-14 school year. For purposes of measure and AYP accountability, all public school and LEAs are judged by performance and improvement on the Iowa Assessments. This measure is the common comparable measure across all school districts, thus, ensuring fairness, validity and reliability when making unbiased, rational and consistent determinations of the annual progress of LEAs and schools within the state. All schools and districts are expected to make improvement in student achievement. Currently, this assessment is administered yearly to every public school student in the state. This criterion-referenced instrument measures proficiency in reading and math for all students in Grades 3 through 8 and in Grade 11. Students in Grades 4, 8 and 11 are also assessed in language arts, science, social studies and writing.
Educators across the country who have learned how to effectively use assessment data have indeed ignited change and achieved positive results at the district, school, classroom, and student levels. The preceding discussion has identified essential elements of effective use of data to improve instruction. These include: 1) good data; 2) staff expertise with collection and analysis of data; 3) sufficient time structured into the schedule for staff to analyze the information; and 4) carefully designed changes in curriculum and instruction in that address the needs identified by the analysis.
Data are the key to continuous improvement. When you “plan,” you must use data to provide insight and focus for your goals. Data patterns reveal strengths and weaknesses in the system and provide excellent direction. When you “do,” you collect data that will tell you the impact of your strategies. Through collaborative reflection, you “study” the feedback offered by your data and begin to understand when to stay the course and when to make changes. Then you “act” to refine your strategies. Eventually, the whole cycle begins again.
Assessment for accountability versus assessment to improve instruction. One wonders if the distinction between the two purposes for assessment was on the mind of Congress in 2002. That was the year the members reauthorized the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, commonly known as No Child Left Behind or NCLB. Whether they considered such distinction or not is a moot point. What matters is the reality: NCLB created a high-stakes environment that left educators torn between the demands for assessment for accountability and the need for assessment to improve
instruction. NCLB put unprecedented pressure on school districts to meet the demands for accountability as measured by a single yearly assessment. At the same time those knowledgeable about best practices in reading and assessment touted the importance of using data from multiple assessments to inform instruction. So, which data set holds greater sway? Do data from accountability-driven assessments set a district’s course, or, do the results from other assessments guide its work? To put it succinctly, how does a school district use assessment data to inform reading instruction?
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
The bipartisan 2002 reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), commonly known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), calls for each state to develop an accountability system that describes how the state will take responsibility for the academic achievement of all students, including subgroups of students considered most vulnerable to failure. Subgroups include groups of students defined by race or ethnicity, those eligible for subsided lunch, English language learners, and students with disabilities. Each state must set achievement standards and develop a system to measure progress toward meeting those standards. In Iowa, all public schools and Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) are held to the same process and criteria for making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward 100% proficiency by 2013-14 school year. For purposes of measure and AYP accountability, all public school and LEAs are judged by performance and improvement on the Iowa Assessments. This measure is the common comparable measure across all school districts, thus, ensuring fairness, validity and reliability when making unbiased, rational and consistent determinations of the annual progress of LEAs and schools within the state. All schools and districts are expected to make improvement in student achievement. Currently, this assessment is administered yearly to every public school student in the state. This criterion-referenced instrument measures proficiency in reading and math for all students in Grades 3 through 8 and in Grade 11. Students in Grades 4, 8 and 11 are also assessed in language arts, science, social studies and writing.
Educators across the country who have learned how to effectively use assessment data have indeed ignited change and achieved positive results at the district, school, classroom, and student levels. The preceding discussion has identified essential elements of effective use of data to improve instruction. These include: 1) good data; 2) staff expertise with collection and analysis of data; 3) sufficient time structured into the schedule for staff to analyze the information; and 4) carefully designed changes in curriculum and instruction in that address the needs identified by the analysis.
Data are the key to continuous improvement. When you “plan,” you must use data to provide insight and focus for your goals. Data patterns reveal strengths and weaknesses in the system and provide excellent direction. When you “do,” you collect data that will tell you the impact of your strategies. Through collaborative reflection, you “study” the feedback offered by your data and begin to understand when to stay the course and when to make changes. Then you “act” to refine your strategies. Eventually, the whole cycle begins again.
C. Assessment
|
International Reading Association Standard
(3.3, 3.4) District Literacy Assessment Data Graphs Strengths/Limitations Instructional Moves To Continue Instructional Moves To Shift Stakeholders Power Point Presentation to Stakeholders |