Instructionally-Linked Assessments in an Age of
Accountability
Lauren B. ResnickUniversity of Pittsburgh
Four Components of a Standards-Based Education System
Standards for learning, arrived at through a public process, aligned to the standards
Tests aligned to the standards
Curriculum and professional learning aligned to the standards
Accountability for performance on the aligned tests
Standards for Learning
All states now have standards
Varying quality in terms of content, specificity
Differing judgments of quality
Cycles of revision beginning
Aligned Tests
Generally poor alignment
Systematic inclusions/omissions
• Overrepresented: Basic skills
• Underrepresented: Thinking, reasoning, applications, “higher order” standards
Partially due to yearly testing demands and cost considerations
Partially due to public perceptions: “A test is a test”
Accountability Based on Tests
Much attention to formulas, due to NCLB
State choices matter
Given the weak alignment of tests to standards—is the “technology” of accountability dangerously ahead of the intent of the standards system?
Have the tests hijacked the standards?
Curriculum and Professional Learning Aligned to Standards
This crucial element of the theory of standards-based education was left to districts
• The “local control” compromise
Attention to it has been relatively late, and spotty—much dependent on size and capacity of districts
Also responsive to a widespread view (now hotly debated) that individual schools should be the locus of instructional and professional decision making
Districts Responding: Dimensions of a Systemic Program to Improve
Achievement
The teaching dimension
The professional learning dimension
The monitoring dimension
The accountability dimension
The teaching dimension: the district’s core teaching program
Designed curriculum
• Aligned to standards
• Teaching “on the diagonal”: Topical content and modes of thinking continuously linked
• Realistic content coverage
Shared models of effective teaching
• Specifics of powerful teaching strategies
• Embedded assessments
• Student work samples and grading rubrics
The professional learning dimension: Assisting learning by teachers, principals
and district leaders
Professional development focused on the content and pedagogy of the district’s teaching programs
Development of coaches, lead teachers and specialists in the core disciplines
Instructionally focused professional learning for principals and their supervisors
Professional learning communities within schools
Induction and support programs for novice teachers and principals
The monitoring dimension: Ongoing assessment of teaching effectiveness
Interim assessments of student achievement
School and classroom improvement plans
Monitoring teaching quality
A Monitoring Dilemma: What is the Purpose of District Interim Assessments?
Predict how students will do on state accountability tests.
• BUT what if the tests are not well aligned to standards or the standards are weak?
Assess how well students are learning the curriculum taught.
• BUT what if the curriculum is not well aligned to the standards or the standards are weak?
Diagnose student needs for additional instruction.
• BUT should the diagnosis be geared to the state tests or to the curriculum taught?
Some Difficult Questions
Should the assessments match the instruction or should they match the accountability tests?
When should the assessments be given?
Must assessments be secure?
How much reliability is needed?
Who sees the data (first)?
In Short: Are Diagnostic Assessments—
Part of the accountability system?
Part of the teaching and learning system?
Top Related