1. Welcome 2. Working with the WIKI 3. Discussion of Assessment in curriculum development 4. Break 5. Divide into curricular areas – discuss: A.Standards B.What is taught C.How is it going 6. What needs to be done between now and summer?

 Typical State and National Standards documents simply have too much content to cover effectively and with any depth  Standards lack uni-dimensionality  The use of formative assessment data allows for the greatest gain in student achievement  Scales or rubrics provide the best feedback to students and are the most accurate way to assess student knowledge and growth

 If you wanted to teach all of the standards in the national documents, you would have to change school from K-12 to K-22!  255 standards across 14 subject areas  3,500 benchmarks  15,500 hours of instruction needed to cover the 3,500 benchmarks (Kendall and Marzano, 2000)  9,000 hours of instruction available (Marzano, Kendall and Gaddy, 1999)

 Standards documents are not written with assessment in mind  Benchmarks typically cover more than one skill or piece of knowledge  In order to assess each individual dimension, standards and benchmarks must be “unpacked” so that they measure only one thing at a time

To TEACH LESS BETTER and target instruction to the individual needs of the student. This has been proven to increase student achievement.

 Using Marzano Format  Hamilton teachers attended and will have more information this summer.

 Marzano and Associates › Assisted with math—writing performance rubrics for formative assessment. › Similar experience for world languages, library/media, fine arts, counseling › As other curriculum is revised, this format will be used to make it consistent, clear, accountable and most importantly— IMPROVE ACHIEVEMENT › Work is built on the concept of Formative Assessment.

Black and Williams (1998) in a synthesis of 250 studies, concluded that the use of formative assessment data, done properly, “…does improve learning. The gains in achievement appear to be quite considerable, and as noted earlier, amongst the largest ever reported for educational interventions.”

Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991 # of studiesCharacteristic of Feedback from Classroom Assessment Percentile Gain/Loss 6 Right/wrong Provide correct answers Criteria understood by student vs. not understood 16 9 Explain 20 4 Student reassessed until correct 20

Fuchs & Fuchs 1988 # of studiesCharacteristic of Feedback from Classroom Assessment Percentile Gain/Loss 89 Displaying results graphically Evaluation by rule [uniform way of interpreting results of classroom assessments using a tight logic) 32

 Formative assessment using rubrics provides the best form of feedback to students  Well written and specific scales or rubrics are more accurate than a set of tests or formal assessments graded on a 100 point scale

 In a study conducted by Marzano in 2002, a group of science teachers independently developed a 100 point scoring scheme for a test and scored it. The reliability coefficient was only.294 (out of 1.0).  The resulting scores were so variable that the test could not reliably be used to assess student knowledge and/or skills

 The same teachers scored the same test using a 4 point rubric or scale.  The reliability coefficient was.719  This means that the resulting scores were significantly more consistent, and as a result the rubric came much closer to measuring what the student actually knows or is able to do than the test scored using the 100 point scale.

 Create greater reliability in assessment of standards  Create more consistency in teaching, assessment and learning throughout a district or state  Allow for more consistent and better feedback throughout the course of learning  Allow for more focused instruction in appropriate depth  Make true assessment possible due to the creation of unidimensionality  IMPROVE LEARNING!

 Summer work group built rubrics based on: › measurement topics per grade level › Measurement topics ~ essential learning elements › Each essential learning element aligns with state standards › Each essential learning element describes what a proficient student is able to do independently › Other skills can be introduced but only the essential learning elements will be assessed with rubrics. › Essential learning elements are NOT necessarily graded but the ARE assessed. Esssential learning elements build vertically.

 One measurement topic for each rubric  The 3.0 element describes student performing a skill completely and independently and forms the framework for the other descriptions. It is the proficient level.  A 2.0 element is usually a 3.0 element broken into simpler parts or with assistance.  A 1.0 element describes a student’s inability to perform the skill even with assistance.  A 4.0 element describes a student who can independently perform a skill embellish or connect it to more complex ideas.

Strand: Number Sense and Operations Topic: Place Value Grade: Three Score 4.0 In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond what was taught. Sample Tasks 3.5 In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success. Score 3.0 The student will:  determine place value positions of a given digit in the 1’s, 10’s, 100’s, 1000’s, 10,000’s and 100,000’s The student exhibits no major errors or omissions.  Given the number 106,543, ask students to tell the value of the hundred thousand’s place? 1000’s place? 100’splace? 2.5 No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content Score 2.0 There are no major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes as the student:  determine place value up to 1000’s  recognizes or recalls basic terminology such as: However, the student exhibits major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes.  Given the number 7, 345, determine the value of thousand’s place. 1.5 Partial knowledge of the 2.0 content but major errors or omissions regarding the 3.0 content Score 1.0 With help, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes. 0.5 With help, a partial understanding of the 2.0 content but not the 3.0 content Score 0.0 Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated.

 Classroom teachers will use the performance rubrics for formative assessment.  Classroom teachers will give input including sample tasks that are used for assessment.  The goal is to TEACH LESS BETTER and target student need.

 Content Standard  Strand or Topic  Benchmarks  Performance Descriptors  Measurement Topic OR  Essential Learning Element  Rubric  Proficient or 3.0 elements  Nearing Proficient or 2.0 elements  Novice or 1.0 elements  Advanced or 4.0 elements  Sample task

 Sample Rubric for Science & Social Studies › Standard # 3 › Strand or Topic › Rubric Scores  4.0—undefined  3.0—Most of the time spent defining and adding sample tasks.  2.0—Some time will be spent defining. Sample tasks are extra.

 In groups— › Pick a standard, strand/topic and grade level. › Practice writing a 3.0 task in that area—  What will a student be able to independently be able to know or do. › Practice adding some sample tasks—they are unlimited. › If time, practice writing a 2.0 task.

 “Scope and sequence”—how do the proficiencies align vertically K-12?  Philosophy statements—As professionals, define the overriding reasons that this content area is taught.  Position statement—As professionals in each District, what is needed to support instruction in this curriculum area.  Appendices—Accreditation standards, Professional Organization documents, glossaries.

 Brainstorm a list of proficiencies for your teaching situation and bring them as a jump start.  Gather resources, seek out websites, talk to colleagues to determine what current research, best practices, concerns are and bring those to the table.  Reflect on past practices and make notes about what should change.  Relax, “sharpen your saw”, and come in ready to work.