Instructionally-Linked Assessments in an Age of Accountability Lauren B. Resnick University 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?