1. FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM INITIATIVE Presenter: Nancy Schumacher November 2010

2. Assessment Memory Think of a time in your life when you were “assessed.” It might be a memory from elementary or high school… From your professional experience… Or anywhere else in your life. Briefly describe the experience. How did the assessment make you feel?

3. New Hope School District High-stakes Standardized Testing (aka “Summative Testing”) Receives a disproportionate amount of of attention: Summative vs. Formative

4. Disadvantages of High Stakes Testing MINIMAL IMPACT ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Time lapse between administration and results Not easily interpreted at classroom level Vague individual feedback Rank-orders students and creates competitiveness Reinforces feeling of incompetence in underperforming students and creates student disengagement from learning

5. New Hope School District Strength: “High Standardized Test Scores” REAL OR PERCEIVED?

6. New Hope School District STATUS QUO High SES community (Strong relationship between SES and student achievement, Marzano & Waters, 2009) Low student mobility rate (High transiency rate negatively affects test scores, Marzano & Waters, 2009) Teaching to the test Focus on how “well” students are doing rather than “what” students are doing Data does not drive instructional decision-making

7. New Hope School District THREATS TO STATUS QUO Closing of local small businesses and plants changing SES Foreclosures increasing mobility rate Increasing gap between “haves” and “have nots”

8. New Hope School District OPPORTUNITY Systemic change related to district mission of engaged learning Systemic change related to district vision of providing relevant research-based instruction that responds to each student’s unique potential Enhanced teaching and learning Focus on learning vs. achievement

9. Achievement vs. Learning Video Clip by Alfie Kohn Endorsed by W. Edwards Deming in “No Contest” which addresses competition in schools. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sywMkf5Q hI

10. Evolve Mindsets and Mental Models From: Summative Assessment To: Formative Assessment From: Evaluative grading To: Planning future instruction

11. What is Formative Assessment? Formal Definition: A planned process in which the ongoing activities undertaken in the classroom increase student engagement and learning by providing timely informational feedback and decision-making data so students can adjust current learning tactics in which they employ and teachers can modify instructional methods in which they implement. ---Nancy Schumacher, 2010

12. Formative Assessment vs. Summative Assessment Formative Assessment: FOR learning – DURING learning Summative Assessment: OF learning – AFTER learning “When the cook tastes the soup it is formative, when the guests taste the soup it is summative.” ---Bob Stake in Marzano, 2010

13. Goal of Formative Assessment For teachers to teach more effectively For students to learn more effectively

14. HIGH- QUALITY, EFFECTIVE TEACHING Links curriculum to State academic content standards Links instruction to curriculum Links assessment to instruction State-Level High Stakes Summative Assessment State-Level High Stakes Summative Assessment District- Level Common Assessment District- Level Common Assessment Classroom- Level Formative Assessment Classroom- Level Formative Assessment Intentionally Aligned COMPREHENSIVE FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM to Increase Student Achievement Nancy Schumacher 2010 Intentionally Aligned COMPREHENSIVE FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM to Increase Student Achievement Nancy Schumacher 2010

15. Classroom Level Formative Assessment IS BASED ON EFFECTIVE, INFORMATIVE FEEDBACK “The most powerful single modification that enhances achievement is feedback” ---J. A. Hattie in Marzano, 2007a After a meta-analysis of over 8,000 studies

16. Teachers and Students use FEEDBACK DATA Find areas of strengths and weaknesses Track areas of improvement Question how to prepare for and improve performance Differentiate instruction Close the achievement gap

17. New Hope School District PRE-TEST (Optional) TEACH ASSIGN GRADE PRE- ASSESS ANALYZE RESULTS PLAN FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION TEACH MONITOR, REFLECT, and ADJUST TEACH POST- ASSESS Current Model of Classroom Assessment Proposed Model of Classroom Level Formative Assessment: Teaching is aligned with curriculum. Formative assessments are not graded. ---Ainsworth & Viegut, 2006

18. Resources Needed to Introduce Formative Assessment System Classroom level formative assessment is a cost- effective method of school improvement (William, 2007) Professional Learning Communities: An effective approach for implementation (Popham, 2008) Reading resources: Key stakeholders volunteer to read and discuss the formative assessment process Time: Flexible scheduling to promote collaboration

19. Beyond the Classroom School and district level formative assessment will require funding for additional professional development (Black & Wiliam, 1998)

20. Time Frame to Implement Formative Assessment Slow and Steady Process November 2010 – Present rationale and process to Board of Education, all district and school leaders, all teachers and community members December 2010 – Establish volunteer PLC’s to “pilot” implementation at classroom level June 2011 – Positive results from pilot program create “buy-in” July-August 2011 – Pilot teachers turnkey train district wide September 2011 – All teachers begin classroom level formative assessment across grade levels and departments

21. Time Frame to Implement Formative Assessment Slow and Steady Process December 2011 – All teachers district wide inservice on next phase of intentionally designed comprehensive formative assessment system – “Power Standards.” January to March 2012 – Determine Power Standards for each grade and content April 2012 -- All teachers district wide inservice on next phase of intentionally designed comprehensive formative assessment system – Aligning Power Standards to classroom, district and State standards May to June 2012 – Align Power Standards June 2012 – All teachers district wide inservice on next phase of intentionally designed comprehensive formative assessment system – “Common Formative Assessments”

22. Time Frame to Implement Formative Assessment Slow and Steady Process July to August 2011 – Design Common Formative Assessments and map horizontally and vertically September 2011 – First administration of Common Formative Assessment (CFA) October 2011 – Score assessments, collaboratively discuss, evaluate effectiveness, revise CFA November 2011 – Second administration of CFA and analyze data December 2011 – Meet by schools to plan future phases of intentionally designed comprehensive formative assessment system

23. Implementation Requires School Administrator Leadership tied to ISLLC Standards Standard 1.4 – Mastery of information sources, data collection and data analysis strategies Standard 1.23 – Ensuring that assessment data related to student learning are used to develop the school vision and goals Standard 2.33 – Mastery of effective instruction Standard 2.34 – Mastery of measurement, evaluation and assessment strategies Standard 2.64 – Ensuring that student learning is assessed using a variety of techniques Standard 3.77 – Taking risks to improve schools Standard 3.89 – Managing time to maximize attainment of organizational goals

24. TIME FRAME FOR RESULTS 15 WEEKS Bangert-Drowns, Kulick & Kulick in Marzano, 2007b Two formative assessments per week over a 15-week period produce a 29.0 percentile gain Fuch & Fuch in Marzano, 2007b Based on meta-analysis of 21 studies: Two formative assessments per week result in a 30 percentile point gain

25. New Hope School District FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT: MISSION POSSIBLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsBMQUeG x1E

26. Resources Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappa, 80(2), 139-144. Retrieved from http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/library/ i93438_22.htm http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/library/ Marzano, R. J. (2007a). Designing a comprehensive approach to classroom assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve. (pp. 103-126). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Marzano, R. J. (2007b). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD. Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). Setting and monitoring nonnegotiable goals for achievement. In District leadership that works. (pp. 23-52). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Marzano, R. J. (2010). Formative assessment and standards-based grading. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD. William, D. (2007). Content then process: Teacher learning communities in the service of formative assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve. (pp. 183- 206). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.