Mi Missouri ri Asses essmen ent Part rtner ership Update - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Mi Missouri ri Asses essmen ent Part rtner ership Update Patton onville Boa Board of E of Education on January 22, 2019 Up Update e on MOAP v Share Process used to identify components of the model the assessment model developed,
vShare
§ Process used to identify components of the model § the assessment model developed, including
ü Goals/Purpose ü Rationale ü Characteristics/Components
vProcessing Around the Model
§ Answer questions § Gather feedback
vNext Steps
§ Support § Going from Model to System
vAn Advisory Committee, consisting of individuals from MOAP member districts
vAreas of Focus
§ Assessment System and Resource Development: Focus on the characteristics, features and
capabilities of an assessment system for partner districts which will then lead to the development of an RFP. The resource development portion would focus on ensuring high quality assessments and instructional resources are available across the partnership. Ideally, the system, assessments, and resources will be integrated. The main focus will be the assessment system and resources to support instruction.
§ Knowledge and Practice: Identifying, sharing, and promoting what works in assessment with
results providing the foundation for the findings. The main focus will be research and building a knowledge base on what works.
§ Professional Learning: Identify needs and build capacity for teachers and leaders around the
effective use of assessments, assessment development and assessment literacy. The main focus is on the learning of adults on assessment and assessment practices to support the learning of students.
Region Individuals 1 – Northwest Karma Coleman (Tarkio), Valerie Jones (East Buchanan), Betty Vassmer (Cowgill) 2 – Kansas City Christopher Hand (Liberty) 3 – West Central Mindy Hampton (Wellington-Napoleon) 4 – Southwest Melia Franklin (Ozark), Nathan Manley (Seneca), Laura O’Quinn (Lebanon), Jay Roth (Lebanon), Kathy Tackett (Carl Junction), Julie Williams (West Plains) 5 – South Central Jenny Ulrich (Lonedell) 6 – Southeast Mary Jo Jensen (Fredericktown), Matt Lacy (Jackson) 7 – St. Louis Glenn Hancock (Rockwood), Jill Lawson (Lindbergh), Roxanna Mechem (MRH), Carter Snow (Parkway), Tara Sparks (Lindbergh), Michelle Wilkerson (Hancock Place) 8 – Northeast John French (Lewis Co. C-1), Traci Mosby (Lewis Co. C-1)
Region Individuals 1 – Northwest Valerie Jones (East Buchanan), Betty Vassmer (Cowgill) 2 – Kansas City Christopher Hand (Liberty), Brian Huff (Raytown)* 3 – West Central Mindy Hampton (Wellington-Napoleon) 4 – Southwest Melia Franklin (Ozark), Jay Roth (Lebanon), Dave Schmitz (Lebanon)*, Julie Williams (West Plains) 5 – South Central Jenny Ulrich (Lonedell) 6 – Southeast Mary Jo Jensen (Fredericktown) 7 – St. Louis Kevin Beckner (Parkway)*, Glenn Hancock (Rockwood), Jill Lawson (Lindbergh), Tim Pecoraro (Pattonville)*, Carter Snow (Parkway) 8 – Northeast John French (Lewis Co. C-1), Traci Mosby (Lewis Co. C-1), Andy Turgeon (Knox Co. R-I)* *Indicates member of Executive Committee
vReview “Findings on Current and Ideal State” vResources and Materials Reviewed
§ EdWeek Articles – “What Happens When States Un-Standardize Tests”, “Four
§ iNACOL – Redesigning Systems of Assessments for Student-Centered Learning § NASBE – Balanced Assessment § Assessment for Learning Organization Information
ü Slides on “Assessment for Learning Purposes and Principles” ü Website https://www.assessmentforlearningproject.org/learn ü Models provided in the “Explore” section of the Assessment for Learning website:
https://www.assessmentforlearningproject.org/explore
ü Principles - https://kumu.io/moonbeammachine/assessment-for-learning-principles#alp-
assessment-for-learning-principles
From “Design Thinking for Educators”
vWe don’t want a better paper map to use for navigation. vWe want to use readily available devices for navigation. vThe current form of testing is like making us take a journey with a
§ We have been doing it, but it is inefficient and redundant, when we rely on
§ Why does it matter if we use a paper map or a GPS related device?
vIsn’t the question, how are we performing and progressing towards
vThe goal is to create a student-centered assessment not a system-
vThe purpose of the MAP is to rank and sort students, schools and
vWe recognize there are constraints and parameters that must be met
v One that tells students, parents,
and teachers where students are at in their learning and what is next in their journey.
v One that is responsive to where
students are at in their learning.
v One that recognizes not every
student follows the same learning path.
v One that might be shut down at
the end of 4th grade because the child moves out of state with their grandmother, but can pick back up when they return at the beginning
v One that can be used by the
student, parent, teacher as much as they want on their journey.
v One that is consistent. One that
can be understood. One they
that matters.
v One that tells DESE and the public
where students are at on their
checkpoints or if they haven’t, and if they haven’t how close they are, given where and when they started their journey.
v One that tells everyone how far
we’ve taken students and how far we have still to go. Students may take different routes to get to the destination, but we still have to same expected destination for
expected destination, then why can’t we work to have flexibility in the tool we use to measure how we are doing and flexibility in the route of how to get there.
Brown, C., Boser, U., Sargrad, S., & Marchitello, M. (2016). Implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
v System focused on teaching and learning first, accountability second.
§ Every student – Every day
v Online, with a quick turnaround providing meaningful data and reports.
§ This will be exclusively on the vendor/partner. § Thus the vendor/partner are foundational to this being a successful endeavor.
v Focus on growth with emphasis on competency towards high school and college/career
readiness.
§ Currently assess at the state’s pace – need to assess at the student’s pace
v Criterion-referenced through-course, done in shorter iterations and less invasive than done in the
current model, showing proficiency throughout the course and not just at the end of the year.
v Authentic Writing v Professional Development for teachers on system-usage and connections to improve/deliver
instruction and resources for students that aren’t on pace.
v Inclusive for all students, regardless of arbitrary 1% caps v Coherence and Continuity over time – long-term commitment with the vendor/partner v Integration of subjects would be ideal, but we recognize that may be for future iterations. v Must be able to meet all technical requirements of the U.S. Department of Education’s Peer
Review of State Academic Assessment Systems
Federal Waiver Process ESSA Innovative State Assessment Pilot
vRegional Meetings vAsk for consent at a district-level
§ Are you comfortable with this –
vDetermine level of support vShare out on the level of support vGoing from Model to System
§ Assuming high-levels of support –
Ø
Ø
Northwest, Stanberry – Wednesday, January 9, 8:00 – 9:30
Ø
Kansas City, Liberty – Wednesday, January 9, 12:30 – 2:00
Ø
West Central, Green Ridge – Wednesday, January 9, 4:00 – 5:30
Ø
Southwest, Ozark – Thursday, January 10, 8:00 – 9:30
Ø
Southeast, Jackson – Thursday, January 10, 3:30 – 5:00