ASSESSING WITH TECHNOLOGY Projecting Individualized Student Growth Targets in the Classroom with Web-Based Assessment

Lauren Menard, EdD.

laurenannmenard@gmail.com

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3)

ASCENDANCY OF ACADEMIC GROWTH

(NOELL & BURNS, 2006)

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

“International competitiveness, ensure all students regardless of background have access to a high quality education, and prepare all students for college, work and citizenship” (Statement on National Governors Association and State Education Chiefs Common Core Standards, 2010, ¶5).

Teacher effectiveness simultaneously being evaluated with unprecedented emphasis on student growth

Common Core State Standards Compass

CCSS IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT NEEDED

“As states move forward to implement the standards, they will need to translate standards into classroom teaching that will help all students master these new standards” (Statement on National Governors Association and State

Education Chiefs Common Core Standards, 2010, ¶4).

Requires collective collaboration—similar to

weeding the garden— “debating what to continue, what to change, and what to cast away”(Duncle, 2010, p.2).

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

“By themselves, value-added data are neither good nor bad.

It is how we use them that matters” (Di Carlo, 2012,

p.39).

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

“It is not surprising that many states and districts have neglected some of these steps. They were already facing budget cuts and strained capacity before having to design and implement new teacher evaluations in a short time frame. This was an extremely difficult task” (Di Carlo, 2012, p.41).

CONTROVERSIAL VALUE ADDED MODEL (VAM) EVALUATIONS New York City:

Los Angeles Times: public database of teacher names and ratings

Alternate view: VAM’s reflect, “Whom a teacher teaches, not how well they teach” (Darling-Hammond, 2012, ¶14)

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

Your daughter is the worst teacher in the city!!

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

Vast majority of IDEA eligible students, “taught and tested on grade-level state-mandated curricula” (Richards, 2010, p. 8).

“Leave no child behind can be described in similar shorthand as maximum exposure to grade-level curriculum” (Richards, 2010, p. 1).

Access to instruction in grade-level content in order to move closer to grade-level achievement … to focus instruction on a student's instructional level would lower expectations and limit opportunities (20 USED, 2007, p.

17,755)

NCLB AYP IDEA

LOUISIANA TEACHERS

Required to:

Develop Student Learning Targets (SLT) by content based on common assessments

Develop a scoring plan to evaluate their effectiveness (Louisiana Department of Education, 2011b)

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

SAMPLE CLASS: 10 STUDENTS

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

Variety of disabilities (e.g., Specific Learning Disability, Developmental Delay, Intellectual Disability, Other Health Impaired)

Medical conditions, behavioral challenges, communication and motor deficits

All self-contained K - 5th Grade

Eight African Americans, one Caucasian, one Hispanic

7 boys and 3 girls

6 students: LEAP; 2 students LAA2

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

One evaluation measure for all, such as survival or percent proficient on LEAP, risks labeling all high-risk specializing centers unacceptable.

Greater risks: Discouraging teaching where growth is predictably

low Penalizing teachers “for taking on the toughest

assignment” (Darling-Hammond, 2012 , ¶ 16)

BENCHMARKS NEEDED TO PROJECT

GROWTH

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

Common assessment benchmarks (e.g., Aimsweb, DIBELS) were not available because none were administered to students in the self-contained class at the beginning of the year, presumably because of low skill levels.

Initial baselines had to be quickly gathered because teacher SLT’s were due.

EASYCBM™ So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Curriculum-based assessment and progress-monitoring tool for grades K-8th

Web-based

Free teacher version

Louisiana approved Tier 2 common assessment

Over 163,000 teachers relying on easyCBM™

Approved by the National Center for Response to Intervention (EasyCBM™, 2012)

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

T

ea

che

r Ed

uca

tion

(20

13

).

SELECTED EASYCBM™ PROGRESS MONITORING FOR THE SAMPLE CLASS

Letter Naming Fluency

Word Reading 1

Word Reading 2

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n

(20

13

).

GROWTH TARGETS

Bill Copeland once said, “The trouble with not having a goal is that you can spend your life running up and down the field and never score” (Yaeger, 2011, p.1). Value-added models paraphrase the sentiment:

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

Without reaching growth targets teachers can teach all year without contributing to a student’s

education.

PROJECTING INDIVIDUALIZED GROWTH TARGETS

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n

(20

13

).

Increase initial benchmarks by 20%

Interpret growth as a new raw score

Apply a minimum increase of three assessment items

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

Student Skill Pre-test % 20%↑Growth

percentageGrowth target

1 WR(2) 39/176 22.15% 4.43 26.58 47/176

2 WR (1) 7/120 5.83% 1.16 6.99 10/120

3 WR(1) 9/120 7.5% 1.5 9 12/120

4 WR(1) 13/120 10.83% 2.17 13. 16/176

5 LNF 14/100 14% 2.8 16.8 17/100

6 WR(1) 8/120 6.66% 1.33 7.99 11/120

7 LNF 13/100 13% 2.6 15.6 16/100

8 WR (1) 1/120 .83% .166 .996 4/120

9 WR(2) 14/176 7.95% 1.59 9.54 17/120

10 LNF 19/100 19% 3.8 22.8 23/100

TEACHER SLT AND SCORING RUBRIC

Eight of the ten students in the class will demonstrate growth in literacy skills as evidenced by 20% or

more growth between baselines and post assessments with easyCBM™ measurements.

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

Insufficient Attainment (1)

Partial Attainment (2)

Full Attainment (3)

Exceptional Attainment (4)

6 or fewer students meet individual growth target

7 students meet individual growth target

8 students meet individual growth target

9 or more students meet individual growth target

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

IB Goal PM 1 PM2

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Student 6 Student 7 Student 8 Student 9 Student 10

The first plots (IB) represent initial raw scores on Letter Naming, Word Reading Fluency 1, or Word Reading Fluency 2. The second point in the series (GOAL) represents projected individual growth targets. Time delays between progress monitoring (PM) trials were between two and four weeks. Student absence and scheduling affected the number of trials. All assessments occurred over approximately eight weeks. Several students met growth targets by the first or second progress monitoring period, which suggests a 20% projected increase was too low.

VAM ISSUES

How much academic growth do all students need to evidence for teachers to be considered effective?

Teacher gains were lower with new English-learners and special education students than with typical students (Darling-Hammond, 2012, ¶18).

Students with disabilities learned new words at less than half the rate (Deno et al., 2001).

Construct shifting affects rate of growth (Martineau, 2006; O’Malley, et

al., 2011).

“Teacher effects are both additive and cumulative with little evidence of compensatory effects of more effective teachers in later grades”(Sanders & Rivers, 1996, p.6).

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

CLOSING

So

ciety fo

r Info

rma

tion

Te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

Te

ach

er E

du

catio

n (2

01

3).

In environments of low student achievement, strained capacity, and budget cuts, a teacher may have limited training on evidencing value-added teaching. If a dichotomy of a teacher’s heart versus a teacher’s knowledge base or the question of whether great teachers are born or madewere debated, this work would firmly stand on the side of instructional pedagogy.

Questions and comments following. Thank you for your attention.