Instructionally-Linked Assessments in an Age of

Accountability

Lauren B. ResnickUniversity 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?