Muczynski, Tammy Assessments Competency Winter Clinical Class 3/24/14

Competency 1: Accountability (Teaching and Learning)

1.1 Related Task: Ability to interpret meaning of various standardized tests to boards, teacher and lay citizens.

1.1.3 Specific Task: Ability to use assessment data to identify weaknesses and recommend strategies for improving student performance.

Narrative Description of Task: Analyze formative assessment tools to assist Troy in determining which one to utilize starting in the fall of 2014. Based on such analysis, meet with secondary education principals to share findings and collaborate on a recommendation for implementation. Share the findings with the Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education and the Director of Assessment and Instruction.

Process and Rationale: Student assessment has always been important in education. The ability to show student success is important to the integrity of all school programming. However, now it has become a lightning rod for controversy. No Child Left Behind has already tied student achievement to funding. Now new laws in Michigan are tying student achievement to teacher evaluations as well. This is putting a lot of pressure on districts and states to determine how best to assess growth. The test results will not only impact school funding, but also the livelihood of teachers and administrators. There is a lot at stake. With the educational community in a panic to comply

with new assessment requirements, there are a lot of for profit and not for profit companies out there marketing the next best assessment tool. Screening through the options to find the best fit is a process.

One needs to takes several steps into account before reaching a decision on an assessment tool. First, one needs to decide what they want to know. What is the purpose for the data, is it to measure student growth or evaluate teacher success? Is there a tool that will work well within the data systems the district already uses? Ensure there are staff input and community understanding and support for a new assessment tool. If students and staff do not buy in, it will be difficult to get good data. Finally, do not try to recreate the wheel. Dont be afraid to collaborate with other districts to compare and contrast assessment tools.

The Troy School District Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education and the Director of Assessment and Instruction requested that the secondary principals review the ACT Aspire and NWEA MAP assessment tools and bring forward a recommendation for the fall of 2014 school year. At first, we were hesitant to bring forward a recommendation. There are still a lot of questions about what the Michigan law on evaluating student growth truly means. Also, they feel as educational leaders, they should not push additional testing on students without it being centered on student success. Will more assessments help students, or are we just doing this to complete the student growth section of the evaluation? The Troy School District community is very educationally focused. Parents will take any testing extremely seriously. Faculty will have to be able to tie the testing to student success and defend the scores students receive. With multiple additional assessments throughout the school year, up to four, it also means more testing

time away from instruction, and training for staff to be comfortable with the giving and analysis of the test. These concerns are not just shared by Troy district administrators, but are common across the state. Regardless of their concerns, though, since there are mandates tied to assessments, the district needs to move forward with a decision.

We were provided presentations from both companies, visits to other local districts utilizing the tools, and we researched the options online. Both have many positives, along with some concerns. In some ways they are very similar, yet in other ways they seem very different. The district needs to define if they are looking for summative or interim assessments, or a combination. They left that open for our recommendation to answer.

NWEA MAP is a well known interim assessment tool that provides computerized adaptive testing to give a clear picture of subject strength and weakness. The scoring is immediate so teachers can address issues right away. Testing can be done up to four times per year. MAP measures academic status, irrespective of grade level, and can calculate academic growth over time. This is different than a summative test designed to measure student learning within a grade level. The questions are aligned to a states content standards. The tests are approximately an hour so they do not take a lot of time away from instruction. It is a test meant to complement teacher instruction, not compete with it. It is meant to assist teachers set goals for student growth. The schools visited that use NWEA appreciate the value of the above descriptions of the test. Faculty that bought into the tool have great success with students and parents and the ability to show student growth on an interim basis. Of course, faculty that do not take advantage of the goal setting and individualized instruction opportunities do not really feel additional assessing is

meaningful. The main concerns of those using NWEA were on how well the tests relate to the ACT that is still required in 11th grade. The fact that ACT Aspire is an ACT tool, some may move toward that new option from the NWEA MAP.

Unlike the well renowned, tested and popular NWEA, the ACT Aspire is a new product that is just in its infancy. As of January it was still being analyzed by a third party to ensure it was aligned to the states content standards. They do provide a crosswalk on their website already though. Also, there are only summative tests available to date. As of fall 2014, however, there are supposed to be interim adaptive assessments with immediate results similar to NWEA MAP. We had concerns about the fact that we could not see this tool in action anywhere since it is new. But since there is so much confidence among leaders in the ACT, and the 11th grade ACT is still required, we continued researching it as a viable option. The ACT Explore and PLAN were

being replaced with Aspire so there is faith that they will have it tested and ready to go by fall 2014. The advantage ACT Aspire has over NWEA is the link to the still required ACT. This means there will be ease in aligning results with future expected results. Teachers and families will be able to follow a students growth with a product consistent in look and scoring once the interim tests are available. It will also be easier to gain stakeholder support since most are already familiar with the ACT.

After our research we were still left with some of the original concerns from the request to make a recommendation. We were nervous to go all in with any one product and really preferred to be given one more year to make a decision, hoping by then the state would be clearer on expectations. Also, we were still not sure exactly what the goal of the testing is. Is it for student

growth or teacher evaluation? Personally, I felt a combination of NWEA and ACT Aspire would have made for a nice pilot. NWEA has the advantage of being time tested and available at elementary grade levels as well. We could use NWEA for grades 1-6 and then transition to ACT Aspire for the upper grades to better align with the ACT. If ACT Aspire does not end up having the interim tests available when marketed, we would already have access to the NWEA ones and then only rely on ACT Aspire for summative testing. This would alleviate some of our concerns about going with ACT Aspire since it is so new. We would not be putting all of our eggs in one basket and gaining experience to decide for ourselves which tool was preferred by faculty for full implementation when and if required by the state.

The committee recommended a pilot of ACT Aspire for just 8th and 10th graders with nothing else in the other grades until the state defines assessment needs more clearly. The ACT Explore and Plan will no longer be available after this year. Basically, the district compromised with its leadership team by allowing for a very small pilot next year instead of a full-fledged implementation combining the use of NWEA interim assessments with the ACT Aspires summative assessments. The district agreed to wait on a more rigorous implementation until the state sends down clearer requirements.

Reflection:

In reflecting on the process above, I was pleasantly surprised at the care the principals used in making a determination. They did not allow themselves to get pushed into moving forward quickly into an arena that is in flux. Requirements for assessment are still being defined. The

resolution that described what assessment tools in Michigan should look like was just that, a resolution. The suggestions are not binding. Principals are looking to protect their students from over testing at the same time as they are carefully treading into the student growth evaluation requirement on the new evaluation tool. As of today, faculty in Troy can still determine how they show student growth for their evaluation. Until the state more clearly defines what student growth means, leadership in Troy wants to continue with that model. The principals were fearful that these interim assessments would replace the facultys ability to define student growth. They need to trust that the additional testing is good for students and not just about teacher evaluation laws.

I was also excited to see central office administration show support of the committee recommendation. Central office respected the concerns of its leadership team and took them into consideration. While districts are receiving a lot of pressure to move forward with additional assessments, Troy had the resolve to be patient and maintain buy in of its school leaders. Central office understood that if they tried to force non-mandated testing on the buildings, it would not be successful without support from the building leaders. Students in Troy are already very successful in comparison to other districts. There is no urgency requiring change. Troy has a strong faculty that already show student success in existing required testing like the MEAP and ACT/MME.

While the committee did not include all of my recommendations, it was a great opportunity to collaborate with other district leaders. Their experience as building principals with union teachers provided me the opportunity to see issues from a different light. They are on the front

lines of the evaluation transformation and understand what these changes in assessment may become to staff livelihoods at a later date. I truly did not think the district would approve such a small pilot so when I shared my recommendation, I ensured to cover several grade levels. The committee has worked with Troys central office much longer than myself and had the experience to know they could safely bring forward a small pilot. The fact that they brought forward such a small pilot also enforced their original concerns and allowed them to stand by their beliefs while still following the directive. This opportunity to learn and grow came down to balanced decision making based on careful thought and research. Compromise allowed for everyone to be satisfied with the final decision.