SUPERINTENDENT COMMENTARY: A superintendent’s perspective on assessment

There are many potential uses for student assessment data within our education system. For example, data is collected for report cards and shared with parents, used for state assessment systems, etc. However, in its purest form assessment of student learning is designed to provide on-time information to teachers so that they can modify their instruction in order to meet the individual needs of their learners.

There are two main types of assessment used in education. One, which I would argue is the most important, is formative assessment.

Formative assessment provides teachers with immediate and on time information about student learning that allows them to adjust their instruction in order to meet the needs of students.

For instance, while teaching students how to multiply fractions a teacher walks around the classroom briefly, looking at student work. This provides the teacher with a quick check as to whether or not students are grasping the new learning. Formative assessment can also be a quiz, an assignment, or a variety of other on time methods designed to assess whether or not students are learning the desired skills.

A second type of common assessment is summative assessment. Summative assessment is when teachers assess student learning at the end of a unit, chapter, quarter, semester, or school year. Generally, this type of assessment does not provide information that drives a teacher’s immediate instruction.Rather, this type of assessment comes “after” all learning has occurred. An example of summative assessment would be a state test that students take at the end of a school year or grade level. Often times, schools do not receive results from summative assessments, such as state tests, until months later after the school year has ended.

Assessment of learning sounds like a fairly simple concept. We teach students specific skills and we assess whether they have mastered the skills. Formative assessment is used to guide and adapt our daily instruction, and summative assessments are used at the end of chapters or units of study. Regardless of the type of assessment, the information gained should be used to improve learning and to provide appropriate instruction to students.

In 2001 federal No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB) started a nationwide movement towards school improvement, accountability, and high stakes assessment. In its simplest form, many of the concepts in the NCLB legislation appeared completely rational.

For example, the ultimate goal of NCLB was that by 2014 all students in the United States would be proficient and at grade level in reading and mathematics.

Who would argue with having all students at grade level in reading and mathematics?

With NCLB came assessments in grades 3-8 and 10 for students in the state of Washington.

The assessments were designed to measure the progress of students in our state toward meeting the federal reading and mathematic goals. This was the beginning of our current statewide assessment system.

Various acronyms have been used during the past fifteen years as state assessments have been implemented, adjusted and adapted.

For example, WASL – Washington Assessment of Student Learning, MSP – Measurement of Student Progress, HSPE – High School Proficiency Exam, EOC – End of Course Exam, COE – Collection of Evidence, and SBAC – Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.

Following the implementation of NCLB student assessment information has been used for a variety of reasons.

For example, state assessment scores have been used, in part, to decide which students will or will not earn a high school diploma.

Initially students were required to pass the 10th grade reading and writing assessment in order to earn a diploma.

That requirement changed to include a 10th grade HSPE mathematics assessment. This then morphed into requiring the passage of one of two possible EOC mathematic assessments (in addition to the reading and writing assessment). Finally, a 10th grade biology test was added to the list of assessment requirements.

Thus, students in the class of 2016 (this year’s juniors) are expected to pass four state assessments, on top of the school districts’ 25-credit requirement, in order to graduate from high school.

At this time we are in the midst of a switch to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and quite possibly a change in the assessment requirements for future graduating classes. (The assessments discussed in this paragraph are just the high school requirements and not a description of any of the assessments administered in grades 3-8.)

I want to reiterate my opinion that the main purpose of assessment in education is to guide the instruction we provide to students with the ultimate goal of improving learning for all children.

In the name of accountability… Throughout the nation there have been initiatives implemented that utilize student assessment scores for teacher performance pay, teacher and principal evaluation, labeling schools as failing, etc. Think for a moment about this concept. Imagine using summative assessment scores from an eight or nine year old child to determine whether or not a teacher deserves performance pay, whether they should receive poor evaluations, or whether a school or district should be labeled as “failing.” In my opinion it is wrong to put this type of pressure on children, educators, and our school system. Can you imagine potential issues that might arise from tying salaries and evaluations to student performance? Can you see issues in labeling children, educators, and schools as failing? Does this type of system fit my original description of the intention of assessment in education? Sadly, the answer is no.

As a school leader I think it is essential that we provide the best possible education to our students. We owe this to our children, parents, and communities. I believe that it is important that we assess our students so that we know and understand where we need to make improvements to our instruction and system in order to provide students with the skills necessary to be successful in our society. Having said this, as a state and nation I think we have taken the accountability, assessment, and improvement model too far. Once again, good intentions and ideas have morphed into a system that needs to be re-evaluated.

In the year 2015 we should undoubtedly be able to determine what students should know and learn at each grade level and in each content area. We should also be able to create meaningful assessments that match the skills and content we want students to know. We should be able to use the information from the assessments to improve our collective practice and ultimately learning for all students. All of this can occur without punitive measures, unnecessary pressure placed upon students and staff, and labeling students, schools, and educators as failures.

My sincere hope is that we can create and settle on meaningful standards that prepare our children for whatever path they choose in life. I also hope that we can create and maintain a reasonable assessment system that provides our teachers, parents, classrooms, and schools with information that is relevant to improving learning for all students. It is imperative that a system of meaningful standards and reasonable assessments is created and then allowed to stay in place so that the constant change to requirements and assessment can cease. Without this kind of stability how can we truly meet, or accurately determine, the needs of all students?

As always, if you have any questions about this article, or any aspect of our education system, please contact me at 509-677-3481 (Lind), 509-659-1660 (Ritzville), or email me at [email protected].