DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 420 708 TM 028 430

AUTHOR Matter, M. KevinTITLE Trust, but Verify: Standard Setting That Honors and

Validates Professional Teacher Judgment. Subtitle: A TenuousTitanic Tale of Testy Testing and Titillating Touchstones (AScreen Play with an Unknown Number of Acts).

PUB DATE 1998-04-00NOTE 51p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association (San Diego, CA, April13-17, 1998).

PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative (142) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; *Elementary Secondary Education;

Evaluation Methods; *Political Influences; School Districts;*Standards; State Legislation; State Programs; StudentEvaluation; *Testing Programs

IDENTIFIERS *Cherry Creek Schools CO; *Standard Setting

ABSTRACTThe Cherry Creek School district (Englewood, Colorado) is a

growing district of 37,000 students in the Denver area. The 1988 ColoradoState School Finance Act required district-set proficiencies (standards), andforced agreement on a set of values for student knowledge and skills.State-adopted standards added additional requirements for the district.Cherry Creek has a high graduation rate, low dropout rate, and generally highaverage test scores, so that these externally imposed standards were not metwith great enthusiasm. However, staffs have embraced positive features of thestandards and are working toward a high level of student proficiency on thesestandards. The political background in the state and area is traced, and theway Cherry Creek met requirements, making the standards their own isdescribed. Teachers and administrators are invested in the standard systembecause they feel it is their own. A guiding principle in Cherry Creek isstudent growth over time, data that is not provided by most state assessmentprograms. Cherry Creek realizes that it must control its own local assessmentplan, for it cannot depend on the state to provide the information needed toplan interventions in a timely manner. Furthermore, each state legislativesession will probably bring revisions to the state plan. Seven attachmentspresent supplemental information about Cherry Creek's standards, beginningwith the district student achievement objectives, and including some sampleassessment items. (SLD)

********************************************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

********************************************************************************

TRUST, BUT VERIFY:Standard Setting that Honors and Validates

Professional Teacher Judgment

Subtitle: A Tenuous Titanic Tale of Testy Testing and Titillating Touchstones[A Screen Play with an Unknown Number of Acts]

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) j

Dr. M. Kevin Matter

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDU TIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

This paper is prepared for the:Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Diego, CA

April 1998

Trust, but Verify:Standard Setting That Honors and Validates Professional Teacher Judgment

Subtitle: A Tenuous Titanic Tale of Testy Testing and Titillating Touchstones[A Screen Play with an Unknown Number of Acts]

Dr. M. Kevin MatterDirector

Office of Assessment & Evaluation

Cherry Creek Schools4700 S. Yosemite Street

Englewood, Colorado 80111(303) 486-4244

FAX (303) 486-4488

We) Paper Presented at Session 15.34Setting Performance Standards at the Local Level: Tales from the Front

1998 Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association

San Diego, CA

Acknowledgments

The Cherry Creek Schools standard setting process and the numerous assessmentadministration, processing, and reporting activities described in this paper wereaccomplished through the dedicated and professional efforts of the Office of Assessmentand Evaluation staff. In particular, the creative and thorough work of Dr. Connie Zumpfis greatly appreciated, as well as her leadership in these areas.

MKMEnglewood, ColoradoMarch 1998

The content of this paper is solely the opinion of the author and does not represent officialposition of the Cherry Creek School District or Board policy. No official support by the CherryCreek Schools is intended or should be inferred.

Dr. M Kevin MatterMarch 1998

Mr. James Cameron#1 Truly Titanic Hit AvenueHollywood, CA 98765-4321

Dear Mr. Cameron:

I have enclosed for your consideration a draft of a screenplay that has thepotential to surpass Titanic in gross revenue that is. Across our great country,state governments and local school districts--prodded by state and federalofficials, with the backing of thousands of parents--have already spent millions ofdollars on this concept. Major profit has yet to be realized across the board--onereason for this letter. With an extremely large established base in place, I believethe concept has huge profit potential, given proper marketing, and improvedcasting and scenery.

By now you are probably wondering what is this concept. In the leadingrole is an unproven, but highly touted star--Standards-Based Education, with astrong supporting cast of Standard-Setting and Multiple Assessments. Whilethe concept has potentially huge profits, so far most attempts have met withlimited success, primarily because implementation has been fragmented,incomplete, and non-systematic. For a successful run, a large budget is required-with which I am sure you can identify. Success requires more than definingcontent standards and setting performance level standards. Budgeted time andfunds for thorough and continuous training of all of the extras (i.e., teachers andprincipals) are critical for a successful product that enhances the quality of lifefor the millions of current and future customers -- students, parents, highereducation, and employers.

By now I am sure that you see the tremendous potential for this concept. Ilook forward to constructive discussions with you, as well as forming apartnership to transform this concept into a successful, long-running attraction.

Sincerely,

M. Kevin. Ma ttexM. Kevin Matter, Ph.D.

Enc.

PROLOGUE

SettingThe Cherry Creek Schools is a growing, 37,000 student suburban

Denver district. Historic core values include a decentralized, site-baseddecision-making philosophy of "agreement on ends and flexibility onmeans." The 1988 State School Finance Act required district-developedproficiencies (standards), and forced agreement on a set of valued studentknowledge and skills. State-adopted standards added additional "content"requirements.

Cherry Creek has a high graduation rate, low dropout rate, andgenerally high average test scores (ACT, SAT, and ITBS/PLAN). Thus,adoption and integration of these "externally" imposed standards were notmet with a lot of initial enthusiasm. However, staffs have embraced thepositive features of standards and have rapidly moved into ensuringimplementation of the content standards in instruction, and high levels ofstudent proficiency on the standards.

Characters

Time

Location

Synopsis

Everyone is a character, only some are more than others.

Now. Not enough. Too much (on state testing process).

Colorado. But probably coming soon to a district near you.

Can local control and standards survive in the new age ofaccountability and national-international comparisons?

Page I

ACT I

Scene 1 -- July 1997Technology Rules: E-mail, Voice Messages, and Phone Conversations

Joe Hansen and Kevin Matter discuss a proposal for a 1998 Division HAERA symposium on standard setting. Several practitioners from around thecountry are interested in sharing their experiences about practical issues inestablishing performance standards at a local level to assess progress towardmeeting local, state, and national standards. Cherry Creek has used a deliberate,teacher- and principal-involved process to craft standards and define performancelevels, and develop an assessment system focused on student performanceimprovement on district standards. Will new political and community pressuresforce changes in priority or the decision-making process in the Cherry CreekSchools?

Scene 2 -- August 1997Board Conference Room at Cherry Creek Schools, Board Study Session

Assessment and Evaluation Office staff present the completed 1997Performance Improvement Report to the Board of Education. The reportsummarizes status on the District Student Achievement Objectives (seeAttachment 1), including the percent of students at the various performancelevels (Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Prebasic) on the reading, writing, andmathematics proficiencies (standards). [Refer to Attachment 2 for a sample.]The performance ratings are made by teachers at the end of the year, usingpredefined descriptions of the performance levels (see Attachment 3). Teachersdetermine proficiency status by rating a student's typical, consistent performance,using multiple pieces of evidence. They compare student performance against thedescriptions of performance, using exemplars of student work, benchmarks, orother indicators that are consistent for all students.

Scene 3 -- September 1997Mission Viejo Elementary School, Board of Education Meeting

The Board of Education, principals, and Curriculum CoordinatingCouncil receive a copy of the Comprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP) draft for

Page 2

7

review and discussion. [Refer to Attachment 4 for a summary of the CAP.] TheCAP's Guiding Principals and proposed assessment plan for 2001-02 stress abalanced set of measures that provide district, state, and national perspectives onstudent performance. The major purposes of assessment are defined asImprovement of Student Learning, Improvement of Instructional Programs,and Public Accountability, Confidence, and Support. No single assessmentresult determines student proficiency, or ensures inclusion in or exclusion fromspecial programs. The major emphasis is on student growth and gain over time,using multiple indicators. The informed professional judgment of teachers is thefoundation of educational decision making for individual students. Standardized,districtwide assessments provide information for teachers to use in calibratingtheir judgments with others, and provide corroborating evidence for proficiencyratings (see Attachment 5).

Scene 4 -- September 1997Doubletree Hotel, Denver

The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) and Colorado Associationof School Executives (CASE) sponsor a workshop for superintendents andassessment staff on strategies for communicating the results of the spring 1997grade 4 Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP). The message tocommunicate through the media to parents and community:

Bad is Good! The CSAP results will be low, but that isexpected for a baseline year. Everyone will perform higherin spring of 1998.

The "bad is good" message is problematic and a challenge to presentconvincingly to the media. Although the CSAP is new, reading and writing arenot new content areas for instruction. Also, less than 70 instructional days areavailable between the release date for the 1997 results and the 1998 CSAPadministration. Therefore, any score changes in 1998 are probably only randomvariation and cannot be attributed to instructional or curricular modificationsbased on the 1997 results.

The November 13 statewide CSAP release date is after the elections.However, controversy remains on the issue of when districts will receive theirCSAP reports. Will they need to release the results before November 13 becauseof open records laws? What to do, what to do?

Page 3

Scene 5 -- September and October 1997Assessment Offices Throughout Colorado

Editorials and letters to the editor in the Denver Post and Rocky MountainNews portend low scores on the CSAP. Everyone is expecting the worst. Somewriters note that the groups setting the cut-points for the performance levels werecomprised of teachers and educators (HORROR!), and rumors abound aboutrevisions of the cut-points based upon low student performance on the test.

Scene 6 -- November 1997Trails West Elementary School, Board of Education Meeting

The Cherry Creek Board of Education approves an Accountability andAccreditation Contract, which is submitted to the State Board of Education. Thiscontract, when approved by the State Board, becomes the guiding document forthe process and procedures by which the District accredits each school, to meetState statutes and rules.

ACT II

Scene 1 -- Flashback: Ten years earlierState Capital Building in Denver, and Schools / Central Administration Offices

The 1988 School Finance Act mandates local boards' adoption ofproficiencies in language arts, mathematics, and science. During the 1999-91school year, Cherry Creek develops proficiencies in these areas. A ProficienciesSteering Committee drafts an implementation plan, as well as a plan to assessstudent status on the proficiencies. Baseline proficiency data are collected in thespring of 1992 at grades 3-12 in language arts, mathematics, and science.

Scene 2 -- Spring 1993State Capital Building, Denver

House Bill 93-1313 mandates district adoption of standards that meet or

Page 4

exceed the State's model content standards. A State testing plan is included in thebill, which calls for matrix sampling of students and subjects and a phase-in over3-5 years of grades and areas tested.

Scene 3 -- 1994 through 1996Cherry Creek School District, Schools and Central Administration Offices

Cherry Creek staff review and, if necessary, revise their proficiencies tomeet or exceed the State Content Standards. District staffs develop a plan toassess student performance on their proficiencies and report status to parents andthe community, using the definition of assessment in the law (i.e., assessmentmeans the methods used to collect evidence of what a student knows or is able todo). In Cherry Creek, locally-developed criterion-referenced and performanceassessments have been given for more than fifteen years. These tests had lowstakes for students and schools; thus, the tests were given, but the results were notsystematically used for performance improvement.

The process used to set performance standards (which more clearly defineand communicate levels of student performance) builds upon Cherry Creek'shistorical efforts in assessment and embodies the district's most valuedphilosophies. This standard setting process is more critical than the developmentof the standards because this culminates in high stake repercussions for states,districts, and/or students. Although a generic standard setting process can bedefined, the critical definitions of performance levels must be unique andacceptable to the audience and focus of the standards. Thus, a district should usea standard setting process that blends well with their values, history, philosophy,and community.

Consistent with District philosophy and practice, the process developed to"assess" student performance on the Cherry Creek standards is based oninformed, professional teacher judgment, using data from multiple sources.Although the results from any test can inform this judgment process, the resultsby themselves do not determine student proficiency status. This "proficiencyassessment" system was conceptualized in the late 1980's, prior to the emergenceof the most recent testing and accountability era.

In spring of 1995, Cherry Creek begins using the Achievement Level Tests(ALT). Assessment and Information Systems staff begin initial discussions on anintegrated database, with the support and backing of Instructional Division

Page 5

10

leadership. Assessment and Evaluation (A&E) Office staff reports preliminaryanalyses on the relationship of student scores on specific tests to student"proficiency" status as determined by teachers. This process producesoverlapping performance bands that generally validate and corroborate theholistic teachers' judgment. The intent is to refine yearly the score range thatdescribes a specific performance level (e.g., Basic), as additional data arecollected. Teachers and principals receive reports of "outliers" or atypicalpatterns or relationships, so these anomalies can be investigated and resolved.A&E staff proposes this "performance bands" structure after an unsuccessfulattempt using a more systematic, bookmarking-style process. Teachers wereunable to examine the ALT Reading test and scale and define a range thatdescribes performance on that test for a particular level (e.g., Basic).

Scene 4 -- Flash Forward to Spring 1998CCSD Assessment and Evaluation Office

A&E staff drafts a form for teachers to use in making proficiency ratings. Theformat incorporates multiple validations and describes the ranges on each testthat relates to Advanced-Proficient-Basic-Prebasic performance on that test (seeAttachment 6).

Scene 5 -- June 1996Colorado State Office Building, State Board of Education Meeting

The State Board of Education adopts new rules and regulations on theaccreditation of districts, and for the first time, individual schools. The rulesrequire districts to develop and adopt an Enterprise Contract with the State. Thecontract must include site visitation teams and three-year school improvementplans. Cherry Creek forms an ad-hoc committee to develop its contract.

Scene 6 -- Summer 1997CCSD Administration Building

The ad-hoc Enterprise Accreditation Contract Committee completes itswork and after substantial review and revision, forwards a proposal to the CherryCreek Schools Board of Education for approval.

Page 6

11

ACT III

Scene 1 -- November 1997School District Administration Offices throughout the State

The 1997 grade 4 CSAP (Colorado Student Assessment Program) resultsfor reading and writing are released. Statewide, the percent of students whoscored at or above a proficient level were "low," particularly in writing. TheCherry Creek results are above the State averages, and the reading scores reflectother district assessment data. The Cherry Creek writing results do notcorrespond as well to other district assessment data.

Local and statewide politicians and education critics point to the 1997CSAP results as further evidence that schools are not doing an adequate job.Some legislators remark that schools should not receive additional funding untilCSAP scores improve. Parents in some districts wonder why the CSAP scores aresubstantially different from the results they received previously on norm-referenced tests. Which results are correct? Newspaper articles, editorials, andmedia talk shows focus on the CSAP for several weeks. The low-profile, low-stakes CSAP rapidly becomes the performance indicator for schools and districts.

Scene 2 -- January 1998CCSD Student Achievement Resource Center, District Administrator Meeting

Cherry Creek principals react (overly?) to the CSAP results andprioritizing improvement efforts. Like a snowball rolling down a steep hill, whichsoon becomes an avalanche (yes, the Colorado Avalanche), suggestions(decisions?) are made to reduce mandated district testing, eliminate or discourageoptional testing, and focus on the CSAP. The assessment plan for 1998-99 asproposed in the CAP (Comprehensive Assessment Plan) is quickly revised todenote the new reality of a high-stakes CSAP (see Attachment 7).

Scene 3 -- February 1998CCSD Administration Building

The Superintendent receives a letter from CDE (Colorado Department of

Page 7

12

Education).. The district's Enterprise Accreditation Contract, submitted to CDEin November 1997 in response to current rules, is being held, pendingclarification and simplification of the accreditation process by the State Board ofEducation. District implementation of the new School Improvement Plan andaccreditation process is put on hold until this work is completed by the StateBoard.

EPILOGUE

Scene 1 -- March 1998CCSD Administration Offices, particularly Assessment & Evaluation

The Assessment & Evaluation and Information Systems offices aredealing with a myriad of implementation issues related to collecting andreporting student performance on standards. Many decisions need to be clarifiedand resolved in order to report, document, and maintain a database onproficiencies. [For example, a process must be established for handling multipleperformance ratings for one student on the same proficiency. If a Language Artsteacher assigns "Proficient" status and a Reading teacher assigns "Basic" statusin reading, which is "truth?"]

Cherry Creek teachers and administrators are invested in the systembecause it is ours, not imposed from outside the district. Thus, teachers view thestandard setting process and the resultant performance levels as an important stepin corroborating their proficiency ratings, and valuable in the critical calibrationprocess between teachers (to reduce variation). Standardized, objective pieces ofdata are valued by parents and the community, as external validations of studentperformance.

A critical issue to address and resolve: Balancing the different purposes ofassessments, and maintaining focus on which assessment information will bestserve the needs of Cherry Creek related to student performance improvement onthe proficiencies. Arguments that Cherry Creek should reduce or eliminate norm-or criterion- referenced tests are based on the false assumption that tests provideprecise, reliable, and consistent information at each level--district, school, andindividual student.

Page 8

13

Lesson Learned:Be Not a Fool. Learn From Others.

Do not try to make something precise that is not precise--something exactthat is not exact--something stable that is not stable. The history of stateassessment programs throughout the nation is a tale of instability andinconsistency over time. One of the guiding principles in Cherry Creek'sComprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP) is an emphasis on student growth andgain for the same students or groups over time. This type of data is not providedby most state assessment programs, and probably never will be a focus.

Cherry Creek can--and must--control its local assessment plan. CherryCreek cannot depend upon the State assessment program to provide the dataneeded to diagnose and plan interventions in a timely manner, particularly at astudent level. Cherry Creek cannot depend upon consistency of the Stateassessment program over time. Each legislative session may - -and probably will- -bring revisions to the state testing plan, for the current year or for future years.

Cherry Creek must communicate a clear, compelling message toprincipals, teachers, and parents about the necessity to maintain a comprehensiveassessment system that will provide the data for Improvement of StudentLearning, Improvement of Instructional Programs, and PublicAccountability, Confidence, and Support. If successful, the data will beavailable to inform timely, effective decision-making. If unsuccessful, decisionswill be made using incomplete and insufficient assessment data.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: District Student Achievement Objectives

Attachment 2: Sample of Writing Proficiency

Attachment 3: Proficiency Rating Scale

Attachment 4: CAP Summary

Attachment 5: Proficiency Ratings Compared with Assessment Results

Attachment 6: Draft of the Multiple Validations Form

Attachment 7: Proposed 1998-99 District Assessment Schedule[\divh \aera98]

Page 9

ATrActi

CHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS

District Student Achievement Objectives

C.) All students at the 5th, 8th, and 12th grades will meet or exceed the basic level ofperformance on district-defined proficiencies in language arts by 1996, and additionally inmathematics and science by 1997. The percentage of students reaching the proficient andadvanced levels will increase yearly. [PROFICIENCIES]

Student academic achievement will improve because of attendance in the Cherry CreekSchool District, as measured by valid and credible assessments.

IPERFORAWICE riteRovEmany

0 All minority students will meet or exceed the district-required proficiency standards andmake academic growth ofone year or more on standardized tests.

[MINORITY STUDENT ACHI

0 All students will enter school ready to learn, and be reading at grade level by the end offirst grade. [READING: GRADE 1]

© All students new to the district will be evaluated upon entry, and those workingsubstantially below grade level will be given the assistance they need to meet or exceed therequired proficiency standards and make academic growth of one year or more for eachyear of school. [NEW STUDENTS]

© Sigh performing students will receivean academic challenge commensurate with theirabilities, and meet or exceed expected gains on standardized tests.

[HIGH PERFORMING STUDIWIS]

October 3, 1994

1 5

AT-t-A-cttot--7ktr 2

CHERRY CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICTELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROFICIENCIES

The elementary school student literate in language arts:

3. Reads to construct meaning by interacting with the text, by recognizing the different requirements ofa variety of printed materials, and by using appropriate strategies to increase comprehension.Standards of Performance

BasicThe Student

reads a variety of material includingchildrent literature, textbooks, andreference materials appropriate of theelementary level.comprehends at a literal level.recalls and builds badcgroundknowledge by exploring informationrelated to the text.identifies the main idea andsupporting details.with guidance, begins to usestrategies to develop fluency andadjust rate when reading bothnarrative and expository text

ProficientThe Student

reads a variety of material includingchildren's literature, textbooks, andreference materials appropriate to theelementary levelcomprehends and draws inferencesbeyond the literal levelrecalls and builds badcgroundknowledge by exploring informationrelated to the text and drawingirdererces.identifies the author's intent, mainidea, and supporting details anddraws inferences when responding tothe text.applies appropriate strategies toincrease fluency and adjust rate whenreacting both narrative and expositorytext

16

AdvancedThe Student

reads a variety of material includingliterature, textbooks, and referencematerials appropriate to theelementary level.comprehends at both literal andinterpretive levels.synthesizes information by recallingand building background knowledge.explores information related to thetext and draws inferences.critiques the author's intent andpurpose and analyzes the text formeaning, drawing inferences andchallenging the value of the text.selects and comprehends readingmaterial and applies strategies toincrease fluency and adjust ratewhen reading both narrative andexpository te:ct.

5TH GRADE LANGUAGE ARTS PROFICIENCIES

9/96

CHERRY CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICTELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROFICIENCIES

The elementary school student literate in language arts:

4. Produces writing that conveys purpose and meaning, uses effective writing strategies, andincorporates the conventions of written language to communicate clearly.

Standards of Performance

BasicThe Student

produces creative, expository,technical, or personal writing on anassigned or self-selected topicappropriate to the elernenbuy level.presents the main idea dearly withfew supporting details.produces writing with a beginning,middle and end, but the content ofthese elements may be weakuses a writer's voice and word choicethat conveys meaning.uses sentence structure that lacksvariety.produces writing that isunderstandable but may containerrors.

ProficientThe Student

produces creative, expository,technical, or personal writing on anassigned or self-selected topicappropriate to the elementary level.presents the main idea dearly withsufficient and interesting detailsproduces dear organizzdion andlogical sequencing of ideas.uses a writer voice and word choicethat are appropriate, with some varietyof sentence stmchres.edits and eliminates some errors.

AdvancedThe Student

produces creative, expository,technical, or personal writing on anassigned or self-selected topicappropriate to the elementary level.thoughtfully connects opinions,specific details, and examples.produces dear and effectiveotganization and logical sequencing ofideas.uses a writer's voice and word choicethat are appropriate to subject,purpose and audience.uses sentence structure thatenhances meaning.edits and eliminates most errors.

5TH GRADE LANGUAGE ARTS PROFICIENCIES

179196

K-12 Proficiency Level Descriptors

ADVANCED

A-TTA-C.tfixavr 3

Performance greatly exceeds proficiency and is clearly exemplary because ofattention to detail and sophistication.Performance meets the criteria at the "advanced" level for the benchmark orstandard at that grade level.Performance greatly exceeds grade level/course expectations.

PROFICIENT

BASIC

Performance demonstrates understanding and application.Performance meets most or all criteria at the "proficient" level for the benchmarkor standard at that grade level.Performance is at or above grade level/course expectations.

Performance reflects a fundamental or rudimentary level of skill; a novice level.Performance meets most or all criteria at the "basic" level forthe benchmark orstandard at that grade level.Performance is below grade level/course expectations.

PREBASIC

Performance reflects an area of concern. Student needs significant assistance.Performance does not yet meet the "basic" level for the benchmark or standard atthat grade level.Performance is significantly below grade level/course expectations.

* At grade levels where there are no benchmarks or exit standards, use the first and third bulletsto judge the level of proficiency performance.

November 6, 1997

18

A-r-t-irctote-ivr-

Cherry Creek SchoolsDedicated to Excellence

ComprehensiveAssessment Plan

--Enhancing Student Growth & Performance--

September 1997

(DISCUSSION DRAFT)

11. 9

CHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS

Comprehensive Assessment Plan

Assessment Team

Maria Foseid, M.A. - Staff Development Coordinator

M. Kevin Matter, Ph.D. - Assessment & Evaluation DirectorNorma Silvers, M.A. - Administrative Assistant

Mary Terch, M.A. - Executive Director of Elementary Education

Paulette Wasserstein, Ed.D. - Assessment & Evaluation ConsultantNola Wellman, Ph.D. - Executive Director of Middle School Education

Connie L. Zumpf, Ph.D. - Assessment & Evaluation Associate

Board of Education

Donald K. Goe, Ed.D. - PresidentGerald N. Weaver, J.D. - Vice President

Joan B. Grady, Ph.D. - TreasurerWendy A. DeBell - Secretary

Richard E. Collier, B.S.E.E. - Ass't Sec.-Treas.

Superintendent of Schools

Robert D. Tschirki, Ph.D.

4700 S. Yosemite StreetEngelwood, Colorado 80111

(303) 486-4233FAX (303) 486-4488

September 1997

Copyright © 1997 Cherry Creek Schools

20

Comprehensive Assessment Plan. HighlightsCherry Creek Schools

Part I: Introduction

The Need for a Comprehensive Assessment Plan

The assessment of student academic progress isessential in maintaining excellence in the CherryCreek School District. Stakeholders of the districtrely on information about the quality of educationprovided to students. The purpose of thisComprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP) is toeffectively and systematically collect andcommunicate student academic progress through theK-12 system. It is intended to provide information atkey points throughout a child's educational journey.In addition, a variety of assessment techniques areused to collect qualitative and quantitativeinformation. These data create a comprehensivepicture of what a student knows and is able to do.

The following Comprehensive Assessment Planaddresses the needs, focuses, and directions from theEducation Summit, Proficiencies Project, and InSearch of Excellence. The document proposes abalanced, purposeful assessment system for the year2002. After describing the proposal for 2002, theplan includes a sequential transition plan from 1997-98 to 2001-02 at all grade levels in each content area.It provides a framework for the collection, analysis,and use of student achievement information.

JO

Part II: Guiding Principles for a Comprehensive Assessment Planfor 2002

The assessments in the Comprehensive AssessmentPlan (CAP) are tools that provide data to helpcomplete a picture of performance and achievementfor a student, a school, and the district. District staffand community members study and use the data totransform it into information. As a performance-improvement organization, the Cherry Creek staff, andcommunity at large, rely upon quality information tomake informed evaluation decisions, choices, orjudgments.

Assessments in the plan, particularly those useddistrictwide, should adhere to a common set of guiding

principles, or shared assumptions about the essentialpurposes served by assessment, quality standards forassessments in the plan, and interpretation, use, andcommunication of assessment results.

The guiding principles provide the basis for the CherryCreek Schools Board Policy on Assessment andEvaluation, currently under review. These guidingprinciples provide a focus for decision making aroundassessment instruments, assessment practices, and useof results.

Guiding Principle 1: Essential Purposes of Assessment

All district assessment decisions originate from a setof well-defined purposes. Simply stated, theoverarching purpose of all assessment activities is toenhance student growth and performance.Specifically, district assessments provide data thatrelate to eight purposes within three general areas:

Improvement of Student Learning

1. Teachers use assessment data to createinstructional focus for their classrooms and forindividual students (including the diagnosis ofspecial needs and decisions about placement inspecial programs).

2. Teachers use assessment data to support andvalidate ratings of student proficiency.

3. Teachers monitor student progress over timethrough CAP assessments.

4. Students and parents use assessment results toassist them in reaching student educational goals,by providing individual and comparativeinformation.

Improvement of Instructional Programs

5. District staff monitor status of the District StudentAchievement Objectives (see Appendix) throughassessment data.

6. School staff use achievement profiles, derivedfrom assessment data, for school improvement.

7. Decision makers use assessment data to evaluateschool and district programs. These data providevaluable insights to curriculum development (i.e.,assessment helps to determine whether certainskills are being taught and learned).

Public Accountability, Confidence, andSupport

8. The Board of Education, school communities, andthe district are informed about the quality ofeducational programs through assessment reports,which provide comparative information aboutdistrict programs and others in the nation.

Assessment and evaluation are processes that evolveand change over time. Therefore, we continually seekto improve the ways in which we assess students andthe means by which we communicate and useassessment results.

22

Guiding Principle 2: Quality Assessment Data

In order for our CAP to provide informationrelevant to the purposes described above,assessments within the system must providequality data. Widely recognized standards ofquality guide the selection of publishers' tests andthe development of standardized district-createdassessments.

Guiding Principle 3: Multiple Indicators

District assessments in the CAP provide distinctkinds of coverage of knowledge and skills and avariety of perspectives on student achievement.

MeaningfulnessTechnical RigorGeneralizabilityCost EffectivenessEquitability/Protection of Students

No single assessment or assessment type provides acomplete picture of what students know and can do.

Guiding Principle 4: "Value-Added" Perspective

The basis for any evaluation of curriculum orinstructional effectiveness in Cherry CreekSchools is the educational value added toindividual students and student groups over time.When we compare school or classroom gains, wemust take into account those pre-existingdemographic factors and levels of prior

knowledge known to influence school performance.By focusing on student growth and gain over time,we measure and report the impact of curriculum andinstruction on student performance regardless ofindividual differences in starting points.

Guiding Principle 5: Communication of Assessment Information

Teachers, principals, parents, and othereducational decision makers understand and useassessment information in order to makeinstructional decisions that result in performance

improvement. To this end, the district providesresources and support for a yearly cycle ofassessment reports, training, and information.

Guiding Principle 6: Informed Teacher Judgments

In Cherry Creek, we support the informedprofessional judgments of our teachers as thefoundation of educational decision making forindividual students. We strive to ensure the

accuracy and consistency in these judgments. To thisend, the district provides assessment feedback that isaccurate, clear, concise, and timely.

23

Nue 4 CAP Highlights September 1997

PART III: Comprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP) for 2002

The assessments in the CAP are tools that providedata to help provide a systematic, comprehensivepicture of performance and achievement for astudent, a school, and the district. Assessments inthe CAP reflect the Guiding Principles outlined inPart II (pp 3-5) of this document. Each purpose ismatched with assessments that provide the mostrelevant and useful data for decisions related tothat purpose. All assessments in the CAP aretechnically sound, and conform to qualitystandards. In order to support informed teacherjudgments, the types of district assessmentactivities K-12 provide teachers with multipleindicators of student performance from severalcomparative perspectives (see below). The timing

of certain assessments in the CAP allows educationaldecision makers to make informed judgments aboutthe educational value added to students and studentgroups over time. Finally, the communication ofassessment results and use are major components ofany assessment decision.

Since assessment data are important to a number ofaudiences (parents, teachers, community, etc.), theplan must provide comparative information valuedby each audience. Therefore, data from assessmentsin the CAP provide relevant performanceinformation from district, state, and nationalperspectives.

CAP Assessments That Provide a District Perspective

The major focus of the CAP is to provideinformation about student progress and programeffectiveness in relation to mastery of districtproficiencies (which are designed to reflect stateand national standards). Assessments that providea predominantly district perspective must bealigned with curriculum objectives andproficiencies. District assessments must also allow

for reliable measurement of student progress ondistrict objectives and proficiencies over time.

Student Proficiency Status Data CollectionAchievement Level TestsPerformance-Based Assessments (PBA's)School and Classroom-Based Assessments

CAP Assessments That Provide a National Perspective

The CAP must provide information that allowsstakeholders to compare the overall performanceof our students with that of students in the nationin essential areas of knowledge and skill. Testswith national reference groups (e.g., the Iowa

Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), the PLAN, and theACT / SAT), enable an "external look" at ourcurriculum and student performance. Ourstakeholders and district community value thisperspective.

CAP Assessments That Provide a State Perspective

The CAP provides information that allowsstakeholders to assess the overall performance ofour students on state-mandated standards ofknowledge and skill. The Colorado StudentAssessment Program (CSAP) is a state-mandatedcomponent of our district plan, and will eventually

provide an additional perspective on studentachievement. However, the CSAP is currently underdevelopment, and is characterized by change fromyear to year. At this point in time, it is difficult todetermine and plan for the extent to which CSAPwill provide consistent, usable data for our districtplan.

24

September 1997 CAP Highlights Page 5

Perspectives Included in the CAP Assessments

National Perspective

Norm Referenced Tests

ASSESSMENTPURPOSES

Improvement of StudentLearningImprovement of Instruc-tional ProgramsPublic Accountability,Confidence, and

DISTRICT PERSPECTIVE

Class / School

PortfoliosProjectsTeacher Made TestsTeacher ObservationPerformance TasksStudent Self Assessment

District

State Perspective

Colorado Student AssessmentProgram

Achievement Level TestsPerformance Assessments

In Writing and ReadingCurriculum Referenced Tests

25

Page 6 CAP Elit.thliuhts September 1997

District Assessments: The Assessment Program in 1996-97

GRADETEST

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

DISTRICT PERSPECTIVE: Mastery of district proficiertcks/standards

ALT (Reading, Math)objective tests

F/S S S

WRITING PERFORMANCEperformance-based

F/S F/S F/S F/S F/S M F

SCIENCE PROCESSobjective tests

S S S

HEALTH objective tests EOC EOC

PROFICIENCY DATACOLLECTION S S S S S. S S S S S

. ATIO/iiiiiSPEetl:v4;;ikitionalCo anson mJbimation

ITBS (Reading, Math, Language,

Information Usage)objective tests

S S F F F

CogAT (Nonverbal/Spatial)

objective tests

F

NELSON DENNY (Reading )objective tests

F S

PLAN (Reading, Math, Language,

Science) objective testsF

ACT / SAT (Reading, Math, Science)objective & performance-based

X X

,, ATEPERSPECI7Masieiy:Ofstittg ar

STATE ASSESSMENTGrade: 3-Reading; 4-Reading, Writing;

5-Math; 8-Math, Scienceobjective & performance-based

S

F = Fall M = Mid-year S = Spring X = Scheduled dates throughout year EOC = end of courseALT: Achievement Level Tests ROWO: Read On-Write On writing assessmentITBS: Iowa Tests of Basic Skills CogAT: Cognitive Abilities TestACT / SAT: College entrance exams

26

District Assessments: The Proposed Assessments for 2001-02The following assessments are required for all schools in the district.

GRADETEST

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

ip-,,,,::::=,-.1.:-.:,-, -77,34,,:,..-,=,......,:,.,.=, ISIRICTPERS., PEcTIV,Ei,.. at d "1.:i a,TtC '4.:s :tall::-..... .,-

ALT(Reading, Math, Language, middleschool Science)objective tests

S S S S S S S

READING PERFORMANCEperformance-based

X X X

WRITING PERFORMANCEperformance-based

F F F F

.M

.

S

MATH PERFORMANCEperformance-based

X X X

SCIENCE INVESTIGATIONdemonstration

S

PROFICIENCY DATACOLLECTION

S S S S. SS S S

,i; .- ,'-,,,-'-" . 'r..-- ._.....=' .17-v 6-;-:',3.11=1,-%

-t- TIONAEPERSPEtwm:I§raianareomparisair .

ITBS (Reading, Math, Language,

Information Usage)objective tests

F F

PLAN (Reading, Math, Language,Science)

objective tests

F

ACT / SAT' (Reading, Math, Science)objective el performance-based TbtY

. .

CogAT (Nonverbal/Spatial)objective tests

F

. . _

.:7,..........4

74. --,.. . ATE...-,.. .=,-

,, ...,.,=,1;PERSP ast ltatettan

.f,"'"'". <-:

', ' .

STATE ASSESSMENTGrade: 3-Reading;4-Reading, Writing

5-Math; 8-Math, Scienceobjective & performance -based

S S S S

'ACT and SAT not required by the district, but by colleges

F = Fall M = Mid-year S = Spring X = Scheduled dates throughout year

CH

ER

RY

CR

EE

K S

CH

OO

L D

IST

RIC

TA

sses

smen

t Tec

hniq

ue M

atch

ed to

Pur

pose

Ach

ieve

men

t Com

paris

onI

Sta

te.

t>c)

c>c>

c>1

Nat

iona

l.

Dis

tric

t.

Sch

ool /

Cla

ssro

omO

ther

Ach

ieve

men

t Inf

orm

atio

n

Ass

essm

ent T

echn

ique

i:,c>

c)i=

;.

Sta

teT

ests

NR

Tt'i

'es/

PLA

N /

ACT-SAT

Ach

ieve

men

t Lev

el T

ests

Com

pute

rA

dapt

ive

Tes

tsC

RT

Per

for-

man

ceT

ests

Pro

ficie

ncy

Dat

aC

olle

ctio

n

Sch

ool/

Cla

ssro

omA

sses

smen

ts

Gra

deP

oint

Ave

rage

Pro

ficie

ncy

Sta

tus

Cla

ssR

anki

ng

Impr

ovem

ent o

f St

uden

t Lea

rnin

g

1. In

stru

ctio

nal f

ocus

(dia

gnos

es o

f spe

cial

need

s an

d pl

acen

ient

deci

sion

s)

53

33

23

1x

2. S

uppo

rt /

valid

ate

teac

her

judg

men

ts o

fst

uden

t pro

ficie

ncy.

54

23

31

xx

3. M

onito

r in

divi

dual

stud

ent p

rogr

ess

over

time

41

23

xx

4.F

eedb

ack

to s

tude

nts

and pa

rent

s re

late

d to

educ

atio

nal g

oals

51

14

32

12

12

1

Impr

ovem

ent o

f In

stru

ctio

nal P

rogr

ams

5. M

onito

r ac

hiev

emen

ti

of d

istr

ict S

tude

nti

32

23

4I

x

AC

hiev

emen

t Obj

ectiv

es

6.. S

choo

l pro

files

53

14

32

xx

,

7. E

valu

atio

n of

sch

ool

1

and/

or d

istr

ict p

rogr

ams

i3

31

23

23

x1 i

Publ

ic A

ccou

ntab

ility

, Con

fide

nce,

and

Sup

port

1

8. In

form

the

dist

rict,

1

com

mun

ity; a

nd s

choo

l1

2

boar

d ab

out e

duca

tiona

lty

prog

ram

qua

lity

2I

33

Ix

x

CR

T: C

urric

ulum

Ref

eren

ced

Tes

tN

RT

: Nor

m R

efer

ence

d T

est

RA

TIN

G S

CA

LEI =

Bes

t / o

ptim

al te

chni

que

for

that

ass

essm

ent p

urpo

se3

= A

dequ

ate

tech

niqu

e fo

r th

at a

sses

smen

t pur

pose

5 =

Min

imal

ly a

ccep

tabl

e te

chni

que

for

that

ass

essm

ent p

urpo

seB

LAN

K a

Tec

hniq

ue n

ot p

ract

ical

or

appr

opria

te fo

r th

at a

sses

smen

t pur

pose

x =

App

licab

le to

pur

pose

'* In

clud

es p

roje

cts,

por

tfolio

s, e

tc.

CH

ER

RY

CR

EE

K S

CH

OO

L D

IST

RIC

TA

udie

nce

Mat

ched

to P

urpo

se

..A

UD

IEN

CE

.

Ass

essm

ent P

urpo

se%

. ta

tat t

e %

. ith

Stud

ent

Tea

cher

Pare

ntC

ouns

elo

rSc

hool

Dis

tric

tB

oard

of E

duc

Publ

ic

Impr

ovem

ent o

f St

uden

t Lea

rnin

g

I. I

nsir

uctiO

nal f

ocus

(dia

gnos

es o

f sp

ecia

lne

eds

and

plac

emen

t,

deci

sion

s) >

:'

2. S

uisp

ort I

Val

idat

ele

sche

ijudg

men

ts o

fSt

uden

t pro

fici

ency

3 M

onito

r in

divi

dual

stud

ent p

rogr

eiS

over

time

4 Fe

edbi

ck to

:Stu

dent

s.:

..,-:

;.par

ents

rel

ated

to..

educ

atio

nal g

oils

Impr

ovem

ent o

f In

stru

ctio

nal P

rogr

ams

Mon

itor

achi

evem

ent

of d

istr

ict S

tude

ntA

chie

vem

ent O

bjec

tives

6. S

choo

l pro

file

s

7. E

valu

atio

n of

sch

ool

andf

or d

istr

ict p

rogr

ams

Publ

ic A

ccou

ntab

ility

, Con

fide

nce,

and

Sup

port

8 In

form

the

dist

rict

com

mun

ity, a

nd s

choo

lx

xx

x

boar

d ab

out e

duca

tiona

lpr

ogra

m q

ualit

y

30X

= A

sses

smen

t res

ults

fro

m p

urpo

se im

port

ant i

nfor

mat

ion

to a

udie

nce

BL

AN

K =

Ass

essm

ent r

esul

ts f

rom

pur

pose

less

impo

rtan

t to

audi

ence

NO

TE

: Ass

essm

ent d

ata

colle

cted

for

a sp

ecif

ic p

urpo

se is

mor

e/le

ssre

leva

nt o

r im

port

ant t

o m

embe

rsof

par

ticul

ar a

udie

nces

.

31

Pa 2e 10 CAP 1-liuhli2hts September 1997

Part V: Use of Assessment Information: Communication Plan

Annual Cycle of Reporting, Information Sharing, and Training Activities

The Guiding Principles for this ComprehensiveAssessment Plan (CAP) emphasize the importanceof using assessment data for effective educationaldecision making and instruction. Stakeholdersreceive appropriate assessment information andresults in a timely fashion before and after eachassessment administration. Communications areaccurate, clear, concise, and meaningful to meet theparticular needs of each constituent group in orderto support decision making. An annual cycle ofreporting, information sharing, and trainingactivities supports the three general purposes forassessment.

Improvement of Student LearningStudents, parents, and teachers receive individualstudent assessment results for all district tests. In,addition, teachers have access to reports thatsummarize student performance across more thanone performance indicator. For example, one;,report;,:,.summarizes student reading performance froMthreemeasures: the Iowa Tests of Basic Skilla'(/TBS),:.thedistrict Achievement Level Test (ALT); andAheteacher-assigned proficiency rating. Teacher's andparents use assessment results and inforthation tohelp guide academic decisionainforni'placementdeterminations, and motivate students. Teachers andparents teach students to use assessment results andinformation in their own self-evaluation process.

Improvement of Instructional ProgramsOn a broader scale, assessment results help todetermine program and school effectiveness andguide allocation of district resources. The Office ofAssessment & Evaluation (A & E) creates andprovides reports and analyses of summary schooland district assessment results. The PerformanceImprovement Report examines teacher proficiencyratings, and compares these data to AchievementLevel Tests, district performance assessments ofreading and writing, and nationally norm-referencedindicators (e.g4,ITBS, SAT). Profiles of School(Performance provide similar analyses for eachschool. Articulation Reports summarize assessmentinformation by content area across academic levelsby high'school or middle school feeder group.Curriculum coordinators use this information for

,curriculum alignment activities.

Public Accountability, Confidence, Support

Assessment information informs our communityand helps to earn public support and confidence.Public domain reports such as the PerformanceImprovement Report and Comprehensive School andDistrict Profiles summarize student performance onmultiple achievement indicators, analyzeachievement gains and trends over time, and provideappropriate national, state, and district comparisonperspectives.

Role of the District in the Use of Assessment Information

The District has several key roles andresponsibilities that assure a balanced, purposeful,comprehensive assessment plan. The districtestablishes the degree of standardization needed for

a valid and reliable assessment system. Districtstaff model sound assessment practices andeffective, responsible analysis and use ofassessment information.

Key Responsibilities of the District:

Engender support and understanding for theCAP from school and district staff, and thedistrict community at large.Provide time and resources to effectivelyimplement and support the plan.

Review and update the plan periodically.Provide valid, reliable assessment resultsabout students and programs.Provide quality staff development on the useand interpretation of assessment information.

32

September 1997 CAP Highlights Pate 11

Roles and Responsibilities of Assessment Stakeholdersin the Use of Assessment Information

In Cherry Creek, all stakeholder groups areconnected participants within the same system.Educational emphasis at home impacts studentengagement at school. Achievement goals set by theBoard of Education and accountability committeesaffect instructional focus in the classroom. Learningat third and fourth grade impacts the performance ofthese same students on the ACT in high school.Therefore, it is important that each stakeholdergroup have sufficient information with which to seea complete performance picture (e.g., across gradelevels or within feeder systems), and determineconstructive comparisons, evaluations, and goals.

Our target is always to improve studentperformance. To this end, we share informationopenly and maintain an environment in which allstakeholder groups engage professionally andconstructively in data use. Parents, students,advisory accountability committees, teachers,building level administrators, district curriculumcommittees and the Board of Education mustassume certain roles and responSibilities in order forassessment information to be communicated andused appropriately and effectively. These aredescribed below, along with the assessmentinformation provided to each stakeholder group.

Role of the Parent:

Parents are active participants in the assessmentprocess. They motivate and encourage their'children to engage seriously in assessmentactivities and help children to understand;7:assessment feedback. Parents also encourage theirchildren to act on assessment feedback in order toimprove knowledge and

Parents have a unique and rich perspective on theirchildrens' learning behaviors. This information canhelp teachers interpret assessment results andimplement appropriate instructional strategies.

Rey Responsibilities of the Parent:

Participate in parent/teacher conferences anddiscussions regarding interpretation ofassessment feedback, appropriate educationalplacement, and individual learning plans.Monitor student progress over time. Acceptresponsibility in partnership with the schoolfor a student's progress over time.Take part in district and school sponsoredopportunities to understand studentperformance standards, assessments andassessment feedback.Discuss assessment feedback with childrenand help them to act upon this information toimprove knowledge and skills.

Assessment Information Provided to Parents:

Prior to each district assessment, schoolsdisseminate parent guides that describeassessments and purposes. After districtassessments, schools provide student resultsand interpretational materials to parents.Teachers share feedback from district andclassroom assessment activities in parent/teacher conferences.Through the schools, parents have access toappropriate school, district, and/or national

comparisons, and interpretational guidelines.Through stakeholders reports provided by thedistrict, parents receive annual highlights ofschool and district achievement results and, ifavailable, national summary comparisons.As district reports are published, the districtfacilitates community meetings focused onunderstanding and interpreting reports andtheir implications.

33.

Paoe 17 CAP Highlights September 1997

Students

Role of the Student:

Students participate actively in the assessmentprocess and are key stakeholders in the effectiveuse of assessment data for improved performance.With parent and teacher guidance, students engageseriously in assessment activities, attempt a varietyof assessment formats when offered, and learn howto use assessment feedback to improveperformance.

Key Responsibilities of the Student:

Reflect and act on feedback from parents andteachers to improve performance.Learn about areas of strength and weakness.Learn to assess their own work based on setcriteria (e.g., student rubrics).With teacher and parent guidance, monitorprogress over time.

Assessment Information Provided to Students:

Teachers explain assessment activities prior toeach assessment.Teachers educate students about how tointerpret assessment feedback at age-appropriate levels and assess their own work.

Parents and teachers share and discussindividual assessment feedback with childrenand help them to act upon this information toimprove knowledge and skills.

District and School Advisory Accountability Committees

Role of Advisory Accountability Committees:,

Advisory accountability committees activelyparticipate in and help guide educational planningat the district and the school levels. These groupsassist district staff in holding the district andindividual schools accountable for instructionalfocus, growth over time, valid assessment, andeffective communication of achievement andperformance improvement.

Key Responsibilities of Advisory AccountabilityCommittees:

Promote the use of fiscal resources to attainthe District Student Achievement Objectives.Monitor school and district status and progresson the District Student AchievementObjectives established by the Board ofEducation.Assist in development of district and schoolgoals and action plans in order to achieve theStudent Achievement Objectives. Monitorprogress on these goals and action plans.

Assessment Information Provided to Advisory Accountability Committees:

The Office of Assessment and Evaluation (A& E) provides accountability chair people withassessment data that allow committees toevaluate school and district progress on goals.These include Performance ImprovementReports, School and District Profiles, andreports of school progress on StudentAchievement Objectives. A & E staff alsomeet with committees to review and evaluaterelevant information.

34

A & E provides school, area, and districtworkshops focused on understandingassessment purposes, results interpretation,programmatic implications of summaryassessment results, and writing schoolimprovement goals.

September 1997 CAP HiLthliuhts Pale 13

Teachers

Role of the Teacher:

The teacher is both an instructor and an assessor.Teachers use assessment data to guide instructionand to make determinations about studentinvolvement in educational programs. Teachersalso make accountable and consistent judgments ofstudent performance using assessment information.

Teachers recognize that data from classroom testsas well as district, state, or national exams provideuseful information for planning instruction forperformance improvement. This perspective callsfor a shift from one-time testing (i.e., exit exams)to measuring continuous progress towardsattainment of proficiencies and curricularobjectives at all grade levels.

Key Responsibilities of the Teacher:

Select and/or develop classroom assessmentsthat focus on the essential parts of curriculumand instruction and on what students shouldknow and be able to do.Provide for multiple assessment opportunitiesthat allow students to demonstrate andteachers to evaluate performance using avariety of formats.Take part in school and district-sponsoredtraining opportunities that focus onunderstanding assessment data and sharingassessment results with parents and students.Use assessment data to improve instructionthat results in increased student performance.Use assessment results to calibrate andstrengthen teacher ratings of individual studentproficiency.Teach students how to understand assessmentdata for self-assessment and for improvingtheir performance.Effectively communicate assessmentinformation to parents.

Assessment Information Provided to Teachers:

Teachers receive or have easy access tohistorical test and proficiency data for eachstudent.Prior to each assessment, the Office ofAssessment & Evaluation (A & E) providesinservices and information about testcoordination and administration.After each assessment, teachers receiveindividual student results and class summaries.Throughout the year the district providestraining on assessment purposes, resultsinterpretation, sharing results with studentsand parents, and instructional implications ofassessment results.

35

Periodically, teachers receive informationabout the extent to which district assessmentresults corroborate teacher ratings ofproficiency for individual students. Thesereports provide ongoing opportunities forteachers to engage in professional dialog aboutissues of consistency and reliability.A & E provides principals with assessmentresults across academic levels fromelementary to middle school, and from middleto high school within a feeder area. Principalsshare this information with teachers andcontent area coordinators.

Paue 14 CAP Highlights September 1997

Principals and District Administrators

Role of the Building Administrator (Principal):

The building principal assumes leadership foranalysis and use of assessment data, and serves asthe primary assessment information resource forteachers and parents in their school community.

Principals monitor the assessment practices ofteachers and encourage the development andselection of assessments that are integral toinstruction, appropriate, and aligned with thestandards set by the district. Principals establishand maintain priorities for teacher understandingand use of assessment data.

Part of the administrative evaluation and goalsetting process for building principals is todemonstrate the ability to understand and interpretschool assessment results, establish appropriatedata-based goals, and carry out and measure theimpact of action plans.

Key Responsibilities of the BuildingAdministrator:

Use assessment results to guide appropriateinstructional/curricular changes for improvedstudent performance at all levels.Effectively engage teachers in the under-standing and use of assessment information toimprove instruction.Guide the development of data-based goals inthe advisory accountability committee.Communicate and interpret assessmentinformation effectively to parents.Work with teachers to engender a high level ofcompetence and comfort with communicatingassessment feedback with parents and students.Use data provided by the district to facilitateteacher awareness of issues of consistency andreliability in teacher ratings of studentperformance.Ensure appropriate time and resources forassessment staff development. Provideopportunities for teachers to participate indistrict assessment training activities.Participate in district-sponsoredadministrators' inservices on the use andinterpretation of assessment results.Review school assessment data with theirExecutive Director and describeinterpretations and action plans that resultfrom assessment data.

Assessment Information Provided to the Building Administrator:

After each assessment, A & E providesadministrators with summary results forclassrooms, schools, and district.Principals receive assessment data that allowthem to evaluate school progress on StudentAchievement Objectives. These includePerformance Improvement Reports, Schooland District Profiles, and comprehensivenotebooks of each school's assessment data.Principals receive summary information aboutthe extent to which district assessment resultscorroborate teacher ratings of proficiency forstudents. These reports provide ongoingopportunities for school staff to engage inprofessional dialog about issues of consistency

and reliability in the teacher judgment process.A & E provides principals with assessmentresults across academic levels fromelementary to middle school, and from middleto high school within a feeder area. Principalsshare this information with teachers andcontent area coordinators.Throughout the year, A & E providesopportunities for administrator inservicesfocused on appropriate interpretation, use, andprogrammatic implications of summaryassessment results. A & E also providesmaterials and resources for presenting resultsto teachers and parents.

36

September 1997 CAP Flighlitzhts Page 15

Curriculum Coordinating Council (CCC)

Role of the Curriculum Coordinating Council:

The CCC is a committee made up of teachers,content area coordinators, school and districtadministrators, and district staff. In general, theCCC oversees and informs the assessment processfor the district. The council identifies the keyelements of assessment needs and guides the designof district-, school-, and classroom-levelassessments and tasks. The CCC initiates new orrevised district and/or classroom assessments basedon identified needs, guides development andrevision processes, and authorizes implementation.

Key Responsibilities of CCC:

Establish and monitor criteria for assessmentselection, development, and revision.Provide guidance for teachers in selecting ordeveloping their own assessments.Create, maintain, and update banks ofassessments, test items, tasks, and rubrics.Monitor the alignment of assessments with thecurriculum guides and with districtproficiencies and standards.Using assessment data, guide the alignment ofinstructional focus within and across feederareas to ensure consistency.

Assessment Information Provided to the CCC or CCC task forces:

CCC members have access to A & Eassessment library and training resources. A &E also provides resources and people to assistin the selection, development, and revision ofdistrict assessments.CCC members receive assessment data thatallow them to evaluate district and feeder areaprogress on Student Achievement. Objectives.These include Performance ImprovementReports, School and District Profiles, andcomprehensive notebooks of each feederarea's assessment data.

CCC members receive summary informationabout the extent to which district assessmentresults corroborate teacher ratings ofproficiency for students.CCC initiates task forces to respond to definedneeds. Task forces discuss information needswith A & E and receive assessment resourceinformation and data as needed to meet thespecific purpose(s) of the group.

Board of Education

Role of the Board of Education:

The Board of Education creates the vision forperformance improvement for the district. Board-established Student Achievement Objectives guideinstructional focus and provide a template withwhich to monitor growth over time. All districtassessment efforts and activities must support andinform the Board objectives and the goals.

Key Responsibilities of the Board:

Monitor district status and progress on theDistrict Student Achievement Objectives, anddetermine necessary district goals and actionplans in order to achieve them.Allocate fiscal resources to attain the DistrictStudent AChievement Objectives.

Assessment Information Provided to the Board of Education:

The Board receives biannual reports of districtstatus on all standardized assessments andprogress on the District Student Achievement

37

Objectives. Wherever available, reports includenational comparison points.

Page 16 CAP 1-li2hli$2.hts September 1997

Part VI: Staff Development Support for CAP 2002

The long term success of the ComprehensiveAssessment Plan (CAP) for 2002 depends upon theinvolvement and expertise of classroom teachers andbuilding administrators. This component of the CAPmust have adequate prioritization and resources.

A commitment of time and resources is imperativefor effective understanding and use of assessmentinformation by teachers, and efficient districtwideassessment and data collection. The followingexpectations are a priority in the full implementationof the CAP.

Roles of the Offices of Staff Development andAssessment and Evaluation

Staff Development, and Assessment andEvaluation (A & E) Offices jointly organize andimplement the staff development opportunitiesin assessment. A & E provides the expertise inthe area of assessment, measurement, andevaluation by developing the content for theprofessional opportunities and choosing andtraining (when necessary) the instructors for thesessions. The Staff Development Office workswith A & E to coordinate and implement thetraining and support given to the administratorsand Assessment Liaisons (see below).

Teachers and administrators at the appropriategrade levels participate in training, availabledistrictwide, for the following assessment types:

State TestsNorm Referenced Tests (ITBS and PLAN)Achievement Level TestsComputerized Adaptive TestsCurriculum Referenced TestsPerformance AssessmentsPortfolios

Parents, District Advisory AccountabilityCommittee members, and interested publicreceive assessment results and information oninterpretation and use for improvedperformance.

Role of Assessment Liaison

An Assessment Liaison is designated at eachelementary school who serves as dissemination/training agent for the assessment program. Atthe secondary level, an Assessment Team (withan administrative leader) directs this process.The Assessment Liaison, the school principal,and administrative staff are trained in testadministration, interpretation, and reporting.

The Assessment Liaisons facilitate the develop-ment and piloting of new assessments andreporting formats. The Liaisons communicatewith their school's test coordinator for eachassessment.

Assessment Training

Teachers, administrators, counselors, and others(as appropriate) receive staff development in sixareas.

Understanding the purpose and audiencefor each of the assessments given tostudentsUnderstanding the alignment of theassessments with the district proficienciesand curriculaAssessment administration proceduresScoring and analyzing classroom basedassessmentsUtilizing assessment information to refineteaching practices and evaluate programsCommunicating assessment informationto parents, school advisory accountabilitycommittees, and the community

Other stakeholders, especially School Site-Based Decision Making Councils, SchoolAdvisory Accountability Committees, and otherinterested members of the school communityare provided with training in the use ofassessment informa-tion. To reach thecommunity, information about the assessmentand reporting system is disseminated via visualor print media.

Teachers, counselors, and administrators aretrained in the interpretation and use of data,focusing on examining student performanceimprovement over time and across differentassessments.

3V

September 1997 CAP Highlights Pave 17

Part VII: Implications for Implementationof the Comprehensive Assessment Plan for 2002

Ideally, assessments of student learning areintegrated within the daily work of the classroom,not added to the classroom as occasional, extra tasks.These assessments of student learning serve as .abeacon, guiding further learning by continuouslyemphasizing how performance might be improved.Ideal assessments of student learning support eachstudent's growth in the critical ability to self-assessone's own performance according to qualitystandards. Cherry Creek Schools has implementedperformance standards in the form of Proficienciesfor students in grades 5, 8, and 12 in each of the coreareas (reading, literature, writing, mathematics,history, geography, civics, economics, and science).Proficiency standards have also been developed forthe expanded core: the arts, physical education,foreign language, health, and information literacy.

The Cherry Creek Schools ComprehensiveAssessment Plan (CAP) incorporates a variety oftools to measure student learning. It includesclassroom assessments implemented by theclassroom teacher and districtwide assessmentsadministered to all students at the identified gradelevels. The Cherry Creek Schools CAP is intended toincorporate both classroom and district assessments.

Implementation of the CAP will take place over afive year period, from 1997-98 through the 2001-02school year. The accompanying tables identify theessential components of our comprehensiveassessment system, establish a timeline forimplementation, and identify the implications of theprocess. The implementation process will becontinually evaluated, and revised as necessary.

General Considerations

All implementation steps require staffdevelopment. Teachers and administrators needongoing staff development in administering thetests and analyzing the data. Staff developmentis coordinated by the Assessment andEvaluation and Staff Development offices.

A balanced, purposeful assessment system, withproper emphasis on national measures to helpstudents achieve their goals, requirescontinuous, meaningful communication with allaudiences -- the Board of Education, teachers,parents, media, and the general public.

The Assessment Plan is evaluated annually andrevised as needed.

Implementation of the Assessment Plan iscoordinated with the Curriculum CoordinatingCouncil.

State Assessments are incorporated into theAssessment Plan according to state guidelinesand timeline.

Assessments may need to be added to meet therequirements of state legislation, ColoradoDepartment of Education guidelines, or districtneeds for additional data.

Classroom assessments are valued and are ameaningful facet of student evaluation. Districtassessments should validate the results ofclassroom assessment. Teachers andadministrators evaluate discrepancies betweenclassroom and district assessments, and use thatinformation for improvement.

The budgeting and planning for assessmentshould be aligned with curriculum, instruction,staff development, and technology. To beeffective, useful, and informative, districtassessments should have instructional,curricular, staff development, and technologycomponents.

3 3

13.152.0 I CAP Eli!2,1ilitzhts September 1997

Comprehensive Assessment PlanTransition Timeline

TESTS 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS)READING, LANGUAGE, MATH

SCIENCE, SOCIAL STUDIES

PLAN

3,4 Spr.6,7,8 Fall

6,7,8 Fall

10 Fall

3,4, Spr.6,7,8 Fall

6,7,8 Fall

10 Fall

3 Spr.6,7 Fall

6,7 Fall

10 Fall

3,5 Fall6,7 Fall

6,7 Fall

10 Fall

3,5,7 Fall

5,7 Fall

10 Fall

NWEA Achievement Level Tests 69READING, MATH

LANGUAGE SKILLS

SCIENCE

5 Fall-Spr.6,7 Spr.(Pilot)5 Fall-Spr.6,7,8 Spr.(Pilot)6.7,8 Spr.(Pilot)

2 (Spr. Pilot)5 Fall - Spr.,; ,6,7,8 Spr

5 Fall-Spr.6,7,81'Spr.

6,7;8' S

2 (Reading only):3,4,5,6,7,8 ,Spr.

-3,4,5,6,7,8:Spr.

6,7,8 Spr.

2 (Reading only)3,4,5,6,7,8Spr.

3,4,5,6,7,8Spr.

6,7,8 Spr.

2 (Reading only)3,4,5,6,7,8Spr.

3,4,5,6,7,8Spr.

6,7,8 Spr.

State AssessmentREADINGWRITINGMATHSCIENCE

3 ,4 3 ,445

3, 445, 8

3, 44,5, 88

3, 44,5, 88- 7 - -

Science Process (Investigation) 5, 8 5, 8 5, 8 5, 8 5, 8

Math Performance Assessments 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8

Reading Performance Assessments 47 1 (Develop)8 (Pilot)10 (Develop)

1 (Pilot)84,10 0 (Pilot)

1

8,10

1

8,10

1

8,10

Writing Performance Assessments 0Read On - Write On (ROWO)

Middle School Writing Assessment (MSWA)

High School Writing Assessment (HSWA)

1*

2, 340, 4, 5(Oct.)

70 Winter

110 Spr.

1*

2, 3 0, 4, 5(Oct.)

70 Winter

110 Spr.

1*

2, 3 49, 4, 5(Oct.)

70 Winter

110 Spr.

1*

2, 3 0, 4, 5(Oct.)

740 Winter

110 Spr.

1*

2, 3 0, 4, 5(Oct.)

70 Winter

110 Spr.

OTHERComputerized Adaptive Tests (NWEA)*Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT)Nelson Denny Reading TestACT* / SAT*Proficiency Data Collection

3-830 Fall9 Fall 11 Spr.11-121,3,5-12 Spr.

3-830 Fall11 Spr.11-121,3,5-12 Spr.

3-830 Fall

11-121,3,5-12 Spr.

3-830 Fall

11-12.1,3,5-12 Spr.

3-830 Fall

11-121,3,5-12 Spr.

*OptionalDistrict Scoring (Reading and Writing Performance Scoring - District Sample only)

40

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) Results for the DistrictSpring 1997 Proficiency Data Collection: READING merged with

Fall 1997 ITBS Results: READING TOTALATV

(Percentages of of students in PB, B, P, and A columns who scored in ITBS Reading Total ranges described on the left.)Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Gr. 5 Spring Proficiency Data Collection merged with Gr. 6 Fall ITBS

ITBS Percentile RangesReading Total

Proficiency Data Collection Spring 1997-Reading

Advanced N=426 Proficient N=1543 Basic N=293 Prebasic N=54

91-99 52% 10% 1% 0

76-90 33% 27% 3% 0

51-75 13% 41% 19% 9%

26-50 2% 18% 41% 21%

11-25 0 4% 26% 48%

1-10 0 0% 10% 22%

Gr. 6 Spring Proficiency Data Collection merged with Gr. 7 Fall ITBS

ITBS Percentile RangesReading Total

Proficiency Data Collection Spring 1997-Reading

Advanced N=360 Proficient N=1339I Basic N=715 I Prebasic N=134

91-99 70% 20% 1% 1%

76-90 26% 38% 13% 0%

51-75 4% 33% 33% 8%

26-50 0 8% 39% 43%

11-25 0 1% 11% 34%

1-10 0 0 3% 14%

Gr. 7 Spring Proficiency Data Collection merged with Gr. 8 Fall ITBS

ITBS Percentile RangesReading Total

Proficiency Data Collection Spring 1997-Reading

Advanced N=346 'Proficient N=1196 Basic N=812 I Prebasic N=101

91-99 62% 16% 2% 0

76-90 30% 27% 8% 2%

51-75 9% 42% 37% 14%

26-50 0 12% 37% 35%

11-25 0 2% 13% 33%

1-10 0 0 3% 16%

41

District Achievement Level Test (ALT) Results

DISTRICT SUMMARY RESULTS:MIDDLE SCHOOL

Spring 1997 Proficiency Data Collection merged withSpring 1997 Level Test Results: READING

Grade 6 Spring Proficiency Data Collection merged withSpring Level Test Results

(Numbers represent percentages of students in PB,B, P, and A columns who scored in Level Test reading rangesdescribed on the left)

ALT RITScore Ranges

Reading

Proficiency Data Collection Spring 1997-Reading

Prebasic Basic Proficient Advanced

< 207. . ,

,g-?

,,.. - 16.5

207-212 ',

213-224 14.5...

,_

,. , 7,7 ' 0

225-230 1.5.

>= 231 2' ;',64..,

Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Grade 7 Spring Proficiency Data Collection merged with.Spring. Level Test Results

(Numbers represent percentages of students in PB, B, P, and A columns who scored in Level Test reading rangesdescribed on the left)

ALT RIT Proficiency Data Collection Spring 1997-ReadingScore Ranges

Reading Prebasic (PB) Basic (B) Proficient (P) Advanced (A)

<2124 ,

21 2 2

212-217 5

218-228 16 12

229-233 1 6

>= 234 0 2 13Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

42

District Achievement Level. Test (ALT) Results

DISTRICT SUMMARY RESULTSSpring Proficiency Data Collection merged with Level Test Results: MATH

Grade 3 Spring Proficiency Data Collection merged with Grade 4 Fall Level Test(Numbers represent % of students in PB, B, P, and A columns who scored in Level Test math goal ranges described at left)

ALT RangesNums/Rels

Proficiency Data Collection Spring 1997-Nums/Rels

LO

Prebasic (PB) I Basic (B) I Proficient (P) I Advanced (A)

. 28 5

AV 5 AZ:Z, 32

HI 0 3-""

463

Percentages rounded, to the nearest whole number

ALT Ranges- Geometry

.. i

Proficiency Data Collection Spring .1997-Geometry

.Prebasic (PB) Basic (B) .

.

I: Proficient (P) I ' Advanced (A)

LO 1,- 'Yac,:..51' iSr4

,."f"- 16 1

AV 22 -.,.;.-3,7.----,. .,,, .7. .

34-..,., .. ,

14 :: .

I Ill 0 22!,.,: 1,.r-,, x .,...., -

,N!)!. , P 164,,g

,- 'FP' Or::

Percentages rounded to the nearest whole, number

ALT RangesStatistics

Proficiency Data Collection :Spring 1997-Statistics ' ..

Prebasic (PB)1

I Basic (B).

I Proficient (P) . Advanced (A)

LO 7-;:;2,,-.:eik,..4t.-.., '2-6'..%Tiii. ,

:`','-'"telr,E,frZ,i` 10 0

AV 19410F'``.!.. .--: ..4,-,.2-1,':1'7';'.!-`'=';'1-t.,:41.,,c:t- ,,----.4.----

.i.",

,,, .. ,I.' ,

=.---,r,,v-ol, , ,-,,'..,':-.-,-,,,,,,,-1:.,,

13

HI 11 26:.:.....2f,,,V;',.!,73:''-'4:::ii,.- 4:

-;,',.--:-.. '..,-,-, _ ,-...,,,,,,,--....f:1-0-,r - ,

,,

, ' =,:.,,,,,,F. :.,.

Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

ALT Ranges*Algebra&Patterns

Proficiency Data Collection Spring 1997-Algebra/Patts

Prebasic (PB) Basic (B) Proficient (P) I Advanced (A)

(*Average Percent of Students in Algebra + Patterns Goal Ranges on the ALT),

LO. :-,.. :,-,

., 3-:,t-, --

., 5 Q:.'*7,:

-,..-19* 3*

AV 14* , .. . ,:::34, :.= : . ;., .- -"IS:-3 9*

HI 3* 16* ..: ..,., ,,,-49* ,7--, L-''': ": ..''-. :88*Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

43

District Achievement Level Test (ALT) Results

DISTRICT SUMMARY RESULTSSpring Proficiency Data Collection merged with Level Test Results: MATH

Grade 5 Spring Proficiency Data Collection merged with Grade 5 Spring Level Test(Numbers represent % of students in PB, B, P, and A columns who scored in Leyel Test math goal ranges described at left.)

ALT Ranges _ Proficiency Data Collection Spring 1997-Nums/RelsNums/Rels

Preba.sic (PB) I Basic (B) Proficient (P) I Advanced (A)

LO..,.0,44:

10 1

AV 15,_ 5

HI 7 11 .

Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

ALT Ranges Proficiency Data Collection Spring 1997-GeometryGeometry

Prebasic (PB) I. Basic (B) I. Proficient (P) I Advanced (A)

LO.---

-, 7 1

AV 33.. ,-.4-..

HI,

5 14 - r .-,,t

Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

ALT Ranges.Statistics

Proficiency Data Collection Spring 1997-Statistics

Prebasic (PB) I Basic (B) Profcient (P) Advanced (A)

LO.-

6 1

AV 32,...,

9

HI 7 29Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

ALT Ranges*Algebra&Patterns

Proficiency Data Collection Spring 1997-Algebra/Patts

Prebasic (PB) Basic (B) Proficient (P) Advanced (A)

(*Average Percent of Students in Algebra + Patterns Goal Ranges on the ALT)

LO 6 33* 7* 0*

AV 29* 40* 24* 5*

HI 10* 26* 6 .

Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

44

GR

AD

E 6

RE

AD

ING

MU

LT

IPL

E V

AL

IDA

TIO

NS

Supp

ortin

g T

each

er R

atin

gs o

f St

uden

t Pro

fici

ency

Sch

ool Y

ear

1997

-98

Perf

orm

ance

Lev

els:

The

term

s Pr

ebas

ic, B

asic

, Pro

fici

ent,

and

Adv

ance

d to

des

crib

e a

stud

ent's

ove

rall

com

pete

nce

in a

n ar

ea li

ke m

ath

or r

eadi

ng. H

owev

er, a

stu

dent

's p

erfo

rman

ce o

n any

one

asse

ssm

ent o

r de

mon

stra

tion

may

not

alw

ays

fall

clea

rly

into

one

of

thes

e fo

ur le

vels

. The

gra

phs

incl

ude

over

lapp

ing

shad

ed a

reas

that

acc

omm

odat

e sc

ores

and

dem

onst

ratio

ns th

at f

all "

in b

etw

een.

"PB

=PR

EB

ASI

CB

=B

ASI

CP=

PRO

FIC

IEN

TA

=A

DV

AN

CE

D

CL

ASS

RO

OM

DE

MO

NST

RA

TIO

NS

Perf

orm

ance

/Dem

onst

ratio

nL

abel

eac

h de

mon

stra

tion

on li

nes

to th

e le

ft. O

n th

e gr

aph,

plo

t per

form

ance

leve

ls a

ssig

ned

by th

e te

ache

r.(L

ist H

ere)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Ach

ieve

men

t Lev

el T

est (

AL

T)

Rea

ding

RIT

Sco

re R

ange

s* S

prin

g 19

98*F

rom

the

teac

her's

gui

de R

eadi

ng th

e A

lpha

/Goa

l Cla

ss R

epor

t 199

7-98

. Ple

ase

take

into

acc

ount

an

erro

r ra

nge

of +

or

- ap

prox

imat

ely

2 R

IT p

oint

s.If

a s

tude

nt s

core

s a

213,

her

sco

re r

ange

is b

etw

een

abou

t 211

- 2

15, a

nd o

verl

aps

the

high

end

of

the

Bas

ic r

ange

and

the

low

end

of

the

Prof

icie

nt r

ange

.4-

207

213

225

231

-It

PBB

PP/

AA

Iow

a T

ests

of

Bas

ic S

kills

(IT

BS)

Rea

ding

Com

preh

ensi

on P

erce

ntile

Ran

k R

ange

s* F

all 1

997

*Fro

m s

ugge

stio

ns in

Nat

iona

l Sta

ndar

d Se

tting

for

the

Iow

a T

ests

, Sum

mer

199

6. P

leas

e ta

ke in

to a

ccou

nt a

n er

ror

rang

e of

+ o

r -

appr

oxim

atel

y8

perc

entil

e ra

nks.

If

a st

uden

t's p

erce

ntile

ran

k sc

ore

is 5

0, h

is s

core

ran

ge is

abo

ut 4

2-58

, and

ove

rlap

s th

e hi

gh e

nd o

f th

e B

asic

rang

e an

d th

e lo

w e

ndof

the

Prof

icie

nt r

ange

.

454-

16

5385

-§

PBB

Ff

PA

46

GR

AD

E 7

RE

AD

ING

MU

LT

IPL

E V

AL

IDA

TIO

NS

Supp

ortin

g T

each

er R

atin

gs o

f St

uden

t Pro

fici

ency

Sch

ool Y

ear

1997

-98

Perf

orm

ance

Lev

els:

The

term

s Pr

ebas

ic, B

asic

, Pro

fici

ent,

and

Adv

ance

d to

des

crib

e a

stud

ent's

ove

rall

com

pete

nce

in a

n ar

ea li

ke m

ath

or r

eadi

ng. H

owev

er, a

stu

dent

's p

erfo

rman

ce o

n an

yon

e as

sess

men

t or

dem

onst

ratio

n m

ay n

ot a

lway

s fa

ll cl

earl

y in

to o

ne o

f th

ese

folk

leve

ls. T

he g

raph

s in

clud

e ov

erla

ppin

g sh

aded

are

as th

at a

ccom

mod

ate

scor

es a

ndde

mon

stra

tions

that

fal

l "in

bet

wee

n."

PB=

PRE

BA

SIC

B=

BA

SIC

P=PR

OFI

CIE

NT

A=

AD

VA

NC

ED

Perf

orm

ance

/Dem

onst

ratio

n(L

ist H

ere)

1. 2. 3.

"M31

4. 5. 6.

CL

ASS

RO

OM

DE

MO

NST

RA

TIO

NS

Lab

el e

ach

dem

onst

ratio

n on

line

s to

the

left

. On

the

grap

h, p

lot p

erfo

rman

ce le

vels

ass

igne

d by

the

teac

her.

Ach

ieve

men

t Lev

el T

est (

AL

T)

Rea

ding

RIT

Sco

re R

ange

s* S

prin

g 19

98*F

rom

the

teac

her's

gui

de R

eadi

ng th

e A

lpha

/Goa

l Cla

ss R

epor

t 199

7-98

. Ple

ase

take

into

acc

ount

an

erro

r ra

nge

of +

or

- ap

prox

imat

ely

2 PI

T p

oint

s.If

a s

tude

nt s

core

s a

218,

her

sco

re r

ange

is b

etw

een

abou

t 216

- 2

20, a

nd o

verl

aps

the

high

end

of

the

Bas

ic r

ange

and

the

low

end

of

the

Prof

icie

nt r

ange

.4

212

218

229

234

4

PB61

,

PP/

AA

Iow

a T

ests

of

Bas

ic S

kills

(IT

BS)

Rea

ding

Com

preh

ensi

on P

erce

ntile

Ran

k R

ange

s* F

all 1

997

*Fro

m s

ugge

stio

ns in

Nat

iona

l Sta

ndar

d Se

tting

for

the

Iow

a T

ests

, Sum

mer

199

6. P

leas

e ta

ke in

to a

ccou

nt a

n er

ror

rang

e of

+ o

r -

appr

oxim

atel

y8

perc

entil

e ra

nks.

If

a st

uden

t's p

erce

ntile

ran

k sc

ore

is 5

0, h

is s

core

ran

ge is

abo

ut 4

2-58

, and

ove

rlap

s th

e hi

gh e

nd o

f th

e B

asic

rang

e an

d th

e lo

w e

nd4

7of

the

Prof

icie

nt r

ange

.4

84

1753

854

PBB

PA

GR

AD

E 8

RE

AD

ING

MU

LT

IPL

E V

AL

IDA

TIO

NS

Supp

ortin

g T

each

er R

atin

gs o

f St

uden

t Pro

fici

ency

Sch

ool Y

ear

1997

-98

Perf

orm

ance

Lev

els:

The

term

s Pr

ebas

ic, B

asic

, Pro

fici

ent,

and

Adv

ance

d to

des

crib

e a

stud

ent's

ove

rall

com

pete

nce

in a

n ar

ea li

ke m

ath

or r

eadi

ng. H

owev

er, a

stu

dent

's p

erfo

rman

ce o

n any

one

asse

ssm

ent o

r de

mon

stra

tion

may

not

alw

ays

fall

clea

rly

into

one

of

thes

e fo

ur le

vels

. The

gra

phs

incl

ude

over

lapp

ing

shad

ed a

reas

that

acc

omm

odat

e sc

ores

and

dem

onst

ratio

ns th

at f

all "

in b

etw

een.

"PB

=PR

EB

ASI

CB

=B

ASI

CP=

PRO

FIC

IEN

TA

=A

DV

AN

CE

D

CL

ASS

RO

OM

DE

MO

NST

RA

TIO

NS

Perf

orm

ance

/Dem

onst

ratio

nL

abel

eac

h de

mon

stra

tion

on li

nes

to th

e le

ft. O

n th

e gr

aph,

plo

t per

form

ance

leve

ls a

ssig

ned

by th

e te

ache

r.(L

ist H

ere)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Ach

ieve

men

t Lev

el T

est (

AL

T)

Rea

ding

RIT

Sco

re R

ange

s* S

prin

g 19

98*F

rom

the

teac

her's

gui

de R

eadi

ng th

e A

lpha

/Goa

l Cla

ss R

epor

t 199

7-98

. Ple

ase

take

into

acc

ount

an

erro

r ra

nge

of +

or

- ap

prox

imat

ely

2 R

IT p

oint

s.If

a s

tude

nt s

core

s a

222,

her

sco

re r

ange

is b

etw

een

abou

t 220

- 2

24, a

nd o

verl

aps

the

high

end

of

the

Bas

ic r

ange

and

the

low

end

of

the

Prof

icie

nt r

ange

.4

215

222

234

240

PBB

IP/

AA

Iow

a T

ests

of

Bas

ic S

kills

(IT

BS)

Rea

ding

Com

preh

ensi

on P

erce

ntile

Ran

k R

ange

s* F

all 1

997

*Fro

m s

ugge

stio

ns in

Nat

iona

l Sta

ndar

d Se

tting

for

the

Iow

a T

ests

, Sum

mer

199

6. P

leas

e ta

ke in

to a

ccou

nt a

n er

ror

rang

e of

+ o

r -

appr

oxim

atel

y8

perc

entil

e ra

nks.

If

a st

uden

t's p

erce

ntile

ran

k sc

ore

is 5

0, h

is s

core

ran

ge is

abo

ut 4

2-58

, and

ove

rlap

s th

e hi

gh e

nd o

f th

e B

asic

rang

e an

d th

e lo

w e

ndof

the

Prof

icie

nt r

ange

.4

1853

85

PBB

IP

A

4950

Proposed District Assessment Schedule by Season1998 - 99 A-TrActrowia- 7

1 Proficiency Data Collection

2 ALT (Reading)CogAT*

3 Written RetellIRI (PreBasic & Basic only)CogAT (nonpilot schools)*

ITBSCSAP-ReadingProficiency Data Collection

4 Writing Pretest

:.:i..§.

ITBSCSAP-Reading, Writing

5 ALT (Reading Language, Math)Math Constructed Response Test

..,:m..,

AL Z. - . l Language, Math4.- [math in 98-99 only])SAP-Math

Proficiency Data Collection

6:

ITBSALT (Science) mligq'

....=;:;...%

(Reading, Language, Math,Science)

Proficiency Data Collection

7 ITBS iAtk. :,,,..., Ilm,,N:Na.' ''s:"'v'W; '''

ALT (Reading, Language, Math,Science)

Math Constructed Response TestProficiency Data Collection

8 ITBS *.,V-

..,3.

ALT (Reading, Language, Math,Science)

Reading Performance TestProficiency Data Collection[1999-00: CSAP -Math]

9 Nelson P -..,....r.,:.v.:.e.s.

Proficiency Data CollectionALT (Science)

10 PLAN Proficiency Data Collection

11 ACT / SAT ACT / SATNelson Denny*

ACT / SATHS Writing Assess.Proficiency Data Collection

12 ACT/SAT ACT/SAT ACT/SATProficiency Data Collection

[NOTE: If House Bill 98-1267 is enacted, CSAP would include Grade 5 Math in fall (not spring) and Grade 7Reading & Writing in spring, in addition to Grade 3 Reading and Grade 4 Reading & Writing.]

All optional testing requires discussion with and approval by the Executive Director for the schooL

* CogAT & Nelson Denny Individual results, but no districtor school summary

ITBS: Iowa Tests of Basic Skills ALT: Achievement Level TestsSAT / ACT: college entrance exams PLAN: pre-ACT test CogAT: Cognitive Abilities Test

Administration TimeCSAP: Gr 3: 2 hours Gr 4: 6 hours Gr 5: 4-6 hoursITBS: 5 hours PLAN: 3 hours Nelson-Denny: 1-2 hoursALT: 1 hour/area tested CogAT: 1.5-2.5 hoursMSWA: 2-3 hours HSWA: 2-3 hoursACT/SAT: 4 hours (not during regular school hours)

2/4/98 [tests\plans\cap9899]

L.

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

rim 09- 3 "LioERIC

Title:

*, "{-nA.4jodd St -14,5-111,t- Va.144-er 11-6 MIS Pre'retad-onot 23 jeeo rt

Author(s): lily, , V,e4 IA) fr\clik #efCorporate Source:

ckeey.nPublication Date:

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in themonthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, ifreproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottomof the page.

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 1 documents

1

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 1

Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproductionand dissemination In microfiche or other ERIC archival

media (e.g.. electronic) end paper copy.

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2A documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE. AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

2A

Sa

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 2A

Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproductionand dissemination In microfiche end in electronic media

for ERIC archival collection subsalbers only

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2B documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

2B

C."TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 2B

1

Check here for Level 28 release, permittingreproduction and dissemination in microfiche only

Documents will be processed as Indicated provided reproduction quality permits.If permission to reproduce Is granted, but no box Is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this documentas indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its systemcontractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception Is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agenciesto satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

Signhere,4please 0,44-irne,ret,.. ScAaas

1V140 S. Yose...t+e S +1 4-"I LGIA.Joefs (.- 8-a L LI

Printed Name/Position/Title:

Vie UL

E-Mail Address:FI03-"ikt.- '1,91Date:

k(over)

IC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation

March 20, 1998

Dear AERA Presenter,

Congratulations on being a presenter at AERA'. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluationinvites you to contribute to the ERIC database by providing us with a printed copy of your presentation.

University of Maryland1129 Shriver Laboratory

College Park, MD 20742-5701

Tel: (800) 464-3742( 301 ) 405-7449

FAX: (301) 405-8134ericae @ericae.net

http://ericae.net

Abstracts of papers accepted by ERIC appear in Resources in Education (RIE) and are announced to over5,000 organizations. The inclusion of your work makes it readily available to other researchers, provides apermanent archive, and enhances the quality of RIE. Abstracts of your contribution will be accessiblethrough the printed and electronic versions of RIE. The paper will be available through the microfichecollections that are housed at libraries around the world and through the ERIC Document ReproductionService.

We are gathering all the papers from the AERA Conference. We will route your paper to the appropriateclearinghouse. You will be notified if your paper meets ERIC's criteria for inclusion in RIE: contributionto education, timeliness, relevance, methodology, effectiveness of presentation, and reproduction quality.You can track our processing of your paper at http://ericae.net.

Please sign the Reproduction Release Form on the back of this letter and include it with two copies of yourpaper. The Release Form gives ERIC permission to make and distribute copies of your paper. It does notpreclude you from publishing your work. You can drop off the copies of your paper and ReproductionRelease Form at the ERIC booth (424) or mail to our attention at the address below. Please feel free tocopy the form for future or additional submissions.

Mail to: AERA 1998/ERIC AcquisitionsUniversity of Maryland1129 Shriver LaboratoryCollege Park, MD 20742

This year ERIC/AE is making a Searchable Conference Program available on the AERA web page(http://aera.net). Check it out!

Sincyrely,fi

Lawrence M. Rudner, Ph.D.Director, ERIC/AE

'If you are an AERA chair or discussant, please save this form for future use.

C UA

The Catholic University of America