FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMINITIATIVE

Presenter:Nancy Schumacher

November 2010

Assessment MemoryThink of a time in your life when you were “assessed.”

It might be a memory from elementary or high school…From your professional experience…

Or anywhere else in your life.

Briefly describe the experience.

How did the assessment make you feel?

New Hope School DistrictHigh-stakes Standardized Testing

(aka “Summative Testing”)Receives a disproportionate amount of

of attention:

Summative vs. Formative

Disadvantages of High Stakes Testing

MINIMAL IMPACT ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

• Time lapse between administration and results• Not easily interpreted at classroom level• Vague individual feedback• Rank-orders students and creates competitiveness• Reinforces feeling of incompetence in

underperforming students and creates student disengagement from learning

New Hope School District

Strength:

“High Standardized Test Scores”

REAL OR PERCEIVED?

New Hope School District

STATUS QUO

• High SES community (Strong relationship between SES and student achievement, Marzano & Waters, 2009)

• Low student mobility rate (High transiency rate negatively affects test scores, Marzano & Waters, 2009)

• Teaching to the test• Focus on how “well” students are doing rather than

“what” students are doing• Data does not drive instructional decision-making

New Hope School District

THREATS TO STATUS QUO

• Closing of local small businesses and plants changing SES

• Foreclosures increasing mobility rate• Increasing gap between “haves” and “have

nots”

New Hope School District

OPPORTUNITY• Systemic change related to district mission of

engaged learning• Systemic change related to district vision of

providing relevant research-based instruction that responds to each student’s unique potential

• Enhanced teaching and learning• Focus on learning vs. achievement

Achievement vs. LearningVideo Clip by Alfie Kohn

Endorsed by W. Edwards Deming in “No Contest”which addresses competition in schools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sywMkf5QhI

Evolve Mindsets and Mental Models

From: Summative AssessmentTo: Formative Assessment

From: Evaluative gradingTo: Planning future instruction

What is Formative Assessment?

Formal Definition:

A planned process in which the ongoing activities undertaken in the classroom increase student engagement and learning by providing timely informational feedback and decision-making data so students can adjust current learning tactics in which they employ and teachers can modify instructional methods in which they implement. ---Nancy Schumacher, 2010

Formative Assessment vs. Summative Assessment

• Formative Assessment: FOR learning – DURING learning

• Summative Assessment:OF learning – AFTER learning

“When the cook tastes the soup it is formative, when the guests taste the soup it is summative.” ---Bob Stake in Marzano, 2010

Goal of Formative Assessment

For teachers to teach more effectively

For students to learn more effectively

HIGH-QUALITY, EFFECTIVE TEACHING

Links curriculum to State academic

content standards

Links instruction to curriculum

Links assessment to instruction

State-Level High

Stakes SummativeAssessment

State-Level High

Stakes SummativeAssessment

District-Level

Common Assessment

District-Level

Common Assessment

Classroom-Level

Formative Assessment

Classroom-Level

Formative Assessment

Intentionally AlignedCOMPREHENSIVE

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM to Increase Student Achievement

Nancy Schumacher2010

Intentionally AlignedCOMPREHENSIVE

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM to Increase Student Achievement

Nancy Schumacher2010

Classroom Level Formative Assessment

IS BASED ON EFFECTIVE, INFORMATIVE FEEDBACK

“The most powerful single modification that enhances achievement is feedback”

---J. A. Hattie in Marzano, 2007aAfter a meta-analysis of over 8,000 studies

Teachers and Students use FEEDBACK DATA

• Find areas of strengths and weaknesses• Track areas of improvement• Question how to prepare for and improve

performance• Differentiate instruction• Close the achievement gap

New Hope School District

PRE-TEST(Optional)

TEACH TEACH TEACH TEACH TEACH ASSIGN GRADE

PRE-ASSESS

ANALYZE RESULTS

PLAN FOR DIFFERENTIATED

INSTRUCTIONTEACH

MONITOR, REFLECT,

and ADJUSTTEACH POST-

ASSESS

Current Model of Classroom Assessment

Proposed Model of Classroom Level Formative Assessment: Teaching is aligned with curriculum. Formative assessments are not graded.

---Ainsworth & Viegut, 2006

Resources Needed to IntroduceFormative Assessment System

• Classroom level formative assessment is a cost-effective method of school improvement (William, 2007)

• Professional Learning Communities: An effective approach for implementation (Popham, 2008)

• Reading resources: Key stakeholders volunteer to read and discuss the formative assessment process

• Time: Flexible scheduling to promote collaboration

Beyond the Classroom

School and district level formative assessment will require funding for additional professional development (Black & Wiliam, 1998)

Time Frame to ImplementFormative Assessment

Slow and Steady Process

• November 2010 – Present rationale and process to Board of Education, all district and school leaders, all teachers and community members

• December 2010 – Establish volunteer PLC’s to “pilot” implementation at classroom level

• June 2011 – Positive results from pilot program create “buy-in”

• July-August 2011 – Pilot teachers turnkey train district wide • September 2011 – All teachers begin classroom level

formative assessment across grade levels and departments

Time Frame to ImplementFormative Assessment

Slow and Steady Process

• December 2011 – All teachers district wide inservice on next phase of intentionally designed comprehensive formative assessment system – “Power Standards.”

• January to March 2012 – Determine Power Standards for each grade and content

• April 2012 -- All teachers district wide inservice on next phase of intentionally designed comprehensive formative assessment system – Aligning Power Standards to classroom, district and State standards

• May to June 2012 – Align Power Standards• June 2012 – All teachers district wide inservice on next phase of

intentionally designed comprehensive formative assessment system – “Common Formative Assessments”

Time Frame to ImplementFormative Assessment

Slow and Steady Process

• July to August 2011 – Design Common Formative Assessments and map horizontally and vertically

• September 2011 – First administration of Common Formative Assessment (CFA)

• October 2011 – Score assessments, collaboratively discuss, evaluate effectiveness, revise CFA

• November 2011 – Second administration of CFA and analyze data

• December 2011 – Meet by schools to plan future phases of intentionally designed comprehensive formative assessment system

Implementation Requires School Administrator Leadership

tied to ISLLC Standards

Standard 1.4 – Mastery of information sources, data collection and data analysis strategies

Standard 1.23 – Ensuring that assessment data related to student learning are used to develop the school vision and goals

Standard 2.33 – Mastery of effective instructionStandard 2.34 – Mastery of measurement, evaluation and

assessment strategiesStandard 2.64 – Ensuring that student learning is assessed using a

variety of techniquesStandard 3.77 – Taking risks to improve schoolsStandard 3.89 – Managing time to maximize attainment of

organizational goals

TIME FRAME FOR RESULTS

15 WEEKS

Bangert-Drowns, Kulick & Kulick in Marzano, 2007b

Two formative assessments per week over a 15-week period produce a 29.0 percentile gain

Fuch & Fuch in Marzano, 2007b

Based on meta-analysis of 21 studies: Two formative assessments per week result in a 30 percentile point gain

New Hope School District

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT:MISSION POSSIBLE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsBMQUeGx1E

ResourcesAinsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments. Thousand Oaks,

California: Corwin Press.Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom

assessment.Phi Delta Kappa, 80(2), 139-144. Retrieved from http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/library/ i93438_22.htm

Marzano, R. J. (2007a). Designing a comprehensive approach to classroom assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve. (pp. 103-126). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. J. (2007b). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). Setting and monitoring nonnegotiable goals for

achievement. In District leadership that works. (pp. 23-52). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. J. (2010). Formative assessment and standards-based grading. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.William, D. (2007). Content then process: Teacher learning communities in the service of

formative assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve. (pp. 183-206). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.