This document discusses strategies for maximizing student assessment systems. It advocates defining your own assessment goals rather than focusing solely on compliance. It provides seven principles for effective assessment programs: 1) Define assessment purposes and ensure validity, 2) Educate teachers on assessments, 3) Align results to audience needs, 4) Eliminate redundant assessments, 5) Deliver timely results, 6) Use metrics that focus on all students, and 7) Contribute to transparency and long-term focus. The document argues that assessment goals, metrics, and incentives should support all students rather than just those near performance cutoffs.

1. Maximizing Assessment
Systems for Student Success

2. The pursuit of compliance is exhausting
because it is always a moving target.
Governors move on, the party in power
gets replaced, a new president is elected,
and all want to put their own stamp on
education.
It is saner and less exhausting to define
your own course and align compliance
requirements to that.

3. CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPLIANCE-BASED
ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS

4. Control of the assessment system is assumed to be external – tests
are mandated and not chosen.

5. Assessments are focused on accountability and are
perceived as punitive

6. Learning goals are focused on achieving
compliance (making AYP)

7. The district’s assessment program changes
anytime federal and state mandates change.

8. Seven prinicples to guide maximizing
your student assessment system

9. The 7 princples underlying maximized assessment
systems
1. The purposes of all assessments are defined and the assessments are
valid and useful for their purposes.
2.Teachers are educated in the proper administration and application of
the assessments used in their classrooms.
3.Assessment results are aligned to the needs of their audiences.
4.Redundant, mis-aligned, or unused assessments are eliminated.
5.Assessment results are delivered in a timely and useful manner.
6.The metrics and incentives used encourage a focus on all learners.
7.The assessment program contributes to a climate of transparency and
objectivity with a long-term focus.

10. The purposes of all assessments are
defined and the assessments are valid
1 and useful for their purposes.

11. Typical assessment purposes
• Identify student learning needs
• Identify groupings of students for instruction
• Guide instruction
• Course placement
• Determine eligibility for programs
• Award credits and/or assign grades
• Evaluate proficiency
• Monitor student progress
• Predict proficiency
• Project achievement of a goal
• Formative and summative evaluation of programs
• Formative evaluation to support school and teacher
improvement
• Report student achievement, growth, and progress to the
community and stakeholders.
• Summative evaluation of schools and teachers

12. Assessment Purpose Survey

13. Teachers are educated in the proper
administration and application of the
2assessments used in their classrooms.

14. Assessment results are aligned to the
needs of their audiences. 3

15. Assessment audiences
• School Board
• Students
• Teachers
• Parents
• Principals, school administrators, and teacher
leaders
• District Administrators
• Community members
• State and federal officials

16. IT’S GOOD TO KNOWYOUR TARGET
AUDIENCE

17. WHAT KIND OF DATA TO PARENTS
WANT?
77%
84%
88%
90%
91%
92%
93%
95%
95%
79%
Providing activities for home
Adjust content to student needs
Helping my child with homework
Measuring high quality teaching
Communicating with teacher/admin
Monitoring standards
Knowing if I need to seek extra help
Determining readiness for next…
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Knowing when to be concerned
Monitoring general progress
Source – Northwest Evaluation Association (2012) – NWEA Assessment Perceptions
Study. Survey conducted by Grunwald Associates LLC

18. QUESTIONS PARENTS WANT ANSWERED
FROM ASSESSMENT
• Core question – Do you know and care for my
child?
• What are my child’s strengths and
weaknesses?
• Is my child on track for the next grade?
• Is my child on track for college?
• Is my child showing improvement?
• Should I be concerned?

19. QUESTIONS TEACHERS WANT ANSWERED
FROM ASSESSMENT
• What does each student know and not know?
• What does this student need to learn next?
• What resources will help this student?
• How can I group these students for
instruction?

20. QUESTIONS BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
WANT ANSWERED FROM ASSESSMENT
• Which students are struggling with school?
• Which students are not showing progress?
• Which grade levels/teachers are particularly
effective or ineffective?
• How can we correct problems before or as
they occur?

21. Assessment Purpose and Audiences

22. Redundant, mis-aligned, or unused
assessments are eliminated. 4

23. Assessment Purpose Survey

24. Assessment results are delivered in a
timely and useful manner. 5

25. The metrics and incentives used
encourage a focus on all learners. 6

26. Three reasons why metrics matter
1. They frame problems

27. Why metrics matter
2. They influence public
perceptions of schools

28. WHY METRICS MATTER
3. They incentivize behavior

29. Case #1 - No Child Left Behind
…is responsible
for redefining the
term BUBBLE KID.

30. Number of Students
One district’s change in 5th grade math
performance relative to Kentucky cut scores
Mathematics
Fall Score

31. Number of Students
One district’s change in 5th grade math
performance relative to Kentucky cut scores
Mathematics
Scale Score
Failed growth target
Met growth target

32. Tests are not equally accurate for all
students
California STAR NWEA MAP

33. Case #2 – Manipulating test conditions to maximize
results
In New York the use of tests for high-stakes
teacher evaluation coincided
with changes in classroom testing
conditions that may have inflated
student growth in some schools.

34. DIFFERENCES IN GRADE 7 MATH
TEST DURATIONS
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Math Fall 11 – Spring 12
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
F11 Duration Spring 2012
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Math Fall 12 – Spring
2013
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
F12 F13

35. DIFFERENCES IN NEW YORK SAMPLES GRADE
7 MATH GROWTH RELATIVE TO CHANGE IN
TEST DURATION
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Fall 11 – Spring 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Growth
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Fall 12 – Spring 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223
Growth

36. Case #3
Misidentification of
problems

37. ESTIMATES OF NY PROFICIENCY
CUT SCORES RELATIVE TO THE
NWEA SCALE
Grade Mathematics Reading
Current Prior Current Prior
3 205 199 210 198
4 219 207 215 205
5 233 214 222 212
6 232 221 225 216
7 242 224 228 220
8 245 235 229 223

38. CHANGE IN PROFICIENCY LEVEL CUT SCORES
ON THE NEW YORK STATE MATHEMATICS
ASSESSMENT.

39. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF THE
CHANGE IN PROFICIENCY LEVEL ON THE
NEW YORK STATE ELA ASSESSMENT

40. MAP MATHEMATICS GRADE 5 MEANS
SPRING 2012- SPRING 2013
Spring 2012 Spring 2013
District 1 226.9 229.7
District 2 226.1 230.7
District 3 232.4 240.6
District 4 227.0 228.3
District 5 208.6 212.1

41. ESTIMATED CHANGE IN MAP GRADE 5 ESTIMATED
PROFICIENCY RATES IN MATH – BASED ON OLD
AND NEW CUT SCORES
Actual Change Change if 2012 and 2013
used the current cut score
Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2012 Spring 2013
District 1 88% 40% 36% 40%
District 2 85% 44% 34% 44%
District 3 91% 72% 51% 72%
District 4 86% 40% 34% 40%
District 5 36% 7% 5% 7%

42. CHANGE IN PROFICIENCY LEVEL CUT SCORES
ON THE NEW YORK STATE MATHEMATICS
ASSESSMENT.

43. NEW YORK MATHEMATICS
PROFICIENCY ON MAP
30%
36% 36%
25%
28% 30%
50%
43%
30%
35%
26%
30%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3 4 5 6 7 8
Proficiency based on calibrated cut score
Proficiency based on current NY cut score

44. The assessment program contributes to
a climate of transparency and objectivity
7with a long-term focus

45. Assessment Action Planning
Template

46. There is value in learning
from past experience