Three years ago, the Ann Arbor Public School district began developing an alternative way to measure student learning and to report the results to parents. The process took time and effort, but it appears to be paying off. Early data revealed that kindergartners' performance, based on the school district's expectations for children their age, has risen over the past year.
These promising results have led us to three convictions: First, a performance assessment program and meaningful parent report form, like twins, must be conceived together; second, teachers must take a lead role in their ongoing development (Stiggins and Conklin 1992); and third, by systematically monitoring students' progress, teachers can more effectively meet the children's individual needs.
Toward a Better Learning Yardstick
The impetus to design a new way to evaluate student performance came about six years ago when a group of 1st grade teachers petitioned the administration to stop administering the California Achievement Test. They viewed this standardized test—and indeed any achievement test—as academically inappropriate for 1st graders. Clifford Weber, our school system's executive director of instruction and research, agreed. He had already been searching for better ways to measure learning, and found Richard Stiggins' research (1988) on performance assessment convincing.
We began with a pilot project limited to mathematics learning goals. We asked a group of kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grade teachers, to develop, under the direction of the district's math coordinator, limited performance outcomes for each grade, together with tasks and criteria to gauge students' progress toward these goals. We then trained a core group of teachers to put the assessment to the test. They interviewed a sampling of students across the district, evaluating their proficiency in each of the tasks. This “Primary Mathematics Assessment Tryout” convinced us that we could develop a districtwide assessment program.
Benchmarks of Progress
Our goal was to develop student performance assessments tied directly to the outcomes the school district had established for each grade. In the first year, the language arts consultant, the math coordinator, and I worked with the kindergarten teachers to develop criteria and assessment methods. Over the next two years, we expanded the assessment to the 1st and 2nd grades.
- demonstrates knowledge of books and print;
- demonstrates knowledge of story structure;
- identifies words/logos within the classroom and outside of school; and
- exhibits positive attitude toward reading.
- holds book in ready-to-read position;
- locates words in books;
- finds beginning and ending of story;
- can point to the title;
- knows left page is read before the right one;
- knows words carry meaning of story.
Students rated in the Not Yet category may hold books improperly or show no interest in them, while those identified as Developing may sometimes hold books properly, or point to some words on the cover, but not the title. Teachers also note any Extended activities children have mastered. A child may, for example, be able to recognize authors' and illustrators' styles or be aware of chapters and tables of contents. Teachers observe students during regular language instruction to assess their language skills, but use specific tasks to evaluate mathematics skills (see fig. 1).
Figure 1. Sample of Arithmetic Criteria for Kindergarten
Outcome: Counts by rote to 20
Assessment and Reporting: A Natural Pair-table
Not Yet | Developing | Achieving | Extending |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Criteria: Counts only from 1 to 5. Counts to 10 but skips one or more numbers. (May be able to count along with someone else.)" | "Criteria: Counts from 1 to 10 but cannot count from 11 to 19 without errors. Counts to 20 but skips one or more numbers. (When asked for next number, may need to start counting from 1.)" | "Criteria: Counts orally from 1 to 20 without any errors. (Automatically knows the next number.)" | "Criteria: Counts beyond 20. Counts by 2s, 5s, and/or 10s. Counts backwards." |
Coordinating the Parent Report
As the kindergarten teachers were developing the performance assessment, they let us know it was incomplete without a matching parent report form. The existing form, they realized to their distress, bore no relationship to the extensive outcome-based assessment they had created. To remedy this mismatch, six kindergarten and 1st grade teachers informally and independently designed their own individual forms and tried them out. They were pleased to discover that their hard work in delineating outcomes made this task much easier. The report would merely present the assessment format the teacher used, accompanied by an explanation of the process. The following year, the six forms were consolidated into two alternative formats that teachers could choose between—a short checklist and a longer, more detailed report. The new formats worked: given the option, virtually all 100 district kindergarten and 1st grade teachers chose to use a new form in lieu of the old one. The format has been further modified and now combines elements of the long and short versions (see fig. 2).
Figure 2. Excerpt from the 2nd Grade Report to Parents
Writing
9. Creates a first draft with fluency and confidence.
Writes without hesitation.
Spelling and mechanics do not interfere with flow of transferring thoughts to paper.
Responds to writing shared by a peer.
The new report goes out to parents three times a year. It states the reading, writing, and math outcomes, the assessment criteria, and the children's progress in meeting these goals. The Developing section has three boxes, allowing teachers to show gradual growth for students who remain in this category most of the year.
The parents' reaction to the new form was mixed. They appreciated knowing exactly what was expected of their children. Knowing this enabled them to work cooperatively with the teacher and take a more active role in their children's education. They did, however, need a number of concepts explained. One source of confusion was the performance continuum over the school year. In the fall, most students perform somewhere between the Not Yet and Developing categories for their grade levels. (By June, however, they should reach Achieving.) But some parents interpreted these fall ratings as the equivalent of a D or E. On the other hand, parents of students who had in fact reached the Achieving level in the fall for most outcomes had a different concern. They wondered whether teachers would go on to meet their children's advanced academic needs the rest of the year.
Clearly it was important to supplement the report forms with further explanation and written materials. Teachers need to explain that performance assessment is an ongoing process, and that the outcomes assessed on the report form reflect only part of the curriculum. Teachers provide each family with a booklet detailing the criteria they use to evaluate students' progress.
A recent survey of parents revealed an overwhelmingly favorable response to the new format. They told us the reports took a lot of the guesswork out of report cards, and they appreciated the emphasis on observable and concrete behaviors and the individual attention their children received. Only a small minority felt otherwise, regarding the booklet as too detailed and complicated.
Coaching Teachers
Inservice teacher training has been critical. In the first year, teachers spent a total of three days at mandated language and mathematics inservices, examining outcome criteria and methods of collecting information to evaluate student progress. To improve interrater reliability, teachers watched videos of students being assessed, then used the criteria to assign a rating to their performance. If some teachers' ratings differed significantly from those of their colleagues, we reviewed the criteria to better understand what children look like when they're achieving that particular outcome.
As a result of the new assessment strategies, teachers have been monitoring students more closely and refining their teaching techniques. We have encouraged teachers to assess students in the course of classroom instruction, but this is difficult if their traditional teaching methods do not match the outcomes and/or the assessment criteria. Accordingly, our fourth-year inservices will focus heavily on new teaching strategies that are consistent with the outcomes. Teachers themselves say they want to know more about current research and philosophy for teaching language and mathematics.
Early on, our assessment practices ran up against the reality of time constraints; many teachers felt hard pressed to teach, assess students, and also record a tremendous amount of information. To give them more time to talk to and observe individual students, we have provided them with substitute teachers for seven half-days each school year. After three years, the kindergarten teachers report feeling more comfortable with the process. They say they have internalized the criteria and are learning to observe and assess student performance as they teach.
Teachers also are experimenting with more efficient record-keeping systems. The very process of filling out the new report forms requires teachers to review their ongoing assessment and record-keeping techniques. Said one teacher: “With the old form and its vague language I was not really accountable to be very specific, but now I feel obligated to provide the most accurate and up-to-date information possible.”
Patience Pays Off
What else have we learned about implementing a new performance assessment process? For one thing, you cannot mandate skills, creativity, and a commitment to continuous improvement (McLaughlin 1991). You must have patience. Teachers need many opportunities to share their successful strategies with colleagues, and to receive support as they work through their problems. Administrators need to listen well while teachers relate what does and doesn't work. Following Glatthorn's “11 maxims of the change process (1992),” we were flexible, blended “top-down and bottom-up processes,” had a plan, but were “ready to learn by doing” (Fullan 1993).
For their part, many teachers have found that the new system becomes more valuable and less stressful each year. It forces them to reflect on the needs of each student and consequently to gear their instruction to meet those individual needs. And as they stop to take stock of their students' progress, they often are surprised and inspired to discover clear improvement. In March, for example, one 1st grade teacher said she was startled to realize that “the students' growth was amazing!”
We will continue to question and improve this complex assessment process, never losing sight of our ultimate goal: success for all students.
