Mi Missouri ri Asses essmen ent Part rtner ership Update Patton onville Boa Board of E of Education on January 22, 2019
Up Update e on MOAP v Share § Process used to identify components of the model § the assessment model developed, including ü Goals/Purpose Share ü Rationale ü Characteristics/Components v Processing Around the Model § Answer questions Next § Gather feedback Process Steps v Next Steps § Support § Going from Model to System
MOAP Advisory y Committee Pu Purpose and Areas of Focus v An Advisory Committee, consisting of individuals from MOAP member districts was formed to provide input and leadership in the strategic areas of focus for MOAP. v Areas of Focus § Assessment System and Resource Development: Focus on the characteristics, features and capabilities of an assessment system for partner districts which will then lead to the development of an RFP. The resource development portion would focus on ensuring high quality assessments and instructional resources are available across the partnership. Ideally, the system, assessments, and resources will be integrated. The main focus will be the assessment system and resources to support instruction. § Knowledge and Practice: Identifying, sharing, and promoting what works in assessment with results providing the foundation for the findings. The main focus will be research and building a knowledge base on what works. § Professional Learning: Identify needs and build capacity for teachers and leaders around the effective use of assessments, assessment development and assessment literacy. The main focus is on the learning of adults on assessment and assessment practices to support the learning of students.
MOAP Advisory y Committee Members Region Individuals 1 – Northwest Karma Coleman (Tarkio), Valerie Jones (East Buchanan), Betty Vassmer (Cowgill) 2 – Kansas City Christopher Hand (Liberty) 3 – West Central Mindy Hampton (Wellington-Napoleon) 4 – Southwest Melia Franklin (Ozark), Nathan Manley (Seneca), Laura O’Quinn (Lebanon), Jay Roth (Lebanon), Kathy Tackett (Carl Junction), Julie Williams (West Plains) 5 – South Central Jenny Ulrich (Lonedell) 6 – Southeast Mary Jo Jensen (Fredericktown), Matt Lacy (Jackson) 7 – St. Louis Glenn Hancock (Rockwood), Jill Lawson (Lindbergh), Roxanna Mechem (MRH), Carter Snow (Parkway), Tara Sparks (Lindbergh), Michelle Wilkerson (Hancock Place) 8 – Northeast John French (Lewis Co. C-1), Traci Mosby (Lewis Co. C-1)
Advisory y Committee and the Model Members of the Region Individuals Advisory Committee 1 – Northwest Valerie Jones (East Buchanan), Betty Vassmer (Cowgill) and Executive 2 – Kansas City Christopher Hand (Liberty), Brian Huff (Raytown)* Committee came 3 – West Central Mindy Hampton (Wellington-Napoleon) together to provide 4 – Southwest Melia Franklin (Ozark), Jay Roth (Lebanon), Dave Schmitz input and feedback (Lebanon)*, Julie Williams (West Plains) through the structure 5 – South Central Jenny Ulrich (Lonedell) of a design challenge 6 – Southeast Mary Jo Jensen (Fredericktown) to create the 7 – St. Louis Kevin Beckner (Parkway)*, Glenn Hancock (Rockwood), assessment model Jill Lawson (Lindbergh), Tim Pecoraro (Pattonville)*, you will learn about Carter Snow (Parkway) today. 8 – Northeast John French (Lewis Co. C-1), Traci Mosby (Lewis Co. C-1), Andy Turgeon (Knox Co. R-I)* *Indicates member of Executive Committee
Sh Shared Learning v Review “Findings on Current and Ideal State” v Resources and Materials Reviewed § EdWeek Articles – “What Happens When States Un-Standardize Tests”, “Four States Want In”, and “Georgia Wants In” § iNACOL – Redesigning Systems of Assessments for Student-Centered Learning § NASBE – Balanced Assessment § Assessment for Learning Organization Information ü Slides on “Assessment for Learning Purposes and Principles” ü Website https://www.assessmentforlearningproject.org/learn ü Models provided in the “Explore” section of the Assessment for Learning website: https://www.assessmentforlearningproject.org/explore ü Principles - https://kumu.io/moonbeammachine/assessment-for-learning-principles#alp- assessment-for-learning-principles
St Struct cture Use sed to Fr Frame the Desi sign Challenge From “Design Thinking for Educators”
1918 2017-18
Unproven this was actually said by This quote by Ford does apply to our Ford, but the intent is relevant as it work. We are tired of going around relates to innovation. the problems the MAP presents.
So Solving the Problem Rather Than Go Going Around It v We don’t want a better paper map to use for navigation. v We want to use readily available devices for navigation. v The current form of testing is like making us take a journey with a paper map. § We have been doing it, but it is inefficient and redundant, when we rely on our own devices. We can do it if we have to but we are tired of having to translate the work we do with the digital support to the analog form of the paper map. § Why does it matter if we use a paper map or a GPS related device? v Isn’t the question, how are we performing and progressing towards the destination, thus why must we use an outdated form?
Go Goals als an and Purpose ses
Go Goal al – Pu Purpose – Ch Challenge v The goal is to create a student-centered assessment not a system- focused assessment. v The purpose of the MAP is to rank and sort students, schools and districts. This does not help teachers nor students in their learning. v We recognize there are constraints and parameters that must be met for state and federal requirements. However, we challenge DESE to embrace this work as a collaborative endeavor to improve the future of Missouri’s students.
We We want a GPS for learning v One that tells students, parents, v One that is consistent . One that and teachers where students are can be understood . One they at in their learning and what is value . One they want . One they next in their journey. deserve . One that is relevant . One that matters . v One that is responsive to where students are at in their learning. v One that tells DESE and the public where students are at on their v One that recognizes not every journey. If they have made the student follows the same learning checkpoints or if they haven’t, and path . if they haven’t how close they are, given where and when they v One that might be shut down at the end of 4 th grade because the started their journey. child moves out of state with their v One that tells everyone how far grandmother, but can pick back up we’ve taken students and how far when they return at the beginning we have still to go. Students may of their 7 th grade year. take different routes to get to the destination, but we still have to v One that can be used by the same expected destination for student, parent, teacher as much everyone. If we have the same as they want on their journey. expected destination , then why can’t we work to have flexibility in the tool we use to measure how we are doing and flexibility in the route of how to get there.
Th The M Mod odel Ra Rationale, e, Character eristics, Componen ents
Consistency y and Coherence Con Connecting T g To Th o Throu ough gh-Cou Course Brown, C., Boser, U., Sargrad, S., & Marchitello, M. (2016). Implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
St Student-Ce Centered As Assessment M Mod odel v System focused on teaching and learning first, accountability second. § Every student – Every day v Online, with a quick turnaround providing meaningful data and reports. § This will be exclusively on the vendor/partner. § Thus the vendor/partner are foundational to this being a successful endeavor. v Focus on growth with emphasis on competency towards high school and college/career readiness. § Currently assess at the state’s pace – need to assess at the student’s pace v Criterion-referenced through-course, done in shorter iterations and less invasive than done in the current model, showing proficiency throughout the course and not just at the end of the year. v Authentic Writing v Professional Development for teachers on system-usage and connections to improve/deliver instruction and resources for students that aren’t on pace. v Inclusive for all students, regardless of arbitrary 1% caps v Coherence and Continuity over time – long-term commitment with the vendor/partner v Integration of subjects would be ideal, but we recognize that may be for future iterations. v Must be able to meet all technical requirements of the U.S. Department of Education’s Peer Review of State Academic Assessment Systems
U.S. Department of Education Federal Waiver Process ESSA Innovative State Assessment Pilot
Next Ne t Steps v Regional Meetings v Ask for consent at a district-level § Are you comfortable with this – can your district support this? v Determine level of support v Share out on the level of support v Going from Model to System § Assuming high-levels of support – will begin writing the Request for St. Louis, EducationPlus – Tuesday, January 8, 9:00 – 10:30 Ø Proposal (RFP) Northwest, Stanberry – Wednesday, January 9, 8:00 – 9:30 Ø Kansas City, Liberty – Wednesday, January 9, 12:30 – 2:00 Ø West Central, Green Ridge – Wednesday, January 9, 4:00 – 5:30 Ø Southwest, Ozark – Thursday, January 10, 8:00 – 9:30 Ø Southeast, Jackson – Thursday, January 10, 3:30 – 5:00 Ø
Recommend
More recommend
