Test Assessment Report by de Barros June 2008

Developing a Strategic Student Assessment System in
Seattle Public Schools:
Research,
Stakeholder Priorities
And Policy Analysis
Prepared by:
Jessica de Barros
Independent Consultant
June 18, 2008
1
Developing a Strategic Student Assessment System in Seattle Public Schools
June 18, 2008
Developing a Strategic Student Assessment System in

Seattle Public Schools:
Research, Stakeholder Priorities and Policy Analysis
Executive Summary
Background
Seattle Public Schools is in a unique and challenging position. Under new leadership, the mid-size
urban district has approved a new strategic plan with the goal of dramatically improving student
performance over the next five years.
To meet the goals established in the strategic plan, the Research, Evaluation and Assessment Office
is leading an effort on behalf of the Superintendent to develop a district-wide student assessment
system. Seattle schools administer the Washington Assessment of Student Learning annually as
required by state and federal law, yet school and district leaders need more frequent student
performance data in order to meet its five-year goals. It is imperative for the district to know on a
more frequent basis throughout each school year whether students are on track to make progress on
state standards.
What This Report Provides

This report provides the Superintendent and other district leaders with a basis from which to select
one or more assessments. First, the report describes the characteristics of high-quality assessment
systems according to the research and identifies various purposes of assessment. Next, the report
provides an inventory of assessments that are currently used in Seattle Public Schools and
summarizes findings on outreach conducted to district stakeholders about their needs and priorities
for assessment. Based on the literature and stakeholder findings, the report provides a gap analysis
suggesting areas where the district could focus more deeply on assessment, and makes
recommendations for the district to consider in selecting a district-wide assessment.
To provide context on how other districts have approached student assessment, the report describes
and compares the assessment practices of five school districts in Washington State and five school
districts outside of Washington State. Finally, the report describes six different assessment products
used by other districts. The report does not recommend a specific assessment for the district, but
does provide a framework for Seattle Public Schools to use in creating a strategic assessment system.
Highlights of Findings and Recommendations

Seattle Public Schools currently administers a wide variety of assessments to meet a wide variety of
purposes. The district should prioritize and narrow its purpose(s) of assessment in order to measure
student performance toward clear targets. It is also necessary for the district to improve
“assessment literacy,” or to train teachers and principals on how often to assess students, how to
interpret the data and how to use the data to inform instruction. Data literacy currently varies across
and within schools.
In interviews and surveys, stakeholders identified three high-priority purposes of assessment for
SPS: to drive instruction; to monitor student learning on an ongoing basis; and to diagnose special
needs to place students in services. Stakeholders also identified three high-priority criteria that they
believed the district should use in selecting an assessment strategy: provide data that are
1
June 18, 2008
immediately useful for instruction; be aligned to state-wide Grade Level Expectations; and, provide
rich, detailed student data.
Seattle Public Schools currently administers a great number of assessments that monitor student
progress and inform instruction to some degree. However, the district administers fewer
assessments that are immediately useful to instruction and provide rich, detailed student data.
As the district moves forward to develop a strategic student assessment system, this report
recommends it eliminate assessments in areas where they overlap in purpose, and enhance in the
areas of district-wide reading benchmark assessments, guidelines for classroom-based formative
assessments, special education assessment, and kindergarten readiness assessment. In addition, the
district should increase access to data at all levels of the system in order to help all individuals
understand the connection between student performance data and their daily work. In summary,
this report is a starting point from which district leadership can determine the type of assessment
system that will best meet its needs.
2
I. Introduction
Background
Seattle Public Schools has approved a new strategic plan, Excellence for All (2008), with the goal of all
students achieving. Within five years, the district aims to ensure that: 88 percent of third grade
students meet or exceed reading standards; 80 percent of seventh grade students meet or exceed
math standards; and, 75 percent of students graduate from high school in four years. These are
dramatic increases from current achievement levels.
The Strategic Plan maps out a plan to achieve these ambitious targets. Among the strategies the
district seeks to use is developing assessment tools to consistently track student progress and using
data to drive improvements. These assessments would be in addition to the statewide, annual
Washington Assessment of Student Learning. It is imperative for the leaders of the district’s
multiple functions (i.e., curriculum, instruction, assessment, professional development, principal
leadership, policy-making) to operate as a system using data to reach the common goal of improved
student achievement. Teachers, principals and administrators need common tools to measure
progress toward these goals and to have access to the same types of information with which to make
decisions at the classroom, building and district levels.
Report Purpose and Outcome

Seattle Public Schools has expressed interest in using formative and summative (or “benchmark”)
assessments to inform instruction, monitor student and school performance, and make policy
decisions at the school and district levels. The purpose of this report is to provide an objective
research base that the Superintendent and her key staff can use to determine the most appropriate
type of assessment(s) to implement in Seattle Public Schools classrooms.
To meet this purpose, the report will provide:
• An in-depth description of the purposes of assessment, from a policy and organizational

management perspective;
• An inventory of the types of assessments currently used in Seattle Public Schools;
• An objective framework with which to evaluate the purposes, strengths and weaknesses of
current assessments based on stakeholder priorities;
• Findings and recommendations tailored to Seattle Public Schools’ potential implementation of a
new assessment system;
• Capsule descriptions of assessment strategies used by five other school districts in Washington
State and five school districts outside of Washington State; and,
• A description of six assessment products that could potentially meet the priorities and criteria
identified by Seattle Public Schools stakeholders.
This report will put the Superintendent in a position to determine the type of assessment(s) that are
best-suited to help the district achieve its goals as laid out in the Strategic Plan, and most
importantly, best-suited to help all students achieve.
1
June 18, 2008
II. Literature Review

Purposes of Assessment: Assessment for What?
To design an effective assessment of any kind, one must be clear on the purposes of assessment.
Schools and school districts have many varying purposes of assessment. According to Ainsworth
and Viegut (2006), purposes of assessment can include but are not limited to:
• Determining student mastery of particular concepts or skills;

• Evaluating the effectiveness of instruction;
• Motivating students to learn;
• Helping students learn content through application and other reasoning skills;
• Helping students develop positive attitudes toward a subject;
• Communicating performance expectations to students;
• Giving students feedback about what they know and can do;
• Showing students what they need to focus on to improve their understanding;
• Encouraging student self-evaluation;
• Determining report card grades; and,
• Communicating to parents what students presently know and can do.
The literature on assessment focuses on two broad categories serving distinct purposes: formative,
or assessment for learning; and summative, or assessment of learning. Two additional purposes of
assessment for schools and districts, which are discussed to a lesser degree in the literature, include
diagnostic (to identify specific learning needs), and evaluative (to determine how well the system is
working to improve student learning).
Distinguishing Formative From Summative Assessment

In recent years, much of the literature on assessments has focused on formative assessment.
Formative assessments differ from summative assessments in that they are most often administered
during the learning process to gauge students’ understanding of the material being taught and to adjust
instruction based on their understanding. Formative assessments tend to be teacher-developed and
administered, and can be as formal as paper-and-pencil tests or as informal as observations of
curricular activities or class discussions. Summative assessments, on the other hand, tend to be
administered after the learning process to gauge students’ mastery of the material taught. Summative
assessments can take a variety of forms ranging from teacher-developed open-response questions to
standardized tests. Another distinction between formative and summative assessment is the latter
focuses on an “extrinsic motivation,” or outside force, for learning, as opposed to an intrinsic
approach of self-motivation (McMillan, 2007).
Formative Assessment
Literature on formative assessments describes the positive impact this practice can have on student
learning. In particular, research by Wiliam et al (2004) shows formative assessments, when
implemented well, are one of the most cost-effective interventions compared to other interventions
such as increased teacher content knowledge and class size reduction. When studying the impact of
formative assessments in classrooms over the period of one year, the researchers found classrooms
where teachers used frequent formative assessments showed two times the learning rate of students
in other classrooms.
2
June 18, 2008
Since the positive impact of formative assessment on student learning has been recognized in the
literature, formative assessment has become a popular strategy for districts to use to improve
student achievement. Proprietary companies have developed and sold benchmark assessment
systems, which are described as “formative,” to school districts. However, researchers caution that
not all assessments advertised as formative yield the same benefits. According to Wiliam and
Thompson (2007), formative assessment has a positive impact on student achievement only when
the cycle between assessments is relatively short, ranging from minute-to-minute to every four
weeks. Longer-cycle assessment systems designed to be administered between quarters, semesters
and years (i.e., spanning more than 4 weeks between each assessment), such as many of the
benchmark assessment systems being advertised as formative, do not show the same results.
However, benchmark or summative assessments can meet other important purposes of assessment
such as monitoring student progress and predicting student performance on state standards.
Characteristics of Effective Formative Assessment
Personalized Information on Student Learning

Ideally, formative assessment is one part of a larger instructional strategy to help both students and
teachers learn. According to Fullan and Crevola (2006), the most critical aspect of formative
assessment is the fact that it provides personalized information about how and what students are
learning, which teachers in turn use to deliver precise instruction to meet students’ individual
learning needs. This process of personalized teaching and assessment described by the authors,
called “breakthrough” instruction, also requires a highly focused learning community for teachers.
In such a system, teachers have access to strong assessment tools that are well-aligned with learning
standards, as part of a larger school- and district-wide system for monitoring learning and
continuously responding to student needs.
Marzano (2006) describes a process for teachers to develop a formative assessment system at the
school or district level. The author points out that frequently administering formative assessments
tends to motivate students to improve by providing them with information on their performance
and evidence that their effort can increase performance.
Assessment Leadership
In order for the system to work well, there must be strong leaders at the school and district level
who support and model the learning community. The importance of leadership is confirmed by
Stiggins (2007), who maintains teachers need districts to put structures in place to assure sound
assessment practices, and administrators should have a thorough understanding of how to
administer, interpret and apply strategies that respond to assessment results.
Aligned to Standards
Marzano (2006) provides specific guidance on how teachers can develop formative assessments that
are aligned to learning standards. This process begins with “unpacking” and prioritizing the
benchmarks that are most essential for students to learn, which are included in standards
documents. Teachers then group skills into three types of items: basic details and processes
included in the material taught; complex ideas and processes included in the material taught; and,
inferences and/or applications students might be able to make based on the material taught, but
which go beyond the material taught. Within each type of item, teachers develop assessments to
measure mastery of each standard.
3
June 18, 2008
School- and District-Wide Assessment Literacy

Ainsworth and Viegut (2006) describe the elements that make a formative assessment system
successful in a school or district. First, in order to develop a high-quality assessment system, school
and district leaders and staff must be “assessment-literate.” The authors describe assessment-literacy
as “the ability to understand the different purposes and types of assessment in order to select the
most appropriate type of assessment to meet a specific purpose.” Assessment literacy requires not
only an understanding of the different types of assessment, but also the concepts of validity,
reliability and fairness and how to evaluate assessments based on these criteria. The authors
describe a series of questions developed by Popham (2003) that teachers should ask when
developing formative assessments:
o What am I really trying to teach?

o What do my students need to know and be able to do?
o How can I translate the big curricular goals…into specific teachable components?
o What do my students already know about the topic I’m planning to teach?
Using Ainsworth and Viegut’s (2006) formative assessment development process, districts and
schools then prioritize standards and align formative assessments to the highest-priority standards.
Teacher Design & Ongoing Professional Development

In order to foster and maintain assessment literacy throughout a school or district, Ainsworth and
Viegut (2006) suggest teachers design, administer and score assessments collaboratively, as well as
receive initial and ongoing professional development on how to determine whether formative
assessments are measuring highly-prioritized standards and other skills teachers need to refine
assessments on an ongoing basis.
In its analysis of formative assessment in best-practice secondary schools in eight countries from
2002 through 2005, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ([OECD] 2005)
identified key elements of successful formative assessment and the strategies used to achieve those
elements. First, schools established a classroom environment that encouraged interaction and the
use of assessment tools. Such environments were focused on student learning, as opposed to
activities. Second, classrooms and schools established learning goals, monitored student progress
and adjusted goals as needed. Third, teachers used varying instructional approaches to meet
different student learning and assessment needs. Teachers provided feedback to students on their
performance and used the data to drive instruction toward individual student needs. Finally,
students were actively involved in the learning and assessment process, including peer- and self-
assessment.
Summative Assessment
Summative assessments are a measure of what a student has learned over a given period of time.
McMillan (2007) defines a summative assessment as one that is “conducted mainly to monitor and
record student achievement, and is used for school accountability.” Summative assessments can be
given at the end of an instructional unit, quarter, course, semester, or year, for example. While the
results of summative assessments can be used formatively to guide further instruction, the primary
purpose of summative assessments is to measure what has been learned already. Many schools and
districts use summative assessments two or three times per year to monitor student progress and to
predict performance on state assessments.
4
June 18, 2008
Summative assessments can be comprised of a variety of question types (e.g, multiple-choice, open
response, short answer, matching, true/false). Data are particularly useful for providing
performance information for groups or populations of students who have received the same
instruction.
It is important to note that both formative and summative assessment data can be used formatively
to guide instruction. As Biggs (1998) maintains, “sensible educational models make effective use of
both formative assessment and summative assessment.” The two types of assessment are not
mutually exclusive in one system.
The chart on the following page summarizes the purposes, characteristics and examples of
diagnostic, formative, summative and evaluative assessments.
5
June 18, 2008
Types of Assessment, Their Purposes and Characteristics

Type of Purpose Characteristics Examples Also Known As
Assessment
Formative To support • Assessment for learning • Classroom- • Observation
learning and drive • Administered frequently (every day to Based
instruction every 4 weeks) Assessments
• Administered and scored by teachers
• Interim measure which is used to adjust
instruction
• Includes multiple feedback loops to
students and teachers
• Tends to be highly individualized
• Students are not usually assigned grades
on performance
• Internal motivator for student learning
Summative To measure the • Assessment of learning • Everyday • Benchmark
achievement of • Less frequent than formative (every 4 Math • Interim
students after weeks to every year) benchmark • “Mini-
instruction • “Final”’ measure assessments Summative”
• Can measure student learning within • School • “Early-
short or long periods of time (i.e., one Turnaround Warning
curriculum unit or one year of assessments Summative”
instruction) • WASL • “Dipstick”
• DRA
Diagnostic To identify • Assesses students’ skills through a • Washington • Screener
specific learning particular lens to identify signs of a Language • Placement
needs and place specific learning need (e.g., Proficiency Test
students in developmental delay, English language Test
appropriate proficiency, advanced learning) • Brigance
programs • Other types of assessments can be used • Cognitive
diagnostically (e.g., DRA is used Abilities Test
primarily for summative purposes but is
also used to identify advanced learners)
Evaluative To evaluate the • Longitudinal evaluation • NAEP • Evaluation
quality of • Evaluation of the system, not students • PISA
educational
systems, curricula
or programs
Building a Comprehensive Assessment and Accountability System

Regardless of the types of assessment used, researchers have identified elements of quality
assessment to guide schools and districts that are developing assessment strategies. Stiggins, Arter,
Chappius & Chappius (2004) identify four “keys” to quality assessment: have a clear purpose; have
clear targets; serve as an accurate assessment of what was taught; and communicate results clearly to
both learners and instructors.
To place assessment systems in the context of the purposes they serve, assessments can be thought
of as one element of a larger accountability system for a school or district. It is important not only
for a district to assess student performance, but to make decisions based on the data.
6
June 18, 2008
To illustrate, the Mid-Continental Research Educational Laboratory (2005) has identified six
characteristics of effective accountability systems:
• High expectations for all students;

• High-quality assessments aligned with standards;
• Alignment of resources, support and assistance for improvement;
• Applying sanctions and rewards;
• District and school personnel data usage; and,
• Informative to parents and the community.
These six characteristics are inter-related. A school or district’s learning expectations for students
guides the standards students are required to meet and are assessed on. Further, a district
implementing an ideal accountability system would use assessment data to align resources to best
support areas of need, potentially apply sanctions and rewards, assign district staff matching skills to
areas of need, and communicate student data to parents and the community.
Balancing the Purposes of Assessment Within an Accountability System

Schools and districts often have competing purposes for assessment in the form of internal and
external accountability. While an internal accountability system can be best served by formative
classroom assessments to gauge individual student progress, an external accountability system can be
best served by summative or benchmark assessments that provide a “snapshot” of district-wide
performance.
Fullan and Crevola (2006) acknowledge this tension between different purposes of accountability,
noting external accountability systems tend to overlook the need to develop internal accountability
systems within schools in their attempts to impact classroom practice. The authors assert that when
developing a comprehensive assessment system, it is critical to ensure not only that the multiple
parts of the system are aligned, but also that they are combined in a dynamic way to provide
meaningful data to stakeholders at all levels of the system. The authors recommend districts seeking
to develop comprehensive assessment systems build on successful formative assessment strategies
already in place in classrooms, integrating existing practices into the new system. Integrating in this
way can mitigate the burden to teachers of adding new assessments.
Similarly, the OECD’s study of formative assessment in eight countries showed that tension
between classroom-based formative assessments and school- or district-based summative and
evaluative assessments was a barrier to effective implementation of a formative assessment system
(2005). Abrams also notes that in fieldwork conversations with teachers, the teachers stated they do
not have time to administer formative assessments due to the pressure of preparing students to meet
state standards (2007).
The OECD issued a set of policy recommendations for districts developing comprehensive
assessment systems. At a minimum, OECD recommends formative and summative assessment
purposes not compete with one another. Ideally, the two assessment types should reinforce one
another. For example, data collected through summative assessments showing positive student
growth should be shared with teachers to show them how well their formative classroom strategies
are working, and to make any necessary adjustments to overall instructional strategies.
7
June 18, 2008
Teacher and Principal Training is Critical
The effectiveness of any assessment strategy with regard to impacting teaching and learning hinges
on effective training for teachers and administrators on the purposes and practices of the particular
assessment. While this point is made widely across the assessment literature, the National Science
Foundation offers specific characteristics of professional development that were most successful in
implementing the federal Urban Science Initiative (USI) grants in 21 urban districts from 1993
through 1998. Borman’s (2005) analysis of the USI suggests effective professional development:
• Improves student learning;

• Helps educators meet diverse students needs;
• Allows time for inquiry, reflection and mentoring;
• Is sustained and rigorous;
• Recognizes teachers’ intellectual development and leadership;
• Fosters greater content knowledge;
• Is designed and directed by teachers and principles of adult learning;
• Balances individual priorities with school and district needs, and advances the profession;
• Makes the best use of new technologies; and,
• Is site-based and supportive of a clear vision for student achievement.
Clearly, different types of assessment can meet different purposes for a district, school or classroom.
Regardless of the type of assessment selected, it is critical that it meet the district’s clear purpose, be
valid and reliable, and that the district implement it in a way that meets its intended needs.
8
June 18, 2008
III. Inventory of Assessments Currently Used in Seattle Public Schools

Seattle Public Schools uses a wide variety of assessments today. Due to the long history of site-
based management, assessment practices vary across schools and no comprehensive inventory of
classroom-based, formative assessments exists. While teachers use many types of formative
assessments, and some schools have developed common formative and summative assessments,
there is not a district policy on assessment beyond a few district-wide summative tests. Results of
formative assessments are usually kept at the classroom level; specific formative assessments and
instructional strategies resulting from assessments are not formally shared, and were difficult to
obtain for this study.
District-wide, Seattle Public Schools requires all schools to administer summative assessments in
reading in grades K-2 (one time per year) and in math in grades K-11 (three times per year). The
reading assessment is the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) and the math assessments are
the benchmark tests associated with the Everyday Math curriculum in elementary school, the CMP2
curriculum in middle school, and benchmark tests in Integrated Math 1, 2 and 3 in high school. In
addition, district-run Head Start preschool classrooms are required to administer a curriculum-
embedded assessment three times per year. These assessments are in addition to the Washington
Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) required in grades 3-8 and 10 by the state and federal
governments under the No Child Left Behind law.
Beyond these district-required assessments, many schools administer a host of summative

assessments in reading and math to meet a variety of purposes. For example: the School
Turnaround reading assessments are administered three times per year in nine middle schools; the
DIBELS assessment is administered one time per year in grades 1-5 for the six schools receiving
federal Reading First grants; and, many schools administer school-wide writing prompts which
teachers score using rubrics from the WASL writing assessment. The range of summative
assessments currently used in SPS that were voluntarily provided by stakeholders interviewed for
this study is summarized in the table on the following page.
9
June 18, 2008
Summative Assessments Currently Used in Seattle Public Schools

Content Area Assessment Grade Level Frequency Required Reported to Primary Additional
Name Administered by District? District? Purpose(s) of Information
Assessment
Preschool DLM Pre-K 3x/year: Yes Yes Drive instruction District has adapted the
Developmtl. curriculum- (for District-run • Within first DLM assessment many
Standards embedded Head Start 45 days of Program times; it is now a hybrid
assessment prgms. only) enrollment evaluation (long- of off-the-shelf and
• Mid-year term) home-grown
• End of year
Kindergarten Kindergarten K 1x/year at No No Determine Teacher use and
Readiness Inventory beginning of year kindergarten reporting of results vary
readiness for this assessment.
Reading
Stage A K 1x/year mid-year Yes Yes Monitor reading
Assessment skills and growth
Developmental 1-8 2x/year Grades Yes Student Required by the state in
Reading (fall and spring) 1&2 placement the fall for grade 1 and
Assessment required by the district
(DRA) Diagnostic in the spring for grades
1 and 2.
Some schools
administer the DRA to
advanced grade 1
students and to students
in grades 3-8 who are
below grade level
DIBELS 1-5 1x/year Yes, for the Yes Monitor
6 Reading reading skills
First schools and growth
Drive
instruction
Columbia 1-8 Varies Yes, for Yes Monitor
Teachers schools reading skills
College (CTC) using CTC and growth
Quick Readers
Assessment Workshop Drive
curriculum instruction
Read Naturally 2-5 Varies No No Drive
instruction
Reading 1-2 Varies No No Student
Counts placement
Drive
instruction
School K-8 3x/year: No No Student 9 middle schools and
Turnaround • Beginning of placement K-8s, and TT Minor,
year use this assessment
• Mid-year Monitor
• Year-end reading skills Based on GLEs
and growth
Year-end assessment
Drive used for student
instruction placement following
year
10
June 18, 2008
Content Area Assessment Grade Level Frequency Required Reported to Primary Additional
Name Administered by District? District? Purpose(s) of Information
Assessment
Reading, Scholastic 9-12 Varies No No Diagnostic For Pathways students
Cont’d Read 180
Monitor Computer-based
reading skills
and growth Currently conducting a
mini-evaluation of this
assessment
Scholastic 9-12 Varies No No Diagnostic Computer-based
Reading
Inventory Monitor
reading skills
and growth
Gates- K-8 Varies No No Monitor
McGinite reading skills
and growth
Fountas and 6-8 Varies No No Monitor Associated with Guided
Pinnell reading skills Reading curriculum
Benchmark and growth
Assessments
Degrees of 9-12 Varies No No Monitor Reading comprehension
Reading reading skills assessment
Power and growth
STAR K-12 Varies No No Monitor Associated with
reading skills Accelerated Reader
and growth curriculum
Math
Curriculum- K-11 3x/year: Yes, but Yes Monitor math Use EduSoft to
Based • Beginning mid-year skills and administer
Benchmark of year assessment growth
Assessments • Mid-year not required K-5 mid-year
• Year-end for high Drive assessment is from the
school in 07- instruction Everyday Math
08 (school curriculum
purpose)
6-8 mid-year assessment
Program is from the CMP2
evaluation curriculum
(district
purpose) High school
assessments are for
Integrated Math 1, 2
and 3
School 6-8 3x/year: No No Student Only Mercer &
Turnaround • Beginning placement Madison use this math
of year assessment
• Mid-year Monitor math
• Year-end skills and Based on GLEs
growth
Drive
instruction
Year-end
assessment
used for
student
placement
following year
Navigator 6-8 3x/year: No No Student For a limited group of
• Beginning placement students who receive
of year after-school services
• Mid-year Diagnostic
• Year-end
11
June 18, 2008
Seattle Public Schools also administers diagnostic assessments based on demonstrated student needs
to identify and place students in specific programs such as bilingual education, advanced learning
and special education. These assessments are summarized in the table below.
Need Assessment Grade Level Frequency Required Reported Primary Additional

Diagnosed Name Administered by District? to Purpose(s) of Information
District? Assessment
English Language Proficiency
Washington K-12 LEP Initial placement, Yes Yes Identification of When students reach
Language students then 1x/year bilingual services Level 4, they are
Proficiency needs advanced from the
Test 2 Bilingual Orientation
Student placement Center to mainstream
classrooms
Monitor student
English language Council of Great City
proficiency Schools recs will
inform this area
Meet state
requirements
Special Education
Individual K-12 sped Initial placement, Yes Yes Identification of
Assessment students then every 3 years special needs
Student placement
Brigance K-12 sped 1x/year Yes Yes Drive instruction Required federally by
students IDEA to determine
Meet federal “Present Level of
funding Performance”
requirements
Criterion-referenced
“worksheet”
Scores are included in

IEPs
Advanced Learning
Cognitive K-7 students Initial placement No Yes Identification of
Abilities Test who are advanced learning
nominated for needs
advanced
learning
Woodcock- K-1 Initial placement No Yes Identification of Individually
Johnson Form prospective advanced learning administered 1:1.
3 Achievement advanced needs
Test in R&M learners
ITBS 2-3 prospective Initial placement No Yes Identification of
advanced advanced learning
learners needs
DRA 1-2 District-wide Yes Yes Identification of
scores screened advanced learning
for highest- needs, especially
achieving students within sub-groups
in each sub-group and to increase
diversity
12
June 18, 2008
IV. Stakeholder Needs and Priorities For Assessment

In order to collect information on the district’s current purposes of assessment and the needs and
priorities of stakeholders, in-person and telephone interviews were conducted. Interviews focused
on stakeholders’ perspectives on current SPS assessment practices, the key components that would
comprise an ideal district-wide assessment system, and the level and types of support they would
need to implement such a system. Thirty-four interviews were conducted in March 2008 with
district administrators, principals and teachers (see Appendix 1 for interview list).
In addition, a survey was conducted among school principals, teachers and central office staff at the
elementary, middle and high school levels to identify their needs and priorities for assessment.
Written surveys were distributed at a district-wide staff meeting on March 25, 2008. Seventy-four
surveys were returned, of which 80 percent were completed by principals or assistant principals, 12
percent by central office staff, five percent by teachers, and three percent by staff who did not
disclose their roles. Fifty percent of survey responders represented elementary schools, 16 percent
represented high schools, 11 percent represented K-8s, 11 percent represented middle schools, eight
percent represented all grades, and four percent of respondents did not disclose their instructional
level of work.
Current Purposes of Assessment

Interviews with stakeholders revealed six broad purposes of assessment in the district today.
• Instructional – To drive instruction at the classroom level

• Monitoring – To monitor student, school and district performance progress toward
mastery of state standards and predict performance on state assessments
• Diagnostic/Placement – To identify struggling students and place them in services
that meet specific needs (i.e., special education, advanced learning, bilingual education,
remediation)
• Summative – To measure student learning after instruction
• Mandated – To meet district, state or federal funding requirements
• Evaluative – To evaluate the impact of specific programs
Interviews showed stakeholders in SPS have many broad purposes of assessment, which are
currently met on an ad-hoc basis as information is needed. The quality of assessment systems
vary by school; some schools have exceptionally thorough assessment systems that are well-aligned
to curricula and drive instruction, while others are focusing first on aligning curricula grade-to-grade
within their school buildings and have not yet developed coherent assessment systems.
The survey asked respondents to rank the six purposes of assessment based on the how well they
characterized current district assessment purposes. The highest-ranked current assessment purpose
was to inform and drive instruction, followed by ongoing monitoring of student learning and
diagnostic/student placement. The lowest priority for assessment was to evaluate programs,
followed by meeting federal, state or district requirements. The table below shows the percentage of
survey respondents who ranked each purpose first, first or second, fifth or sixth, and sixth. Again,
these data represent respondents’ perceptions of current priorities in SPS.
13
June 18, 2008
Percent of Survey Respondents Ranking Each Purpose of Assessment
As High or Low Priorities in the Current System
Measurement Ongoing
Diagnostic / of Learning Monitoring of Inform &
Student After Student Drive Meet Program
Placement Instruction Learning Instruction Requirements Evaluation
Percent Ranked #1 28% 19% 29% 37% 16% 5%
Percent Ranked #1 or #2 48% 36% 60% 61% 21% 8%
Percent Ranked #5 or #6 22% 11% 7% 12% 61% 67%
Percent Ranked #6 5% 3% 3% 4% 33% 41%
Stakeholder Opinions on Ideal Purposes of Assessment

When asked in surveys and interviews what should be the ideal purposes of assessment, the majority
of stakeholders responded they would like informing and driving instruction and monitoring
student learning to remain the highest priorities, or to be even higher priorities. Respondents also
indicated that meeting federal, state and district requirements and program evaluation should be low
priorities.
Survey respondents pointed out that there are different purposes of assessment at different times of
the school year. For example, diagnostic assessment is important at the beginning of the year to
obtain data on students’ initial skill levels, while monitoring student learning is important during the
year and summative assessment of what students learned is most important at the end of the year.
Survey respondents also made the connection between assessment and adjusting instruction,
indicating an ideal system would use assessment data to change instructional strategies. Further,
many thought that quick, classroom-based assessments to monitor student learning should be
administered more frequently. Some respondents also wrote that assessment data should be used
for teacher and principal evaluation.
Many teachers and principals interviewed and surveyed said they would welcome a district-
recommended (or in some cases, even district-mandated) assessment system with clear directions on
how and when to use it.
Additional Data Needed

Overall, stakeholders expressed the need for more district-wide student assessment data.
Specifically, they cited the need for detailed, strand-level assessment data in each content area
that stem from curricula and are aligned with GLEs. The need for more consistent, district-wide
data at the high school level was also expressed. In addition, stakeholders reported they would
like data on the impact of professional development on student achievement. However, some
teachers and principals cautioned against adding more assessments, as they take away from
instructional time.
The need to connect district-wide student assessment data systems with other student data
systems such as the SOURCE was also identified. For example, administrators would like to be
able to access one district-wide data system and easily view one student’s or a group of students’
benchmark assessments, WASL scores, Student Learning Plans, disciplinary actions, attendance and
enrollment histories.
14
June 18, 2008
It should be noted that many survey respondents did not believe the new elementary and middle
school math assessments provided them with useful data, or that assessments were aligned with the
curricula. However, there were also indications of misalignment between instructional pacing and
assessment. The survey comments were insufficient to draw a conclusion about the quality of these
new assessments and whether they are meeting the district’s purposes, but this is an issue the district
should continue to monitor carefully.
Stakeholders also spoke highly of both the DRA and Direct Writing Assessment (DWA), the
latter of which is no longer administered district-wide. Most stakeholders felt both assessments
provided rich student data that was useful for instruction. While the focus of this report is on
reading and math, it should be noted that several stakeholders requested the district reinstate
district-wide administration of the DWA. Also, many stakeholders voiced the need for funding for
substitute teachers during the time teachers take to administer the DRA individually to each student.
This assessment takes approximately two instructional days per classroom to administer.
Finally, many stakeholders stated teachers and principals need training in assessment literacy, or
how to use data to inform instruction.
Critical Elements of an Assessment System

Stakeholders were asked to identify specific elements they would like to be part of a potential
assessment system. Responses were grouped into the following categories of information:
• District-wide reading benchmark assessments for each grade level aligned to GLEs,
to be administered three times per year;
• A district-mandated menu of formative Classroom-Based Assessments at each
grade level, with corresponding rubrics, from which schools could select;
• District-wide diagnostic screening tools at each grade level to identify struggling
students and place them in appropriate services;
• An improved special education assessment to monitor student performance progress
throughout the year;
• Standardized, comprehensive performance data on students in grades K-3 to
identify advanced learners earlier on, especially students of color;
• College readiness assessments administered throughout the district;
• Student performance on a strand-per-strand basis;
• End-of-grade or end-of-course assessment data to place students in courses in the
following year;
• Assessment data that is linked to other district data systems such as the SOURCE;
and,
• Assessments of how students of color are faring in SPS with regard to access to
advanced learning programs and school climate.
15
June 18, 2008
Criteria to Consider in Developing an Assessment Strategy
Interviews and surveys also asked stakeholders which criteria they believed were most important for
the district to consider in developing a district-wide assessment system and evaluating specific
assessments. In interviews, stakeholders identified the following criteria as high-priority:
• Valid;
• Reliable;
• Aligned to GLEs;
• Predictive of WASL performance;
• Aligned to curriculum and instruction;
• Ability to assess a broad range of skill levels in each grade level, or otherwise adaptable
to be inclusive of special populations such as bilingual, special education and advanced
learners;
• Applicable to longitudinal data analysis and program evaluation;
• Easy to administer, understand and take action on;
• Reasonable time commitment (30-60 minutes per class);
• Quick turnaround of results;
• Sends results to teachers in a format they can immediately incorporate into instruction;
• Easy to communicate results to parents;
• Easy for district administrators to access data; and,
• Ability to show student growth.
In general, interviewees agreed on the criteria listed above. However, individuals expressed
divergent opinions on other key issues, such as whether a district-wide benchmark assessment
should be organized in a format similar to the WASL (including open-response items requiring
students to show their thought processes), whether assessments should be translated and
administered into languages other than English, and whether teachers should be responsible for
scoring assessments. These issues should be explored in more depth to determine how best to meet
the needs of SPS students.
During interviews, middle school principals and teachers strongly expressed the need for an
assessment to provide student results to teachers in a timely fashion (i.e., one week or less) in a
format that is easy to read and suggests specific skill areas to focus on for specific students.
Teachers reported they were much more likely to use student data if sent to them in an easy-to-use
format and expressed high satisfaction with the School Turnaround assessment in middle schools.
This suggests that simply making data available to teachers does not necessarily promote the use of
data to guide instruction. Rather, data organized in a way that is geared toward developing a lesson
plan is more likely to be used by teachers.
Based on the desired criteria obtained in interviews, survey respondents were asked to rank the
importance of nine potential criteria similar to those listed above based on how important they
considered each one for the district to use in selecting an assessment tool. The survey asked
respondents to assume all assessments considered would be reliable and valid.
16
June 18, 2008
The majority of survey respondents felt the most important criteria were that an assessment be
immediately useful for instruction, followed by being aligned to the GLEs and providing rich,
detailed data on student performance. Criteria ranked lowest by survey respondents were that an
assessment be adaptable to special needs students, followed by a test format that is similar to the
WASL and that results be immediately useful for school management. It is important to note that
the response rate for criteria ranking was lower overall than the response rate for other survey
questions, and the response rate varied dramatically by criterion. The following table shows the
number of survey respondents who ranked each criteria first, first or second, eighth or ninth, or
ninth, along with the total number who ranked each criterion.
Number of SPS Survey Respondents Ranking Each Criteria for Assessment as High or Low Priorities
Quick Immediately Adaptable
Aligned Format Turn- Detailed Immediately Useful for Little Time to Special Uses a
To Similar around for Student Useful for School to Needs Growth
GLEs to WASL Results Data Instruction Management Administer Students Model
Ranked #1 21 4 7 17 21 2 1 2 2
Ranked #1
or #2 33 7 15 33 39 3 10 5 3
Ranked #8
or #9 11 16 9 9 7 13 17 26 8
Ranked #9 7 6 1 4 4 6 6 17 5
Total
Respondents 57 30 57 57 63 27 41 39 21
It is interesting to note there were high numbers of survey respondents who believed rich, detailed
student data was one of the most important criteria, as well as high numbers of respondents who
believed an assessment’s ability to provide data immediately useful for instruction was one of the
most important criteria. It is difficult for one assessment to meet both of these criteria; they are
usually tradeoffs. Assessments that yield more detailed data tend to take more time to administer
and score, have slower turnaround time, and have the potential to provide so much data to teachers
that it can be overwhelming to determine how to immediately apply data to instructional strategies.
Another point to note is the difference between interview results and survey results in stakeholders’
beliefs about how important it is for a district-wide assessment be adaptable to special needs
students. In interviews, this issue came up frequently as a high priority. However, only seven out of
39 survey respondents answering this question ranked “adaptable to special needs students” as their
first or second priority for criteria to consider.
17
June 18, 2008
V. A Framework for SPS to Develop a District-Wide Assessment Strategy

In order to assist the district in determining the type of assessment that is best-suited to help all
students achieve, this report provides a framework for district leaders to evaluate and select one or
more assessments. The framework takes into account the relative priority level of each criterion to
help district leaders understand the strengths and weaknesses of each type of assessment based on
different priorities. A district’s assessment strategy can be comprised of multiple assessments to
meet multiple purposes, however, additional assessments require more time and monetary resources.
Range of Purposes and Criteria Met By Different Types of Assessment

Purpose: Purpose: Purpose: Criteria: Criteria: Criteria:
Inform & Monitor Diagnose Immediately Aligned to Provides
Drive Student Special Useful for GLEs Rich,
Instruction Learning Needs Instruction Detailed
Student Data
Types of
Assessment
Formative X X X
Summative X X X X
Diagnostic X
Gap Analysis: What is Needed to Meet SPS’ Purposes of Assessment?

In order to determine how best to meet the purposes of assessment identified in this report, it is
necessary to identify which current assessment practices are already meeting these needs, any areas
of duplication, and gaps where additional or different types of assessments are needed. The table
below shows the purposes and criteria met by the major summative and diagnostic assessments used
in SPS. The assessments are grouped by school level and content area. The table also shows how
additional assessments not currently used in SPS but discussed later in this report meet SPS’
priorities.
Analysis of Current SPS Assessments

Instruction Learning Needs / Instruction Detailed
Placement Student Data
Preschool Assessments
DLM X X X X X
Elementary / K-8 Reading Assessments

Kindergarten X X X
Inventory
Stage A X X X
DRA X X X X X
DIBELS X X X X
CTC Quick X X X X
Assessment
Read Naturally X X
Reading Counts X
18
June 18, 2008

Gates-McGinite X
STAR X X X
Elementary / K-8 Math Assessments

EM Benchmarks X X X X
Middle School Reading Assessments

School X X X X X
Turnaround
Gates-McGinite X
Fountas and X X X
Pinnell
Benchmarks
STAR X X X
Middle School Math Assessments

CMP2 X X X X
Benchmarks
School X X X X
Turnaround
Navigator X X X X
High School Reading Assessments

Scholastic X X X X
Read 180
Scholastic Reading X X X
Inventory
STAR X X X
Degrees of X X X
Reading Power
High School Math Assessments

Integrated 1, 2, 3 X X X X
Benchmarks
Diagnostic Assessments
WLPTII (ELL) X X X
Individual Special X X
Ed Assessment
Brigance (Sped) X X
Cognitive Abilities X X
Test (Adv.
Learning)
Woodcock- X X
Johnson Form 3
(Adv. Learning)
ITBS X X
DRA X X X
19
June 18, 2008

Additional Assessments Discussed in Report

MAP X X X X
ESD 189 CBAs X X X X
School X X X X
Turnaround
FoS X X X
Scantron X X X X
Tungsten X X X X
The table above shows that Seattle Public Schools administers many assessments that inform and
drive instruction, monitor student progress, and are aligned with GLEs. However, there are far
fewer tests that are immediately useful for instruction or provide rich, detailed student data.
20
June 18, 2008
VI. Findings and Recommendations

Findings
To summarize, this report has identified findings from the literature review and stakeholder outreach
that have implications for Seattle Public Schools’ approach to developing a strategic student
assessment system.
• SPS does not have a common purpose for student assessment. Teachers, schools and the
central office assess students for various purposes.
• Most decisions about data, including how often to assess student performance, actions to take
based on the data, and who to communicate the data to are made at the school or classroom
level, with the exception of district-mandated assessments such as the DRA reading test in
grades 1 and 2 and benchmark math tests in grades K-11.
• Student performance data (except for WASL data) are examined on an ad-hoc basis by
teachers and principals, with different schools using different strategies to analyze and take
action on data.
• Formative assessments vary widely by classroom. There are no formal district guidelines on
formative assessments.
• The district administers many assessments that inform instruction, monitor student progress
and are aligned with GLEs, yet fewer assessments that are immediately useful for instruction
or provide rich, detailed student data.
• Since the district has a clear policy on the elementary and middle school math curriculum, the
purposes of assessment are most clear in math. In other areas, such as reading, there are
fewer district-wide policies for and purposes of assessment.
• Detailed student assessment data are not readily accessible to central office
administrators who rely on making data-driven decisions to guide their work.
• Teachers and principals are not satisfied with the Edusoft assessment platform as it is
currently used. Teachers feel the data are not easily accessible and do not inform instruction.
• Simply making data available to teachers does not necessarily promote the use of data to guide
instruction. Rather, data organized in a way that helps teachers develop lesson plans is
more likely to be used by teachers.
• Stakeholders have competing priorities for assessment, requesting both rich, detailed
student data, as well as data that immediately drives instruction. It is difficult for one
assessment to meet both of these needs; they are tradeoffs.
Recommendations
As Seattle Public Schools embarks on developing a district-wide strategic student assessment system,
it is suggested the following recommendations be considered based on the findings in this report.
Clear, Narrow Purpose

• The assessment system should have a clear purpose; have clear targets aligned with the
Strategic Plan; serve as an accurate assessment of what was taught; and communicate results
clearly to students, teachers, administrators and families. The district must prioritize its most
important purposes of assessment in order to achieve its goals.
21
June 18, 2008
• Formative, summative, diagnostic and evaluative assessment should have distinct

purposes and provide different types of student performance data that, when put together,
provide a comprehensive picture of student achievement in Seattle Public Schools.
• Based on stakeholder input, the highest priorities of assessment should be to inform and
drive instruction for teachers and principals, and monitor student progress by providing
ongoing data multiple times throughout the school year on whether students are mastering
standards.
• The district should identify current assessments that could be eliminated because they meet
the same purposes of assessment or are not high priorities, and replace those with assessments
that better meet its purposes. The district should take caution not to add many new
assessments, recognizing the time and resources assessments consume.
o Possible areas to eliminate are reading assessments that monitor student progress but
are not administered district-wide as benchmarks.
o Possible areas to add are frequent math and reading assessments that provide data
immediately useful for instruction.
Areas to Enhance
• Implement district-wide reading benchmark assessments for each grade level aligned to
GLEs at least three times per year, similar to math.
• Develop guidelines for Classroom-Based Assessments in each grade level, aligned to
standards at the strand level, with corresponding rubrics.
• Select an improved special education assessment to monitor student performance
throughout the year. This should replace Brigance.
• Implement a district-wide kindergarten readiness assessment that provides diagnostic
information on special needs, bilingual services and advanced learning eligibility.
• The district should continue to carefully monitor math benchmarks to ensure successful
implementation of the new math curriculum.
Assessment Literacy & Training

• Teachers and administrators should receive initial and ongoing training in administering
assessments and analyzing data. This should include site-based technical assistance.
• An entire culture change is necessary in order to transform the district to be data-driven.
Assessing students is only the first step; district leaders must take deliberate steps to ensure
stakeholders at all levels of the system see the connection between student assessments
and their daily work.
Access to Data
• Summative, diagnostic and evaluative assessment data should be available on the SOURCE
for every student.
• Assessment data should be more accessible to district administrators who rely on making
data-driven decisions to guide their work.
• Summative assessment data should be provided to teachers in an easy-to-read report within
one week after students complete tests. Reports should suggest specific skill areas to focus on
for individual and groups of students.
• The district should be deliberate about the degree of detail to provide teachers and principals
in student data reports. Reports that are provided more than one time per year and are designed
22
June 18, 2008
to immediately impact instruction should be short and easy-to-read, with tangible strategies for
teachers to quickly absorb and apply. Reports that are provided less frequently and are designed
for reflective analysis should include more rich, detailed student data.
23
June 18, 2008
VII. How Other School Districts Have Approached Student Assessment

As Seattle Public Schools develops a district-wide student assessment strategy, it may be helpful to
learn how other districts have approached this issue. Below are capsule descriptions of ten school
districts – five in Washington State and five in other states – that have implemented assessment
strategies. These districts were selected based on recommendations from experts and stakeholders,
the literature review, and availability of information.
Washington State School Districts
Bellevue 1
Enrollment: 16,500
Schools: 29
The Bellevue School District developed a unique assessment system based on a common district-
wide math curriculum. First, the district moved from a system where curricular decisions were made
at the school level to a common math curriculum with common textbooks. At the elementary level,
the selected curriculum was Math Expressions (which is similar to Everyday Math); at the middle
school level, the curriculum was CMP2; and at the high school level, the curriculum was Core Plus.
In 2006, Bellevue received a grant from The Boeing Foundation to create a “Curriculum Web”
mapping out lesson plans for each unit of each curriculum. The format is on a shared platform in a
“wiki” format, meaning that teachers can share feedback about their experiences using each lesson
plan, and add suggested strategies, for all other teachers to see. After creating common lesson plans,
teachers collaboratively designed common assessments. Assessments are scored using a common
rubric, written by classroom teachers, district-wide. The assessments are also linked to the shared
Curriculum Web platform, allowing teachers to go on-line to see examples of student work
reflecting the rubric.
Besides the consistent, district-wide curricula, lesson plans and assessments, another core element of
Bellevue School District’s assessment strategy is collaborative scoring of assessments. All data are
shared; the assessment results of every classroom are posted district-wide. Teachers are encouraged
to share and view one another’s classroom data and earn clock hours for the time they spend on
collaborative scoring.
The Bellevue School District also places a high priority on communication with families about
curriculum, instruction and assessment. Parents and other members of the public can view detailed
course descriptions, “movies” of lessons on each unit, and assessments. The Curriculum Web is
designed for both teacher and family use, with information translated into multiple languages.
Another unique feature of Bellevue’s curriculum and assessment system is its high level of
customization. District teachers analyzed the selected curricula and determined the pacing calendar
that they thought made the most sense for their district; they do not follow sequence of textbooks,
per se. The district also used customization to develop its own assessments based on some elements
of the assessments that came with the curricula. Although there are not enough data yet to draw
1Information on Bellevue School District’s assessment strategy was obtained from Eric McDowell, Math Curriculum
Developer, Bellevue School District, on March 19, 2008.
24
June 18, 2008
conclusions about how well the district’s assessments correlate with the WASL, the Bellevue School
District appears to have a well-aligned, coherent district-wide assessment strategy.
Clover Park 2
Enrollment: 11,704
Schools: 28
The Clover Park School District implemented Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) to monitor
student progress in reading and math in 2006-07. In addition, the district administers the DIBELS
reading assessment in grades K-3. The district selected MAP after interviewing and surveying
several schools and districts on their assessment strategies. Clover Park started by implementing the
test in middle school grades, then added 9th grade the following year. The greatest demand for MAP
came from elementary schools, however, many elementary schools do not have computer labs in
which to administer the tests. The district does not have a formal or mandatory process for
analyzing data, but staff use MAP data to guide discussions at building-level meetings between
instructional coaches, teachers and principals. According to the assessment office, the impact MAP
has on teaching varies by school, depending on how instructional coaches and teachers use the data.
There has been a strong relationship between WASL and MAP scores.
One issue the district would like improved with MAP is the fact that the tests only show growth
from fall to spring, not including winter assessments in the growth model. Therefore, the cohort
reports for fall and winter do not match and growth cannot be determined. This issue makes the
winter reports less useful to teachers since they cannot assess the impact of their teaching and adjust
instruction. Clover Park is working with the MAP vendor to address this issue. The district strongly
emphasizes the need for intensive professional development on how to link assessment analysis with
instruction. The assessment office also recommends starting MAP implementation with one or two
grade levels and expanding year-to-year to establish teacher buy-in and properly train teachers and
principals on how to use the data.
Highline 3
Enrollment: 17,000
Schools: 36
The Highline School District uses MAP to monitor student progress toward state standards. The
district has been using MAP for six years. In selecting MAP as its primary assessment tool, the
district looked closely at the correlation between MAP and WASL scores, and found strong
alignment, particularly in math. Schools administer MAP to all students in grades 3-10 three times
per year in reading and math. In addition, elementary schools with advanced learning programs
administer the test to 2nd grade students, and some high schools test students in 11th and 12th grade if
they have not met 10th grade WASL standards. Testing windows are typically two to three weeks
long, or 15 school days. Highline is considering making the second (winter) MAP assessment
2 Information on Clover Park School District’s assessment strategy was obtained from Feng-Yi Hung, Director of
Assessment & Program Evaluation, Clover Park School District, via telephone interview on March 10, 2008.
3 Information on the Highline School District’s assessment strategy was obtained from David Dreher, Project
Coordinator, Highline School District, via telephone interview on March 13, 2008.
25
June 18, 2008
optional for high schools, mainly because of scheduling issues. The district uses the DIBELS
reading assessment to monitor student progress in grades K-2 because it is less expensive than
MAP.
Highline designates a building MAP Coordinator in every school. At the end of every day of testing,
MAP Coordinators upload tests results, and results can be accessed 24 hours later. According to the
central assessment office, the MAP reports are generalized, as opposed to being differentiated for
individual students. MAP offers an optional reporting tool called the Dynamic Reporting Suite, at
an added cost, and affords the level of versatility that teachers and principals need to analyze the
data in different ways. Highline does not subscribe to the Dynamic Reporting Suite but devotes a
full-time staff person to analyze results and provide similar reports.
Highline administers MAP to bilingual students who are eligible to take the WASL. For the math
assessment, they offer a Spanish audio version of MAP that provides the student with a prompt in
Spanish. MAP results for bilingual students are similar to results on the WASL.
According to the central assessment office, use of MAP data by Highline teachers is fairly limited.
Initially, teachers were highly dependent on MAP building coordinators in each school for data use,
and principals had more control over the data. That is, principals would decide whether and how to
give the data to teachers, and practices varied building-to-building. The district has tried to raise
awareness among teachers about how to access MAP data to decentralize use of data. Since the
assessment was implemented top-down, the district struggles to break this into a distributed model.
Overall, however, the district is satisfied with MAP as an assessment tool.
Highline is embarking on a Shared Accountability Initiative to encourage all participants in the

education system to analyze data and continuously improve student achievement. 4 Six schools are
piloting this initiative in 2007-08, and a collaborative team of teachers, principals, central office staff,
union representatives and a school board member is planning expansion of the Initiative next year.
In addition, the district will launch a new Data Warehouse in the 2008-09 school year that merges
student assessment data with other student information and administration, providing access to all
school and district-level staff. The Data Warehouse will also include a principal dashboard to
monitor school accountability.
Kennewick 5
Enrollment: 14,915
Schools: 22
Kennewick has a multi-pronged assessment strategy. The district has developed a consistent grade-
to-grade curriculum with suggested and required assessments and instructional strategies in the
content areas of reading, writing, communications, math, science, health and fitness, social studies
and the arts. 6 In reading, all schools in the district are required to administer the Kindergarten
4 Highline School District Web Site: http://www.hsd401.org/directory/accountability/

5 Information on the Kennewick School District’s assessment strategy was obtained from Bev Henderson, Staff
Development & Assessment Coordinator, Kennewick School District, via telephone interview on March 7, 2008.
6 Kennewick School District Curriculum Framework.
http://www.ksd.org/Portal/Content/Resources/CurriculumFramework.pdf
26
June 18, 2008
Reading Assessment, Reading Continuum (K-2), CORE Assessment (K-3), Basal tests (K-2), the
DRA (1-2), Functional Level Reading Tests (2-8, high school for students not meeting standard),
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (3, 6), Iowa Test of Educational Development (ITED) (9). In
math, the district-wide assessments are the Functional Level Math Tests (3-9), the ITBS (3, 6), and
the ITED (9).
For the Functional Level Reading and Math tests in grades 2-9, Kennewick uses MAP to assess
student progress throughout the year and to guide instruction. Since the district has been using
MAP for approximately 15 years, it is very integrated into everyday work and there is a high level of
support for it, particularly at the elementary and middle school levels. MAP is less relevant to high
school assessment for Kennewick, since the assessments only cover standards through 10th grade.
Therefore, high school teachers also administer end-of-course assessments.
Kennewick schools administer MAP two times per year for grades 2-10, in the fall and spring. In
addition, students who are struggling or need to retest take the test in the winter. Schools are only
required to administer the test in the spring (fall testing is optional), yet all schools opt to test in the
fall as well. The district uses results to monitor student progress, inform instruction, diagnose
students for remediation, placement in double-dose classes of reading and math, and placement in
advanced learning. Results are widely shared among teachers, parents and students. The assessment
office reports that teachers strongly support MAP, mainly because the results are immediate and
teachers understand what they mean. They also like the fact that the assessment is adaptive, so not
every student is taking the same test.
One hurdle the district has faced is not having enough computer labs to administer the test to all
students at the same time. The district specifies a three-week window in which to complete all
testing. In addition, MAP offers a Dynamic Reporting Suite that provides additional detail on
specific skills individual students need to work on, but this feature is at an additional cost.
Spokane 7
Enrollment: 30,132
Schools: 49
Spokane Public Schools built a unique assessment system from the ground up, beginning with a
district-wide curriculum. The district’s assessment strategy is comprised of several summative, end-
of-unit assessments throughout the school year, and the data are used both summatively and
formatively. The district’s curriculum department writes the curriculum for each subject, breaking
each down into units of instruction. The department carefully spells out the GLEs and state
standards that are covered in each curriculum within a period of instructional time. Included in the
curricular materials are summative end-of-unit assessments, which are locally developed. Teachers
administer these assessments district-wide at the end of each curriculum unit, within specified testing
windows, several times throughout the year. Each curriculum coordinator assembles teams of
assessment writers to write “mini” WASL-like assessments, guided by WASL item and test
specifications. Spokane Public Schools considers its home-grown end-of-unit assessments to be
7Information on the Spokane Public Schools’ assessment strategy was obtained from Jack Monpas-Huber, Director,
Assessment & Evaluation Program, Spokane Public Schools, via telephone interview on March 13, 2008.
27
June 18, 2008
“blueprints” for the WASL. Items are written to measure the GLEs and skill strands that are
covered in the curriculum.
While schools administer end-of-unit summative assessments several times throughout the year, they
only report scores to the central office three times per year in elementary and middle schools and
four times per year in high schools (at the end of each quarter). In the cases where schools do not
report their data centrally, the district expects teachers to use data immediately to adjust instruction
and that is the sole purpose of the assessment. For the assessment data that is collected centrally,
the data is sent to the district assessment office, which subsequently provides reports, item analyses,
and validity tests. The district assessment office also provides data to curriculum content
coordinators, who share the feedback with schools to inform instruction. Instructional coaches are
highly involved in using data to adjust instruction and inform assessment development.
Teachers score the end-of-unit assessments, in some cases transcribing students’ work to scan sheets
(mainly in the secondary grades). In elementary schools, Spokane does not yet have a district-wide
data collection mechanism. Therefore, teachers gather together a random sample of student work
(generated by the assessment office) and send them to the central office where they are keyed into a
spreadsheet.
In addition to end-of-unit assessments, Spokane has developed the Spokane Assessment of Student
Learning (SASL), which is intended to be a simulation of the WASL, for elementary schools. The
SASL is slightly longer than the end-of-unit assessments. Students in grades 1 through 6 take the
SASL in the fall and winter, and students in grades 1 and 2 take the SASL again in the spring.
According to the Spokane assessment office, teachers have varying opinions of Spokane’s
assessment strategy. The largest change associated with Spokane’s approach was not the assessment,
but rather, the fact that it developed a district-wide curriculum. While there was some resistance to
this, there was a surprising level of demand for it, as well.
28
June 18, 2008
School Districts Outside of Washington State
Aldine, TX 8
Enrollment: 56,292
Schools: 66
The mid-size, urban Aldine Independent School District, outside of Houston, TX, has earned
national recognition for its data-driven management and assessment system. In order to improve
performance on state standards, the district contracted with a local software vendor to develop the
TRIAND data-management system. TRIAND allows teachers to share student achievement data
from state, benchmark, diagnostic and formative assessments with other teachers, principals,
administrators, and parents. All teachers are required to submit student data into TRIAND.
All schools administer benchmark assessments specified by the district, which were developed by
the district from state standards. Benchmark assessments are given every nine weeks. Schools also
administer common formative assessments every two to three weeks, developed at the school level.
Each school has several “skills specialists” in each subject area, who are trained teachers who
support teachers in their instruction and in regularly reviewing student data. Principals meet weekly
with the skills specialists to review data.
Atlanta, GA
Enrollment: 59,429
Schools: 99
In 2000, facing chronically low student achievement, Atlanta Public Schools developed an
accountability system to support instruction. The district began by setting annual student
performance targets, then organized School Reform Teams (SRTs) in the central office to support
clusters of schools in achieving targets. Overall district-wide targets were converted into targets for
individual schools in every grade in core subject areas. SRTs monitor student data and progress
toward targets in each subject. In addition to state and federal assessment requirements, Atlanta
established mid-year exams linked to each school’s targets. Schools are expected to incorporate
mid-year exams, as well as classroom-based assessments, into a School Achievement Plan. All
student data is available on an instructional management system called INsight.
Boston, MA
Enrollment: 77,000
Schools: 144
Boston Public Schools has had a common district-wide curriculum since 1996, when the district
approved the Citywide Learning Standards and Curriculum Frameworks. The learning standards
specify the skills each student must master to advance to the next grade level and graduate from high
school. To measure mastery of learning standards, the district administers benchmark assessments
in reading and writing three times per year in all grades, end-of-unit assessments in math in grades
8Peterson, J.L. (2007). The brave new world of data-informed instruction. Education Next, 7(1). Palo Alto, CA: Hoover
Institution.
29
June 18, 2008
K-5, math performance tasks eight times per year in grades 6-12, and mid- and end-of-course exams
in the core subjects in grades 6-12.
In addition, Boston developed the Formative Assessment of Student Thinking in Reading (FAST-R)
in 2003 in partnership with the Boston Plan for Excellence (BPE) to provide teachers with student
learning data they could immediately apply to instruction. 9 This assessment is truly formative; scores
are not reported to the central office and the sole purpose is to inform instruction. Teachers are
given broad guidelines for administration of FAST-R, but they ultimately decide when to give the
assessments. Assessments are electronically scored by BPE, followed by a meeting with the teacher
one week later to review the data. The assessment covers grades 3, 4, 7 and 10. Schools volunteer
to participate in FAST-R; the assessment is optional. In 2004-05, 40 schools expressed interest and
30 schools participated (the maximum number of schools that could participate within the program
budget). According to the BPE, participating schools have been pleased with the FAST-R, finding
data very useful for instruction and aligned with state standards. In particular, teachers found the
reports much more user-friendly than other formative and summative assessments that had been
administered district-wide.
Houston, TX 10
Enrollment: 202,000
Schools: 293
The Houston Independent School District recently created Curriculum Benchmark Assessments to
inform instruction and make intervention decisions. The benchmark assessments, administered
every nine weeks in elementary grades and every six weeks in secondary grades, are aligned to the
state standards and district curricula in the core subject areas. Each benchmark assessment includes
10 to 15 items modeled after the state assessment. Lower-performing schools are required to
administer benchmark assessments, while regional administration offices decide on a case-by-case
basis whether other schools are required to use them. Assessments are scored centrally, and results
are posted to the district’s on-line data management system. Teachers decide whether students with
disabilities participate on a case-by-case basis, and limited English proficient students are provided
with accommodations including unlimited time, use of a dictionary, clarification of word context,
use of highlighters, and clarification/ restatement/ translation of instructions. Beginning LEP
students are not typically included in benchmark assessments.
Miami-Dade, FL
Enrollment: 353,283
Schools: 378
The Miami-Dade County Public Schools use Interim Assessments to measure student progress and
adjust instruction throughout the school year. Interim Assessments are criterion-referenced
benchmark tests administered three times per year in grades 3-10 in reading, math and science.
9 Chrismer, S.S. (2005). Formative Assessment of Student Thinking in Reading (FAST-R) year II evaluation. Boston, MA: Boston
Plan for Excellence.
10 Houston Independent School District curriculum web site:
http://dept.houstonisd.org/CURRICULUM/CBA/HISD_CIA_CBA.html.
30
June 18, 2008
Interim Assessments are aligned to state standards, the district’s instructional pacing calendar, and
state assessment item specifications. 11 The assessments must be administered during district-
specified testing windows. Tests are scanned and scored using Edusoft, the district’s assessment
management platform. In addition to the Interim Assessments, teachers assess students formatively
on a biweekly basis.
Miami-Dade also uses assessment as a key strategy in its School Improvement Zone (SIZ) reform. 12
The SIZ, comprised of a network of the district’s most struggling schools, provides intensive
support and intervention strategies to accelerate achievement. Schools in the SIZ use site-specific
weekly or bi-weekly assessments to provide detailed student performance information to teachers.
Teachers adjust instruction based on frequent assessment data. This process also promotes rigorous
instruction, since students are frequently challenged based on their progress.
11 Miami-Dade County Public Schools Assessment, Research & Data Analysis web site:
http://oada.dadeschools.net/IAP/IAP.asp.
12 Miami-Dade County Public Schools School Improvement Zone web site: http://thezone.dadeschools.net/.
31
June 18, 2008
VIII. Assessment Products

To provide Seattle Public Schools with an idea of the types of assessment products that are available,
this report provides summaries of six assessment systems. These assessment products were selected
because they were used by other school districts similar to Seattle, information was readily available
on them, and they appeared to meet some of the needs expressed by Seattle stakeholders. This
selection is not comprehensive and the summaries are intended to provide only a sense of what each
product provides.
ESD 189 Classroom-Based Assessments 13

Educational Service District 189 developed Classroom-Based Assessments (CBAs) in reading and
math that are aligned with state standards. CBAs are administered every nine weeks in reading in
grades 3-10 and in math in grades K-12. Teachers administer and score the assessments, enter data
into Excel spreadsheets, and submit data to the ESD. The ESD then works with teachers to
develop targeted instructional strategies based on the data. Seattle Public Schools purchased and
piloted the reading CBAs in 2006-07 and 2007-08 and has received mixed feedback from teachers.
However, this could be attributed to the distribution of scores through the district’s Edusoft
platform.
ETS Focus on Standards 14

Focus on Standards (FoS) is a product of the Educational Testing Service (ETS) comprised of a
comprehensive school improvement plan aligned to state standards. FoS helps elementary schools
develop interim assessments to measure progress toward state standards and inform instruction.
Schools analyze state and district assessment data through ETS’ Instructional Data Management
System (IDMS) platform. The IDMS can also be used to analyze performance data of individual
students or groups of students. Teachers can access web-based IDMS reports from their classroom
computers. After interim assessments are scored, ETS staff lead teachers in structured planning
time to review student performance and instructional strategies to address problem areas. Teachers
then analyze intervention effectiveness and discuss any necessary instructional adjustments.
Measures of Academic Progress 15

Developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), MAP provides school districts with
summative benchmark assessment systems in grades K-10 in reading and math and 2-10 in science.
MAP is used by a variety of school districts across the U.S. and internationally, with over 3,000
clients ranging from small schools to large metropolitan districts. Assessments are taken on a
computer and are adaptive, meaning the test adjusts the difficulty of each question depending on
how well a student answers the previous question. MAP is given in English, although a Spanish
audio accommodation is available. MAP has aligned its assessment to Washington State standards
with a correlation rate between MAP and WASL passage rates of between 0.7 and 0.8.
13 Information on the ESD 189 CBAs was obtained from Kathy Shoop, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, ESD
189, on June 10, 2008, and Dan Coles, Literacy Manager, Seattle Public Schools.
14 Information on the Focus on Standards system was obtained from the ETS web site: http://www.ets.org.
15 Information on the MAP assessment was obtained from Jeff Tilton, Northwest Evaluation Association, via telephone
interview on February 29, 2008.
32
June 18, 2008
The primary purposes the MAP assessment serves are to identify gaps in knowledge for individual
students and groups of students, to individualize instruction based on this data, and to diagnose
students for special education or advanced learning. This is a useful system for identifying how well
students are mastering skills at a specific point in time. MAP can be thought of as a bridge between
an annual summative assessment such as the WASL and an informal formative assessment
developed by a teacher.
Not only does MAP provide information on student skills, but it also provides external feedback by
comparing student performance to the performance of peers in similar districts. In addition, MAP
measures student growth, or how much each student improves within a school year and year-to-
year, as opposed to measuring only whether students meet standards. NWEA provides intensive
training and ongoing consultation.
Scantron 16
Scantron offers a comprehensive product with two types of assessments to meet different purposes.
The Achievement Series consist of formative assessments for a range of grade levels at the district
and classroom level to monitor student progress, guide instruction, and predict mastery of state
standards. The Performance Series consists of computer-adaptive diagnostic testing to identify
students who are behind and measures student performance growth over time.
The Scantron platform for the Achievement Series allows districts to use test items from the
Scantron item bank, its own test items, or assessments from other vendors. However, this places
the onus on the district of aligning assessments with state standards since districts select the
questions or assessments used. Districts can also administer tests online or on paper, allowing the
same assessment to be used district-wide using a mixture of computer- and paper-based formats to
accommodate schools that do not have computers. Results are available immediately after students
complete the assessments. Districts can score the assessments themselves or purchase this service
from Scantron.
School Turnaround 17
The School Turnaround assessment is part of a larger strategy to dramatically improve performance
in elementary and middle schools. The intervention consists of a school partnering with the School
Turnaround organization to establish and commit to goals, followed by training, implementation of
focused strategies, and assessment and professional development. School Turnaround uses specific
short-answer and extended response assessments it has developed to measure progress. Teachers
administer the assessments, send the scores to School Turnaround, and receive score reports in an
easy-to-read format within one week. School Turnaround then works with teachers to provide them
tools to differentiate instruction based on the use of the assessment data. In Seattle Public Schools,
School Turnaround is working with nine middle/K-8 schools and one elementary school in reading.
Teachers report them to be user-friendly and not impactful on teacher time.
16 Information on the Scantron assessment solution was obtained from the Scantron web site:
http://www.scantron.com.
17 Information on the School Turnaround assessment was obtained from the School Turnaround web site:
http://www.schoolturnaround.org/index.php and personal interviews with Gillian Williams, President, School

Turnaround.
33
June 18, 2008
Tungsten Learning Benchmark Assessment System
Tungsten Learning, a division of Edison Schools, offers the Benchmark Assessment System, which
is a formative, electronic assessment tool for grades 2-8 in reading and math. Exam-level
benchmarks are available for students in grades 9-12. Benchmark assessments are administered
monthly in both reading and math, and are aligned with state standards. Students take the
assessments on-line and can see their scores immediately after completion. The primary purpose of
the Benchmark Assessment System is to inform instruction. Student data can be tracked and
reported regularly to make instructional adjustments.
34
June 18, 2008
IX. Conclusion
Seattle Public Schools leaders have an opportunity to develop a district-wide assessment system with
the potential to provide an accountability framework to meet the goals they have set out in their
Strategic Plan. In developing an assessment system, the district should clearly define its purpose of
assessment, select the top-priority criteria the system must meet, provide initial and ongoing training
to participants at all levels, and frequently review data to ensure progress toward results. This report
provides a framework for the district to develop such a system. In developing an assessment
system, the district should include district-wide reading benchmark assessments, develop guidelines
for Classroom-Based Assessments, improve assessment to diagnose special education and
kindergarten readiness, and continue to carefully implement the math benchmark assessments.
Regardless of the assessments used, the data should guide major decisions in the district so that all
stakeholders at every level of the system understand the connection between student data and their
daily work.
35
June 18, 2008
Works Consulted
Abrams, L.M. (2007). Implications of high-stakes testing for the use of formative classroom
assessments. In McMillan, J.H. (Ed.). (2007). Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (Ch. 6).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Ainsworth, L. & Viegut, D. (2006). Common Formative Assessments: How to connect standards-based
instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
American Institutes for Research. (2007). A field guide to student success in mathematics and science: A
sourcebook for Washington state educators. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2007-2008). Data in the driver’s seat. Educational Leadership, 65, 43-46.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Management.
Barton, P. (2007-2008). The Right Way to Measure Growth. Educational Leadership, 65, 70-73.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Management.
Bass, Kristin M. & Glaser, R. (2004). Developing Assessments to Inform Teaching and Learning.
CRESST/Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
Biggs, J. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessments in education: Principles, policy and
practices, 5 (1), 103-110.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into
practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box:
Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86.
Borman, K.M. (2005). Meaningful urban education reform: Confronting the learning crisis in mathematics and
science. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Brookhart, S.M. (2007). Expanding views about formative classroom assessment: A review of the
literature. In McMillan, J.H. (Ed.) (2007). Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (Ch. 4). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Chappius, S. & Chappius, J. (2007-2008). The best value in formative assessment. Educational
Leadership, 65, 14-18. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Management.
Chappius, R., Stiggins, R., Arter, J., & Chappius, J. (2004). Assessment for learning: An action guide for
school leaders. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.
Chrismer, S.S. (2005). Formative Assessment of Student Thinking in Reading (FAST-R) year II evaluation.
Boston, MA: Boston Plan for Excellence.
Dahlin, M.P. (2008). A study of the alignment of the NWEA RIT score with the Washington assessment system.
Lake Oswego, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association.
36
June 18, 2008
Fullan, M., Hill, P. & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Elmore, R.J. & Rothman, R. (1999). Testing, teaching and learning: A guide for states and school districts.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Englert, K., Fries, D., Martin-Glenn, M., & Michael, H. (2005). How are educators using data? A
comparative analysis of superintendent, principal and teachers’ perceptions of accountability systems. Denver: Mid-
continental Research for Education and Learning.
Epstein, A.S., Schweinhart, L.J., DeBruin-Parecki, A., & Robin, K.B. (2004). Preschool policy matters, 7.
New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.
Guskey, T.R. (2007-2008). The rest of the story. Educational Leadership, 65, 28-35. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Management.
Keller, Bess. (2008). Data Yield Clues to Effectiveness. Education Week, 27(18), 20, 22-24.
Guskey, T.R. (2007). Formative classroom assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: Theory, research
and practice. In McMillan, J.H. (Ed.). (2007). Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (Ch. 5).
Marzano, R.J. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McMillan, J.H. (Ed.). (2007). Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
McMillan, J.H. (2007). Formative classroom assessment: The key to improving student
achievement. In McMillan, J.H. (Ed.). (2007). Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (Ch. 1).
McNair, S., Bhargava, A., Adams, L., Edgerton, S. and Kypros, B. (2003). Teachers speak out on
assessment practices. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(1), 23-31.
Olson, L. (2007). California center gauges novice teachers with tools, mentors. Education Week, 26
(7), 8-9.
Olson, L. (2007). Homegrown Tests Measure Core Critical Reading Skills. Education Week, 26 (35),
32-33.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving
learning in secondary classrooms.
Perie, M, Marion, S., Gong, B., & Wurtzel, J. The Role of Interim Assessments in a Comprehensive
Assessment System. The Aspen Institute Education and Society Program, Achieve, Inc. and the
National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment (2007).
37
June 18, 2008
Peterson, J.L. (2007). The brave new world of data-informed instruction. Education Next, 7(1). Palo
Alto, CA: Hoover Institution.
Popham, J.W. (2003). Test better, teach better: The instructional role of assessment. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Reeves, D. (Ed.). Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Stiggins, R.J. (2007). Conquering the formative assessment frontier. In McMillan, J.H. (Ed.) (2007).
Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (Ch. 2). New York: Teachers College Press.
Stiggins, R., Arter, J.A., Chappius, J., & Chappius, S. (2007). Classroom assessment for student learning:
Doing it right – Using it well. Prentice Hall.
Wiliam, D. (2007-2008). Changing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 65, 36-42. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Management.
Wiliam, D. & Leahy, S. (2007). A theoretical foundation for formative ssessment. In McMillan, J.H.
(Ed.). (2007). Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (Ch. 3). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Zemelman, D. & A. Hyde & Daniels, H. (1998). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in
America’s schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
38

Test Assessment Report by de Barros June 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Test Assessment Report by de Barros June 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing a Strategic Student Assessment System in

Seattle Public Schools:

June 18, 2008

Developing a Strategic Student Assessment System in

What This Report Provides

Highlights of Findings and Recommendations

Report Purpose and Outcome

To meet this purpose, the report will provide:

• An in-depth description of the purposes of assessment, from a policy and organizational

II. Literature Review

• Determining student mastery of particular concepts or skills;

Distinguishing Formative From Summative Assessment

Characteristics of Effective Formative Assessment

Personalized Information on Student Learning

School- and District-Wide Assessment Literacy

o What am I really trying to teach?

Teacher Design & Ongoing Professional Development

Types of Assessment, Their Purposes and Characteristics

Building a Comprehensive Assessment and Accountability System

• High expectations for all students;

Balancing the Purposes of Assessment Within an Accountability System

• Improves student learning;

III. Inventory of Assessments Currently Used in Seattle Public Schools

Beyond these district-required assessments, many schools administer a host of summative

Summative Assessments Currently Used in Seattle Public Schools

Need Assessment Grade Level Frequency Required Reported Primary Additional

Scores are included in

IV. Stakeholder Needs and Priorities For Assessment

Current Purposes of Assessment

• Instructional – To drive instruction at the classroom level

Stakeholder Opinions on Ideal Purposes of Assessment

Additional Data Needed

Critical Elements of an Assessment System

V. A Framework for SPS to Develop a District-Wide Assessment Strategy

Range of Purposes and Criteria Met By Different Types of Assessment

Gap Analysis: What is Needed to Meet SPS’ Purposes of Assessment?

Analysis of Current SPS Assessments

Elementary / K-8 Reading Assessments

Purpose: Purpose: Purpose: Criteria: Criteria: Criteria:

Elementary / K-8 Math Assessments

Middle School Reading Assessments

Middle School Math Assessments

High School Reading Assessments

High School Math Assessments

Purpose: Purpose: Purpose: Criteria: Criteria: Criteria:

Additional Assessments Discussed in Report

VI. Findings and Recommendations

Clear, Narrow Purpose

• Formative, summative, diagnostic and evaluative assessment should have distinct

Assessment Literacy & Training

VII. How Other School Districts Have Approached Student Assessment

Washington State School Districts

Highline is embarking on a Shared Accountability Initiative to encourage all participants in the

4 Highline School District Web Site: http://www.hsd401.org/directory/accountability/

VIII. Assessment Products

ESD 189 Classroom-Based Assessments 13

ETS Focus on Standards 14

Measures of Academic Progress 15

interview on February 29, 2008.

http://www.schoolturnaround.org/index.php and personal interviews with Gillian Williams, President, School

You might also like