All things in Because their source is actual classroom activity (not

special data generated by one-off tests), these assessment

moderation:
A whole school approach
to authentic assessment
How can teachers ensure that the
decisions they make about a child's
learning path are both valid and
reliable? The designers of
standardised tests claim that these are
critical educational considerations.
[ohn Davidson tells how one school
tries to avoid the testing trap while
enhancing professional standards.
At Moonee Ponds West Primary School, a lot of
teacher effort goes into constructing valid
assessment methods. The main assessment tool,
developed over many years, is a form of Cumulative
File, consisting of annotated work samples drawn
from everyday classroom work. Additional data on
a child's progress is compiled from extensive
conference notes, often distilled or summarised as
Profiles - one for reading, another for mathematics.
methods are well grounded and any decisions made
about a child's learning are based on real evidence.
The school has developed its own Reading Profile,
used to map a child's development from Prep to
Grade 6. The indicators on this profile are objective,
observable behaviours such as 'Recognises own name'
or 'Indicates 1:1 correspondence between printed and
spoken word'. They represent collective teacher
beliefs about reading and are based mainly on tacit
teacher knowledge, as well as published curriculum
documents. For example, both the WA First Steps
Reading Continuum and the National Profile have
been referred to, both for their sequencing and as
checks that all essential behaviours are covered. The
Tasmanian Pathways document was used as a
template for the patchwork-type layout.
This Reading Profile began in 1991 as a linear
checklist of beginning and emergent reading
behaviours. Over the years many teachers have
helped refine and develop it into a set of interlocking
descriptors, organised in broad, developmentally
appropriate bands (not graded levels) covering the
whole of primary school (and early secondary).

MPW - PREP TO SIX READING DEVELOPMENT PROFILE

NAME:
Recognises own name, Predicts story Invents story to accompany pictures Able to re-read some of own written
friends' names from cover language
Joins in familiar Uses story-like/core phrases from text Recognises some familiar sight words
stories

Makes links to own Knows print contains the message Recites text from memory
experience when listening (eg directionality, conventions, story with fluency and/or
or reading books makes sense etc) expression

Re-reads fluently after Uses semantics, memory, pictures and sight words to approximate a known text
listen ing post, repeated or
shared reading

Indicates when reading Uses ill ustrations to decode text

doesn't make sense
Uses grapho-phonics (sound-letter information) to decode
Attempts self- correction to Uses semantics (sense of story) to decode
make sense

Reads silently for Recites text with a~cura~y, while

longer periods focused on print

A section of the P-6 Reading Profile,us~,4 across the whole school

Copyright Agency limited(CAL)licensedcopy.Further copyingand
communication prohibited except on paymentof fee per copy or communication
18 and otherwisein accordance with the licensefrom CAL to ACER.Formore
Information contactCALon (02) 9394-7600 or info@copyright.com.au.
 The linear layout gave way to more of a 'jigsaw-like'
pattern, because teachers know that children don't
develop in simplistic straight lines. Reading
development typically shows leaps, pauses,
consolidation, even regression at times, and an
authentic record of development has to allow for a
child's idiosyncratic path.
The Profile summarises the raw data collected by
teachers at reading conferences - every entry on a
child's Profile can be backed up by conference notes,
anecdotals or work samples. It is used as both an
assessment instrument and as a reporting tool for
parents.
Like the Reading Profile, the I'chool's system of
Cumulative Assessment Files has been developed
over many years, with input from all teachers at
curriculum and team meetings, and at whole-day
PD sessions. This system (called simply 'Files' at
Moonee West) originated in Victoria in the early
1970s, well before the 'portfolio movement' got
under way in the US in the late 1980s.
Our files began life as a simple collection of work
samples. Over the years, more teacher comment
. was added, along with contextual information,
analysis and most importantly, the child's own
reflections and self-evaluations. They are not
collections of 'best work'.
Some problems of holistic, authentic evaluation
remain to be solved. For example, how can a 'file'
portray changes in playground behaviour? How do
you show emerging social maturity or self-
confidence? To some extent these questions are
tackled through the child's own self evaluations, or
with specific projects like writer's profiles. (See
Jenny Hodges' and Merredith Hillebrand's article in
this edition, 'Children's views of themselves as
authors")
Standardised, summative or multiple choice tests are
not used at all at Moonee Ponds West. While
moving away from standardisation, these teachers
have developed their own form of moderation in
order to ensure the authenticity of their assessments.
...,-
,--l
Before each reporting period (mid-year and end of
year), teachers get together in their tearns to
compare a selection of their Assessment Files and
Profiles. Each classroom teacher selects a child
considered to be progressing 'normally' and one
considered to be 'at risk'. Other classroom teachers,
who usually work with similar class structures,
examine the work samples, profiles and conference
notes to see if they would have drawn conclusions
similar to those of the assessing teacher.
Lots of talk ensues, with many suggestions and
questions about the annotations and judgments to be
made, for example:
• Has this child's proofreading improved over
time?
• Does this or that class write across a range of
genre?
• Are adequate science and technology samples
included in the file?
• Do teachers use similar terminology in their
conference notes?
Some teachers give written feedback to their
colleagues, or use 'post-it' sticky labels on the actual
samples or profiles. The assessing teacher can then
consider the range of comments later.
Many ideas are shared and innovations suggested.
Teachers treat each other as professional equals
during these meetings, but Willingly risk their
credibility by laying bare their views on learning,
their written notes on children, and, by implication,
their own teaching practice.
In the end, the unanimous view is that it's well
worth the risk - words like 'empowermenr.'trust',
'valid judgment' flow around the room, and the
()
meetings run late into the evening. Personal and :>-
r-
professional enhancement is a valuable by-product r-
of this moderation process. -<
Since everyone is submitting files for moderation,
consensus can be reached about what 'normal
progress' is, and what indicates a child is 'atrisk'.
/..;'·,'~+tt:w
19
 The criteria for these judgments are discussed by the
teachers concerned, they're not imposed by test
scores or lists of 'outcomes' handed down from on
high.
As well, the school gains confidence that the
teachers have agreed on what is a reasonable
expectation for each stage of learning, and that all
teachers are using similar assessment tools. This
means that the assessment documents themselves
are dependable or trustworthy - they are reliable as
well as valid.
20
AUTHENTIC
ASSESSMENT
AND SYSTEM
ACCOUNTABILITY
How do teachers maintain their
professional integrity while also
meeting the system's requirements?
We visited Anne Nelson's Prep-One-
Two class at Spensley St Primary
School, in Melbourne's inner
suburban Clifton Hill.
System accountability has assumedprime
importance in the last ten years, right across
Australia, Most states use some sort of 'basic skills'
testing as well as curriculum outcome statements
against which student progress is measured.
In Victoria, schools are expected to structure their
teaching around the Curriculum and Standards
Framework (CSF),which was derived from the eight
National Profiles.
CSF Levels are tied to particular age-grade
expectations: Level 1 is the end of Prep, Level 2 the
end of Grade 2, and so on. Each child's progress
must be reported as 'Beginning', 'Consolidating' or
'Established' within the relevant Level.
As there are four primary levels, each Victorian child
might progress through 12 reporting levels in seven
years - from 'Beginning Level l' to 'Established
Level 4'. These reports are made in Mathematics,
English and Science.
Victorian schools are required to list the CSF level
and sub-level of all children in their Annual Reports.
In the midst of all this grading and levelling it
would be easy to surrender authentic practices and
just tick the boxes on a report form.