Assessment Steering Committee Report
The Seattle Schools Assessment Steering Committee was assembled in spring of 2016 as part of the 2015-2018 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Seattle Schools and the Seattle Education Association Certificated Non-Supervisory Employees.
This is a Steering Committee composed entirely of District employees. Their meetings are not public.
The committee delivered this recommendations report in June, 2016.
Among the recommendations are
- For the District to give school a lot more support around the state proficiency tests
- To use the Smarter Balanced interim assessment this year and look for another interim assessment to use next year
- For the District to provide training on the use of interim assessments
- To replace the MAP as part of Advanced Learning eligibility and for primary students
- To purchase Pulse Learn K-2 as a formative assessment for K-2 students
- For the District to provide professional development with the new assessments
- For the District to provide guidance around use of test data
- For the District to clarify the meaning and consequences when students refuse to test
In all cases, the committee is very clear that the purpose and use of each assessment should be made very clear and that assessments not be mis-used.
I note that there is nothing in this set of recommendations that speaks directly to MTSS, the instructional practice that the District wants to implement which requires frequent assessments.
Also worth noting is this statement from the Steering Committee:
The district should provide clear communication on the purpose of all required and optional assessments, and how these data and assessments can best be utilized to support instructional and programmatic decision-making. This includes the use of student data by outside organizations. This committee recommends a focus on deepening assessment literacy throughout our system.
Comments
1) as AL criterion
2) for testing elementary students in general
MAP is supposedly a test that measures student learning on a grade-level scale. To disaggregate the question somewhat:
1) Does the steering committee recommend that elementary students no longer be tested? (That would seem to run counter to the MTSS emphasis on frequent testing.) Or do they want a different test? If they want a different test, different in what way?
2) Will grade level achievement no longer be relevant to advanced learning? That would be interesting if so, and I wonder how they explain it. Or do they just want to use a different test to measure grade level achievement for AL eligibility?
I think the message is pretty clear. MAP was already on its way out and only in use for K-2 (SBAC covers 3rd and up). The taskforce recommended it be replaced by Pulse Learn for the younger grades. So sadly no real reduction in testing just replacement of the test.
Grade level achievement is already pegged to the SBAC for grades 3 and up. Its reasonable to assume that if the district switched to Pulse Learn, they would use it for this purpose as well.
-AtLeastItWasntAmplify
-
The Iowa test, used nationally including at private schools, seems one possibility. SPS has used it in the past.
I second or is that third the motion for blog readers to dive into the assessment report. The SBAC problems are significant and our own SPS educators flat out state that they harm our students' learning.
Why isn't this ever going to be a huge headline in the Seattle Times? Gates Foundation pushing standardized testing and also financing Times education reporting? Oh, guess we have our answer. Carry on valiant bloggers.
Opt Out
Money Game
Old timers like me may remember that MAP, brought to us by MGJ, brought about other bogus uses of that test: tying scores to teacher evaluations and to city grants. The City's Department of Education with Holly Miller goaded by Sara Morris then head of the Alliance for Education wrote MAP scores into evaluating effectiveness of city money distribution to schools. They tried to get it used in teacher contract negotiations. SPS downtown "managers" were A-OK with this despite MAP creators saying these were not valid uses of the test.
The teachers woke up and got SPS to back off the use in teacher evaluations. Don't know the current status of MAP in City grants but that should be examined. Sara Morris got punted from the Alliance or should we say resigned to spend more time with family and on new projects so the MAP push there appears dead.
Moral: It is not mouthbreathing hysteria to assume that every standardized test brought into this district has the potential to warp into something not scientifically valid and in fact hurtful to students. I think SBAC as a clearance for HCC fits that bill.
DistrictWatcher
1) dislike of standardized testing in general; or
2) a belief that MAP is inferior to other tests.
How is Pulse Learn different or better? Is it cheaper?
K Teacher