PLC Coordinating Council 2009-10 Day 6 Julie McDaniel.

PLC Coordinating PLC Coordinating CouncilCouncil2009-102009-10Day 6Day 6

PLC Coordinating PLC Coordinating CouncilCouncil2009-102009-10Day 6Day 6

Julie McDanielJulie McDaniel

Quality Assessment Standards

(AKA The Keys to Success)

1. Clear and appropriate purpose2. Specific and appropriate learning

targets3. Solid assessment design4. Well-managed and effectively

communicated results5. Student-involved assessments

The 6-day journey1. Clear Learning

Targetsa. Learning

progressionsb. Accurate targets

2. Sound Designa. Target-method

matchingb. Sampling and

blueprints

3. Sound Designa. Performance

assessmentb. Rubric development

4. Sound Designa. Transformative

assessment b. Differentiation

5. Sound Designa. Critiquing assessmentsb. Culture

6. Effective Communication

a. Quality datab. Reporting results

Standard #4Well-managed and effectively

communicated results– Quality data– Quality feedback– Quality reporting

An Inference-Making Enterprise

Student’s assessment

results

Student’s knowledge

Inferencemade about

OVERT COVERT

Assessment Results

DATA

Instructionally Instructionally dismal delightful

Data – Uses and Misuses

Food Votes

Pizza 972

Hot Dogs 987

Hamburgers 955

Data – Uses and Misuses

Votes

950955960965970975980985990995

1000

Pizza Hot Dogs Hamburgers

Data – Uses and Misuses

Votes

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

Pizza Hot Dogs Hamburgers

33%

34%

33%

Pizza

Hot Dogs

Hamburgers

ACT scores, use on rise in Cobb

By Alexis StevensThe Atlanta Journal-ConstitutionThursday, February 12, 2009

Despite a drop in Cobb students’ average SAT scores, marks on a different college entrance exam have risen three straight years.

“Many of the stronger, college-bound students are opting to take the ACT,” said Superintendent Fred Sanderson, who delivered his State of the System address Wednesday.

More Cobb County students now opt to take the ACT. Thirty-nine percent of students took the test in 2008, up from 27 percent in 2006.

In 2008, Cobb students scored an average of 1523 on the SAT, down from 1538 in 2006. National and state averages have dipped, too. Georgians averaged 1453 in 2008, compared with a national average of 1495. The average ACT score for Cobb students in 2008 was 22, up a half-point from 2006.http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/

2009/02/12/cobbboe0212.html

24%

58%

0%

20%

40%

60%

From The Detroit News (08/14/2004)

Black Educational Achievement

69%

96%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

How educational enrollment and achievement of black students have changed since the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.

1954 2002

Enro

llmen

t of ch

ildre

n

ag

es 5

an

d 6

in sch

ool

Enro

llmen

t of stu

den

ts ag

es 1

8 a

nd 1

9 in

school

1954 2002

2%

17%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

15%

79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

From The Detroit News (08/14/2004)

Black Educational AchievementHow educational enrollment and achievement of

black students have changed since the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.

1954 2002

Hig

h S

chool G

raduate

s

Colle

ge G

raduate

s

1954 2002

Minute Blitz:

How have you seen data used in your district? In local and regional

media?

Quality Feedback

“I always did well on the essay questions. Just put everything you know on there, maybe you’ll hit it. And then you’d get the paper back from the teacher, and she’s just written one word across the entire page, “vague.” I thought “vague” was kind of a vague thing to say. I’d write underneath it, “unclear,”and send it back. She’d return it to me, “ambiguous.” I’d send it back to her, “cloudy.” We’re still corresponding to this day. Hazy, muddy..

Jerry Seinfeldin SeinLanguage

©1993, Bantam Books

Charting feedback• Nice work• I never get to lead a

project• I’m really proud of you• 4/6 classes have met the

standards• What are some of the areas

that you could work on that would increase your score?

• Lovely• Thank you• You have really improved• 10% retention rate• I like the way you think • In what ways could you

bring this paper to a “4”?

• 20% of the criteria • I appreciate your patience• Awesome!• Your scores have improved• 35 minutes in reading

instruction• In what areas do you need

the least amount of work?• That’s very insightful• 6% rise in science scores• I’m seeing real growth in

your thinking• Poorly written• You seemed to have trouble

here

FeedbackFive categories

– Judgment – Personal observation – Inference – Data– Mediative questions

Teachers use data and reflective questioning to enable students to

make their own judgments, personal observations and

inferences.Table Talk

Teacher Focus

Student Focus

Most Common Grading Scales

• 4 point• 12 point• 100 point

Student Grades

100 pt: 0, 0, 70, 80, 80, 90 12 pt: 0, 0, 4, 7, 7, 10

4 pt: 0, 0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0

= 53% E

= 5.6 C+

= 2.0 C

Implication for dropping classesStudent engagement

Which student would you choose to pack your parachute?

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mastery 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

1st Try 2nd Try 3rd Try 4th Try 5th Try 6th Try 7th Try

Adapted from How to Grade for Learning (O’Connor, 2002)

70%

Which student would you choose to pack your parachute?

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Student A 95 40 80 55 90 50 80

Mastery 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

1st Try 2nd Try 3rd Try 4th Try 5th Try 6th Try 7th Try

Adapted from How to Grade for Learning (O’Connor, 2002)

70%

Which student would you choose to pack your parachute?

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Student A 95 40 80 55 90 50 80

Student B 40 55 50 80 80 90 95

Mastery 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

1st Try 2nd Try 3rd Try 4th Try 5th Try 6th Try 7th Try

Adapted from How to Grade for Learning (O’Connor, 2002)

70%

Which student would you choose to pack your parachute?

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Student A 95 40 80 55 90 50 80

Student B 40 55 50 80 80 90 95

Student C 95 80 90 80 50 55 40

Mastery 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

1st Try 2nd Try 3rd Try 4th Try 5th Try 6th Try 7th Try

Adapted from How to Grade for Learning (O’Connor, 2002)

70%

70%

70%

WeightingAUTO MECHANICS

Student #1 Student #2

71% 52%

WEIGHTS

Scenario Practical Theory Grade

A 25% 75%

Student 1 0/25 71/75 71%

Student 2 25/25 27/75 52%

B 50% 50%

Student 1 0/50 47/50 47%

Student 2 50/50 18/50 68%

C 75% 25%

Student 1 0/75 24/25 24%

Student 2 75/75 9/25 84%

Melcher vs. Dike-New Hartford Community School District

Findings• No basis for

raising the grade from A- to A

• No extra credit given for raising the grade

• “At all times Casey was a master of his destiny.”

Melcher vs. Dike- New Hartford Community School District

“Inasmuch as no one is more capable than the classroom teacher of making these types of determination (evaluating student skills, abilities, and knowledge), there is no basis for the local board … to overturn the judgment of (the teacher).” Local school boards and administrators have authority over grading practices in cases “involving clerical or mechanical (e.g., mathematical) mistakes, fraud, incompetence, or bad faith.” In this case, there are no such allegations.

Barno v. Crestwood Board of Education

Findings• Court of Appeals

ruled that district grading policy was both unreasonable and contrary to state law

• A diploma was issued to Ms. Barno (after graduation ceremony)

Barno v. Crestwood Board of Education

“…the school’s grading policy made attendance a prerequisite for academic credit, which meant that attendance became part of the curriculum. A state statute listed courses that must be included in the curriculum, and they all shared a common characteristic: They were subjects to be studied. Under the statute, boards of education can only add subjects of study to the curriculum. Attendance was not a subject of study. There were no textbooks related to attendance, no lectures, and student could not be tested…”

Neilson, Nelson & Burns v Audubon Community School District

Findings• Decision regarding

grades reversed and credit for the marking period was ordered to be awarded ASAP

• No board policy basis for withholding grades

• Denying credit as means of non-academic discipline is ‘invalid.’

• No basis for returning the fees for the band trip

Neilson, Nelson & Burns v Audubon Community School District

“…The withholding of academic credit as punishment for non-academic misconduct is hardly ever allowed…”

Katzman v Cumberland ValleyFindings• Grade reduction was

reversed• Misrepresenting

scholastic achievement is both improper and illegal

• Grade reduction policy without an optional make up program is also illegal

Katzman v Cumberland Valley

“ The policy adopted by the school board when it determined to discipline a student for an infraction unrelated to education by reducing her grades… amounted to a clear misrepresentation of student's scholastic achievement for college entrance and other purposes and, as such, represented an illegal application of school board's discretion. “

Schmidt v Waterloo Community School District

Findings• Reversed expulsion

immediately, but too late to restore credit for first semester

• Attendance policy unreasonable on legal and educational grounds

• School ignored legislative preference of working with parents and serving the at-risk student

Schmidt v Waterloo Community School District

“When a prima facie case of unreasonableness is made out, the burden shifts to the Board to justify its policy. In this case, the District’s reasoning, while laudable in purpose and intent, failed to overcome the unreasonableness of the policy. Therefore, the policy must fail.”

What’s happening in Tennessee?

Tennessee• Given “Cream Puff Award” in 2006 for

having nation’s worst standards and not doing anything about it (Ed. Next Magazine)

• Attention given to large numbers of students passing state test and failing national tests

• Fall 2009: New standards, new texts, new tests, new curriculum– Teacher training– Rigorous expectations

What’s happening in Virginia?

Virginia School Districts

District A B C D F

Colonial Heights

100-94 93-87 86-80 79-73 72 and below

Richmond 100-92 91-83 82-74 73-65 64 and below

Petersburg 100-94 93-88 87-78 77-70 59 and below*

Amelia 100-93 92-85 84-77 76-70 69 and below

What’s happening in Pittsburgh, PA City Schools?

• 90-100 A• 80-89 B• 70-79 C• 60-69 D• 50-59 E

So Where’s the Controversy?“No Zeroes” policy!

Work may not be scored below 50%

What’s happening in Pittsburgh?

Pittsburgh Conflict• Critics say

– coddling of bad students, – cause high-performing students to

goof off from time to time, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't have to bounce back from anything lower than a 50 percent.

– "To me, it's morally wrong!"

What’s happening in Dallas?

• Re-testing, Pre-K – 12• Make-Up Work Related to an Absence,

Defined Pre-K - 12• Late Work Not Related to an Absence,

Defined Pre-K – 12• Grading practices must focus on

student growth and mastery of the learning standards

What’s happening in Dallas?

All students shall earn a grade point average (GPA) based on a 100-point system…Class rank points are adjusted for course difficulty. The equivalent scale for numerical grades on a 4.0 grade point system is as follows:

A 90-100 4.0B 80-89 3.0C 70-79 2.0F < 70

0.0

Dallas ISD Defines Homework!

• Homework is assignment of work related to the essential knowledge and skills and used as independent practice activities. These assignments are expected to be completed outside the regular classroom setting. Homework should always be reviewed with students with feedback provided by the teacher.

No mention of ‘grading’ or ‘giving credit.’

Communicating Results• Traditional grading practice in a

standards-based environment• Arbitrary decisions that morph into

institutionalized behavior• Return to the PURPOSE standard. Then,

ask yourself, what is the meaning of grades? What do they communicate to students? To parents?

• Consistent practice to attain equity.

Standard #5: Student-Involved Assessment

Goal: Self-Directed Learner

Self-directed learners can

1. Self-manage2. Self-monitor3. Self-modify

Quality Assessment Standards

(AKA The Keys to Success)

1. Clear and appropriate purpose2. Specific and appropriate learning

targets3. Solid assessment design4. Well-managed and effectively

communicated results5. Student-involved assessments

One Final Thought

We Are the Ones We’ve Been Waiting For

See You Next Year!

Julie McDaniel248-209-2346Julie.McDaniel@oakland.k12.mi.us