1. Improving the Assessment Literacy of Students, Educators & Policy Makers CCSSO Annual Assessment Conference San Diego CA June 23, 2015

2. Chair: Ed Roeber, Michigan Presenters: Rick Stiggins, Oregon Consultant Karen Kidwell, Kentucky Susan Brookhart, Brookhart Ent. Jim Popham, UCLA

3. Presentation Plan Define assessment literacy and argue for it’s urgent development nationwide, all levels Describe promising new dev. programs – Michigan Assessment Consortium – Kentucky Department of Education – National Assessment Governing Board – Joint Comm. on Professional Teaching Standards – Nation Board for Prof. Teaching Standard – New Vision of Excellence in Assessment in Oregon Discuss other initiatives with the audience

4. Understanding the Dire Consequences of Assessment Illiteracy

5. Key definitions: Assessment is the process of gathering evidence of achievement to inform instructional decisions Assessment literacy is an understanding of how to (a) gather dependable evidence and (b) use assessment productively whether in a formative or summative context

6. Who needs to be assessment literate? Teachers Federal, state, and local school leaders Policy makers and those who seek to influence policy Measurement comm. & test publishers Parents and communities News media Faculties of higher ed (esp colleges of ed) Students

7. Critical questions: What if they are not? What could be the impact on student learning success?

8. Teachers: Poor quality assessments = undep. results, poor decisions, harm to students – Uses not adjusted for different purposes – Improper methods given the target – Poor quality tasks and scoring schemes – Failure to minimize bias Inefficient assessment development and use Ineffective communication of results Ineffective integration into teaching/learning Fear of dishonesty and distrust of teachers

9. Dangers for school leaders: Unqualified to evaluate assessment practice Unqualified to promote improvement Unable to support assessment for learning Selection of improper tests for school/district Inept interpretation and use of ext. evidence Inability to advise policy makers re: testing Development of unsound policies Overdependence on external evidence Cheating on standardized tests

10. What policy makers and advisors? Fed, state, local, legislatures, state DOEs, local school boards Advisors such as: – CCSSO – Professional associations of teachers and administrators – Child advocacy groups – Test publishers – Others…

11. Dangers: Obsessive belief that accountability is the best way to use tests to better schools Requiring adherence to indefensible policies Emphasis on politics of testing vs learning Failure to accommodate diverse purposes Vast amounts of time and money wasted Policy driven by the testing industry Professional certification standards that fail to certify assessment literacy

12. Mea’ment comm./testing industry: Tests used to intimidate educators/students Nat’l test quality standards ignore 99% of tests Test pubs bypassing educators to sell products directly to assessment-naïve legislators Failure to help society understand what kinds of assessment really can improve schools Domain sampling test dev minimizing precision & instructional value of results Unqualified reps selling tests to assessment illiterate local school leaders

13. …and so on: Parents and Communities News media Faculties of higher ed esp colleges of ed Inability to protect their children from harm Uncritical score reporting and failure to analyze causes of scores reported Unsound practices, failure to model or train candidates in sound practices

14. In fact, few of these agents of school improvement have been given the opportunity to become assessment literate…

15. As a direct result, we place students in harm’s way routinely in our schools and classrooms…

16. Dangers for students: Assessment rights violated, such as when – Not informed of assessment purposes – Not informed of the learning targets in advance – Not informed about the path to their success – Results fail to reflect their ach accurately – Results ineffectively communicated Many lose confidence and needlessly give up in hopelessness Failure to use assessment to maximize student success

17. A New Vision of Excellence in Assessment for Oregon Students

18. Among the foundational values: All assessment must rely on dependable evidence to serve pre-set purposes of either supporting or certifying learning The Oregon system must meet the information needs of all important users Assessment priorities must focus on meeting local school district and classroom info needs first and foremost vs state or federal demands The primary function of assessment is the tracking and promotion of student growth

19. Guiding principles: All assessments must be designed around a pre-set purpose All must arise from and reflect pre-est. clear, appropriate, and public learning targets Each assessment must provide dependable evidence of achievement Results must be effectively communicated to intended users Our mission is to use assessments in ways that encourage students to strive for success

20. Students and their families have the right to demand adherence to these principles in their schools

21. Therefore, Oregon is launching a long-term PD program to assure a universal foundation of assessment literacy

22. Who needs to be assessment literate? Pre-K to grade 12 Teachers State, and local school leaders Policy makers and those who seek to influence policy Measurement comm. & test publishers Parents and communities News media Faculties of higher ed (esp colleges of ed) Students