School Turnaround Policies and Practices in the US by Joseph F. Murphy & Joshua F. Bleiberg

Author:Joseph F. Murphy & Joshua F. Bleiberg
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783030014346
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

4.5.2 Assessment

Assessment is the third point on the instructional program triangle, in combination with pedagogy and curriculum. While we address the technical dimension of assessment below, we are concerned primarily with exploring the overarching narrative of a climate or culture of inquiry (Eilers & Camacho, 2007; Halverson, et al., 2007), “a school environment conducive to data-based decision making” (Ingram, Seshore-Louis, & Schroeder, 2004, p. 120). Supovitz and Klein (2003, p. 2) refer to this conception of assessment as a “culture of systematic inquiry into the relationship between the instructional practices of teachers and the learning of their students.” And Wohlstetter, Datnow and Park (2008) remind us that this culture is about the development of widely shared norms and expectations about how data is employed.

Research underscores the essential elements and principles of productive assessment systems. While these ingredients are blended in schools and districts, we pull them apart for analysis. We discuss them under the following descriptors: actionable, coherent, professionally anchored, and supported.

Actionable assessment systems, as noted above, are purpose and goal driven. Actionable means also that assessment programs are understandable (i.e., user friendly) (Datnow, Park, & Kennedy, 2008; Kerr, Marsh, Ikemoto, Darilek, & Barney, 2006) and that the information produced is valid, relevant, and useful (Datnow et al., 2008). Actionable systems offer guidance and concrete data (Hayes, Christie, Mills, & Lingard, 2004; Wayman & Stringfield, 2006). There is efficiency in access to data. Teachers view the data as necessary (Levin & Datnow, 2012). It allows them to see “how they [can] address emerging issues in their classrooms” (Halverson et al., 2007, p. 41). It pushes the spotlight onto instruction. In the words of Wayman and Stringfield (2006, p. 569), actionable systems “help teachers use data rather than being used by data.” Data is accessible but not intrusive (Friedkin & Slater, 1994). Information is made available in a timely manner (Kerr et al., 2006; Lachat & Smith, 2005) to “enable teachers to quickly analyze data for instructional decision making” (Datnow et al., 2008, p. 32). Actionable systems provide comparable data (Blanc, Christman, Liu, Mitchell, Travers, & Bulkley, 2010). There is a focus on authentic measures of demonstrating learning (Bryk et al., 2010). They promote the unpacking and disaggregation of data (Lachat & Smith, 2005; Murphy, 2010).

Analysts routinely describe a second element of productive assessment systems— coherence—as well as the principles that help define the element. Coherence covers a good deal of space in the assessment narrative. One principle of coherence is the continuous nature of assessments (Huberman et al., 2011; Kerr et al., 2006). So too is the reliance on a comprehensive platform of both internal and external forms of data collection (Ingram et al., 2004). Coherent assessment features multiple and varied types of data to provide insights into quality instruction and student learning (Lachat & Smith, 2005; Leithwood, 2008).

A core principle here is that there is “breadth and depth to data-related functions” (Young, 2006, p. 544). That is, coherence arises in part from multiple and overlapping functions. Mayrowetz and Weinstein (1999, p.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.