For What it's Worth

Among educators, there's a growing appreciation for the value of "formative assessments".  (In fact, formative assessments are a key component of PDE's recently released and very ambitious Standards Aligned System. More on that later...)

To paraphrase our new superintendent, a formative assessment is like a "routine physical", while the more traditional "summative" (or, end-of-course) assessment is more akin to an "autopsy". The idea is that we find out how well students are learning while there's still time to do something about it.

While this may not seem like a radical idea to anyone who's experienced a pop quiz, what's different is that the results of these assessments are intentionally used to modify instruction, on either a whole-class or individual basis.

It's going to be essential that we understand this distinction as the standards movement gains momentum. If we accept the premise that some skills are critical for every student to have - no child left behind - than we can no longer watch some students "fail", shrug our shoulders, and tell ourselves that we've "done our job".

One of the insights I picked up on my recent visit to the Kettering Foundation (Kettering is the umbrella organization for Public Issues Forums) is that when average citizens and politicians talk about "accountability" in education, they mean different things. Citizens want teachers and students to be accountable - but not in the punitive sense. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is, they just want results. But when politicians use the word, often they are looking for someone to blame. Hence, politicians see the value of "high-stakes" tests, while parents are horrified by them.

This leads me to a truly outstanding article from the November 10th issue of Education Week: Formative Assessments and Supportive Classroom Climates. If you read it for yourself, I can avoid quoting large sections, but here are a few key points:

1)     "Formative assessments (will be more effective) when they are administered within a supportive classroom culture. When individual students - and the class as a whole - understand the benefits of assessment, the value of those measurements is increased significantly."

2)    "Most assessments have become tools that are misapplied by being used to manage ... student behavior through the use of grades as punishment or reward. When properly applied, assessment data provides meaningful feedback to both teacher and student. Teachers ... can identify areas of strengths and weaknesses in their presentation. Students can use assessments to help them identify areas they need to review, discover methods of learning that are not effective in certain situations, and try different approaches to mastering the lesson."

3)    "Assessments (should be) interwoven throughout all lessons. Establish a climate in which assessments are not an isolated occurrence. Students should understand (that) assessment is an on-going process. Formative assessment - checking for understanding - should be an inherent, on-going practice that is planned and incorporated throughout the day and in all lessons."

Readers: Dr. Greer has asked the candidates to once again respond to a question concerning the elementary math curriculum in State College. My response follows.

My thinking has not changed a great deal since last spring, but here are a couple of points I think are worth making.

First, it is important to understand that there is no such thing as a perfect curriculum. It takes time for teachers to learn how to adapt it to meet the needs of individual students. While there may be other good math programs out there, changing the entire curriculum is the surest way to impede the academic progress of our students.

The latest edition of Investigations Math specifically addresses the aspects of the program that needed to be strengthened. One area that has been improved through the efforts of our teachers has been the issue of parents struggling to help their children with homework. One bonus is that the parents who have availed themselves of these opportunities have discovered that they can learn a new way to learn math.

Unfortunately, there are many people of my generation who think that the only correct way to learn math is to memorize the algorithms. But when you understand the concepts behind the rules, it is not only easier, it is considerably more fun. By the way, Math is supposed to be fun. The fact that generations of Americans consider Math to be tedious or boring is tragic, and a terrible waste of human potential.

According to a recent study at Vanderbilt University "teaching children the basic concept behind math problems was more useful than teaching children a procedure for solving the problems - these children gave better explanations and learned more," And, "this adds to a growing body of research illustrating the importance of teaching children concepts as well as having them practice solving problems."

Just this week, the nation?s largest group of math teachers urged a new approach to high school instruction, one that aims to build students' ability to choose and apply the most effective problem-solving techniques.

Our teachers are beyond enthusiastic about the improvements they've seen in our students. On what basis do we dismiss their insight? University Education professors - who understand the importance of different learning styles - have been very supportive of the current approach, particularly in light of the adjustments that have been made this year.

Finally, I'm concerned about what I view as a misuse of statistical data in order to find justification for one's point of view. It shouldn't be necessary to point out that one data point does not a trend make. Correlation does not imply causality. And basing one?s entire argument on the results of one high-stakes test is indefensible - unless we believe that the PSSA measures every important component of our students' mathematical skills and knowledge.

This change in math instruction was long overdue. Forty years ago, it may have been ok that 20% of our students were "good at math". This is no longer acceptable. As school board members, we have a responsibility to give every student the opportunity to succeed. In the 21st century, it is important that all our students to be able to think mathematically - not just the select few who have traditionally done well in math.

• As a result of the project, do the students feel more empowered to make their surroundings a better place?
• Does the project impact the students' sense of belonging to their school community?
• Do the students learn new skills, (for example: the ability to explain your ideas in public) and gain a greater sense of confidence?

Without a lot of added comment from me, here are a couple recent articles I found interesting.

This article from Education Week provides a number of examples of how students can begin to take ownership and responsibility in their schools, learning some citizenship skills in the process: Anything a Child Can Do, a Teacher Shouldn't, by Joan Goodman.

As part of their excellent series, Bridging Differences, another article from Education Week talks about the dangers of relying too heavily on a single assessment tool. The NCLB Paradox Enters the Twilight Zone

The last of my reports from the NSBA conferernce:

At his session on "Change and Stability" Douglas Reeves discussed the challenges of systemic change in large, complex organizations, as well as the implications of some recent research.

Reeves suggested that any organization considering a significant change should first complete an "initiative audit". His "Rule of 6" refers to "Initiative Fatigue" and the natural limit to the number of new initiatives that an organization can successfully manage at any one time. He stressed the importance of making it clear to all stakeholders, at the outset, those things that will not change.

Reeves defines "teacher leadership" not by positions or titles, but as "the act of influencing the classroom practices of professional educators." His 2008 research indicated that the single greatest influence on professional practice is "advice from colleagues", which far outweighs the impact of graduate courses or professional journal articles.

This suggests that one key to successful change is to provide opportunities for teachers to observe models of best practice, as demonstrated by these "teacher leaders". A number of schools accomplish this by digitally capturing examples of mini-lessons and effective teacher collaborations which are then posted on the web or shared via DVD. It turns out that the most confident teachers are generally willing to share their mistakes as well as their successes. He also discussed the importance of creating a safe environment for teachers to "critically review and rehearse successful practices."

He encouraged schools to develop a culture of "hypotheses testing". Rather than beginning from an assumption of "this will never work" or "teachers will never buy in to it", Reeves argues for a culture of curiosity and accountability: let's test promising ideas and see if they actually work. He says that far too often, educators live in the culture of the untested hypothesis - such as: "if students performed poorly on a test, we need to drill them harder" - without subjecting the hypothesis to examination.

Reeves suggested that not only should we have broader, more meaningful measures of student competency, we should also measure the "antecedents of learning"; that is, we should monitor the factors that we know contribute to a positive educational environment. (This is consistent with current work being done in the development of national school climate standards.) Said another way, we should be monitoring and measuring what the adults in the school community are doing, as well as the students.

A legitimate criticism of the accountability movement is that it defines accountability far too narrowly. If the only measures by which schools are held accountable are standardized 11th-grade math and reading scores, then that's where the instructional focus will tend to be.

A couple more of his research results:

• The number of extracurricular activities in which a student is involved (up to four, where the impact begins to level off) is predictive of a student?s GPA.
• The amount of non-fiction writing done by students is predictive of achievement in all subject areas.

Christensen made several other observations worth noting:

Future (and current!) teachers will need to know how to work with different types of learners; this should be a key component of their professional training. Continuing to train teachers to perform in a world of teacher-led content delivery - being taught to the dominant style of learner - trains teachers for the past.

Current educational research rarely produces results that are actionable; that is, "under this set of circumstances, these actions will produce the best results". He encourages graduate students to focus their research on discovering the styles of teaching that work best with different types of learners.

And finally: Recent research indicates that nearly all the variation in the cognitive ability of students entering kindergarten can be explained by the amount of "extra talking" that parents did with their children in the first three years of life. ("Extra talking" is conversation beyond "Don't touch that!") Think of the potential impact on society if every high school student learned that one additional piece of information.

He concludes that the billions of dollars that we're investing in early childhood education may be misplaced. Instead, the author suggests that high school might be the best place to "teach the methods of early cognitive development to tomorrow's parents." (Let's be honest: the next generation isn't learning "parenting skills" anywhere else.)