Formative Assessment Policies, Programs, And Practices In .
ISSUES&ANSWERSAt Edvance Research, Inc.R E L 20 0 8 – N o. 0 41Formativeassessmentpolicies,programs, andpractices inthe SouthwestRegionU.S.D e p a r t m e n to fE d u c a t i o n
ISSUES&ANSWERSR E L 2 0 0 8 – N o . 0 41At Edvance Research, Inc.Formative assessment policies, programs,and practices in the Southwest RegionJanuary 2008Prepared byCarole Gallagher, Ph.D.WestEdPeter WorthWestEdU.S.D e p a r t m e n to fE d u c a t i o n
TXVAKYNCTNARSCMSAKMIIANVCANYALGALAFLAt Edvance Research, Inc.Issues & Answers is an ongoing series of reports from short-term Fast Response Projects conducted by the regional educational laboratories on current education issues of importance at local, state, and regional levels. Fast Response Project topicschange to reflect new issues, as identified through lab outreach and requests for assistance from policymakers and educators at state and local levels and from communities, businesses, parents, families, and youth. All Issues & Answers reportsmeet Institute of Education Sciences standards for scientifically valid research.January 2008This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) under Contract ED-06-CO-0017 by Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest administered by Edvance Research. The content of the publication does not necessarily reflectthe views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, ororganizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.This report is in the public domain. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, it should be cited as:Gallagher, C., & Worth, P. (2008). Formative assessment policies, programs, and practices in the Southwest Region (Issues& Answers Report, REL 2008–No. 041). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrievedfrom http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabsThis report is available on the regional educational laboratory web site at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
iiiSummaryFormative assessment policies, programs,and practices in the Southwest RegionFormative assessments help educatorstarget instructional practices to meetspecific student needs and monitor andsupport student progress toward valuedstate learning outcomes. Policies andprograms in the five Southwest Regionstates suggest a range of strategies tosupport the development and use offormative assessments.This report describes state formative assessment policies, programs, and practices in thefive states covered by the Southwest RegionalEducational Laboratory: Arkansas, Louisiana,New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Formative assessments, unlike summative assessments, yield descriptive data—not judgments.They are used diagnostically and to improveinstruction—not, for example, to assign endof-course grades (Wiggins, 1998).Such distinctions are reflected in a definitionof formative assessment recently adopted bythe Council of Chief State School Officers:“An assessment is formative to the extent thatinformation from the assessment is used,during the instructional segment in whichthe assessment occurred, to adjust instructionwith the intent of better meeting the needs ofthe students assessed” (Popham, 2006). Thisdefinition was used to guide the collection offormative assessment data for this study.A systematic examination uncovered disparities in how states define formative assessment.Arkansas, Louisiana, and New Mexico haveformal definitions—but the definitions differ,suggesting that Southwest Region states viewformative assessment through slightly different lenses. (No formal definitions were discovered for Oklahoma or Texas.)Researchers found no study that specificallyexplored the effects of formative assessmentpolicy on local practice. But related researchon school reform (Darling-Hammond &McLaughlin, 1995), assessment reform (Chudowsky & Pellegrino, 2003; Stiggins, 2002),and accountability (Goodwin, Englert, &Cicchinelli, 2003) suggests that explicitly communicating a clear, consistent message abouteffective practices facilitates cross-districtconsistency with the state’s education goals.Three Southwest Region states have been mostexplicit in communicating their intent forformative assessment to stakeholders throughstate policies or mandates, state-supportedprograms or products, or allotments of services and resources to districts: Arkansas’ House Bill 2253, although currently withdrawn pending further study,calls for a two-year pilot using formativeassessments statewide.
ivSummary Louisiana’s Enhanced Assessments ofGrade-Level Expectations gives teachersaccess to an online pool of custom itemsaligned to state standards, with additionaltools for individualizing instruction. New Mexico’s Consumer Guide (NewMexico Public Education Department,2006b) evaluates vendors’ tests and judgestheir appropriateness for formative use bystate districts.Each state’s position appears intended to fitcoherently within its existing comprehensiveassessment system and state context.Substantial variability emerged in how muchstates regulate the development or use offormative assessments at state and local levels.Researchers found a range of state laws, withformal state directives only in Arkansas,Oklahoma, and Texas. State education agencypolicies also vary across the Southwest Region. In Arkansas the Academic ImprovementPlan specifies that districts must implement aformative assessment component, but districtsare responsible for selecting and purchasing the tool for this (Arkansas Departmentof Education, 2006a). Similarly, Oklahomarequires end-of-course test data to be reportedto districts for formative use, but does not supply districts with strategies for reaching thisgoal. In Texas the Technology Immersion Pilotprovides a platform for administering onlinediagnostic assessments, though the test itemsare to be provided by each district (TexasEducation Agency, 2006b). Louisiana’s guidance is most direct: a state grant allows theLouisiana Department of Education to provideall districts with an online formative assessment system, including both a pool of customitems (aligned to state standards) and trainingin collecting and reporting data for formativepurposes.Variability also was observed in the supportprovided to districts for formative assessment,such as professional development opportunities, resources, and product endorsements.Researchers found evidence of five differentstate-sponsored professional development opportunities related to formative assessment forArkansas educators, but none for New Mexicoeducators. Oklahoma was the only state forwhich researchers could find no evidence ofstate resource allocation for formative assessment. But Oklahoma, along with Arkansasand Texas, provides districts with endorsements for particular programs or productsrelated to formative assessment.Overall, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas appearto have developed multitiered or multifacetedstrategies for supporting formative assessment at the state and local levels. For example,Arkansas provides state guidance and support through regulations, programming, andprofessional development opportunities forteachers through resource allocation. In contrast, New Mexico focuses its support primarilyon one state initiative, its Consumer Guide. InOklahoma limited evidence emerged on statepolicies and programs, but a range of districtformative assessment practices was found.January 2008
vTable of contentsOverview 1Defining formative assessment 4The need for formative assessment 4Improving learning outcomes for all students 5Promoting effective instructional practices across all districts within a state 5Providing balance within a state’s comprehensive assessment system 6How are Southwest Region states defining formative assessment? 7What formative assessment policies or programs are in place in Southwest Region states? 8State legislation 8State education agency policies or initiatives 8Use of released test items 10What types of support link state policies with district formative assessment practices? 10Professional development opportunities 10Resources 11Product endorsements 11What examples of district-initiated formative assessment practices can be identified in each SouthwestRegion state? 11Arkansas 12Louisiana 12New Mexico 12Oklahoma 13Texas 13Call for research in the field 13Appendix AState statistics 15Appendix BStudy methods and limitations 16Appendix CSide-by-side comparison of states’ formative assessment policies, practices, and programs 23Appendix DLetter of introduction to district superintendents 32Appendix EQuestions for district representatives responding by email 33References 34Boxes1State characteristics 22Methods and data collection 7TablesA1 State summary statistics 15
viB1 Summary of data collection activities 18C1 Information about comprehensive assessment systems 23C2 Research question 1: How are Southwest Region states defining formative assessment? 23C3 Research question 2: What state policies or programs related to formative assessment are in place in eachSouthwest Region state? 24C4 Research question 3: What types of support link state policies with district formativeassessment practices? 28C5 Research question 4: What examples of district-initiated formative assessment practices can be identified ineach Southwest Region state? 30
OverviewFormativeassessments helpeducators targetinstructionalpractices tomeet specificstudent needsand monitorand supportstudent progresstoward valuedstate learningoutcomes.Policies andprograms in thefive SouthwestRegion statessuggest a rangeof strategiesto support thedevelopment anduse of formativeassessments.1OverviewUnder the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001states are held accountable for the performanceof all students. Within this context results fromformative assessments could provide timely anddescriptive information about students to helpteachers plan for and deliver effective individualized instruction. The ability to do this in allschools statewide can be facilitated by state policyor programming guidance and state resources formaterials, professional development, and financialsupport.This report presents findings from a study offormative assessment policies and programs inArkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,and Texas, the five states covered by the Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory (see box 1for state summary statistics that provide context for the report findings). Because the studywas initiated in response to regional interest informative assessment, the types of evidence collected include information about how each statesupports the development and use of formativeassessments at the state and district levels. Descriptive in nature, the report provides a detailedportrait of state policies and programs related toformative assessment.Texas clearly stands out in overall size, with morethan six times as many students enrolled in nearlyfive times as many schools as the next largest state.Among the other states Arkansas and New Mexicoare more comparable in size, as are Louisiana andOklahoma. Only 14 percentage points separatethe state with the highest percentage of studentseligible for free or reduced-price lunch (Louisiana,62 percent) from the state with the lowest percentage (Texas, 48 percent). New Mexico identifiesthe highest percentages of students with disabilities (20 percent) and English language learners(19 percent). Arkansas and Texas identify only12 percent of their students as having disabilities,and Arkansas identifies only 4 percent and Louisiana only 2 percent of their K–12 populations asEnglish language learners.
2Formative assessment policies, programs, and practices in the Southwest RegionBox 1State characteristicsThe table to the right contextualizesthe study’s findings and promotesmeaningful cross-case comparisons.It presents summary statistics thatdescribe characteristics of the K–12school populations in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, andTexas, such as the number of studentsserved and percentages of Englishlanguage learners, students with disabilities, and students eligible for freeor reduced-price lunch. Appendix Adescribes the characteristics of eachstate’s K–12 student population ingreater detail.Southwest Region state summary statisticsStatisticK–12 studentenrollmentNumber of 421,7878,746Students eligiblefor free or reducedprice lunch (percent)5262585448Students withdisabilities (percent)12142015124219716English languagelearners (percent)Source: U.S. Department of Education, 2006; National Office for Research, Measurement, and Evaluation, 2005 (Arkansas); Louisiana Department of Education, 2005 (Louisiana); New Mexico Public Education Department, 2005; Oklahoma State Department of Education, 2005 (Oklahoma); Texas EducationAgency, 2005 (Texas).Formative assessments, unlike summative assessments, yield descriptive data—not judgments.They are used diagnostically and to improve instruction—not, for example, to assign end-ofcourse grades (Wiggins, 1998). Such distinctionsare reflected in a definition of formative assessment recently adopted by the Council of ChiefState School Officers: “An assessment is formativeto the extent that information from the assessmentis used, during the instructional segment in whichthe assessment occurred, to adjust instructionwith the intent of better meeting the needs of thestudents assessed” (Popham, 2006).A systematic examination uncovered disparities in how states define formative assessment.Arkansas, Louisiana, and New Mexico have formaldefinitions—but these definitions differ, suggesting that Southwest Region states view formativeassessment through slightly different lenses. Thedefinitions are also communicated to stakeholdersin different ways, through a variety of sources. (Noformal definitions of formative assessment werediscovered in Oklahoma or Texas.)Researchers found no study that specificallyexplored the effects of formative assessment policyon local practice. But related research on schoolreform (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995),assessment reform (Chudowsky & Pellegrino,2003; Stiggins, 2002), and accountability (Goodwin, Englert, & Cicchinelli, 2003) suggests that explicitly communicating a clear, consistent messageabout effective practices facilitates cross-districtconsistency with the state’s education goals.Three Southwest Region states have been mostexplicit in communicating their intent for formative assessment to stakeholders through statepolicies or mandates, state-supported programs orproducts, or allotments of services and resourcesto districts: Arkansas’ House Bill 2253, although currentlywithdrawn pending further study, calls for atwo-year pilot using formative assessmentsstatewide. Louisiana’s Enhanced Assessments of GradeLevel Expectations gives teachers access to anonline pool of custom items aligned to statestandards, with additional tools for individualizing instruction.
Overview New Mexico’s Consumer Guide evaluatesvendors’ tests and judges their appropriateness for formative use by state districts (NewMexico Public Education Department, 2006b).Each state’s position appears intended to fit coherently within its existing comprehensive assessment system and state context.Substantial variability emerged in how muchstates regulate the development or use of formativeassessments at state and local levels. Researchers found a range of state laws, with formal statedirectives only in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.State education agency policies also vary acrossthe Southwest Region. In Arkansas the AcademicImprovement Plan mandated by the state’s rulesgoverning the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing,Assessment, and Accountability Program specifiesthat districts must implement a formative assessment component, but districts are responsible forselecting and purchasing the tool for this (Arkansas Department of Education, 2006a). Similarly,Oklahoma requires end-of-course test data to bereported to districts for formative use, but doesnot supply districts with strategies for reachingthis goal. In Texas the Technology ImmersionPilot provides a platform for administering onlinediagnostic assessments, though the test items areto be provided by each district (Texas EducationAgency, 2006b). Louisiana’s guidance is mostdirect: a state grant allows the Louisiana Department of Education to provide all districts with anonline formative assessment system, includingboth a pool of custom items (aligned to state standards) and training in collecting and reportingdata for formative purposes.Variability also was observed in the supportprovided to districts for formative assessment,such as professional development opportunities,resources, and product endorsements. Researchersfound evidence of five different state-sponsoredprofessional development opportunities related toformative assessment for Arkansas educators, butnone for New Mexico educators. Oklahoma wasthe only state for which researchers could find no3evidence of state resource allocation for formativeassessment. But Oklahoma, along with Arkansasand Texas, provides districts with endorsementsfor particular programs or products related toformative assessment.Overall, Arkansas, LouisiSubstantial variabilityana, and Texas appear toemerged in how muchhave developed multistates regulate thetiered or multifaceteddevelopment or use ofstrategies for supportingformative assessmentsformative assessment atat state and local levelsthe state and local levels.For example, Arkansasprovides state guidance and support through regulations, programming, and professional development opportunities for teachers through resourceallocation. In contrast, New Mexico focuses its support primarily on one state initiative, its ConsumerGuide (New Mexico Public Education Department,2006b). In Oklahoma limited evidence emerged onstate policies and programs, but a range of districtformative assessment practices was found.This report does not seek to judge or evaluate theeffectiveness of formative assessment policies orpractices. The researchers have excluded suchevaluative considerations because the context forstate regulation of formative assessment is confounded in three ways: Formative assessment decisionmakinghas traditionally been the domain of localeducation agencies rather than state education agencies (Shepard, 2000b). Yet withhigh-stakes assessments based on statewidecontent standards, educators increasingly seekstate guidance in identifying effective toolsfor gauging student progress toward learninggoals. Because of a dearth of empirical evidenceabout the effectiveness of such policies instimulating effective formative assessmentpractices, states have no framework forweighing tradeoffs associated with differentimplementation models.
4Formative assessment policies, programs, and practices in the Southwest RegionClarifying the meaningand purpose of formativeassessment anddescribing its currentstatus can help state andregional decisionmakersweigh options forimplementing andsupporting promisingstate and districtformative assessmentpolicies, programs,and practices Understandings of what constitutes formative assessment differwithin the education community,and no consensus has emergedabout best practice in using dataformatively. Critical questionsthus remain unanswered aboutthe appropriate nature and degreeof state guidance for formativeassessment practice and about thecriteria for judging or evaluatingthe effectiveness of such policies.While the report seeks to respondto a specific need in the SouthwestRegion, it also speaks to a broader challenge facingstates across
formative assessment data for this study. A systematic examination uncovered dispari-ties in how states define formative assessment. Arkansas, Louisiana, and New Mexico have formal definitions—but the definitions differ, suggesting that Southwest Region states view formative assess
--1-- Embedded Formative Assessment By Dylan Wiliam _ Study Guide This study guide is a companion to the book Embedded Formative Assessment by Dylan Wiliam. Embedded Formative Assessment outlines what formative assessment is, what it is not, and presents the five key strategies of formative assessment for teachers to incorporate into their
Performance Assessment Score Feedback Formative 1 Date . Formative 2 Date : Formative 3 Date . Formative 4 Date : Formative 5 Date . Formative 6 Date : Summative Date Implements learning activities aligned to chosen standards and incorporates embedded formative assessment. Clearly conveys objectives in student-friendly language so that the
assessment. In addition, several other educational assessment terms are defined: diagnostic assessment, curriculum-embedded assessment, universal screening assessment, and progress-monitoring assessment. I. FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT . The FAST SCASS definition of formative assessment developed in 2006 is “Formative assessment is a process used
assessment professional learning system. They are stepping stones along the path. Part I. Learn About Formative Assessment 1.1 Inventory your comprehensive assessment system. 1.2 Clear up misconceptions about formative assessment. Part II. Plan For Formative Assessment 2.1 Identify elements of formative practice that you do well and those you
Formative Assessment Best Practices Part I H Gary Cook, Ph.D., WIDA Consortium Elluminate Session, Pennsylvania Department of Education April 28, 2009 WIDA Consortium ELL Formative Assessment 2 Overview Definitions Balanced Assessment Systems Formative Assessment Best Practices ELL Formative Assessment 3 Definitions
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT Formative assessment is any assessment that is used to improve teaching and learning. Assessment is a three-step process by which evidence is collected, interpreted and used. Best-practice formative assessment uses a rigorous approach in which each step of the
formative assessment. Theoretical framework of the study Looking for a working description for formative assessment alongside summative assessment in the school setting, Madison-Harris, Muoneke and Times (2012) reviewed series of literature on formative assessment and concluded that "it is a systematic, continuous process
The first course, Section 4B75, is Python Programming (1/7/19 – 2/11/19), the second course, Section 4B83, is Big Data Analysis & Visualization (2/11/19 – 3/25/19), and the last course in the series, Section 4B84, is Unix Operating Systems (3/25/19 – 4/29/19). In Python and Unix, it is assumed students have no knowledge of programming or computing. All of these courses will use data sets .
