September 2006 — Features

Print this article

Click here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal

Formative Assessment :: Building a Better Student

by Neal Starkman

This is the first year that Orange County has used these assessments, but state results already show marked improvements in both reading and math. Still, Baldwin cautions aphoristically, “Change is a process, not an event.” Baldwin chose The Princeton Review after a laborious process of winnowing out programs that professed to be aligned to state standards but fell short. He’s very satisfied, but says he is open to more change in order to maintain quality assessments that are matched specifically to the standards that students will need to meet.

In discussions with administrators such as Baldwin and with assessment providers, a distinct emphasis arises: assessment not as an end to itself but as a means of instruction. Some of this no doubt is a result of defending formative assessment against complaints from both teachers and parents that testing takes time away from instruction. But the point is made over and over. The Princeton Review’s Sloane O’Neal says intervention, not tests, makes for student improvement. Winston-Salem’s Wes Leiphart says succinctly, “Assessment is part of instruction.”

Predictive vs. Diagnostic

In the press release heralding its new program, Acuity, McGraw-Hill Digital Learning declares:

“Acuity is a classroom-friendly suite of assessments with both online and paper-and-pencil administration options. Predictive benchmark assessments mirror state NCLB assessments in grades 3-8 and grade 10 in math and reading/language arts, and deliver immediate, actionable data on student progress.” Acuity was designed “for teachers and classroom use,” the release goes on to say. “The Acuity Diagnostic Benchmarks are tailored to district curriculum pacing and assess student retention and knowledge of core content areas. Diagnostic reports show specific mistakes students make so teachers can target instruction to improvement needs—a powerful way to accelerate student performance and help educators meet achievement goals.’”

McGraw-Hill staff wrote the predictive assessments specifically to each state’s tests. They also wrote the diagnostic assessments for districts wanting to know how well their students were keeping up with the curricula, intent on making changes based on that knowledge. That means the company worked with each district to determine precisely which items would provide the most valid measures for the district’s curricula. The staff also had a bank of more than 40,000 items in language arts and math to provide to teachers who wanted to create their own measures.

One measure, the predictive one, needs to be as closely aligned as possible to each state’s tests. The other measure, the diagnostic one, needs to be as closely aligned as possible to each district’s curricula. If the curricula meet the state’s standards, then the two measures should be closely correlated.