DOCSLIB.ORG

Comprehensive Standards-Based Assessment Framework

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comprehensive Standards-Based Assessment Framework COMPREHENSIVE STANDARDS-BASED ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK Definition of terms Frequency and Type and Purpose Relationship to Methods Information Uses/Actions User Instruction Category of Function How often and when to Strategies for obtaining Types of evidence or Actions that educators assessment assessment assess students in relation evidence of learning information gained and students might take and who serves within a to instructional goals from assessment in relation to assessment uses the comprehensive to inform uses and information assessment system of actions (see next type and standards-based column) results curriculum, instruction, and assessment 1 Frequency and Type and Purpose Relationship to Methods Information Uses/Actions1 User Instruction Classroom Assist teaching Minute-by-minute Teacher placed strategically • Emerging or • Continue with planned Formative: and learning throughout the lesson: partially-formed instruction (S, T) Embedded Daily ideas, full under- • Observation of classroom • Stop and find out more in ongoing Track learning standing relative to Weekly discourse (S, T) teaching and • Students’ current lesson goals • Observation of students • Provide specific feed- learning During teaching and learning status engaged in instructional back to class or indi- learning relative to lesson (Student, Signal important tasks vidual students (oral or learning goals (e.g., Teacher) learning goals written) (S, T) • Teacher and student inter- have students met Short-term goals action (e.g., teacher-stu- the goal(s); are they • Reflect on next steps dent conferences) nearly there?) (student self-assess- ment) (S) • Analysis of student work/ • Difficulties and misun- representations derstandings/miscon- • Adjust instructional moves in relation to • Student self-reflection ceptions student learning status (e.g., quick write, response (e.g., act on “teachable to questions) moments”) in this or the • Student oral and written next lesson (S, T) work products • Refine and improve assessment (S, T) (Opportunities to gather evidence of learning during ongoing instruction are intentionally planned by the teacher and may also occur spontaneously) 1Users: S=Student, T=Teacher, SSS=Student Support Staff, SA=School Administrator, F=Family, D=District Administrator, ST=State 2 Frequency and Type and Purpose Relationship to Methods Information Uses/Actions User Instruction Classroom Assist/evaluate Weekly or as fits with Teacher planned and • Emerging or • Plan instruction for start of Formative: teaching and instructional plan or placed strategically in partially-formed new week (T, SSS) Formal learning schedule relationship to instructional ideas, full under- • Provide feedback to class checkpoints plan: standing Signal important or individual students (oral on learning • Students’ current or written) (S, T) progress learning goals Short-term goals • Checklists (e.g., developmen- tal, observational) learning status • Reflect on effectiveness of Monitor progress relative to lesson (Student, • Curriculum-embedded planning and instruction Teacher) with respect learning goals (e.g., (T, SSS) to specifically assessments and/or have students met targeted completed student work the goal(s); are they • Reflect on next steps (stu- intervention products nearly there?) dent self-assessment) (S) goals • Other external assessments, • Difficulties and • Reflect on effectiveness of not developed by the teach- misunderstandings/ curriculum and instruction er, that provide instructional- misconceptions in real-time (T, SSS) ly tractable information (i.e. • Refine and improve assess- READ ACT Assessments) ment (T, SSS) • May be used as a por- tion of a comprehensive educator evaluation system (T, SSS) Intervention Assessments Progress Short- medium-term • Progress monitoring mea- Student achievement Implement, continue, revise, or monitoring goals sures (e.g., curriculum-based of target learning conclude intervention (T, SA, with respect measurement; embedded goal(s) for a specific SSS) to specifically Dynamic Learning Maps Al- intervention targeted ternate Assessment Program intervention for qualified students) • Program (interven- tion)-based assessments 1Users: S=Student, T=Teacher, SSS=Student Support Staff, SA=School Administrator, F=Family, D=District Administrator, ST=State 3 Frequency and Type and Purpose Relationship to Methods Information Uses/Actions User Instruction Classroom Signal important After a more extended • Student work products • Status of student • Reflect on subsequent Summative learning goals period of teaching and and performances learning relative to next steps moving for- learning (e.g., after a unit (e.g., portfolio), with longer-term goals ward (S, T, SSS) (Student, Evaluate is completed and before associated rubric(s) (e.g., unit learning • Reflect on effectiveness Teacher, attainment another unit begins) goals) Student of importnat • Student self-reflection of planning and instruc- Support learning goals (e.g., short survey) tion (T, SSS) Staff, School Medium-term goals • Classroom summative • Report to administrators Administrator, assessments designed/ and families (T, SSS, F) Family, District selected by teacher(s) • Discuss student prog- Administrator) ress as a basis for instructional planning of subsequent units during teacher grade level/ departmental meetings (T, SSS, SA) • Family involvement based on results (F) • Refine and improve as- sessment (T, SSS, SA) • May be used as a por- tion of a comprehensive educator evaluation system (T, SSS) 1Users: S=Student, T=Teacher, SSS=Student Support Staff, SA=School Administrator, F=Family, D=District Administrator, ST=State 4 Frequency and Type and Purpose Relationship to Methods Information Uses/Actions User Instruction Interim Signal important At the end of a • Teacher designed/ • Status of achieve- • Reflect on effectiveness of Summative learning goals semester selected curricu- ment of interme- planning and instruction (T, 3x per year or more lum-embedded diate goals toward SSS) (Student, Track student measures meeting standards Teacher, achievement Across instructional • Reflect on effectives of Student based on units/calendar • Student work products • Prediction of end- school/district structures, pro- Support learning goals periods and performances of-year proficiency grams, curricula (SSS, SA, D) Staff, School (e.g., portfolio), with • Standardized test • Make within-year decisions Administrator, Inform associated rubric(s) results aggregated about instructional approach- Family, District Improvement Medium-term goals • School/district standard- and disaggregated: es or programs (T, SSS) Administrator) strategies for: ized standards-based, - By grade level, • Make within-year adjustments grade-level achievement • Teachers school and/or to curriculum/programs (T, tests SSS, SA) • Schools teacher • Reporting (including com- • Districts - By student subgroup munication with families and district personnel) (T, SSS, SA, - By sub-skill F, D) - Trends/patterns • Family involvement based on in student results (F) performance • Identify student for supple- • Student data mental intervention (T, SSS, dashboard/graphic SA) representation of understanding • Readjust professional learning priorities and resource deci- sions (T, SSS, SA, D) • Continue or readjust improve- ment strategies (T, SSS, SA, D) • Identify students in need of additional support or interven- tions (T, SSS, SA, D) • Identify potential promising practices (SSS, SA, D) continued... 1Users: S=Student, T=Teacher, SSS=Student Support Staff, SA=School Administrator, F=Family, D=District Administrator, ST=State 5 Frequency and Type and Purpose Relationship to Methods Information Uses/Actions User Instruction ...continued • Refine and improve assess- ment (T, SSS, SA, D) Interim Summative • Understand student perfor- mance at the school/district (Student, level for monitoring and Teacher, improvement planning, local Student accreditation or the Request Support to Reconsider process (SA, Staff, School D, ST) Administrator, • Supports improvement plan- Family, District ning (e.g., UIP) (SA, D) Administrator) • Educator evaluations (T, SSS, SA, D) Progress monitor Medium-term • Progress monitoring • Student achievement • Implement, continue, revise, with respect goals measures (e.g., cur- of target learning or conclude intervention (T, to specifically riculum-based mea- goal(s) for a specific SSS, SA) targeted surement; embedded intervention intervention Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Program for qualified students) • Program (interven- tion)-based assessments • Observation inventories 1Users: S=Student, T=Teacher, SSS=Student Support Staff, SA=School Administrator, F=Family, D=District Administrator, ST=State 6 Frequency and Type and Purpose Relationship to Methods Information Uses/Actions User Instruction Summative: Accountability: After a year’s or a • State End-of-Year Assessments • Status of student • Report on the status State, district, course worth of in- - Colorado Measures of Aca- achievement with and progress of student school, other • Gauge student struction and learning respect to stan- achievement achievement demic Success (CMAS): PARCC external (English language arts, math), dards (T, SSS, SA, D, ST) mandated of standards Long-term goals Science and Social Studies • May be able to • Make judgments about • Establish provide relative student learning relative (Student, benchmark - Colorado Alternate Assess- Teacher, ment (CoAlt): Dynamic Learn- growth information to standards or
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Review of Standardized Testing Practices and Perceptions in Maine
    A Review of Standardized Testing Practices and Perceptions in Maine Janet Fairman, Ph.D. Amy Johnson, Ph.D. Ian Mette, Ph.D Garry Wickerd, Ph.D. Sharon LaBrie, M.S. April 2018 Maine Education Policy Research Institute Maine Education Policy Research Institute McLellan House, 140 School Street 5766 Shibles Hall, Room 314 Gorham, ME 04038 Orono, ME 04469-5766 207.780.5044 or 1.888.800.5044 207.581.2475 Published by the Maine Education Policy Research Institute in the Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation (CEPARE) in the School of Education and Human Development, University of Southern Maine, and the Maine Education Policy Research Institute in the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Maine at Orono. The Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI), is jointly funded by the Maine State Legislature and the University of Maine System. This institute was established to conduct studies on Maine education policy and the Maine public education system for the Maine Legislature. Statements and opinions by the authors do not necessarily reflect a position or policy of the Maine Education Policy Research Institute, nor any of its members, and no official endorsement by them should be inferred. The University of Maine System does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin or citizenship status, age, disability, or veteran's status and shall comply with Section 504, Title IX, and the A.D.A in employment, education, and in all other areas of the University. The University provides reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities upon request.
    [Show full text]
  • Nine Facts About the SAT That Might Surprise You
    Nine Facts About the SAT That Might Surprise You By Lynn Letukas COLLEGE BOARD RESEARCH Statistical Report RESEARCH Executive Summary The purpose of this document is to identify and dispel rumors that are frequently cited about the SAT. The following is a compilation of nine popular rumors organized into three areas: Student Demographics, Test Preparation/Test Prediction, and Test Utilization. Student Demographics Student demographics claims are those that primarily center around a specific demographic group that is said to over-/underperform on the SAT. Presumably, it is reasoned, if the SAT were a fair test, no student demographic characteristics would matter, as average scores would be similar across groups. Therefore, some people assume that any difference in SAT performance by demographics must indicate test bias for/against a demographic group. Rumor 1: The SAT Is a Wealth Test. According to Peter Sacks, author of Standardized Minds, “one can make a good guess about a child’s standardized test scores simply by looking at how many degrees her parents have and what kind of car they drive.”1 This comment is illustrative of frequent criticism that the SAT is merely a “wealth test” because there is a correlation between student scores and socioeconomic status (i.e., parental income and educational attainment). Proponents of this claim often support their arguments by stating that the SAT only covers content that is learned by wealthy students, rather than material covered in high school.2 Fact: Rigorous Course Taking in High School Better Explains Why Students Do Well (or Not) on the SAT. While SAT scores may be correlated with socioeconomic status (parental income and education), correlation does not mean two phenomena are causally related (e.g., parental income causes students to do well on the SAT).
    [Show full text]
  • Public School Admissions and the Myth of Meritocracy: How and Why Screened Public School Admissions Promote Segregation
    BUERY_FIN.DOCX(DO NOT DELETE) 4/14/20 8:46 PM PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMISSIONS AND THE MYTH OF MERITOCRACY: HOW AND WHY SCREENED PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMISSIONS PROMOTE SEGREGATION RICHARD R. BUERY, JR.* Public schools in America remain deeply segregated by race, with devastating effects for Black and Latinx students. While residential segregation is a critical driver of school segregation, the prevalence of screened admissions practices can also play a devastating role in driving racial segregation in public schools. New York City, one of the most segregated school systems in America, is unique in its extensive reliance on screened admissions practices, including the use of standardized tests, to assign students to sought-after public schools. These screens persist despite their segregative impact in part because they appeal to America’s embrace of the idea of meritocracy. This Article argues that Americans embrace three conceptions of merit which shield these screens from proper scrutiny. The first is individual merit—the idea that students with greater ability or achievement deserve access to better schools. The second is systems merit—the idea that poor student performance on an assessment is a failure of the system that prepared the student for the assessment. The third is group merit—the idea that members of some groups simply possess less ability. Each of these ideas has a pernicious impact on perpetuating racial inequality in public education. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 102 I. THE APPEAL OF THREE DIMENSIONS OF MERIT .................... 104 A. Merit of the Individual .................................................... 104 B. Merit of the System ......................................................... 107 C. Merit of the Group .......................................................... 109 II. THE MYTH OF MERITOCRACY IN K12 ADMISSIONS .............
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking School Accountability: Opportunities for Massachusetts
    RETHINKING SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MASSACHUSETTS UNDER THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT Senator Patricia D. Jehlen, Chair Senate Sub-committee to the Joint Committee on Education May 2018 The special Senate Subcommittee to the Joint Committee on Education was established per order of the Massachusetts State Senate in February, 2017: Ms. Chang-Díaz presented the following order, to wit: Ordered, That there shall be a special Senate sub-committee to the Joint Committee on Education, to consist of five members from the current Senate membership on the Joint Committee on Education, chaired by the Senate vice chair of the Joint Committee on Education, for the purpose of making an investigation and study of the Commonwealth’s alignment with and opportunities presented by the Every Student Succeeds (ESSA) Act, Public Law 114-95. The subcommittee shall submit its report and related legislation, if any, to the joint committee on Education once its report is completed. Senate Sub-committee chair and report author Senator Patricia D. Jehlen, with gratitude to those who contributed ideas, data, and comments Senate Sub-committee Members: Senator Michael J. Barrett Senator Jason M. Lewis Senator Barbara A. L'Italien Senator Patrick M. O'Connor Staff: Victoria Halal, Matthew Hartman, Emily Wilson, Kat Cline, Dennis Burke, Erin Riley, Sam Anderson, Daria Afshar Sponsored Events: (6/13/17) Panel Discussion: Life & Learning in MA Turnaround Schools https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbErK6rLQAY&t=2s (12/12/17) Mildred Avenue School Site Visit
    [Show full text]
  • How and Why Standardized Tests Systematically Underestimate
    St. John's Law Review Volume 80 Number 1 Volume 80, Winter 2006, Number 1 Article 7 How and Why Standardized Tests Systematically Underestimate African-Americans' True Verbal Ability and What to Do About It: Towards the Promotion of Two New Theories with Practical Applications Dr. Roy Freedle Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE RONALD H. BROWN CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM HOW AND WHY STANDARDIZED TESTS SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERESTIMATE AFRICAN-AMERICANS' TRUE VERBAL ABILITY AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT: TOWARDS THE PROMOTION OF TWO NEW THEORIES WITH PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS DR. ROY FREEDLEt INTRODUCTION In this Article, I want to raise a number of issues, both theoretical and practical, concerning the need for a total reassessment of especially the verbal intelligence of minority individuals. The issues to be raised amount to a critical reappraisal of standardized multiple-choice tests of verbal intelligence, such as the Law School Admissions Test ("LSAT"). I want to probe very deeply into why such standardized tests systematically underestimate verbal intelligence. This leads me first to review the prospects for a new standardized test of verbal intelligence associated with the studies of Joseph Fagan and Cynthia Holland.1 These studies show us that the races are equal; this result leads us to question the construct validity of many current standardized tests of verbal aptitude.
    [Show full text]
  • Sat-Act-Study-Report.Pdf
    Executive Summary For many years, high school grade-point average (HSGPA) and standardized test scores (i.e. SAT/ACT) have served as the two most important and relied upon college admissions criteria. However, there is constant debate about whether HSGPA and SAT/ACT are fair measures of college preparation and valid predictors of college success, and whether SAT/ACT should remain as a requirement for college admissions. Supporters of standardized tests argue that SAT/ACT evaluates college-preparedness on an equal standing despite inconsistent grading systems throughout the nation’s high schools. While HSGPA compares a student to the rest of his/her school, SAT/ACT scores compare the student to the rest of the country. Opponents of standardized tests argue that SAT/ACT is biased towards white, upper middle class students from high performing schools. Focusing on HSGPA in college admissions may help foster racial and socioeconomic diversity in the college student population. Previous research generally treats standardized test results as measures of college preparation. The literature surrounding the predictive validity of standardized test scores on student success is mixed. Many studies found a statistically significant association between SAT/ACT scores and college outcomes including first-year college GPA, first-year retention, four-year graduation, and graduation GPA. On the other hand, research also shows that demographic predictors weakened the ability of SAT/ACT scores to be effective predictors of college success. In light of previous research, this report presents the results of separate studies on the relationship among HSGPA, standardized tests, and demographics, and explanatory power of test scores for college success based on UC’s application and enrollment data.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting High School Students Ready for College: a Quantitative Study of Standards- Based Grading Practices
    Getting High School Students Ready for College: A Quantitative Study of Standards- Based Grading Practices Matt Townsley, [email protected], University of West Georgia Matt Varga, [email protected], University of West Georgia Some high schools are moving towards standards-based grading in an attempt to produce consistent grading practices; however, the change’s impact on college readiness is not clear. The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of high school’s grading practices as it relates to ACT scores and grade point averages (GPAs). Existing data were collected from two comparable high schools using different grading practices in a Midwestern state as determined by state department of education-provided demographics: enrollment, socioeconomic status (as defined by percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch), and ethnicity. Stepwise multiple linear regressions were used to determine if GPA and the method of high school grading practices, standards-based grading or traditional grading, used predict ACT scores. The findings revealed GPAs remain unchanged and ACT scores may be negatively impacted when high schools utilize standards-based grading practices. In addition, traditional grading practices were a small factor combined with GPA in predicting ACT scores. Keywords: grading, standards-based grading, college admissions exams, high school Journal of Research in Education, Volume 28, Issue 1 93 / Townsley & Varga Educational scholars agree grading is a highly subjective aspect of public schooling and has been for over 100 years (Allen, 2005; Brimi, 2011; Cureton, 1971; Schinske & Tanner, 2014; Schneider & Hutt, 2013; Starch & Elliott, 1912). Jeffrey Erickson (2010) calls grading the “third rail” of education due to the long held beliefs permeating classrooms across the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: a Review of the Nature of Standardized Tests
    01-Kennedy.qxd 04-02-03 2:37 PM Page 1 1 A Review of the Nature of Standardized Tests his chapter presents an overview of standardized tests T and their applications in education. The first section pre- sents a brief historical review of standardized testing in schools. This is followed by a discussion of the nature of these tests and their uses in education. Several technical terms (e.g., reliability) are introduced and discussed. ABRIEF HISTORY OF STANDARDIZED TESTING IN AMERICA Large-scale standardized testing in the United States can be traced to the First World War. At the beginning of U.S. involvement in the war, the military was overwhelmed with volunteers. At the time, much of the country, including the 1 01-Kennedy.qxd 04-02-03 2:37 PM Page 2 2 Raising Test Scores for All Students military, was deeply immersed in the efficiency movement. The idea, borrowed from the industrial workplace, was to use input, including human capital, in such a manner as to maxi- mize output and minimize waste. Subscribing to this idea, the U.S. military was committed to finding scientific ways to max- imize the efficiency with which it used human capital for its war machine. A solution was offered by leaders of the American Psychological Association (APA). Headed by Robert Yerkes, the APA proposed developing an objective and scientific way for planners to allocate men to positions in the military hierarchy. Yerkes and his colleagues proposed and developed two tests designed to measure the mental ages of recruits and volunteers.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Standardized Test?
    What is a Standardized Test? A Standardized test is a test that is given in a consistent or “standard” manner. Standardized tests are designed to have consistent questions, administration procedures, and scoring procedures. When a standardized test is administrated, is it done so according to certain rules and specifications so that testing conditions are the same for all test takers. Standardized tests come in many forms, such as standardized interviews, questionnaires, or directly administered intelligence tests. The main benefit of standardized tests is they are typically more reliable and valid than non-standardized measures. They often provide some type of “standard score” which can help interpret how far a child’s score ranges from the average. Below is a list of commonly used tests for child and adolescent evaluations. Specific tests are typically chosen based on the child’s unique needs. This is not an all-inclusive list. TEST NAME DESCRIPTION AGE RANGE Autism Spectrum ADOS: Autism A structured, standardized assessment that is administered Toddler (around age Diagnostic Observation directly to the client. It involves interactive activities that 2)-adult Schedule allow the examiner to observe communication, social interaction, play, and behaviors related to autism spectrum disorders. Scores derived are compared with cutoff scores that suggest an Autism Spectrum or Autism classification. ADI-R: Autism Children and adults Diagnostic Interview A comprehensive, standardized parent/caregiver interview with a mental age Revised designed to obtain developmental history and a thorough above 2 years range of information needed to assist in the diagnosis of Autism and autism spectrum disorders. Three functional domains are assessed: language/communication, reciprocal social interaction, and restrictive, repetitive, and stereotyped behaviors and interests.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roles of Standardized Reading Tests in Schools
    LITERACY LEADERSHIP BRIEF The Roles of Standardized Reading Tests in Schools International Literacy Association | 2017 tandardized tests have a long history of being the go-to measure of student reading achievement, teacher ac- complishment, and school accountability. Given this habit of history, it is predictable that a single stan- Sdardized reading test score is often considered the indicator of student reading growth and achievement. Yet standardized reading tests come with a host of conse- quences. Test scores are used to deem particular schools ex- emplary or substandard. From these designations, there may follow an exodus of students to for-profit charter schools or a reconstitution of the teaching corps of an entire school. Real es- tate prices rise and fall in relation to the neighborhood school’s testing profile, as test scores are used as a proxy for school quality. Test scores teach students that they are “above aver- age,” “average,” or “below average.” In contrast to this power and these consequences, standard- Standardized reading tests ized reading tests are limited in their ability to describe stu- are limited in their ability to dents’ reading needs and to inform reading instruction. describe students’ reading needs and to inform reading Roles and Uses of Standardized Tests instruction. The roles, or uses, of standardized tests can be described with- out endorsing them. These include assessing student achieve- ment, comparing students, evaluating programs, creating educational policy, and determining accountability. Assessing Student Achievement We expect that students will further develop as literate individ- uals as a result of schooling. Standardized tests provide annual before (near the beginning of a school year) and after (near the end of the school year) appraisals of this student development.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Standardized Testing on Historical Literacy and Educational Reform in the U.S
    The Effect of Standardized Testing on Historical Literacy and Educational Reform in the U.S. Julie Hisey Maranto Fort Hays State University Masters of Liberal Arts Student Humanities Public education in America has an impressive history of success in equipping students with literacy that extends back to the earliest days of our nation. Education was a high priority for the original settlers in America who, motivated by their religious convictions, eagerly sought mastery and dissemination of literacy skills throughout the population. For most of the Protestant settlers, their beliefs derived from the doctrines of the Reformation and they considered the ability to read as a fundamental necessity for grounding citizens in the tenets of their faith as well as their government. The first law in the colonies pertaining to education was passed by the Massachusetts General Court to instill literacy, religion, and civic responsibility in students. The law, passed in 1642, instructed that children must be able to “read and understand the principles of religion and the capital laws of the country” and, in addition, addressed the negligence and lack of concern they felt many parents showed toward the education of their children (Good, 1962, p. 29). Local officials, known as selectmen, were assigned the duty of seeing that the law was obeyed. In the event that they came upon a child not being taught adequately, the selectmen had the authority to establish an apprenticeship for the child with someone who would assume that responsibility (Good, 1962). Many of those in leadership, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, and Noah Webster, considered education, particularly in preparation for “civic duty,” as essential to the maintenance of the newly formed republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards-Based Assessment and High Stakes Testing
    STANDARDS-BASED ASSESSMENT AND HIGH STAKES TESTING: ACCURACY OF STANDARDS-BASED GRADING by Amity C. Hardegree Liberty University A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Liberty University July, 2012 ii STANDARDS-BASED ASSESSMENT AND HIGH STAKES TESTING: ACCURACY OF STANDARDS-BASED GRADING by Amity Christa Hardegree A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA July, 2012 APPROVED BY: Kenneth Gossett, Ph.D., Committee Chair April Howard, Ed.D., Committee Member Rebecca Harrison, Ed.D., Committee Member Scott B. Watson, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Advanced Programs iii ABSTRACT Amity C. Hardegree. STANDARDS-BASED ASSESSMENT AND HIGH STAKES TESTING: ACCURACY OF STANDARDS-BASED GRADING. (Under the direction of Dr. Kenneth Gossett) School of Education, Liberty University, Summer, 2012. This quantitative study examines whether standards-based grade reporting accurately informs student academic achievement on standardized criterion-referenced tests for all students. The participants for this study were all fifth graders enrolled in eight elementary schools in a rural system in north Georgia from 2009-2010. Approximately 550 students’ standards-based report cards (SBRC) and Criterion Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) provide the data to determine whether grades on standards-based report cards provide accurate information for all students, regardless of gender, ELL status, or socioeconomic status by comparing mean scores on Georgia’s CRCT in the areas of math and reading, based on SBRC indicators. The findings of this study provide strong implications for school systems considering a standards-based grading reporting system in response to the recent movement towards standards-based curriculums.
    [Show full text]