Formative Common
Assessments Lead to Student Success
Upon reviewing STAAR data from the
2011-2012 school year it was determined that there was a critical need for intervention
in Grades 3 through 5 in Math and Reading.
The rigor of the new State assessment was evident in the 2011-2012 STAAR
campus scores. Specifically, there was a discrepancy in scores of at-risk
students and other students. Students were slipping through cracks and
teachers were unable to “catch” them in time.
Timeline constraints facilitate the sense of urgency to get through the curriculum
at all costs. Across grade levels, unit
assessments indicated that some students had not mastered objectives and very
little, if any, intervention was done on their behalf. In most cases, teachers
felt that there was not enough time to go back and remediate those students who
were falling behind.
We will always face time
constraints and curriculum demands but we can no longer leave students behind. Implementing the regular use of common
assessments provides an opportunity for educators to pin point areas of
weakness in student understanding as well as in instruction. The results are immediate and allow for
targeted intervention to occur more frequently.
My action research plan incorporates the use of PLCs to draft common assessments
in Math and Science. Incorporating
formative common assessments will alleviate the need to provide extensive
remediation at the conclusion of units and will result in increased student
performance on unit assessments, district benchmarks and the STAAR assessment. The
primary objective of this project is to close the performance gap that exists
among sub populations on my campus.
There has been quite a bit of
research done to support the use of formative common assessments. The consensus among researchers is that
common assessments drive instruction and should be used to monitor learning and
instructional practices (Caffrey 2009) Caffrey further suggests that teachers use
formative assessments for instructional and predictive purposes and will use results
to adjust their instruction, pacing and delivery methods to meet the needs of
struggling students. Additionally, when
students receive feedback on their work in progress, they do better (Andrade
2011). Using formative assessments and
engaging students in their learning will result in increased student
performance. Further, implementing PLCs will encourage its members to work
together on common assessments to create rigorous, focused questions that assess
the KUDs (Know, Understand and be able to Do).
At the beginning of the year, my
administration met with the faculty to share initial results of last year’s
STAAR data in conjunction with District Benchmark data. We have been an Exemplary Title I school for
the past three years and according to last year’s data, we had fallen below
expectations. The State Assessment had
changed but it was clear that we had not adjusted our instructional practices
to meet the needs of our students or the demands of STAAR. This was a great opportunity to share with
the staff my initial research regarding the use of formative common
assessments. Additionally, our district
has embraced the concept of PLCs and our administration wanted to implement the
practice on my campus. It was a great opportunity to share information on
common assessments with the staff. We
were able to break up into PLCs and collaborate on formative common assessments
throughout the year. The use of common assessments has been instrumental in
discussing student academic concerns with parents, administration, and
counselors. They provide valuable
information on student performance as well as effective teaching practices.
Initially, my grade level was the
only one participating in this project.
Although, the staff recognized the benefits of using common assessments,
they could not justify the extra time needed to administer the assessment,
analysis of the results, and intervention strategies. Within my PLC, we planned our lessons
together, collaborating and discussing, effective teaching strategies and
lesson focus. We divided responsibilities
and each took a subject. Each teacher was
responsible for creating a 5 question assessment with the depth and rigor of
the STAAR assessing the KUDs of the objective. We came together to analyze
results and discuss intervention strategies for struggling students.
Although many times, it would have
been too easy to skip the common assessment for the sake of time, we were
getting positive results from our students.
They were performing well on unit assessments and district benchmarks. We were able to remediate students who were
struggling and provide focused interventions.
Our at-risk students were beginning to perform well and out-performing at-risk
students in schools with similar demographics.
Actions speak louder than words and other grade levels on campus began
to notice our success. I met with them to share ideas on how we create our
assessments and use the data to provide focused support.
The needs of our community are
great. I work on a Title I campus with 78% economically disadvantaged students,
39% at-risk students and 13% special education students. Implementing the use of formative common
assessments through the collaboration with PLCs will increase student performance
on unit assessments and the STAAR. Specifically,
the disaggregation of the data received from common assessments will assist
teachers in identifying students who are struggling and provide a focus for
intervention. It will also eliminate any
unnecessary overkill of information to students who have mastered the
objectives tested and facilitate differentiation thereby enriching the learning
experience of all students.
References
Caffrey, E. (2009). Assessment
in elementary and secondary education: a primer. Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, 7-9. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40514.pdf
Andrade, H. (2011). Getting students involved in formative self
assessment. Better: evidenced based
education. 12-13. Retrieved from http://www.bestevidence.org/word/better_spring_2011.pdf
