110 likes | 237 Views
Standards & Assessments: Building Coherence with ARRA Funds. Carlos Martínez Group Leader – Standards and Assessments U.S. Department of Education. New Ideas. Common Standards International Benchmarking Aligned assessments of individual growth
E N D
Standards & Assessments: Building Coherence with ARRA Funds Carlos Martínez Group Leader – Standards and Assessments U.S. Department of Education
New Ideas • Common Standards • International Benchmarking • Aligned assessments of individual growth • Explicit attention to range of assessment types / formats, content sampling, item release plans, etc. • 21st century technology • computer-based testing, longitudinal growth models, Evidence-Centered Design, … Ed Haertal, Denver, 12/1/2009
THEORY OF ACTION A Theory of Actionis a chain of logical propositions that “connects the dots,” explaining step by step, in commonsense terms, how the assessment system, accountability system, and related reforms will lead to improved learning outcomes Ed Haertal, Denver, 12/1/2009
Rethinking Old Ideas To Make New Ideas Work ? Curriculum & Instruction Assessments Content Standards Aligning tests and curricula to common standards is not sufficient to create a coherent system Ed Haertal, Denver, 12/1/2009
Rethinking Old Ideas To Make New Ideas Work Curriculum & Instruction Assessments ? Content Standards Aligning tests and curricula to common standards is not sufficient to create a coherent system Ed Haertal, Denver, 12/1/2009
NEXT GENERATION • ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS • Stanley Rabinowitz, Ph.D. • WestEd • AACC • srabino@wested.org • Education Reform: Building Coherence with ARRA Funds • December 18, 2009 • Phoenix AZ
Why now? • National Common Core Standards • Potential for Common Assessments • ESEA reauthorization • Growth and status • Lessons learned • Power of technology • Need • Federal Initiatives: $ (ARRA, RTTT)
Balance • What are we balancing? • Cost • Constraints • Risk
System • Indicators need to justify their inclusion • Incremental validity • Different components • Formative and summative • On demand and classroom embedded • Multiple choice, constructed response, performance tasks • Differentiated roles for different levels
Differentiated Roles • Differentiated roles for federal, state, district, school, teacher, student—affected by purpose, technical requirements, stakes, capacity, ability to affect change • Federal: minimal (reading, math, proficiency—what is enough for all?) • State: broad accountability based on history, conditions, initiatives, resources, values • Local: focus on curriculum and instructional support
Barriers • Real vs perceived: • Is it real or is it imagined? • Is it real or is it traditional? • Is it real or is it difficult? • Is it real or is it technical? • Is it real or is it expensive?