When I began teaching in Denver, Colorado in July of 2000, U.S. public schools were headed into the era of “No Child Left Behind,” marked by the mandate of annual standardized testing of all students in grade three and up. So, for example, when my third grade students took the “CSAP” (Colorado Student Assessment Program) in the spring of their 3rd grade year, the results would supposedly show how proficient they were in the areas of reading, writing, and math. The CSAP consisted of paper and pencil test booklets, which were accompanied by Scantron bubble sheets for the reading and math portions. If my memory serves me correctly, each content area had three sections, each of which took about an hour (in theory) for students to complete, unless students were given the accommodation of “more time,” an accommodation that all of the students in our school received. As such, the CSAP test alone consumed about two weeks of my instruction, and we (the school, teachers, and parents) did not receive the students’ scores until July when the school year was over. If a certain percentage of students in the school scored “partially proficient” or “unproficient,” the school would be at risk of being taken over by a state charter. The students’ CSAP scores were used punitively, as a potential form of punishment on schools and teachers, with the erroneous assumption the students’ results on that one standardized test were a direct and all-encompassing reflection of teacher effectiveness and/or student learning.
While tests can provide some information on what a student knows at a given point in time, tests are inherently limited. Knowledge is a vast construct. The nature of knowledge itself is dynamic, complex, and context-dependent. Any test, no matter how well designed, will only provide a snapshot of what a test-taker knows in that moment under the circumstances of the test’s conditions and constraints. Furthermore, a student’s performance on a standardized test (or any type of test for that matter) is influenced by a whole host of factors, many of which – such as quality of sleep, nutrition, stress – are not within a teacher’s scope of influence.
Fortunately, tests are just one type of assessment. Assessments and assessment practices in education have evolved considerably over the past two decades. Perhaps, most importantly, the utility and purpose of assessments in instructional contexts has been widely researched and critiqued, which has reinforced the premise that assessments should inform instruction. Unlike the CSAP that I administered when I was a teacher in Denver Public Schools, where the results were delivered after my students had already moved on to the next grade level, diagnostic and formative assessments are integral to responsive instruction; they give teachers a sense of where students are – at a given point in time – with their understanding of concepts, ability to apply knowledge from one context to another, and/or mastery of a set of skills. By identifying learning targets and using various types of assessments for specific purposes throughout a project or instructional cycle, both teachers and students gain greater clarity about the learning goals and how to reach those goals.
At Summers-Knoll School (SK), teachers are constantly using a variety of formal and informal assessments (diagnostic, formative, and summative) to get to know who students are as people and as learners, how they make meaning, and their current understanding of particular skills and concepts. Students can express what they know and share what they have learned through a wide range of media and modalities (e.g., writing, visuals, speaking, audio, art, music, photography, performance, demonstration). Teachers assess what students can do independently, without peers or assistance from adults, as well as what students can do with others because both independence and collaboration are key to success in the 21st century.
For the first time at SK this 2023-2024 school year, we are using the NWEA MAP Growth assessment (in reading, math, and science) schoolwide. Just this week, Johnathan, the head of school and I began administering the MAP Growth test with students in grades Kindergarten to Eighth grade, and we will do so again in the middle of the school year and at the end. Parents can opt out if they prefer their child not take the test. Unlike the CSAP standardized test that I gave when I first started teaching, the MAP Growth assessment is a norm-referenced, adaptive, computer-based test that provides information on how an individual student performs on the test – at a particular point in time – as compared to the millions of other students in their same grade level around the world who take the same test.
At SK, we recognize that a student’s performance on the MAP Growth test is just one data point among an array of other assessment data that teachers gather throughout each quarter. Teachers analyze assessment data (on an ongoing basis) to iteratively construct a dynamic, holistic perspective of each learner, as an individual, so that they can provide instruction that leverages a student’s strengths, meets them at their growth edges, and supports their academic as well as their social-emotional development.
I must admit, by starting my career in education as a public school teacher in the era of the mandated “No Child Left Behind” standardized tests, I became very critical about how assessments were being used in education broadly and about how I was using assessments in my own classroom as a teacher. Fortunately, I now see that my criticality has served me – and the students and teachers with whom I work – well because I am vigilant about using assessments purposefully: to inform instruction and support students’ growth. Scrutinizing our instructional practices as educators keeps us honest and responsive, and perhaps most importantly, such scrutiny enables us to get clear about what we want students to learn and why so that we can provide meaningful learning opportunities through which students can grow, stretch, encounter and overcome obstacles, and ultimately reach their learning goals.
For more on the relationship between instruction and assessment, check out this ASCD article, How to Create Assessments That Drive Learning.