Dear All,
Lately I have been involved with many data discussions: Aims data, NECAP results, Lexia Learning, etc. In contrast to just five years ago, we now are fortunate to have a wealth of quantitative information to inform our instruction, and, with the advent of Power School, an efficient means to organize and analyze it. Often the resulting data mirrors teachers’ own classroom data, validating the qualitative and informal assessments teacher do constantly. Sometimes the data uncovers something new to consider; and sometimes the data feels disconnected to the context of the classroom. These three reactions to data remind us that the most important factor relating to data is how it is understood, how it impacts instruction; and that is up to an effective teacher. Confirmed by over two hundred studies, the only factor that can increase student achievement is a knowledgeable, effective teacher.
Nurturing our own professional learning is the essential ingredient to increasing student learning. This can be done through mandated courses or professional development opportunities, but such educational experiences can live and die in a vacuum if the school culture does not effectively utilize and affirm teacher knowledge. Thus, effective teachers depend on school leadership to set a tone of expectancy around best practices. This suggests an explicit goal-driven vision for both professional and student learning-clearly articulated, implemented, and documented; a living compact that guarantees highly qualified teachers who gather, interpret, and respond to different kinds of student performance data in a multitude of ways.
A new chapter of student data will be written with the debut The Vermont Item Bank Assessment (March 2010). Local use of this tool will provide educators with diagnostic information aligned with VT Grade Expectations to inform their instruction and improve student learning. The item bank was created to address the gap between once-a-year NECAP scores and the assessment needs for day-to-day instructional planning. While data like NECAP and Aims scores are “slices” or snapshots of student proficiency on a set task–we need to consider much much more, whether documenting student progress or planning future instruction. The state’s initiative and its invitation for schools to use these assessments at the local level shows a level of leadership described in the former paragraph.
In light of all this, I attach a general rubric for student oral book report presentations and projects-something that is done regularly in K-6 classrooms. ( Book Project Evaluation Rubric Grading Sheet ) While it is merely an example, I present it for your consideration as part of a bigger question: Can/Should students’ demonstrated performance on tasks be collected over time to demonstrate students’ growth in communication skills? Such evidence would cover a wide swath of of our state grade level expectations, and could be linked to specific units of instruction at specific grades. Would we feel more confident with our collection of student data used to report student progress if the data included additional measures such as this?
Power School suggests that schools are gaining power over information. And twenty-first Century teachers do have amazing tools available to them to quantify student performance. However, only a multi-faceted data pool will reflect the many dimensions of student learning and classroom instruction. Therefore, effective teachers must participate in an inquiry process to determine what data is collected, its weight, and how it is used to inform instruction. If we are the most important factor in student achievement, we must engage in such inquiry.
I anticipate future discussions about the Vermont Item Bank Assessments, welcome responses to the rubric I attach, and value continued professional discourse on the role of “student data.”
Sincerely,
Laura King
Literacy Coach, ACSU
info on item bank assessment–grade 8 and 10 only; grades 2-7 pending
ACSU Literacy Place 