Without Assessment, Teaching Is A Guessing Game

Do you step on the bathroom scale in the morning? How about in the evening, also? Do you glance at your reflection in the mirror? More than once each day? Do you check your rear view and side mirrors while driving? Do you look through the window to check the weather before venturing outdoors? How about the temperature of water in your shower? I do. We do these and many other rituals because we want and we need to know and the information we obtain is knowledge for our daily living. Information guides what we think about our “now” and informs what we need to do “next”. Information tell us to stop doing things are not working for our benefit and to start doing things that will. The option of not knowing makes life a guessing game.

Assessment is what I am talking about. Assessment is a part of life. We all do it, consciously and unconsciously, because we want information that we think is important to our living. A good working definition of the word assessment is this – assessment is evaluating or considering the nature, quality, or ability of someone or something that is of interest to you and to others. I believe, as educators, we should start at the end of this definition first. We assess because we are interested – I add, because we care. And then look at assessment as evaluating or considering the nature, quality or ability of our interest in teaching and learning.

Interest and care are huge words in the world of education. Parents enroll their children in our schools to be taught and to be cared for and to grow annually on their path toward college and career readiness. From their perspective, parents expect educators to be engaged in a decade-plus, nine-month-a-year, work-day long continuing education and care of their children. School becomes the major factor in a child’s life from age 4 to 18. In response, there is ample evidence that teachers demonstrate many of the characteristics of caregivers to their students as teachers are called not only to teach but to affect each child’s social, emotional, mental, nutritional, and physical health. Interest in and care for children in school abounds.

Why we assess. The intellectual education of children is not guess work. If teaching and learning were so happenstance as guess work, we would follow the guidance of Rousseau. We would turn all children lose in the proverbial innocence of a natural world and see what happens. To the contrary, schools adopt programs and curricula and design experiences for the education of children. Educators are constantly interested in both sides of this work –how well are the school programs, curricula and experiences causing their planned outcomes, and, how well is each child learning. Though it sounds like a bumper sticker – educators work at the education of children.

Most of our daily, adult, personal assessments are made subjectively. We don’t need exact data for safety, comfort, preference and casual decisions. We read and we listen. We look and we observe. We feel and we smell and we taste. We make estimations and approximations based upon the information we glean from our world. Detail usually does not matter, if our perception is close enough to what we expect.

Other decisions require more critical and exact information. We like meat grilled to a medium rare and know about what medium rare looks like on the exterior of the meat, but sticking a meat thermometer into the meat ensures that 120 -130 degree flavor we seek. Adding a half tsp or a whole tsp of baking powder to cookies makes a difference. We need to know if a guest in our home has a food allergy and the nature of that allergy. Pre-information guides us when downloading a movie – there is a difference between X, R, M and PG. Each of these is an assessment we make about the nature or quality of things in our world that matter to us. In these instances, the details in the information matter.

Our student learning committee learned to ask a significant question when talking about school curricula, programs and how well our children do. How do we know this? If the conversation does not include a qualitative and/or quantitative statement based upon fact, the committee knows it is hearing opinion and the committee needs to ask different and deeper questions. How we know is as important as what we know when we are talking about the education of children.

Teaching and learning are the application of cause and effect. These are not random or accidental. They are not unplanned. We teach in order to cause children to learn a vast amount information and ideas, to learn and improve a wide variety of skills, to find value in what they are able to do, and to understand how others see and value them as learning children. Teaching is a purposeful act with a beginning and an ending and knowing what the ending acts and looks like is essential. If not, children would be reading Dick and Jane books K through 12. Good teaching knows when the next teaching is required. And, that is why we ask “how do we know this?” How do we know that a child has learned and is ready for our next teaching? Just as importantly, how do we know that a child has not learned or not learned well enough and we must teach again and differently?

I understand those who chant “too much time is wasted on assessment and schools over test.” We must be certain in our management of teaching and learning that we assess properly and frequently enough to inform teaching and learning. Knowing is accrued in many ways. Proper assessment is as non-invasive as listening and watching. A teacher listening to a first grader read aloud will know as much about that child’s immediate reading abilities as any test could provide. An Algebra teacher watching a child think through and write out the steps of math problem has instant information about what a child knows and does not know well enough. A band director listening to horn players in solo or ensemble knows that these students have learned or need further instruction. We do not need large scale testing to know everything we need to know. We assess constantly everyday because we care that all children are successful learners.

I, on the other hand, worry we do not assess enough or well enough. I am not writing about testing, though testing is an important form of assessment. I repeat that proper assessment is a powerful “I care about you and your learning statement”. I observe that we diminish listening to children as they grow older. Elementary teachers listen to children read aloud. They listen to children explain their thinking aloud. Elementary teacher teach in close proximity to children as they learn. Close listening, watching and proximity are important to the monitoring and adjusting of teaching to cause student learning of knowledge, skills and dispositions. As children get older, teachers allow “space” to develop. We believe that children are embarrassed when they are required to read aloud or to explain aloud their reasoning and thinking to problem solutions. They, older children, want the product or their answer to speak for itself. “Why do I have to show my work or tell you how I found that answer if it is right?”, they complain. And, teachers give into the argument. Teaching and learning in high school classes operates with too much space between teacher and student. Without the intimacy of listening and watching and knowing, we rely upon tests to know, because know we must. We too often fail in the area of informal assessment of high school children.

In a better educational setting, all assessment would be personal and direct between teacher and child. “Tell me, show me, help me to know what you have learned and how well you have learned it.” Listening and watching are as important to knowing about the education of a senior in high school as it is a child in Kindergarten. However, time is not on our side. One-to-one assessment in a class of 25 secondary students engaged in complex and complicated learning requires too much time. Hence, whole group testing is the way we know about the quality of what large groups of children have learned.

Assessment frequency and exactitude increases when educators need incremental information. Our committee is deeply engaged in improving student phonemic coding and decoding skills within phonics-based reading instruction. Knowing which children have these skills and which do not and the degree of their skills attainment requires frequent observational and tested information. The better the assessed information, the better the instructional response to each child’s needs. Frequency and exact measures work to the benefit of children.

An unpublicized part of the assessment/testing scenario is knowing when to stop testing or to stop using a test that provides less than the required information. We are phasing out our current universal screener for EC – 3rd grade children and replacing it with an assessment that is more definitive in specific reading skills. At the same time, we are questioning the need for end of the year assessments because the intervening summer months causes this information to be out of date in informing us about beginning of the school year instruction. Instead, September and January assessment places assessment information directly in front of newly informed instruction. Frequent, exacting and wiser assessment a constant pursuit for educators.

For those who remain skeptical about school assessments, I encourage you to continue asking questions and to focus your inquiry on “How is this assessment improving my child’s immediate and future education?”. If teachers cannot provide a solid and satisfactory answer, we are not doing our job of knowing and we deserve your criticism. That is my assessment.

Academic Standards – The Genome of Proficient Learning

Academic standards are the genome of a 21st century PK-12 education.  Turn back the covers on any curriculum today and you will find “standards.”  They are the “who says this is the right stuff to teach” credentials of school curriculum.  As consumers, we look for credentialing,  like the Good Housekeeping Seal or Underwrites Laboratory Approval, that gives us reliance that school curriculum is not something cooked up during the summer by a local committee but is written by experts in the field of PK-12 education.

Although politics has kicked dirt on the Common Core Academic Standards, they remain the best of academic standards available to PK-12 educators.  In Wisconsin, the Common Core Standards were adopted as the official academic standards of the Department of Public Instruction in 2010 and are the basis for instruction, assessment and educational accountability.

A genome, even the sound of the word, is scientific.  It is the complete set of genes present in a cell or organism.  By applying genome to the organism of academic standards, academic standards are the complete set of academic characteristics of a graduate of our PK-12 educational system.

Like the genome encoded on a strand of DNA, the genome of academic standards seems just as mysterious.  But, it isn’t.  They are clearly written and complete, just in educationese.  Educational leaders need to take the time and make the effort to de-mystify the verbiage of academic standards into plain speak.  This explanation must include two components – why they are important and how they work.  What are academic standards and how does our school use PK-12 academic standards?  And, what does proficient performance of each standard mean?  The latter is essential, because proficiency or advanced performance indicates the grade level goal which are the code of the genome.

This is what the DPI says about standards.  It is a good beginning.

What are academic standards?

Academic standards tell us what students should know and be able to do in the classroom.  Wisconsin has standards for 24 separate subjects.

Why are academic standards important?

Standards provide goals for teaching and learning. Standards are clear statements about what students must know and be able to do.

What does an academic standard look like?

Seventh grade mathematics: solve real-life and mathematical problems involving angle measure, area, surface area, and volume.

How do standards differ from curriculum?

While standards provide the goals for learning, curriculum is the day to day activity that helps a student meet those goals. Curriculum, which should be thought of as the student’s overall classroom experience, is affected by lesson plans, classroom assessments, textbooks, and more. In Wisconsin, curriculum is developed and approved by local school boards to meet their local needs.

https://dpi.wi.gov/families-students/student-success/standards

This explanation should be repeated to students and parents frequently, so that children and their moms and dads clearly understand that “standards-based” means “these are statements of what each child should know and be able to do and all of our assessments will focus on helping everyone understand how well children know and can perform these.”  And, because the standards build upon each successive grade level and course, students and parents need to know that Algebra and Geometry, for example, are introduced in elementary school arithmetic and are developed through middle school and applied and expanded in higher mathematics courses in high school.  Like the DNA genome, the genome of academic standards winds through the school organism across many years of student learning.

This explanation may sound or read like, “This year our first grade math students will begin to use mathematical operations and algebraic thinking.  Yes, Algebra in first grade.  These are the operations and algebraic thinking standards and a description of what your child will know and be able to do as a result of our first grade math instruction.

Standard:  Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction.

Performance:

  1. Use addition and subtraction within 20 to solve word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.
  2. Solve word problems that call for addition of three whole numbers whose sum is less than or equal to 20, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.

Standard:  Understand and apply properties of operations and the relationship between addition and subtraction.

Performance:

  1. Apply properties of operations as strategies to add and subtract.3 Examples: If 8 + 3 = 11 is known, then 3 + 8 = 11 is also known. (Commutative property of addition.) To add 2 + 6 + 4, the second two numbers can be added to make a ten, so 2 + 6 + 4 = 2 + 10 = 12. (Associative property of addition.)
  2. Understand subtraction as an unknown-addend problem. For example, subtract 10 – 8 by finding the number that makes 10 when added to 8.

Standard:  Add and subtract within 20.

Performance:

  1. Relate counting to addition and subtraction (e.g., by counting on 2 to add 2).
  2. Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 – 4 = 13 – 3 – 1 = 10 – 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 – 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

Standard:  Work with addition and subtraction equations.

Performance:

  1. Understand the meaning of the equal sign, and determine if equations involving addition and subtraction are true or false. For example, which of the following equations are true and which are false? 6 = 6, 7 = 8 – 1, 5 + 2 = 2 + 5, 4 + 1 = 5 + 2.
  2. Determine the unknown whole number in an addition or subtraction equation relating three whole numbers. For example, determine the unknown number that makes the equation true in each of the equations 8 + ? = 11, 5 = � – 3, 6 + 6 = �.

This standard is just one of many in first grade mathematics instruction.  As your child tells you ‘This is what we learned in math today,’ please keep these standards in mind.  When your child enters second grade, the next instructional year will add to and expand these first grade standards.”

As an extension, good practice would also help children and parents to connect standards to periodic classroom tests and assessments.  Just adding a standards statement to the top of the test page indicates the alignment of preceding instruction and the assessment to a particular academic standard.

The reason for this time and effort points directly to the accountability that school leaders and teachers have for causing all children to learn and proficiently perform grade level academic standards.  Each first grade child who successfully knows and can perform the operations and algebraic thinking standard given in this example will be ready for instruction in second grade operations and algebraic thinking.

And, here is the rub.  Every child who does not successfully know and can not perform the elementary and/or middle school grade level math standards at the appropriate grade level proficiency level begins a parade of successive years of incomplete learning in math.  It is no wonder that high school Algebra is “the wall” for so many students, the course where the annual standards of algebraic thinking in elementary and middle school coalesce into a single math course.  Children who have successfully learned and performed their elementary and middle school math standards are ready and prepared for high school Algebra.  Children who did not are severely challenged in Algebra and all subsequent math courses.

The mutual responsibility that school leaders, teachers and parents have for student learning can be made easier when annual academic standards are explained, distributed across the year of their instruction, and clearly aligned with grade level instruction and assessments.  When we know what we are supposed to do, the doing is made easier.

The genome of academic standards is a road map that is designed not only for instruction, but to aid school leaders and parents to assure that each child successfully learns what they are to know and be able to do each school year.  It is our road map and needs to be closely followed.

Teaching Is Causing Learning; Get Rid Of Other Agendas

Tis a time for simplicity.

Amongst the piles of edu-data, reform proposals, governmental mandates, and clutchings for new ways to improve student learning outcomes, one simple explanation remains. Learning is a transaction between the learner and what is to be learned. This is an application of Occam’s Razor which tells us “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Strip away the nouveau and extraneous. Technology. Assessments. Instructional delivery. Parental choice and politics. Educational financing. After the onion is peeled, the remainder is a student confronting what is to be learned. Or, is it what is learned confronting a student? Yes, these are Occam’s two remaining variables. And, this is how we always should approach the proposition of improving educational outcomes. How can we magnetize that confrontation? How can we make the learner’s interest in the learning compelling? How can we make what is to be learned compelling for the learner? This is the first and most important place where “we”, the educational enterprise, enters the learning interaction.

The educator’s constant quandary is “How to illuminate, amplify, and activate, and perpetuate” the learner’s interaction with what is to be learned. It is eyes-on, hands-on, and minds-on work. It is personal and persistent. It begins every morning and expands across the day. Learner – teacher – learning. This is the most basic of educational propositions. How can I help you to learn?

Education actually is this simple. Sadly, the enterprise makes it much more difficult. Within our educational enterprise, there are propositions that Occam would say “strip it away.” And, there are propositions that Occam would tell us to selectively utilize.

Teachers are inundated with data, recordkeeping, and time-consuming chores related to data management. This has little to do with our basic proposition. Strip it away. The enterprise should be clear about what is to be learned and how it will be assessed. This is all a learner and teacher need to know.

The conversation about and implementation of new academic standards and new state assessments are exceptionally heavy in controversy. The emotionality of these issues distract both learners and teachers. Strip it away.

The politics of parent choice of school options is loud and irrelevant to daily learning. Strip it away from the schoolhouse.

Teachers are expected to be tech-users and social media communicators. Very 21st century and very chic. Considering the dynamic of the learning interaction – how to make it compelling – the use of technology and social media are very assistive. Technology can be the flashlight that illuminates what is to be learned and social media the conduit for teacher/learner talking. Great! Optimize it.

The more that we can do to clarify and personalize each student’s relationship with what is to be learned and the more we can strip away the impediments that obscure the teacher’s organization and management of teaching, the more likely we will be in causing student learning.