Missouri Assessment Partnership UpdatePattonville Board of Education

January 22, 2019

Update on MOAP

vShare§ Process used to identify components of the model§ the assessment model developed, including

ü Goals/Purposeü Rationaleü Characteristics/Components

vProcessing Around the Model§ Answer questions§ Gather feedback

vNext Steps§ Support§ Going from Model to System

Share

Next StepsProcess

MOAP Advisory CommitteePurpose and Areas of Focus

vAn Advisory Committee, consisting of individuals from MOAP member districts was formed to provide input and leadership in the strategic areas of focus for MOAP.

vAreas of Focus§ Assessment System and Resource Development: Focus on the characteristics, features and

capabilities of an assessment system for partner districts which will then lead to the development of an RFP. The resource development portion would focus on ensuring high quality assessments and instructional resources are available across the partnership. Ideally, the system, assessments, and resources will be integrated. The main focus will be the assessment system and resources to support instruction.

§ Knowledge and Practice: Identifying, sharing, and promoting what works in assessment with results providing the foundation for the findings. The main focus will be research and building a knowledge base on what works.

§ Professional Learning: Identify needs and build capacity for teachers and leaders around the effective use of assessments, assessment development and assessment literacy. The main focus is on the learning of adults on assessment and assessment practices to support the learning of students.

MOAP Advisory Committee Members

Region Individuals1 – Northwest Karma Coleman (Tarkio), Valerie Jones (East Buchanan), Betty Vassmer (Cowgill)

2 – Kansas City Christopher Hand (Liberty)

3 – West Central Mindy Hampton (Wellington-Napoleon)

4 – Southwest Melia Franklin (Ozark), Nathan Manley (Seneca), Laura O’Quinn (Lebanon), Jay Roth

(Lebanon), Kathy Tackett (Carl Junction), Julie Williams (West Plains)

5 – South Central Jenny Ulrich (Lonedell)

6 – Southeast Mary Jo Jensen (Fredericktown), Matt Lacy (Jackson)

7 – St. Louis Glenn Hancock (Rockwood), Jill Lawson (Lindbergh), Roxanna Mechem (MRH), Carter

Snow (Parkway), Tara Sparks (Lindbergh), Michelle Wilkerson (Hancock Place)

8 – Northeast John French (Lewis Co. C-1), Traci Mosby (Lewis Co. C-1)

Advisory Committee and the Model

Members of the

Advisory Committee

and Executive

Committee came

together to provide

input and feedback

through the structure

of a design challenge

to create the

assessment model

you will learn about

today.

Region Individuals1 – Northwest Valerie Jones (East Buchanan), Betty Vassmer (Cowgill)

2 – Kansas City Christopher Hand (Liberty), Brian Huff (Raytown)*

3 – West Central Mindy Hampton (Wellington-Napoleon)

4 – Southwest Melia Franklin (Ozark), Jay Roth (Lebanon), Dave Schmitz

(Lebanon)*, Julie Williams (West Plains)

5 – South Central Jenny Ulrich (Lonedell)

6 – Southeast Mary Jo Jensen (Fredericktown)

7 – St. Louis Kevin Beckner (Parkway)*, Glenn Hancock (Rockwood),

Jill Lawson (Lindbergh), Tim Pecoraro (Pattonville)*,

Carter Snow (Parkway)

8 – Northeast John French (Lewis Co. C-1), Traci Mosby (Lewis Co. C-1),

Andy Turgeon (Knox Co. R-I)*

*Indicates member of Executive Committee

Shared Learning

vReview “Findings on Current and Ideal State”vResources and Materials Reviewed

§ EdWeek Articles – “What Happens When States Un-Standardize Tests”, “Four States Want In”, and “Georgia Wants In”

§ iNACOL – Redesigning Systems of Assessments for Student-Centered Learning§ NASBE – Balanced Assessment§ Assessment for Learning Organization Information

ü Slides on “Assessment for Learning Purposes and Principles”ü Website https://www.assessmentforlearningproject.org/learnü Models provided in the “Explore” section of the Assessment for Learning website:

https://www.assessmentforlearningproject.org/exploreü Principles - https://kumu.io/moonbeammachine/assessment-for-learning-principles#alp-

assessment-for-learning-principles

Structure Used to Frame the Design Challenge

From “Design Thinking for Educators”

2017-181918

Unproven this was actually said by Ford, but the intent is relevant as it

relates to innovation.

This quote by Ford does apply to our work. We are tired of going around

the problems the MAP presents.

Solving the Problem Rather Than Going Around It

vWe don’t want a better paper map to use for navigation.vWe want to use readily available devices for navigation.vThe current form of testing is like making us take a journey with a

paper map. § We have been doing it, but it is inefficient and redundant, when we rely on

our own devices. We can do it if we have to but we are tired of having to translate the work we do with the digital support to the analog form of the paper map.

§ Why does it matter if we use a paper map or a GPS related device?vIsn’t the question, how are we performing and progressing towards

the destination, thus why must we use an outdated form?

Goals and Purposes

Goal – Purpose – Challenge

vThe goal is to create a student-centered assessment not a system-focused assessment.

vThe purpose of the MAP is to rank and sort students, schools and districts. This does not help teachers nor students in their learning.

vWe recognize there are constraints and parameters that must be met for state and federal requirements. However, we challenge DESE to embrace this work as a collaborative endeavor to improve the future of Missouri’s students.

We want a GPS for learning

v One that tells students, parents, and teachers where students are at in their learning and what is next in their journey.

v One that is responsive to where students are at in their learning.

v One that recognizes not every student follows the same learning path.

v One that might be shut down at the end of 4th grade because the child moves out of state with their grandmother, but can pick back up when they return at the beginning of their 7th grade year.

v One that can be used by the student, parent, teacher as much as they want on their journey.

v One that is consistent. One that can be understood. One they value. One they want. One they deserve. One that is relevant. One that matters.

v One that tells DESE and the public where students are at on their journey. If they have made the checkpoints or if they haven’t, and if they haven’t how close they are, given where and when they started their journey.

v One that tells everyone how far we’ve taken students and how far we have still to go. Students may take different routes to get to the destination, but we still have to same expected destination for everyone. If we have the same expected destination, then why can’t we work to have flexibility in the tool we use to measure how we are doing and flexibility in the route of how to get there.

The ModelRationale, Characteristics, Components

Consistency and Coherence Connecting To Through-Course

Brown, C., Boser, U., Sargrad, S., & Marchitello, M. (2016). Implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Student-Centered Assessment Model v System focused on teaching and learning first, accountability second.

§ Every student – Every dayv Online, with a quick turnaround providing meaningful data and reports.

§ This will be exclusively on the vendor/partner. § Thus the vendor/partner are foundational to this being a successful endeavor.

v Focus on growth with emphasis on competency towards high school and college/career readiness.

§ Currently assess at the state’s pace – need to assess at the student’s pacev Criterion-referenced through-course, done in shorter iterations and less invasive than done in the

current model, showing proficiency throughout the course and not just at the end of the year.v Authentic Writingv Professional Development for teachers on system-usage and connections to improve/deliver

instruction and resources for students that aren’t on pace.v Inclusive for all students, regardless of arbitrary 1% capsv Coherence and Continuity over time – long-term commitment with the vendor/partnerv Integration of subjects would be ideal, but we recognize that may be for future iterations.v Must be able to meet all technical requirements of the U.S. Department of Education’s Peer

Review of State Academic Assessment Systems

U.S. Department of Education

Federal Waiver Process ESSA Innovative State Assessment Pilot

Next Steps

vRegional Meetings

vAsk for consent at a district-level

§ Are you comfortable with this –can your district support this?

vDetermine level of support

vShare out on the level of support

vGoing from Model to System

§ Assuming high-levels of support –will begin writing the Request for Proposal (RFP)

Ø St. Louis, EducationPlus – Tuesday, January 8, 9:00 – 10:30

Ø Northwest, Stanberry – Wednesday, January 9, 8:00 – 9:30

Ø Kansas City, Liberty – Wednesday, January 9, 12:30 – 2:00

Ø West Central, Green Ridge – Wednesday, January 9, 4:00 – 5:30

Ø Southwest, Ozark – Thursday, January 10, 8:00 – 9:30

Ø Southeast, Jackson – Thursday, January 10, 3:30 – 5:00

Processing The ModelThoughts, Questions, Feedback