Assessments in Fourth Grade
December 13, 2010 | Posted in: Class Updates
I started writing this article in mid-October because I wanted to explain some of the changes we have made to our assessment “profile” in fourth grade. I passed it on to a colleague to read and give me feedback on, and it ended up on the bottom of my pile (quite literally, actually.) While some parts are a bit out of date now, (I’ve finished administering the DRAs to students.) I think the information is still valuable. I hope it helps you!
By now, I think most families have heard about the SRBI initiative in our school. (Perhaps not, however.) Put simply, SRBI – Scientific Research Based Intervention – is the term used to describe Connecticut’s implementation of a federal mandate to reexamine and revise how we support all students and how we help them to make the growth they need in order to achieve in school. One element of SRBI is the effective use of assessments to measure student progress.
Of course, assessments are hardly new. We all took tests in school, but the difference is how these tests are made and used. When WE were kids, our teachers gave us tests on, for example, a science unit. But Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Smith may have had two different tests, and one may have been more challenging than another. Even if they used the same test, Mrs. Smith’s standards for grading the tests may have been far more rigorous than Mrs. Jones’s. In either case, a “B+” on one does not equal a “B+” on the other. One test’s “A-” may have been the other’s C+”. This inconstancy made it difficult to compare students’ performance and to discuss student achievement in an objective manner.
Fast forward to the beginning of standardized tests in schools. When I was a child growing up in “the boonies” of New Jersey, we took an annual test called the CAT (California Achievement Test). And when I moved to Connecticut, I was of course introduced to the glory of the Connecticut Mastery Tests, and later on, the Connecticut Academic Performance Tests. These tests are identical for students in a given grade level, and they are assessed in a consistent manner, which allows us to compare data in a valid and reliable way.
There are a lot of mixed opinions about the merits of the CMTs and CAPTs, but there is no denying the advantages of having a standardized, objective measure. (In my mind, the controversy of these tests more surrounds the use of these tests and how we prepare for them and emphasize them, less about the tests themselves.) SRBI encourages us to use similarly objective assessments with our students in an ongoing way.
To that end, we have phased out some of our chapter tests and unit assessments (particularly in reading) and have replaced them with universal assessments, common formative assessments, and other new measures.
To learn more about these assessments, click the “Read the rest of this entry” link, below.
A universal screening or assessment is an evaluation that is administered to students in multiple grade levels. Students complete assessments of varying degrees of difficulty (based on what grade they are in), but their results are easily compared and are indicators of overall ability. Universal screenings typically assess a single skill in a single manner, such as the number of words correctly read aloud in one minute (a test of Oral Reading Fluency, which your child completed in the first week of school) or how many words can be correctly inserted into a passage of text (a test called MAZE, also completed in the first few weeks of school). While these examine specific skills only, studies have shown that the results paint a good picture of a student’s overall reading skill, just as physicians use weight, blood pressure, pulse, and temperature to get overall health information. Universal assessments may include universal screenings, but they also include assessments that measure a variety of skills. For example, your son or daughter completed a universal math assessment in the first few weeks of school that assessed computation as well as mathematical concept application.
Here’s another piece of jargon for you: Teachers in Avon have developed common formative assessments – CFAs – this year. A CFA is an assessment that is developed by teachers within a grade level and is used for all students in that grade. It differs from a universal assessment because (unlike a universal assessment), CFAs look very different from grade level to grade level, and the content of CFAs varies based on what’s being taught each unit. CFAs are administred much more frequently than universal assessments, and they are usually administered twice during each unit; once as a pretest, and again at the end as a post-test. As a pretest, CFAs help us to determine what skills we need to focus on during a unit, what skills the kids seem to have mastered already, etc. They help us to guide our instruction and give teachers a “map” from which to plan lessons and to offer appropriate differentiation. But because these assessments are given BEFORE we teach a series of skills, the kids’ scores are typically low and do not reflect a lot of pre-existing skill. Consequently, we use these pretest CFAs as an internal assessment, and we do not normally share the results with families. The post-test CFAs, however, are used to measure proficiency, and we do share these results with families. More on this in a moment.
One test that I’m administering right now is the Developmental Reading Assessment, or DRA. Avon students are quite familiar with DRAs since they’ve been taking them since kindergarten. Teachers give these tests individually to students as a way of measuring reading fluency, accuracy, and comprehension, and as a result of the one-on-one environment needed to complete a set of DRAs, they often take a few weeks to administer. We use the results of the DRA (which could be thought of as yet another of our universal assessments) to form guided reading groups, target skill-based instruction, etc. In fact, we use the results of all these assessments for those areas, and to help us to form Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III intervention groups. Ms. Grainsky recently explained the tier groups in a school newsletter:
Tier I is comprised of academic and behavioral strategies that teachers routinely use. For
example, if a child struggles in achieving his/her grade level expectations, the general education
teacher will offer support by differentiating his/her instruction to meet the learning and
behavioral needs of the student. Support may consist of individual help, checking that the child
writes down homework assignments, and small group instruction.
Tier II consists of programs for students who require stronger interventions. It is in Tier II
support where a student may begin to see a specialist to get help with reading, math or writing a
few times a week. Much of this instruction, although possibly administered by a specialist, may
be occurring in the classroom. This support will not take place while the child is in his/her
regular education class and participating in direct instruction from the teacher. At PGS, we are
presently looking for the best times to offer this instruction so that children do not miss core
instruction but also do not miss other important times of the day. This is proving to be a
challenge because so much of the day is full with pertinent and enjoyable instruction.
Tier III supports are for the students who are not responding to intervention in Tier I or Tier II.
Tier III supports will be delivered by a specialist and consist of a longer duration and greater
intensity than Tier II interventions. Again the scheduling of these supports is the greatest issue at
present. A student receiving instruction in Tier III will need to participate in intensive and
targeted instruction, as well as being in his/her class for core instruction.
1 Comment
- Mr. Moss's Class Website » Blog Archive » What else is going on in Room 209? - [...] must choose the correct words to fit into a blank spot within a paragraph. Finally, we have a few…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.