As I indicated in yesterday’s post, there is a rather unexpected thread of tension that is being woven into the negotiations between Ontario’s teachers and the school districts that employ them. It’s not about wage freezes, class size or benefits. Instead the dispute centers on the right of teachers to decide the type and timing of the formal classroom assessments that have become part of life in today’s schools. In addition to provincial testing in math and language at grades 3, 6, and 9, most jurisdictions now require that teachers administer diagnostic assessments at least twice a year, with the results being reported to the district office through an increasingly complex process of data warehousing. These tests are completed in addition to the day-to-day process of assessment and evaluation that has become part of the education discourse in this province and others.
Many teachers have found the current requirements to be time-consuming, intrusive and of questionable value to their classroom program. Many schools and districts have come to count on the assessment to plan strategies that will help improve provincial test scores.
It may seem odd, but I think that our union is wrong in pushing this point too far. In fact, I tend to believe that, if the current tension around control of classroom assessment is resolved in favour of the union position, the results will, ultimately, be negative.
But, I’m going to hold off on elaborating for a few more hours and, instead, throw a few questions out to educators, parents and others who have a direct stake in this.
If you are an elementary teacher in Ontario, what form of assessments are currently required by your school district? What happens to the data collected through these tools? How are the results used at the school level?
If you’re a parent, do you see the results of the formal assessments done each year at the school level? Are you aware that they are being conducted?
If, as an educator (teacher, administrator, special education support person), you were given the option to choose a different type of assessment, or a different schedule on which to administer it, what changes would you make?
How important is this issue to you?
In one school handbook – “Our focus on student success means teachers tailor their programs to the needs of the individual students. We use diagnostic reading assessments for all students
enabling common teacher language around skill development and appropriate leveling. Diagnostic assessments, such as the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), and the Comprehension Attitude Strategies Interests (CASI), provide clear data that informs teachers re: planning next steps. It is not the same as evaluation of curriculum expectations (i.e. EQAO testing). The Principal works with the teachers in the Fall to analyze the data we have for each student, determining next steps for classroom programming and identifying our struggling readers. We provide small group support in our resource room for our struggling readers and
writers in grades 1, 2 and 3 who could benefit from more intensive instruction. As a staff, we continue to work collaboratively to use data (EQAO, CASI, daily work, school writing forms) to focus and inform instruction and develop a consistent approach to teaching and assessment using writing samples, exemplars,
Writer’s Workshop, the First Steps writing continuum. Writing in various forms and for a real purpose are encouraged and celebrated in classroom writing programs and as school wide initiatives. Children who experience difficulty with handwriting can be referred for an occupational therapy assessment. Computers and the library “Partners in Action” program will continue to enhance the reading and writing program.”
http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/whitney/ParentHandbook2011-12.pdf
Whether parents either read it or not is not the question to be asked, but the question to be asked will parents picked up the subtle messages in behind the language and statements that gives impressions to the parents that the school is on top of things, especially when it comes to reading and writing. The way the DRA is described as being a teacher tool, to provide for the learning needs of the individual child, and handwriting problems can be referred for an occupational therapy assessment, may be smoothing for a parent to read, and likely have parents conditioned not to asked questions at the school level. In reality, if they do are likely to be met with a brush-off or smooth edubabble.
On TVO – “Teachers sometimes use these systems to explain to parents which stage their child is at with their reading. When children are at or beyond the level expected, parents may breathe a sigh of relief, while those who are told their child is not at the grade level expected may become concerned.
Here is a comparative chart of the three most common measurement scales for early readers
But Booth, who taught in the classroom for 15 years and is Chair of Literacy at North Bay’s Nipissing University, says teachers and parents alike should not get too caught up in the levels.
“The levels were designed as teacher tools… they are teacher tools, not children tools,” he says. If a child isn’t at a level that is expected, it’s important to not overreact, and never tell the child this fact, he
says. “You just say, ‘he could be a little higher, so let’s see if we can give him some instruction and get him to a higher level,’” he says.
Coulter advises parents to take their cue from the child’s teacher. “If the teacher is concerned, then parents might want to pursue what supports or interventions would best support their child and get them up to level,” he says. “Children are individuals and, as such, are unique in how they develop. Some children take longer to pick up reading, but parents should monitor their child’s progress in the primary grades and deal with any issues before a gap forms and widens through the grades.” http://tvoparents.tvo.org/article/your-child-reading-right-level
Mixed messages and once again discouraging parents from asking questions and taking the word of the school staff at their word. Meanwhile, parents are busy with level books at home, trying to get their kids beyond what the teacher had said based on a DRA assessment and where teachers are heavily discouraged not to report the scores of the DRA to parents.
In a study published in 2012, “This article presents findings from a qualitative investigation into the literacy work of two Ontario primary teachers. Informed by the writing of Dorothy E. Smith, we construe the literacy curriculum as a social accomplishment, the product of many people‘s work. Through a critical examination of field notes and teachers‘ accounts of their work, we explicate ways in which required reading and writing assessments were mediating a hidden curriculum. Specifically we discuss a paradoxical finding that both teachers organized their literacy curriculum in ways that facilitated the collection of assessment data, yet neither teacher explicitly employed assessment data when making pedagogical decisions and neither teacher mentioned assessment work when describing her school‘s literacy curriculum.”
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFwQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fejournals.library.ualberta.ca%2Findex.php%2Flangandlit%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F9612%2F13062&ei=WqknUOurHcnTyAGx5oGICA&usg=AFQjCNHwPhNchy_2EWlMEUZnd_7lKfgyTA&sig2=O2Ned0T3tJJUpKiuqDCM7A
On page 11, “DRA assessments created a lot of work for the participating teachers and their students. Why, then, was the DRA described by the teachers as just another duty to get done? One reason could be the DRA‘s lack of alignment with the official curriculum expectations. Although one teacher did report DRA scores to parents, teachers were told that scores were not to be communicated on the Report Card. We suspect, however, that the teachers‘ dislike of DRA stemmed primarily from the labour-intensive nature of the assessment process.”
A review of DRA by “Assistant Clinical Professor, George Washington University, Washington DC
Private Practice Psychologist and School Consultant, Bethesda, MD .”, is the closest I could come to an outsider reviewing DRA. However, inside and outside of the education system, there is many questions being raised about DRA effectiveness and what the data is being used for.
” In the absence of this evidence, it cannot be recommended for screening,
diagnosis, progress monitoring, or intervention planning purposes.”
http://www.natalierathvon.com/images/DRA_Review-08-25-2006.pdf
And I could not agree more. since I was a parent that asked question in grade 1. I wanted to know the scores of my child to help me understand and the DRA was a pilot program at our school at the time. No, I was not allowed to know the scores, and my second question, than where does my child land compared to other students. No again, and another school meeting that was over before it got started.
Parents are probably aware that the assessments are being conducted, but the results are filtered and managed by the teachers, the principals and if not that, the school board. And yet the teachers seem to be unhappy with assessments like the DRA, because the literacy tests are not at all that useful to help the children who need help in reading. More importantly, the validity of the tests for screening , diagnoses and interventions…………..
Well, I’m afraid I’ll have to throw some cold water on much of this speculation. I read the OECTA/MOE memo of understanding carefully, but I certainly did not see it as giving “more discretion” to teachers around assessment issues, despite that being its common interpretation. I also think it will — especially the suggestion that the MOE should develop a list of assessments teachers can choose from — be a negative factor and will limit teachers’ ability to choose appropriate measures even more than those options are limited now.
I read through it several times, with a lawyerly eye (sorry, but 6 members of my immediate family are lawyers). I do not see ANY likelihood that boards will need to change their current requirements around DRA/PM Benchmarks assessments, timelines or anything else — there is a loophole large enough for a blue whale to swim through. I am sure that loophole is there deliberately.
However, Stephen asked, what do they do in your board re assessments? I can report on the one where I work and secondarily on the one where I live. There are broad similarities.
If you are an elementary teacher in Ontario, what form of assessments are currently required by your school district? What happens to the data collected through these tools? How are the results used at the school level?
My board requires certain assessments to be done at specific grade levels and times of year, and the results must be entered into a central online database within a stipulated time frame.
(1) Kindergarten teachers must do the Observation Survey. I am not certain how often they do this (whether it is once or twice a year). They also do the DRA, as Grade 1-3 teachers do, at least twice per year. I am not certain whether they must do this in the fall term with JK. They do with SK.
(2) Grades 1-3 teachers must do the DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) and enter the scores (broken down into various components as on the scoring sheet) on the board score website. These scores are reported in the fall and spring but many principals require teachers to do the DRA in the winter term as well, at least with IEP’d students. There is pressure to keep the data walls up to date.
The classroom teacher must do the DRA, and it is *very* time consuming. However, I cannot agree with the poster on a previous thread who suggested that the DRA is “useless.” It is not. It provides a good opportunity to get an overview of a student’s strengths and weaknesses as a reader. What it does not do is give fine-grained detail on what specific skills or strategies are most needed to move the student forward — that is, it is not really “diagnostic” in the proper sense. It is a valuable formative assessment and reliably shows growth but does not necessarily suggest very specific things that need to be taught (for example, that the student does not know vowel digraphs, or how to decode multisyllable words, or understand the passive voice or “signal” words like consequently, moreover, nevertheless).
Before the DRA was required, it was much easier for a struggling reader to fall through the cracks — now it is close to impossible. We know who they are right away. Of course, our ability to help them is limited by time, resources and staffing. Contrary to popular opinion, there is *no* expectation in the Ministry guidelines that students receive “remediation” other than what the classroom teacher can provide. Once upon a time we had a scheduled “remedial” period every day (anyone remember that?) but it was removed sometime in the 90′s I believe.
(4) Teachers in Grades 4-8 must administer the CASI assessment (again, twice a year for reporting centrally; often a third time for local administration and our “data wall”). For students who are unable to read at the level required, the DRA may be used (there is some controversy about this as the DRA stories are very age-inappropriate for Grades 5 and up; or they may substitute the Flynt-Cooter, which has some similarities to the DRA but spans a much wider range of grade levels. The CASI does not take as much time to administer as the DRA in most cases, must it involves much more written response so the time is taken up in marking it. The types of questions and the scoring guides are similar to those in EQAO.
My local district does not use CASI in 4-8; it uses the DRA instead, which has a junior division component (levels 41-80 I believe).
Here’s some info about CASI: http://www.hpedsb.on.ca/ec/services/cst/elementary/literacy/documents/CASI_Overview.pdf
Some schools in my board, including one of mine, use DIBELS assessments in K-1. These however are not administered by the classroom teacher, but rather by a staff member specifically trained to administer them; these results are also centrally reported and used to develop student learning plans and support the school improvement plan. The materials are U.S. in origin and are related most to early literacy foundation skills. See https://dibels.uoregon.edu/
ESL and Special Education teachers are also required to complete specific assessments and report them in the online IEP databases or ESL tracking forms.
DRA and CASI are very time consuming, and I would bet that is where the teacher pushback is coming from. However, the wiggle room is this: no trained psychometrist (I am one, BTW) would characterize these as primarily “diagnostic” assessments — and nowhere in the OECTA/MOE memorandum is the term “diagnostic” defined. Thus I predict with fair certainty that boards will say, “For our purposes, the DRA (or whatever) are summative assessments/ formative assessments/accountability tools (take your pick) that we invoke “management rights” to require.”
DIBELS could be considered a diagnostic assessment, as can many others in use such as the WIAT, WFUS, Brigance,Woodcock, Key Math, CELF-4 and others. What I see as a looming problem is the MOE making up a list of “allowed” assessments and thus prohibit many that teachers have found useful for diagnostic purposes but which they do not use on every student.
Centrally, the data collected is used to develop the board and school improvement plans, the board’s Special Education plan, as well as emphases at the grade and division level in the school. For example our data showed students did well at decoding and literal comprehension, but were weak in supporting their opinions using examples from the text. Thus this was a major focus in cross-curricular reading and writing. Where the school used DIBELS, it identified students having difficulty with blending and segmenting phonemes and developed interventions to provide more direct instruction of these skills needed for reading.
If you’re a parent, do you see the results of the formal assessments done each year at the school level? Are you aware that they are being conducted?
I am not a parent at my school, but I do know that the results are shared regularly with parents (particularly at reporting interviews), and the children themselves understand the results in a general way and can explain what they are good at, what level they are at, and how they can improve to move forward. The overall school results are charted, and discussed with the school council and with the school improvement team which has parent representation. We do a lot of community outreach so I don’t know if this level of communication is always the case. My local school is definitely not doing this as well as we are.
Now, as to changing things? I’ve said enough already. Maybe later.