Summary of Most Recent Statewide Test

EDU 6160 bPortfolio Post 7                            Ian Lewis                                 November 20, 2016

Summarize the most recent statewide test for a grade level of your choosing, noting any peaks and valleys on subscores.

The University Place School District (UPSD) uses the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBAC) to assess students in math and English Language Arts (ELA). The topic of test scores has been the discussion at various district, multi-school, and individual school meetings. As background information regarding the district, there is just one other intermediate school in addition to Narrows View. Traditionally, it has been the case that the other school has scored higher on the SBAC than Narrows View. It would also be of importance to note that while both schools are equally diverse, the other school has regularly served a smaller percentage of students with free/reduced lunch than Narrows View (OSPI 2016).

At one of the first staff meetings, we were given the district SBAC score summary for % meeting standard for 2015 and 2016, and instructed to briefly review and analyze them before discussing our findings in small groups. I pointed out that, as traditionally was the case, the scores for the other school (grades 5, 6, and 7) were an average of approximately 5% higher than those of Narrows View. However, I also pointed out that, while the other school’s scores were consistently higher, they were also rather consistent of not growing much year to year. In contrast, Narrows View scores showed higher growth of % meeting standard between years. For the ELA SBAC scores for the seventh grade, for example, Narrows View increased from 72.9% meeting standard in 2015 to 81% meeting in 2016 (8.1% growth) while the other school decreased from 83.8% meeting standard in 2015 to 81% meeting standard in 2016; overall, between all grades and over the course of two years, the increase in % meeting standard at Narrows View was 14.3%, while that of the other school was less than half this increase, at 6.3%. Such a pattern may be the result of any one or more of various factors.

While the other school is generally higher across all grade levels with % meeting standard, this higher percentage may represent a plateau. While students may be above grade level, they then do not appear to progress further. The overall higher average of % meeting standard may be a result of smaller % of students with free/reduced lunch. The lack of growth between years could represent multiple situations. Student diversity across years could be a factor. So too could be less effective teacher presentation of material and differentiation practices. While lower students at the other school may be higher in comparison to those at Narrows View, it may be possible that less effective teaching and differentiation strategies contribute to a stagnation of progress. Despite the lower percentage of % meeting standard, Narrows View shows greater growth, which could suggest teaching strategies are more effective, or student engagement is higher, or both, because one tends to cause the other. Thus, this is something to appreciate and continue to try to replicate. With higher scores as a district in general in comparison to other neighboring districts, UPSD places certain value on high stakes testing such as SBAC. As discussed by the guest speaker last class, Dr. Bishop, these tests provide useful data if we use the data wisely. It’s one thing to just note scores as higher than others. It’s another thing to differentiate and analyze trends in the data and create a reflective discussion about how/why such patterns exist and what can be done to change or replicate them.

Reference List:

OSPI (2016). School Report Card. Electronic source,

< http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?schoolId=2157&OrgType=4&reportLevel=School >, accessed November 20, 2016.

Use of Student Grades in Evaluating Teachers, and Use of State Test Results to Evaluate Disctrict

EDU 6160 bPortfolio Post 6                            Ian Lewis                                 November 14, 2016

Discuss the use of student grades as a factor in evaluating teachers, and use of state test results to evaluate a school district.

Conference week (November 7-10) just ended, and while it was very long and exhausting, it was something I was looking forward to for awhile. While grades were an important aspect of the student led conferences, they were just a small part of the whole process of allowing the student to guide their parents through their own learning to date, while using data (e.g. test scores, assignment grades, student reflection in writing folders) to help guide reflection, feedback, and goal-setting for the next quarter. For some of the students, reading the scripted, “I am leading this conference because I am responsible for my own learning” was given, but for some students it was the first time this idea really sunk in despite attempts to continually reinforce this idea in class. At the start of the school year, achievement goals were established based on pre assessment of student learning and these are tracked throughout the year. Conferences at the quarter end offer a way to assess data and progress toward goals, which inevitably factor in evaluating teachers. 

After discussing their greatest accomplishment and biggest worry, students then guide their parents through the pre assessment that has guided their goal setting and reflection in various subject areas, before finishing with class highlights and work examples. Multiple pre assessments, for example, assist with student setting of Accelerated Reader (AR) goals: the STAR test provides a quicker feedback to a usually reliable indicator of student reading level, and the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test offers scores based on percentile rank and extended scaled score of progress across grades two to 12 in areas of vocabulary and comprehension. Both test score ranks provide corresponding AR reading levels and point goal ranges to aid in student goal setting, which is discussed regarding the context of success in completing the goal and setting another for next quarter. Additionally, these reading test scores are presented with last year’s SBAC scores for reading and writing (scaled score 1-4) in order to facilitate conversation with regard to progress for the remainder of the present year and what it will take to raise, keep, and/or (but hopefully not) drop said scores at the end of the year. Traditionally, the University Place School District maintains higher test scores than surrounding districts, and this is also discussed, not just with parents and students at conferences, but as the topic of multiple staff meetings. Because of this standard, high test scores are used as part of the evaluative process of teachers, and while I do not believe low scores would be grounds for discipline, it would suggest a greater need for emphasis on teacher reflection and attention to best practice.

I was excited for the conferences because as an anthropologist, and now teacher, which I would argue share remarkable resemblance, I was able to share what I had observed for the past two months. These observations, as well as those of my mentor, and students and parents alike, all then contributed to a discussion of student progress. As stated before, grades were an important part of this discussion, but not its entirety. Reflecting on grades and goal-setting with regard to growth, however, were just as important. Student grades inevitably factor into teacher evaluation, as do test scores, in teacher and district evaluation, but as the conferences show, the grades and scores are just one piece of the student’s academic puzzle.

Practicality of Surveys and Inventories for KWL Process in Your Teaching Situation

EDU 6160 bPortfolio Post 5                            Ian Lewis                                 November 7, 2016

Discuss the practicality of surveys and inventories for the KWL procedure in your teaching situation.

Within my teaching situation in social studies I have not seen a specific survey or inventory, as discussed and illustrated by the Theory to Practice Box 11.3 (Shermis and Di Vesta, 2011, p. 325; adapted from Conner, 2006) used. The KWL process, however, is deeply embedded within the direct instruction and learning activities. In contrast, we have used multiple specific surveys and inventories in English.

As social studies curriculum is a continuation of that which was learned in prior years, 6^th grade (ancient civilizations) curriculum naturally transitions to 7^th grade (middle ages) just as…these time periods naturally follow in chronology…and thus tying in what the students know is often part of everyday lesson. Furthermore, it is necessary to simply understand the natural relationships across time periods in order to understand the cause and effect system that is history. What this looks like in the classroom varies but often includes direct reference and/or discussion of relevant background knowledge, or  “What I Know” part of the process (e.g. Show of hands, who remembers anything about the Roman Empire before we explore the middle ages across the Byzantine and Muslim Empires?). The textbook does well with referencing background information to stimulate application of background knowledge. Across chapters (which are repeated chronologies of the middle ages, but in different geographical regions), themes and relationships, are referenced and drawn upon as well. The “What I want to know” part of the process comes in the form of students filling in notes, and/or graphic organizers/charts (often corresponding or similar to the social studies textbook headings and subheadings) with what we are learning to do as a class, accompanied by textbook reading. Learning targets, referred to as WALTs, for We Are Learning To, are written on the board and referenced daily. The “What I Learned” comes in the form of review activities, application activities (e.g. a project where students create a graphic representation of the three branches of government – need not be a tree as portrayed in the text), and assessment (informal and formal). The KWL process is present, but I have never actually used a graphic organizer or posed the context of learning as specifically “What I KNOW, What I WANT to Know, and What I LEARNED” (Shermis and Di Vesta, 2011, p. 325; adapted from Conner, 2006).

In English, there are two specific examples that come to mind that explicitly reference “Knowing, Wanting, and Learning”. Vocabulary practice may include a pre-assessment inventory of the vocabulary words in a reading selection where students assess the words they know and then find the definition of the words remaining they need (and ideally want) to know (via context clues and/or dictionary). Students display what they have learned by using the word in a context clue rich sentence. A second application of the KWL process to use a specific inventory regards collection of information for literary elements such as settings, foreshadowing, characters, and characterization.

When I was substitute teaching last year, multiple science assignments had me playing a video with an accompanying KWL chart. After filling in the “Know” part of their charts individually, we discussed as a group the cumulative knowledge on the subject. The “Want” was then completed individually during the movie, and the “Know” included individual processing and group discussion. I feel in this situation, it was easy for the teachers to leave a substitute a simple task accompanied with a simple and specific KWL activity and survey/inventory, with no actual direct instruction necessary, however un-engaging. Across subjects, the specificity to actually addressing the parts of the KWL process, let alone completing specific KWL inventories, may be better applicable in some areas than others. The KWL process is present across subjects and contexts, but may not specifically be addressed in each.