Simplify Assessment: Incorporating the CARES® Model of Effective Assessment for Instruction

Simplify assessment and improve PLCs with a streamlined process.

Every week, I meet with new teachers and leaders to consult with them on their data needs. This conversation quickly evolves to a broader conversation regarding bigger issues and strategic goals that can be supported by having the right data for the right person at the right time. As I mentioned in my previous article [School Districts Don't Want a Data Warehouse, They Just Don't Know it Yet...], most districts are desperately seeking ways to improve their tier 1 instruction and complement or improve their PLC work.

Given emphasis on standard-alignment and personalized/differentiated instruction coupled with the advancement of cost-effective, easy-to-implement, easy-to-use tools, it's no surprise that districts are having more critical conversations about how to effectively empower teachers with the tools to support these initiatives.

At the recent IEUC educational conference, Dr. Pedro Noguera spoke of the importance of using data as a tool to support effective instruction with a clear emphasis that it is the teachers who must do the work. In other words, it all starts with effective teachers and high-quality instruction.

Regardless of skill or tenure, experience or execution, all teachers can benefit from utilizing assessment and reporting tools to complement and/or improve their instructional practices, however, they need to be provided with the tools and training to utilize them effectively. I've met with many superintendents and principals who recognize that while their teachers are both willing and eager to commit to improving instructional practices, they have not provided their teams with the tools to empower them to be successful in these endeavors.

The good news is that assessment tools are one of the easiest, and possibly most effective ways to quickly improve outcomes for universal instruction (as part of a broader MTSS framework), tell a student's continuous standards story, and from an accountability perspective, demonstrate standards alignment within the classroom, building, and district.

In theory, if we were to classify assessment tools in a quadrant matrix with value in the Y-axis, and risk in the X-axis, one might logically assume it should fit into the of the high-value, low-risk quadrant (the 'do now' section in the upper right). In practice, however, we generally see reservations by districts to adopt these tools (surprisingly more-so in states that have implemented their version of MTSS, and more specifically, RTI/PBIS strategies - more in an upcoming article).

The question then, is, 'why are leaders and teachers be hesitant to adopt tools that are highly aligned with their district, professional, and student outcome goals?'

It would be simplistic to suggest there is just one reason as every district is dealing with unique internal political, budgetary, leadership, and cultural issues that factor into the equation. However, one issue that consistently comes up during my consultations is the fear of an "uphill battle" or concern that it would be "too difficult to implement" given the paradigm and practice shifts (in other words, cultural change and change management issues) that teachers would need to adapt to.

This trepidation is often a result of a perception that districts must go from 0 to 100 miles-per-hour and swing the pendulum from one side to the other when adopting assessment tools. Perhaps this is a natural consequence of the way that many strategic goal planning conversations are often discussed (i.e. bigger, visioning goals that, while directional, come off to the "doers" as a complete overhaul of their systems rather than a tune-up).

As a consultant, it's my responsibility to put educators at ease and inspire confidence - but it's leaders and educators who will need to make the commitment. To do that, we need to work together through deep discussion to understand current state practices, future state goals, and ultimately, agree on how to bridge the gap. Together, we must clearly articulate how these tools complement the great work they are already doing and how they, over time and with a commitment from their end, improve outcomes for their students while supporting their ongoing professional development. We must collaborate and agree upon the purpose, the practice, and the product (expected outcomes) of any tool.

From an assessment for learning perspective, I've distilled the assessment process into a simple, easy to understand model which I've aptly named the CARES© Model of Assessment for Instruction. The concept is easy to understand and even easier to implement - because you're probably already doing it...

Create - high-quality assessments aligned with standards, learning outcomes, and include items with appropriate rigor and distributed across multiple DOK levels.

Assess - both for and of learning using multiple strategies and provide fast feedback that inform, facilitate, and guide instruction.

Review -the results with the students in the classroom to deepen understanding, promote metacognition, and inform next steps.

Evaluate - assessment effectiveness, results, response distribution, distractors, standards mastery,and discuss opportunities to improve assessment and instruction.

Supplement -instruction based on individual and specific student responses including opportunities to meet or master standards and provide enrichment opportunities.

As you can see, it's quite likely that teachers in your district are already doing this with or without tools. The question is really only to what degree and what cost?

You may have heard the saying, "eat an elephant one bite at a time" and depending on the district's current state, that's exactly how I encourage districts to implement assessment systems.

Would it be ideal to have all grade level common formatives fully developed, vetted, and implemented before adopting a tool? Perhaps - but consider the cost of one or two more years of student learning and professional development potentially stymied while teams debate the details of each and every question, their alignment, rigor, DOK levels, etc. (We'll still need a thoughtful implementation to make this effective - a topic for another article).

An alternative is to imagine the immense opportunity to provide educators with the power to truly practice (we allow doctors and lawyers to do this), perform, produce, and pivot within their classrooms and use their experiences to discuss what's working in their classrooms during their PLCs. Further, organic, grassroots support generally leads to a greater degree of adoption, more collaboration, and more excitement. Additionally, this petri dish approach can also help to create a better district-wide process as it serves as the experimental stage before a formalized role in which teachers are able to try, fail, succeed, and innovate (in other words, learn).

As educators, we support and scaffold our students throughout their journey to college and career readiness. It's time we do the same for our teachers by empowering them with the tools to support student and educator success.

Respectfully,

-Mike

Author's Note: For a free infographic and PLC planning guide, simply share and leave a comment below. I value meeting new people, making new connections, and hearing new stories (and potentially share them). If that's important to you as well, I'd love to connect with you directly. Please feel free to like, share, comment, or connect!