Transcript Fife-CMunro

Assessment
Quality Assuring Assessment : A
Local Authority view
…..Finding a middle way
Fife Context







Second/third biggest LA (55,000 pupils)
Lean Management
Largest schools in Scotland to the smallest
Focus on Attainment and Quality Improvement
Increase in 5-14 for the last 7 years
Increase in SQA in the last 2 years
Personalised e-assessment (4 years); PIPS (10
years)
 A focus on Tracking and Monitoring (E1)
National Context – what is in place








National Debate, AIFL, 4 Capacities
National Collection of 5-14 results discontinued
Curriculum Framework
Skills for learning, life and work
Assessment Framework
Outcomes and Experiences
Commencement of NAR within GLOW
BTC 5 and BTC 3 condensed
National Context – what is not
yet in place
 Success Criteria/standards/milestones of progress
 Clarity on progression pathways
 National approach to moderation that will lead to consistent,
valid and reliable judgements
 Clear Reporting Processes
 Confidence that our OECD results will improve
 Clarity on the qualifications performance criteria (Senior
Phase)
 Clarity on the way success will be measured at a
pupil/school/LA level particularly in the senior phase
Strategy
Energy, Enthusiasm, Enablement, Enrichment
 Purpose
- agreeing the philosophy
 Principles
- agreeing the outcomes
 Pragmatism
- agreeing the actions/timescales
Enablement
 Head Teachers leading strategic groups at all
levels
 Power Point presentations with notes
 Reflective questions
 An assessment plan outlining actions and
timescales and outcomes
 Suggested activities with resources for use with
school staff and across the cluster
Purpose

Accelerating the learning of individual pupils

Assuring learners and Accountability to interested third
parties

Access to further learning opportunities.

Accrediting and Awarding learning against a national
and, if possible, international benchmark.
Assessment for Learning
Learners learn best when ...
 they understand clearly what they are trying to learn, and
what is expected of them
 they are given feedback about the quality of their work and
what they can do to make it better
 they are given advice about how to go about making
improvements
 they are fully involved in deciding what needs to be done
next, and who can give them help if they need it
Assessment as learning
 Share learning intentions, success
criteria, Learning Goals
 Learning through dialogue and self and
peer assessment, effective questioning
 Metacognition- Learners become aware
of how they learn.
 Learners participate more in the process
of learning.
Assessment of learning
Judgments about pupils’ learning and progress
need to be dependable. This means that:
 they are VALID (based on sound criteria)
 they are RELIABLE (accuracy of assessment
and practice)
 and they are COMPARABLE (they stand up
when compared to judgments in other
departments or schools).
Principles
 Assessment should be valid
 Assessment should be reliable and consistent
 Assessment information should be explicit, accessible
and transparent
 Assessment should be inclusive and equitable
 Assessment should be an integral part of curriculum
design relating directly to the O’s and E’s
 Assessment should be manageable
 Assessment should promote improvements in learning
by providing timely feedback
 CPD in Assessment should be planned for
Polarised views
 “Teacher assessment is unfair
because it is unreliable and biased”
 “Exams are simply snapshots and are
unrepresentative of the work that has
really been done”
Trusting teachers’ judgement
Harlen 2005
“The findings of the review by no means
constitute a ringing endorsement of
teachers’ assessment; there was
evidence of low reliability and bias in
teachers’ judgements”
Assessment Hypothesis
The best teachers will make the best
judgments about pupils’
achievements and what next steps
they need to do to take to improve
further.
Use of assessment information
WE DO WANT:
 Validity, Reliability
 Predictability
 Public and professional confidence in our assessment
system
 Clarity for learners and their parents in the way
assessment is reported
 Clear impact on pupils progress
Use of assessment Information
WE DO NOT WANT:
 League tables
 A blame culture
 Increased teacher workload
 Constant high stakes testing which limits
creativity in the curriculum
Personalised E-assessment
Does NOT replace teachers’ judgement
Does NOT replace all the other assessment information
Does Not lead to a blame culture
Does NOT reduce creativity in the classroom
Does significantly reduce teacher work load
Improves reliability and validity assessment of
judgements
 Provides diagnostic information on pupils progress,
class, year, school, LA






Assessment: which matters most?
1. Economy/Society  
2. LA

3. School

4. Teacher

5. Parents

6. Pupil

Diagnostic – multi level
 Macro diagnostic – what you do with
schools and cohorts (E1)
 Micro diagnostic – what you do with pupil
information (E1)
Macro diagnostic
60
PIPS P7 Average
y = 0.4872x + 44.244
R2 = 0.9612
50
40
0
5
10
15
20
SIMD vigintile
More deprived
Less deprived
Stage S1
60
60
Q: does this relationship persist across years?
y = 0.504x + 44.044
R2 = 0.9614
PIPS P7 Average
y = 0.4697x + 44.169
R2 = 0.9382
PIPS P7 Average
Stage S2
50
40
0
5
10
15
50
40
20
0
5
SIMD vigintile
15
20
Stage S4
Stage S3
60
60
y = 0.509x + 44.364
R2 = 0.9479
PIPS P7 Average
y = 0.4674x + 44.387
R2 = 0.8623
PIPS P7 Average
10
SIMD vigintile
50
50
40
40
0
5
10
SIMD vigintile
15
20
0
5
10
SIMD vigintile
15
20
Macro diagnostic
Macro diagnostic
SQA S4 average tariff
250
200
150
100
40
50
PIPS P7 average score
60
School 1
School 2
30
FME (% of roll)
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
SIMD vigintile
More deprived
Less deprived
17
18
19
20
Micro diagnostic
90
80
PIPS P7 scores
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5
10
SIMD vigintile
15
20
Micro diagnostic
Goodhart’s Law
When a measure becomes a
target, it ceases to be a good
measure.
Teacher reliability
 How should reliability be assessed
– By looking at the internal consistency of judgements?
– By looking at the link to external assessments?
– By comparing over time?
– By comparing one teacher with others?
 Facets model within Rasch measurement
Assessment: Predictive validity
Personalised Eassessment
Summative test
Teachers/pupils
(Std Grade/
Assessment
Highers)
(with moderation)
Later success – job,
degree, salary etc
Finding the Middle Ground
 AIFL
 Communicating clearly with parents, Reporting
 Defining the standards/success criteria (child
development)
 Personalised e-assessment
 Meaningful Moderation (reliable, valid)
 Senior Phase- assessment systems and
qualifications systems are contiguous
 Sensitive but serious accountability - analysing
the LA/school/teacher effect
Pragmatism: We need to
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Actively promote AIFL strategies
Know what success looks like
Have effective policy on the use of assessment information
Reduce teacher workload but improve the reliability and validity of
the assessment system
Communicate clearly with parents
Measure what we value and celebrate progress
Ensure that pace and challenge are not dissipated
Adapt personalised e-assessments to CFE outcomes
Be clear on what we mean by moderation
Ensure that assessment systems and qualification systems
cohere
Pragmatism : KISS principle
challenge
HOW WELL
HOW MUCH
LEARNERS’ RATE OF
PROGRESS
A new language (BTC5)
breadth
Pragmatism – Action Plan
 Draft reporting template will be disseminated for
consultation (June)
 Communication strategy for parents is developed (June)
 Timetable for the phasing out of 5-14 assessments (June)
 A Fife Success Criteria (the standards) will be developed for
Numeracy and Literacy
 The Implementation plan for moderation and embedding
AIFL strategies,
 E- assssment – All our schools for May/June 2011 in
Reading, and Numeracy is established. P1,3,5,7,S2/3
 A draft Curriculum and Assessment/ Qualification paper
supporting the Senior Phase and the revised SQA
framework to be developed (October)
Appeal: Finding a middle way
Support
Leadership
Accountability for Children’s development