Closing the Teacher Preparation Gap: Gathering Evidence of

Student Learning

Mark Alter, New York University

Frances Rust, New York University

Jill Jeffrey, New York University

Annette Keane, New York University

Abstract: This article serves as a preliminary report of an extensive curriculum assessment project undertaken with a three-fold purpose: 1) to systematically investigate how a particular group of teacher educators in an urban university prepare teachers to assess teaching and learning in secondarycontent areas; 2) to determine how this preparation matches the needs of practicing teachers; 3) to report our findings to the Department’s Teacher Education Curriculum Committee for the purpose of modifying curricula. The overarching goalof our curriculum exploration was to integrate practical, research-based assessment strategies into our teacher education courses. The investigation reported here laid out ten steps. This study reports on the first and second year progress toward developing a comprehensive assessment system for the teacher education programs. This study is has particular relevance given the current context of “high-stakes” testing in which teachers must be able to negotiate between classroom-based assessment practices, state-mandated standards, and summative assessments standardized measures.

Closing the Teacher Preparation Gap: Gathering Evidence of

Student Learning

Mark Alter, New York University

Frances Rust, Erikson Institute

Jill Jeffrey, New York University

Annette Keane, New York University

In December 2005, a major Foundation issued a $15 million

four-year grant for The Partnership for Teacher Excellence bringing

together two urban Research I universities and the city’s

Department of Education (DOE) to develop and implement an

innovative new model for the preparation and ongoing

development of new teachers for teaching in high needs public

schools by equipping them with the skills and ongoing

supports they need to build their careers there. There were

five guiding principles for the partnership: 

 1)     Teacher preparation and ongoing development can and

must be developed in ways that attract high-caliber

candidates to teach in urban public schools, improve

their retention rates as city teachers, and,

2

ultimately, raise the achievement levels of their

students. 

2)      Learning to teach is fundamentally a clinical

undertaking and must be substantially tied to actual

classrooms, schools, and communities.

3)      Deep content knowledge (e.g.: math or science) and

knowledge of how to teach that content are essential to

a teacher’s capacity to support the highest student

academic achievement across the enormous range of

student needs in the city.

4)      Teacher education benefits from collaboration among

university educators, arts and science faculty, and

school practitioners in the development and delivery of

high-quality courses and clinical experiences.

5)      Teachers benefit from a coherent career path and

professional development that begins with pre-service

education and carries them through their teaching

careers.  School-university partnerships can enhance

teacher development through the career path.

 

3

In order to facilitate curriculum exploration in ways that

could help the Partnership for Teacher Excellence achieve its

goals, the Partnership offered grants to collaborative teams

interested in addressing one or more of these priorities.

Grants were available to spur research in the following five

areas:

1) Assessment: Investigation of one or more of the New

Teacher Center (NTC) Professional Teaching Standards

and its alignment with teacher education course work. 

The Partnership management group expressed particular

interest in teams exploring the NTC standard on

Assessing Student Learning standard and identifying how

teacher educators can use data and evidence about

student learning in instruction and help their students

in turn learn to use such data in their instruction.

2)     Curriculum: Investigation of math, science,

TESOL/ELL, or special education university course work

and the related DOE curriculum and instructional

practices

4

3)     Pedagogy: Investigation of most effective

pedagogical techniques for secondary school and ways

university faculty can model them in the university

classes

4)     Content: Investigation of ways to infuse content

knowledge in a shortage area further into university

course work

5)     ELL and/or Special Education: Investigation of ways

to infuse pedagogical skills for ELL or Special

Education students into coursework for math or science

teachers

On the assumption that effective instruction depends upon

knowing how to determine what and how students are learning

as well as knowing how to use such data in instruction, our

team – two professors, a doctoral student, and a staff

researcher -- focused on the issue of assessment. Working

from this perspective, we decided to interrogate the teacher

education programs in our own institution. Specifically, we

wanted to determine whether and to what extent teacher

5

education students in our secondary master’s programs in the

areas of math, science, Special Education, and

Multilingual/Multicultural education (i.e., foreign language

education, English as a Second Language, Bilingual education)

were taught about and engaged in assessment of student

learning. The intent of our inquiry was three-fold: 1) to

systematically investigate how a particular group of teacher

educators in an urban university prepare teachers to assess

teaching and learning in these content areas; 2) to determine

how this preparation matches the needs of practicing

teachers; 3) and to report our findings to the Department’s

Teacher Education Curriculum Committee. Our goal was to

enable the modifying of curricula so as to support the

integration of practical, research-based assessment

strategies into our teacher education courses thereby

enhancing new teachers’ abilities to use a range of

assessments to further both their teaching and their

students’ learning.

6

The Project

This curriculum exploration incorporates current assessment

research and examines instructional practices related to

assessment from three perspectives: (1) best practices

reported in the literature, (2) current practices embedded in

the Department’s courses, and (3) strategies and practices

reported by teachers in host schools, i.e., schools that

worked closely with our student teachers. In all, we

examined syllabi from 52 different courses across the

following four areas of focus in the Partnership: math,

science, Special Education, and Multilingual/Multicultural

Studies. We interviewed teachers and student teachers in 17

host schools that are central to our institution’s

involvement in the Partnership. While there are precedents

for this type of work (Whitford, Ruscoe, & Fickel, 2000),

studies like this have not been implemented on the scale

represented by our setting, nor have they been situated in

large urban districts.

7

Our curriculum assessment project was designed to follow ten

major steps. Our progress with each is described in two

sections: Section One addresses those steps completed in the

first two years of the project; Section Two provides a

proposal for future work.

Section One – Steps Accomplished to Date

Step 1: Review of Literature

In our review of recent assessment literature, we sought to

answer the following question: What practical advice does the

assessment literature offer teacher educators and teachers

regarding best practice? To answer the question, we drew

initially on Black and Wiliam’s (1998) extensive review of

research on assessment. Black and William claim that

“Assessment” can refer to anything from informal observations

of student behavior to formal, large-scale criterion

referenced assessments such as “high-stakes” tests.

Following Black and William, we focus first on types of

assessment and their implications for teacher education, and

then on the impact of the current high-stakes testing context

8

on classroom-based assessment and its implications for

teacher education.

Assessment

Assessing prior knowledge. Researchers such as Ball & Cohen

(1999) emphasize the importance of assessing students’ prior

knowledge so that teachers can identify misconceptions,

confront these, and build on students’ existing conceptual

understandings. Recommendations for how to go about this

process range from informal to formal strategies; however,

the use of more open-ended diagnostic strategies, such as

engaging students in discussion and observing students’

problem-solving processes are frequently mentioned in the

literature (e.g. Bergan, Sladeczak, Schwarz, & Smith, 1991).

Such approaches allow teachers to identify not just

misconceptions, but also students’ thought processes and

those experiences that inform them. From this perspective,

informal assessments such as interviews, quick writes,

writing samples, in-class quizzes, even homework analysis are

deemed better than standardized tests at equipping teachers

9

to address students’ misconceptions. The assessment of prior

knowledge seems to be of particular concern in areas such as

special education, and math and science education where

cognitive processes and domain specificity are emphasized.

Using a Variety of Assessments Toward Meaningful Goals. Effective

teachers use a variety of assessment strategies (Brown &

Hudson, 1998; Garnett & Tobin, 1989; Matteson, 2006: Meier,

Rich, & Cady, 2006). Because different assessments provide

different types of information about student learning (Cho,

2003; Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999), teachers should be

skilled in matching assessment designs to different learning

goals (Brown & Hudson, 1998). In addition, teachers should be

aware of between-group differences in assessment strategies

(Abedi, Hofstetter, & Lord, 2004; Lubienski, 2000; Morgan &

Watson, 2002;Roberts & Gott, 2006; Ruetten, 1994) as well as

of the value-laden nature of assessments (Beck, 2006; Morgan

& Wyatt-Smith, 2000; Winfield, 1995). Such knowledge is

vital if teachers are to provide students with equal

opportunities to demonstrate their learning (Gee, 2003) and

10

to moderate the potentially harmful effects of high-stakes

exams (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Harlen & Crick, 2003; NJCLD,

2004). The importance of assessment equity and the

corresponding need for varying assessments is, therefore, of

particular concern in the fields of special education and

English language learning.

Diversity of strategies alone, however, will not guarantee

desired gains in student achievement. Rather, educational

researchers emphasize the importance of implementing a

systematic approach to assessment that is aligned with a

coherent set of instructional goals (Cumming & Maxwell, 1999;

Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Stecker, 1991).

To achieve such an approach, teachers must adopt a “backward

design” (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998)— a method of instructional

planning by which teachers identify desired learning outcomes

and then design assessments that inform them regarding the

distance between student learning and desired outcomes.

Teachers must become skillful at setting challenging,

meaningful, and appropriate goals for learning (Black &

11

Wiliam, 1998). That is, teachers must have a clear idea of

what they are assessing as well as why it is important. Goals

are considered challenging when they emphasize process rather

than product oriented outcomes (Harlen, 1999; Schunk & Swartz,

1993); meaningful when they cultivate transferable, real-

world knowledge and skills; and appropriate when they are

based on teachers’ knowledge of what students are

developmentally equipped to do in a particular content area.

Recent assessment research (Black & William, 1998 ;Sawyer,

Graham, & Harris, 1992; Slavin, 1991; Webb, 1995) suggests

that both teachers and students should have clear

understandings of the learning goals they are expected to

achieve and the reasons these goals are important.

Curricular transparency is achieved when students and

teachers share understandings of what the performance

criteria are and why they are important. Curricular

transparency appears to be especially beneficial to low-

performing students though research suggests that students of

12

all ability levels benefit from such these shared

understandings (Frederiksen & White, 1997).

There are a large number of assessment strategies that serve

the purpose of instructing students (particularly prospective

teachers) in assessment criteria including reflective self-

assessment; peer and teacher feedback describing the gap

between current and desired performance; rubrics presented as

or before work is assigned—these can be teacher-developed,

student developed, or developed together; classroom discourse

on what constitutes exemplary work and why; and portfolios

that illustrate progress toward learning goals. In addition

to promoting transparency, these strategies facilitate

transfer of learning by encouraging students to reflect meta-

cognitively on their learning processes (Baird, 1998; Black &

William, 1998; Brown, Sawyer et al., 1992).

However, as with all strategies, merely making criteria

explicit will not automatically lead to achievement gains.

In fact, some educators have noted a tension between the need

for explicit assessment criteria and calls for “authentic”

13

assessments that involve creative problem-solving (Morgan,

1998; Morgan & Watson, 2002). Teachers must be careful not

to sacrifice challenging, process-oriented learning goals for

the sake of making criteria explicit. Instead, they should

look for a balance between these two possibly competing

goals.

Interplay between Classroom-Based Assessments, Teaching, and

High Stakes Testing

Research suggests that teachers are not adequately prepared

to design and carry out effective classroom-based

assessments. Such inadequate teacher preparation in best

assessment practice is of particular concern given the

current context of “high-stakes” testing in which teachers

must negotiate between classroom-based assessment practices,

state-mandated standards, and summative assessments. To

address this problem, Quilter (1999) suggests that teachers

be empowered with greater “assessment literacy” in order to

manage the impact of standardized assessments.

14

Assessment literacy begins with mastery of those formative

assessment practices defined by Black and Wiliam (1998) as

“encompassing all those activities undertaken by teachers,

and/or by their students, which provide information to be

used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning

activities in which they are engaged” (p. 7-8). Assessment

literacy also requires that, in order to distinguish between

appropriate (legal, ethical) and inappropriate (illegal,

unethical) uses for high stakes assessments, teachers should

be skilled in scoring, administering, and interpreting large-

scale assessment results (Shepard, Hammerness, Darling-

Hammond, Rust, Snowden, Gordon, Gutierrez, & Pacheco, 2005;

AFT/NCME/NEA Standards, 1990).

Quilter (1999) suggests that a core course in assessment

designed to raise teachers’ awareness of “basic technical

qualities of the tests that are used for high-stakes

educational decisions in their states and communities” (p.

239) is one way to support this goal. Others (Black &

William, 1998; Clarke, 1996; Dekker & Feijs, 2005;

15

Delandshere, 2002; Graham, 2005; Serafini, 2002; Shepard et

al., 2005; Wiliam et al., 2004) emphasize an inquiry

framework for ongoing professional development once teachers

enter the classroom and suggest that opportunities that

enable teachers to become conversant with both classroom-

based and high stakes assessment practices can help teachers

close the gap between the two by enabling them to negotiate

assessment criteria between standards, high-stakes

assessments, and classroom-based learning goals. However, as

Black and Wiliam (1998) note, many researchers engaged in

teacher professional development invariably cite numerous

difficulties in bringing about what many perceive as a

“radical” (p. 10) shift from an understanding of assessment

as primarily a summative activity to viewing assessment from

both formative and summative perspectives.

Limitations

Following Black and Wiliam’s (1998) review, a number of

researchers have cautioned against viewing formative

assessment as a panacea for improving student achievement.

16

Smith and Gorard (2005) and Watson (2006), for example, have

cautioned that recommended formative assessment strategies,

if used inappropriately, may not yield useful information to

spur achievement gains and can even have negative effects on

students’ learning. Wiliam, Lee, Harrison, and Black (2004)

claim that a limitation of current research on formative

assessment is the dearth of specific practical advice

provided to teachers and administrators regarding best

practice. As Wiliam and colleagues (2004) put it, teachers

are not at fault for failing to put research-based principles

into practice—teachers must be supported with long-term,

collaborative professional development efforts1. Ideally,

such professional development is, for new teachers, in

synchrony with the knowledge and skills developed during

their preparation programs.

In the next three sections of this paper, we focus in on the

assessment practices embedded in our preservice student

1 See Harlow & Jones (2004) for example of inquiry based professional development.

17

preparation programs in the areas of math, science, Special

Education, and multilingual/multicultural education.

Step 2: Review of Course Syllabi

Current course syllabi from the four target area methods

courses—math, science, special education, and

multilingual/multicultural education were surveyed to

identify how course content addressed assessment and issues

related to it. Appendix A provides a list of all 52 syllabi

reviewed and the assessment content addressed in each

syllabus. The data collected are presented in Charts 1-5. A

summary of major findings from this syllabi review follows.

Mathematics Education

18

In the program of Mathematics Education, 13 course syllabi

were reviewed; 60% included a general focus on assessment.

Forty-six percent of the syllabi gathered from this program

included specific focus on studying the relationships between

assessment, standards, and instruction. The syllabi of the

Mathematics Education program address the use of tests and

quizzes as well as the evaluation of student learning and

grading (see Chart (1).

< Place Chart 1 about here>

A smaller number of syllabi, about 23%, presented course

content dedicated to (1) data collection and assessment, (2)

using assessment to drive instruction, and (3) questioning

and assessment.

Science Education

In the program of Science Education, 4 syllabi were available

for review. Each addressed assessment as a general topic.

Three of the syllabi in this program specifically addressed

lesson/unit planning and assessment. Two syllabi included a

19

focus on the following assessment practices and concepts: (1)

using assessment to drive instruction, (2) relationships

between assessment, standards and instruction, (3) evaluation

of student learning and grading, and (4) the relationship

between goals for student learning and the development of

assessment tasks (see Chart 2).

< Place Chart 2 about here>

20

Special Education

In the program of Special Education, 75% of the 20 gathered

syllabi included a general course focus on assessment. Sixty-

five percent of the syllabi included course content

addressing the following assessment practices and concepts:

(1) using assessment to differentiate and/or individualize

instruction, and (2) using assessment to drive instruction.

Half of the syllabi in this program included a focus on (1)

the relationships between assessment, standards and

instruction and (2) lesson/unit planning and assessment.

Roughly 25% of the Special Education syllabi dedicated some

course work to studying (1) data collection for assessment

and (2) observation and assessment (see Chart 3).

< Place Chart 3 about here>

Multilingual/Multicultural Studies

Roughly half of the 15 syllabi reviewed in the program of

Multicultural and Multilingual Studies included a general

course focus on assessment. More specifically, the assessment

practices and concepts addressed most often in this program’s

21

courses were (1) developing assessments, (2) analyzing

assessments, (3) using tests and quizzes, and (4) the

evaluation of student learning and grading (see Chart 4).

<place Chart 4 about here>

22

Across Programs

The 52 syllabi from these four programs were analyzed to

identify the assessment practices and concepts most often

addressed across all 4. Sixty-five percent of the sample

included a general course focus on assessment. Thirty-eight

percent of the syllabi noted a particular focus on studying

the relationships between assessment, standards, and

instruction. Thirty-five percent of the syllabi included

course work devoted to demonstrating how assessment can drive

instruction. About 30% of the syllabi included attention to

(1) using assessment to differentiate and/or individualize

instruction and (2) lesson/unit planning and instruction. A

smaller percentage of the sample included a focus on data

collection and assessment, using tests and quizzes as

assessments, and evaluation of student learning and grading.

< Place Chart 5 about here>

23

Step 3: Identification of Specific Assessment Concepts and

Practices That Were Referenced as Best Practices in the

Assessment Research but Were Absent from Course Syllabi

In this section, we note those assessment concepts and

practices identified as best practices in the research

literature and were not found in course syllabi.

A. Across All Programs

Across all programs, we found no common framework for

preservice students to use to select and develop assessments.

There was no information or activity provided to enable

students to learn how to use videotapes and/or audiotapes to

monitor student progress. Nor were students encouraged to

use journals and conferences to keep track of their own or

their students’ growing understandings and learning

processes. Furthermore, self-assessments and peer

assessments such as self-scoring tests, collaboratively

designed rubrics and other frames to support assessing one’s

own work, and discussions of assessment criteria and feedback

24

to students were missing across these four areas. Across the

syllabi that we reviewed, there appeared to be no

acknowledgement of project based learning activities that

might support higher order cognitive skills (HOCS)

assessments, e.g., evaluation questionnaires, open book HOCS

exams, inquiry-oriented experiments, open-ended discussions,

think-aloud procedures, student-composed questions and

author’s chair peer feedback. Activities designed to assess

prior knowledge or provide a baseline for instruction were

absent in the course outlines as were indications of

instruction around developing error-analysis frameworks or

computer-based simulations to assess complex problem solving

processes.

B. Missing Within Specific Programs

While we had only 4 science courses to review, we noted that

there was no reference to using open ended prompts to test

students’ conceptual knowledge. In the special education

courses, we noted the absence of assessment concepts and

practices such as structured interviews, surveys, checklists

25

and rating scales, and student self-report of perceptions and

practices generally strongly associated with special

education. In the Multilingual/multicultural courses

reviewed, we looked for assessment concepts and practices

often described for use with second language learners, for

example, using progress maps and analytic, multiple trait

assessment (MTA) (Brown & Hudson, 1998; Hamp-Lyons, & Kroll,

1996). We also saw no evidence of accommodations for

literacy assessments such as encouragement to use fewer rare

vocabulary items and complex language that is not directly

tied to content, provide extra time, or support students’

efforts with non-content dictionaries and glossaries to

complete assessments.

Recognizing that it is possible that this content was covered

by instructors and may have been included under a different

rubric or different terminology, we implemented Step 4—

interviews with course instructors.

Step 4: Interviews of Course Instructors

26

Course instructors representing each of the target areas—

mathematics, science, Special Education, and

Multilingual/Multicultural studies—were interviewed in order

to get more deeply into what preservice students are learning

about assessment and assessment practices.

From the interviews, we learned that there seems to be a

relationship between instructors’ strategies for assessing

students and the ways in which assessment is addressed in

their course. We found, for example, that instructors

reported that course work with assessment is not as valuable

for students when the course is given in the summer and

before they have had any experience in the field. They

believe that when course work with assessment happens

alongside the field experience, students begin to integrate

theory and practice. They reported that students benefit

from seeing what is happening in the schools and identifying

what kinds of assessment are happening in classrooms across

the city.

27

Instructors who were explicit about their own purposes for

using particular types of assessment such as self-assessment,

self-evaluation, peer assessment, assessment to drive

instruction, would explicitly teach their students these

techniques. For example, we learned that the instructors

whom we interviewed generally included in their definition of

assessment an aspect of assessment not covered in the

research that we read, specifically, introducing students to

the various roles of school personnel who are involved in

decision making curriculum and assessment so that students

understand the roles and responsibilities of the

professionals at their student teaching placements.

We learned that although studying assessment strategies

specific to working helping students achieve success with

various national, state, and city-wide tests were not

included in the syllabi, instructors teaching courses like

math reported that they included such strategies in their

course work. Where instructors could be certain that student

teachers would have to learn how to judge portfolios, use

online assessment tools, or develop and grade using rubrics,

28

they explicitly taught these skills. They encouraged their

students to explore questions such as – How do you create a

portfolio? What is the purpose? What essential components

make up a student portfolio? How do you utilize the

information to differentiate instruction?

Section Two: Proposed Next Steps

Step 5: A Study of Classroom Based Assessment Practices in

Two Partner Schools

As a result of our inquiry, we suggest conducting a study of

classroom-based assessment practices in two partner schools

to identify what student teachers are learning about

assessment in ‘actual classroom settings’ as well as what

they may need to learn about assessment to support their work

in schools. To guide the proposed study, we took two steps:

1) We collected current information about the City Department

of Education’s plan for school accountability which includes

general guidelines for the assessment of student learning

(see Appendix C). 2) We developed a model survey (see Figure

29

1) designed to gather more specific data about the

assessments being used in classrooms. The survey could be

distributed in the summer to teachers working in the

partnership schools.

Figure 1: Proposed Survey of Teachers in Partnership Schools

Survey of Classroom Instructional Assessment

Grade(s) You Teach (List all that apply):Content Area(s) (List all that apply):Host School:For each statement below, circle the number to the right that best fits your agreement with the assertion.

Statements

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree

I feel that I am teaching material that is well suited to my students for Regents preparation.

1 2 3 4 5

I feel that I am teaching material that is well suited to my students for test preparation.

1 2 3 4 5

I feel that I am teaching material that is well suited to my students for general knowledge acquisition.

1 2 3 4 5

I feel my students are learning whatI am teaching. 1 2 3 4 5

I feel my students are prepared for tests.I can easily assess what topics my 1 2 3 4 5

30

students have learned.I know when to review a topic because my students are having difficulty with it.

1 2 3 4 5

I use many methods to ascertain whatmy students have and have not learned.

1 2 3 4 5

I am well acquainted with my responsibilities within the DOE accountability plan.

1 2 3 4 5

The DOE accountability plan plays a significant role in my daily teaching.

1 2 3 4 5

The DOE accountability plan determines what daily instructional assessments I use for my students.

1 2 3 4 5

Please answer the following questions including as muchexplanation/information as possible.

When teaching a new subject how can you tell your students have gained knowledge of it?___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What do the daily assessments you use in your classroom look like? (Please give a full description of all methods you use.) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________How are assessments affecting your work in the classroom? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

31

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________How does the DOE accountability plan affect the way you teach your students?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________How does the DOE accountability plan affect the way you assess your students? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________

Step 6: Develop Teacher Ethnographies

To gather additional information regarding classroom

practice, teacher-ethnographers might be prepared to use a

variety of qualitative research methods such as classroom

observations and reviews of course syllabi, to collect a

range of data regarding classroom assessment practices so as

to support the Partnership’s work of implementing

professional development activities designed to share best

32

assessment practices. In the long run, such information could

help teachers develop a broader range of assessment

strategies that may help to support improvement in student

achievement.

Step 7: Assess Gaps and Overlaps in Teacher Preparation and

Practice

The team of DOE and university researchers will analyze the

data to determine 1) gaps and overlaps between different

university teacher education courses, and 2) gaps and

overlaps between university teacher preparation and partner-

school teacher practice. The data analysis will be designed

to address such questions as: What is the range of assessment

methods that preservice teachers are exposed to in teacher

education courses and how well does their preparation match

their needs in the field?

Step 8: Prepare a Final Report for the Teacher Education

Curriculum Committee

33

A final report for the Teacher Education Curriculum Committee

will be prepared. This document will report the results of

the project research and provide recommendations for

curricula modifications to a university-based committee

empowered to make curriculum decisions.

Step 9: Design a Model for Integrating Best Assessment

Practices into Courses

A model for integrating best assessment practices into

courses will be designed. For example, a model might be

shared through the development of online materials and

modules for teachers and teacher educators; or we might

propose and a specific set of assessment activities that are

introduced progressively into core courses, methods courses,

and field-work assignments. (Appendix D provides examples of

such an online assessment support.)

Step 10: Develop and Deliver Professional Development

Workshops for University Faculty and Host School Teachers

34

A design to deliver professional development workshops for

faculty and host school teachers will be planned. Every

effort should be made to deliver these workshops to both

groups together so as to support partnership in the

preparation of teachers.

Implications

As this project progresses, it should enable discussions

about the assessment of learning and instruction between

teacher education faculty, preservice teachers, practicing

teachers, and other partner school personnel so as to enhance

assessment practices for all parties. In addition, the final

research report should provide the committee with an

empirical report on assessment practices upon which they can

base curriculum decisions. This report could also be the

basis for the development of an assessment model that we plan

to make available to teachers and teacher educators through

education courses, a web site, and professional development

sessions.

35

Assessment practices that are in tighter alignment with the

needs of practicing teachers in these fields will enable

teachers to design more effective curricula and lesson plans

thereby having a more appropriate system of instructional

accountability. It is hoped that this project will also

contribute to deeper pedagogical content knowledge through

multi-party discussions about how to define student

achievement within specific content areas. Because the

content of these university-school collaborative discussions

will be reported to the Curriculum Committee, we expect

resulting course modifications to reflect clearer

descriptions of what should be assessed and how it should be

assessed within different content areas. As well, it is our

hope that this project will result in a shared vision of the

power of assessment to shape instruction across the

Department and with our partnership schools.

References

Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C.H., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment

accommodations for English Language Learners:

36

Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review

of Educational Research, 74, 1-28.

American Federation of Teachers/National Council on

Measurement in Education/National Education Association

(AFT/NCME/NEA) (1990). Standards for teacher competence in

educational assessment of students. Accessed online on 12/11/06

at www.unl.edu/buros/bimm/html/article3.html.

Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice,

developing practitioners: Toward a practice –based theory

of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-

Hammon (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy

and practice (pp. 9-32). London: Falmer.

Baird, J.R. (1998). A view of quality teaching, in B.J.

Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds) International handbook of science

education, pp. 153-168. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Beck, S. (2006). Subjectivity and intersubjectivity in the

teaching and learning of writing. Research in the Teaching of

English, 40, pp. 413-460.

Bergan, J.r., Sladeczek, I.E., Schwarz, R.D., & Smith, A.N.

(1991). Effects of a measurement and planning system on

37

kindergartners’ cognitive development and educational

programming, American Educational Research Journal, 28, 683-714.

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom

learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7-73.

Brown. J.D. & Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language

assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 653-675.

Cho, Y. (2003). Assessing writing: Are we bound by only one

method? Assessing Writing, 8, 165-191.

Clarke, D. (1996). Assessment. In A.J. Bishop, K. Clements,

C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International

Handbook of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 327-370).

Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Cumming, J.J. & Maxwell, G. (1999). Contextualizing

authentic assessment, Assessment in Education, 6, 177-311.

Dawson, C. & Rowell, J. (1995). Snapshots of uncertainty: A

new tool for the identification of students’

misconceptions of scientific phenomena. Research in Science

Education, 25, 89-100.

Delandshere, G. (2002) Assessment as Inquiry, Teachers College

Record, 204, 1461-1484.

38

Dekker, T. & Feijs, E.. (2005). Scaling up strategies for

change: Change in formative assessment practices.

Assessment in Education, 12, 237-254.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. (1999). The relation

between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The

case for research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational

Research, 69, 145-186.

Frederiksen, J.R. & White, B.J. (1997). Reflective

assessment of students’ research within and inquiry-based

middle school science curriculum, paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the AERA Chicago 1997.

Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic

formative evaluation: A meta-analysis, Exceptional Children,

53, 199-208.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.l. & Stecker, P.M. (1991).

Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation

on teacher planning and student achievement in

mathematics operations, American Educational Research Journal,

28, 617-641.

39

Garnett, J.P. & Tobin, K. (1989). Teaching for

understanding: Exemplary practice in high school

chemistry, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 1-14.

Gee, J.P. (2003). Opportunity to learn: A language-based

perspective on assessment. Assessment in Education, 10, 27-46.

Gerges,G. (2001). Factors Influencing Preservice Teachers.

Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 71-88.

Hamp-Lyons, L. & Kroll, B. (1996). Issues in ESL writing

assessment: An overview. College ESL, 6, 52-72.

Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and processes for assessing

science process skills, Assessment in Education, 6, 129-144.

Harlen, W. & Crick, R.D. (2003). Testing and motivation for

learning, Assessment in Education, 10, 169-207.

Jeffery, Jill. (2007). A Summary of theory, research, and best practice

policy. Unpublished manuscript. New York University, New

York, NY.

Lubienski, S. T. (2000). Problem solving as a means toward

mathematics for all: An exploratory look through a class

lens. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 454-483.

40

Matteson, S.M. (2006). Mathematical literacy and

standardized mathematical assessments, Reading Psychology,

27, 205-233.

Meier, S., Rich, B., & Cady, J. (2006). Teachers’ use of

rubrics to score non-traditional tasks: factors related

to discrepancies in scoring. Assessment in Education, 13, 69-

95.

Morgan, C. (1998). Writing mathematically: The discourse of

investigation. London: Falmer Press.

Morgan, C. & Watson, A. (2002). The interpretive nature of

teachers’ assessment of students’ mathematics: Issues of

equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 78-111.

Morgan, W. & Wyatt-Smith, C.M. (2000). Im/proper

accountability: Towards a theory of critical literacy and

assessment, Assessment in Education, 7, 123-142.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000)

Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD).

(2004). State and district-wide assessments and students

with learning disabilities: A guide for states and school

41

districts. Accessed from NJCLD web site on 12/4/06 at:

www.LDonline.org/about/partners/ncld.

Quilter, S. M. (1999). Assessment literacy for teachers:

Making a case for the study of test validity, Teacher

educator, 34, 235-43.

Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2006). Assessment of performance in

practical science and pupil attributes. Assessment in

Education, 12, 45-67.

Ruetten, M.K. (1994). Evaluating ESL students’ performance on

proficiency exams. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 85-

96.

Sawyer, R.J., Graham, S. & Harris, K.R. (1992). Direct

teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy instruction

with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition

skills and self-efficacy of students with learning

disabilities, Journal of Educational psychology, 84, 340-352..

Schunk, D.H. & Swartz, D.W. (1993). Goals and progress

feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing

achievement, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 337-354.

42

Serafini, F.W. (2002). Dismantling the factory model of

assessment. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 18, 67-85.

Shepard, L., Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Rust, F.,

Snowden, J. B., Gordon, E., Gutierrez, C., and Pacheco,

A. (2005). Assessment. In L. Darling-Hammond& J.

Bransford (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What

Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do (pp. 275-326). San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Slavin, R.E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative

learning, Educational Leadership, 48, 71-82.

Smith, E., & Gorard, S. (2005) They don’t give us our marks’:

The role of formative feedback in student progress.

Assessment in Education, 12, 21-38.

Watson, A. (2006). Some difficulties in informal assessment

in mathematics. Assessment in education, 13, 289-303.

Webb, N.M. (1995). Group collaboration in assessment:

Multiple objectives, processes, and outcomes, Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 239-261.

Whitford, B.L., Ruscoe, G., & Fickel, L. (2000). Knitting it

all together: Collaborative teacher education at the

43

University of Southern Maine. In Darling-Hammond (Ed.),

Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparation at the graduate level

(pp 173-257). Washington, DC: American Association of

Colleges of Teacher Education.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C. & Black, P. (2004) Teachers

developing assessment for learning: impact on student

achievement, Assessment in Education, 11, 49-65.

Winfield, L.F. (1995). Performance-based assessments:

Contributor or detractor to equity? In M.T. Nettles &

A.L. Nettles (Eds.), Equity and excellence in educational testing and

assessment (pp. 221-241). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer

Academic.

44

_______________________________________________________________________

Figure 4 - Assessment Practices/Concepts Addressed Most Oftenin Multilingual/Muliticultural Studies Syllabi

________________________________________________________________________

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Num ber of Syllabin=15

Assessm ent Practices/Concepts

CHART 1Assessm ent Practices/Concepts Addressed M ost Often in M ulticultural M ultilingual Studies Syllabi

Assessm ent Strategies (General)Using Test and Quizzes as Assessm entsAssessm ent and Evaluation/GradingAnalyzing Assessm entsDeveloping Assessm ents

_____________________________________________________________

____________

45

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1: Assessment Practices/Concepts Addressed Most Often in Mathematics Syllabi

CHART 2Assessm ent Practices/Concepts Addressed M ost O ften in M athem atics Syllabi

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Assessment P

ractices/Con

cepts

Num ber of Syllabin=13

Assessm ent Strategies (General) Using Assessm ent to Drive InstructionRelationships between Assessm ent, Standards, and Instruction Data Collection and Assessm entUsing Test and Q uizzes as Assessm ents Questioning and Assessm entAssessm ent and Evaluation/G rading

46

_________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2 – Assessment Practices/Concepts Addressed Most Oftenin Science Syllabi_________________________________________________________________________

CHART 3Assessm ent Practices/Concepts Addressed M ost O ften in Science Syllabi

0

1

2

3

4

5

Assessm ent Practices/Concepts

Number o

f Syllabi

n=4

Assessm ent Strategies (General)

Using Assessm ent to Drive Instruction

Relationships between Assessm ent, Standards, andInstruction

Lesson/Unit Planning and Assessm ent

Assessm ent and Evaluation/Grading

Relationship between G oals for Student Learning andDevelopm ent of Assessm ent Tasks

47

________________________________________________________________________

Figure 3: Assessment Practices/Concept Addressed Most Often in Special Education Syllabi

________________________________________________________________________

CHART 4Assessm ent Practices/Concepts Addressed M ost Often in Special Education Syllabi

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Assessm ent Practices/Concepts

Number o

f Syllabi

n=20

Assessm ent Strategies (G eneral)

Using Assessm ent to Drive Instruction

Relationships between Assessm ent, Standards, andInstructionUsing Assessm ent to Differentiate and/orIndividualize InstructionData Collection and Assessm ent

O bservation and Assessm ent

Lesson/Unit Planning and Assessm ent

48

Figure 5: Assessment Practices/Concepts Most Often Addressedin Syllabi Across Programs

CHART 5Assessm ent Practices/Concepts M ost Often Addressed in Syllabi Across Program s

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

1

Assessment P

ractices/Con

cepts

Num ber of Syllabi

Assessm ent Strategies (General) Using Assessm ent to Drive InstructionRelationships between Assessm ent, Standards, and Instruction Using Assessm ent to Differentiate and/or Individualize InstructionData Collection and Assessm ent Using Test and Q uizzes as Assessm entsLesson/Unit Planning and Assessm ent Assessm ent and Evaluation/Grading

_______________________________________________________________________________

49

APPENDIX A-

Course Number and Title

Assessment and Related Issues Addressed in the Course

MATHEMATICS (13)1.E12.1023Teach Elem School Math I(adjunct)

Students will begin to develop: “the ability to integrate

assessment with the teaching process in order to enhance learning and improve daily instruction”

“an understanding of the relationship between mathematics standards and the mathematics scope and sequence”

“an understanding of differentiated instruction and itsrole in diverse classroom settings”

These goals support the recommendationsof the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000)In the area of “pedagogical reasoning and action” student will begin to:

“Investigate and utilize research-based practices of mathematics instruction”

“Determine the prior knowledge of learners and use it to choose and/or create worthwhile mathematical tasks that move learners forward in their understanding”

“Plan for and use questions and questioning strategies that will

50

promote student thinking” “Use appropriate forms of

assessment to monitor student progress and make instructional decisions”

In addition, students are required to write a NCTM content standard paper in which they summarize the standard, its importance and examine the specific benchmarks of learning that are appropriate for each band in that standard. Students unpack these standards and compare them with NYS standards. Finally, students evaluate amathematics activity in terms of the content standard. Grades for the semester are based on professionalism, math autobiography, microteaching, reflective journal and the NCTM paper.

2.E12.1033Math Concepts inEarly Childhood Ed(adjunct)

In this course, “assessing mathematicalunderstanding, record-keeping and accountability” are discussed. The course explores data collection in terms of assessment during the 7th classmeeting. Grades for the semester are based on a math game presentation, reading quizzes, modified lessons and presentation, student observation forms, thematic unit for math and literacy and participation.

3.E12.1043See course below:E12.2033/1043

4.E12.1044

51

See course below:E12.2034/10445.E12.1046Teaching Geometry in Grades 7-12(clinical faculty/adjunct)6.E12.2007Curriculum and Assessmentin Secondary Mathematics(faculty)

“This course is designed to help [students] learn about issues in curriculum and assessment in secondary mathematics at the national, state, andlocal levels.” It also focuses on practical issues of examining curriculum and assessment in future teaching. The goals of the course include familiarizing students with:

“History of curriculum and assessment in secondary mathematics”

“Understanding formative and summative assessments”

“Examining the uses of formative assessment for informing instruction”

“Examining the role of summative assessment, particularly end of course exams”

“State and national assessments”The primary text for this course is: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

Five course meetings are devoted exclusively to assessment:Meeting 7: History of assessmentMeeting 8: Formative assessment

52

Meeting 9: Assessment informs instructionMeeting 10: Summative Assessment and Standardized TestsMeeting 11: Summative Assessment and Standardized TestsGrades for the semester are based on participation, weekly journals, unit analysis and lesson adaptation papers and presentations.

7.E12.2033/1043Secondary Math Methods I(adjunct)

Topics discussed in this course include:

Standards Classroom questioning techniques Evaluation techniques and test

constructionGrades for the semester are based on weekly readings from text and associated materials, attendance, participation and homework, weekly observations from fieldwork with pre-assigned themes, mini lesson to be presented to the class with lesson plan, effective teaching techniques based on research, unit plan and exam.

8.E12.2034/1044Methods of TeachingII:The Use of Instructional Technology in the Mathematics Classroom(faculty)

This course emphasizes the “explorationof various mathematics contexts to learn mathematics, to pose problems andproblem extensions, to solve problems, and to communicate mathematical demonstrations.The course objectives do not include assessment. Grades for the semester are based on attendance and active participation, hand-in assignments, final exam and writing term projects.

9.E12.2035

53

Algebra & TrigIn Secondary Math(adjunct)

10.E12.2115Curriculum Experiences inElementary Mathematics I(adjunct)

In this course students will: “Develop a set of models for

understanding the number strand ofthe NCTM standards”

“Learn evidence-driven assessment techniques”

Class 4 addresses “How/why/when do we assess mathematics learning?”Students complete multiple “learner observations” and analyze these observations. Grades for the semester are based on a portfolio of annotated problems, textbook readings, reflective journal, learner observation/analysis, final project, self-evaluation.

11.E12.2115Curriculum Experiences in Elementary Mathematics I(faculty)

Goals of this course include: “To come to see mathematics,

mathematics learning, and mathematics teaching as problematic and to develop an inquiry approach to and ability toreflect on these domains”

“To increase understanding of K-6 students’ mathematical thinking and understanding”

The instructor’s teaching style reflects his commitment to using “multiple strategies aimed at fosteringconceptual understanding, problem solving, communication and confidence.”The grades for semester are based on textbook readings, reflective writings,homework problems, final project, and

54

portfolio assessment. Students evaluatetheir own learning/performance for the semester.

12.E12.2115Curriculum Experiences in Elementary Mathematics I(adjunct)

In this course, students build “a framework for assessing learning that is evidence and standards-driven.” Class 1 addresses the question: “What are the standards and why do we have them?”Class 10 addresses “assessment in the mathematics classroom” Students take a close look at some written student workand use it as a framework for creating rubrics. The grades for the semester are based on a math autobiography, readings: textbook and other assigned readings, reflective journal, homework problems in mathematics, final project and self evaluation.

13.E12.2116Curriculum Experiences in Elementary Math I –Development of Number Concepts (adjunct)

In this course, students “look more deeply at planning and assessment.” According to the course objectives, students will “build a framework for assessing learning that is evidence andstandards-driven.”Class 11 is devoted to “assessment in the mathematics classroom.” Students look at some written student work as a framework for creating rubrics.Grades for the semester are based on students’ self-evaluations.

SCIENCE (4)1.E14.1040Teaching Science inMiddle and High Schools II:Methods and

In this course, students work to “develop science lesson and unit planning templates with a focus on standards-related content and skills, ‘learning’ skills, driving questions,

55

Curriculum(faculty and publicschool teacher)

assessment and backwards design, controversy, student identity and discourse, inquiry, hands-on activitiesand scientific investigation.” One of the course objectives is to “return to the question of how to engage in ongoing formative assessment.” Within the course exploration of Understanding by Design, students discuss assessment and grading, particularly assessment as a formative tool.Class 1 – The class focuses on assessment driving lesson planning. There is a discussion of how to plan a lesson from what you want kids to know and do at the end of a lesson and how you will assess their learning. Class 2 – The class includes a discussion of how to choose standards-linked content and skills for lesson plans. It also includes a discussion ofhow to differentiate assessment for multiple intelligences. Class 7 – This class is devoted to assessment and backwards planning for making a unit plan. There is a discussion on building formative assessment into the unit plan. There isa discussion of activism assessment or authentic assessment. There is a final self-evaluation. See more information in “Conversations with Faculty” section.

2.E14.2009Science Experiences

This course explores issues including “assessing science teaching and

56

in Elementary School I(clinical faculty)

learning.” Students write a science autobiography, respond to reading assignments and prepare an original oneor two month science study unit, integrating a topic with one or more curriculum areas. The unit must includea discussion of how student progress will be assessed.

3.E14.2010Science Experiencesin Elementary School II(clinical faculty)

On completion of this course, students will have prepared an assessment for use in K-6 classrooms. Grades for the semester are based on attendance and participation, investigation, research and sharing, responses to presentations and a final exam.

4.E14.2092Science Curriculum:Intermediate and Secondary (faculty)

In this course, students examine “the role of standards in curriculum development, and the structure and roleof assessment in curriculum developmentand implementation.” Students:

Analyze the role of standards and benchmarks in the development of curriculum and standardized testing at the State and National level

Plan a scope and sequence for one of your major discipline area or areas of interest

Examine the nature of assessment and analyze assessment tasks

Students complete the following assessment tasks:

1. Examine curriculum and assessment

57

frameworks, socio-cultural factorsand different curriculum standardsand benchmarks through readings and group work.

2. Conduct an item analysis of a Regents exam looking for questionsthat ask about the nature of science and a Core Curriculum and frame this on a timeline.

3. Using “backwards design” create overarching questions that you match with standards and activities and examine the strengths and limitations of such a method.

4. Conduct a research study of an aspect of curriculum and assessment with which you are interested and write a research paper for presentation at the SOS conference.

Students explore the relationship between curriculum and assessment and where assessment fits into the curriculum. Students think about the forms of assessment that society, schools, teachers and students value. Students explore different models of assessment and how assessment can be used to interrogate student understanding. The course emphasizes the question, “How do you construct evidence of the relationship between your goals for student learning and theassessment tasks you develop?” Grades for the semester are based on self-evaluation.See more information in “Conversations with Faculty” section.

58

Multicultural/Multilingual

Studies

(16)

1.E29.1915/2918Field Experience Seminar of Foreign Language Teaching(clinical faculty)

The course explores aspects of the foreign language classroom through class observation, school visits, readings, professional conferences, class discussions, and observation reports. Students discuss topics such as error correction, evaluation and assessment. They practice developing authentic assessment tasks and rubrics.

2.E29.1999Teaching Foreign Languages:Theory and Practice(adjunct)

In this course, students explore the following aspects of the second/foreignlanguage classroom:

Basic theoretical concepts and principles underlying major approaches to L2/FL teaching: fromtraditional to contemporary

Knowledge and understanding of major approaches and methods to L2/FL teaching

Roles of teacher and student in L2/FL language teaching and learning

Methods and techniques of teachingL2/FL languages

The schedule does not explicitly mention assessment. The grades for the semester are based on participation, presentations, journals and a term paper.

3.E29.2002Teaching Second Languages:Theory and Practice(adjunct)

This course examines “the theoretical and practical issues relevant to the teaching of second languages…specifically how reading, writing, listening, speaking and grammar can be addressed in the second language

59

classroom.” The schedule does not explicitly mention assessment.

4.E29.2060Language Assessmentand Evaluation(faculty)

This course provides students with “an understanding of the fundamental goals,concepts, principles, and concerns of second and foreign language assessment and language assessment research.”Course objectives include:

To understand concepts and analytical procedures associated with current language testing practice

To understand the context in whichlanguage assessment takes place

To understand a theoretical model of the language abilities that affect performance on language assessments

To understand the characteristics of assessment methods that affect performance on language assessments

To develop language assessments for different purposes and contexts

To be familiar with current issuesand problems in language assessment and language assessmentresearch

Students look closely at issues such asreliability and validity as well as impact and authenticity.See more information in “Conversations with Faculty” section.

5.E29.2060Language Assessmentand Evaluation

This course examines “the fundamental considerations when evaluating, testing, and measuring the language proficiency and achievement of speakers

60

(adjunct) of other languages.” The class explores“the assessment methods that are used to measure and evaluate specific language skills, the construction of classroom test and portfolio designs, and other assessment procedures.” Students review various language tests,including standardized tests. See syllabus for more details about thecourse objectives.Grades for the semester are based on participation, journal entries, analysis of authentic self-assessment tool, development of a language test, critical evaluation of a language test,and a final examination.

6.E29.2099Culminating Experience in Multicultural Education(faculty)

This course focuses on individual research projects.

7.E29.2201Second Language Classroom(adjunct)

The goal of this course is “students will learn how to integrate balanced literacy and content based teaching in order to design effective strategy instruction in the second language classroom.” One meeting is dedicated tostandards based instruction and anotherto “multiple intelligence, differentiated instruction, and collaborative work.” One of the final class meetings is devoted to “assessment, record keeping and grant writing.”

8.E29.2001

The course objectives include that students will be able to read about,

61

Second Language Classroom:Elementary and Secondary(adjunct)

discuss, reflect on, critique and employ assessment tools and strategies appropriate for second/foreign languagelearners in grades K-12. The course explores standards-based, sheltered andthematic instruction. Students discuss performance and portfolio assessment for diverse language learners.

9.E29.2202The Second LanguageClassroom: College and Adult(adjunct)

Class meetings focus on grammar, reading, writing, speaking and listening, pronunciation, vocabulary and language learners, learning styles,and learning styles instruments. This last meeting includes a discussion of the reading, “Assessing and validating a learning styles instrument.”

10.E29.2202The Second LanguageClassroom: College and Adult(adjunct)

The class schedule shows the last classis dedicated to “testing.”

11.E29.2204Teaching Second Languages Across the Content Areas(adjunct)

The course outline focuses on assessingthe needs and interests of students, discussing indicators of review and assessment as well as issues in assessment for content based instruction.

12.E29.2223Teaching English asa Foreign Language in International Environments(adjunct)

The syllabus does not explicitly mention assessment.

13.E29.2230, 2231, 2130

These courses explore the notion of “assessing assessment” as relevant to student teaching placement and to

62

Seminar for StudentTeachers in Second Language Education K-6, 7-12 and Bilingual EducationE29.1066/2066 Teaching Foreign Language in Secondary Schools(clinical faculty)

future practice.

14.E29.2419Applied Linguisticsfor Teachers of Spanish(adjunct)

The syllabus does not explicitly mention assessment.

15.E29.2421Applied Linguisticsfor Teachers of Japanese(adjunct)

One of the final class meetings is dedicated to “testing and grading.”

SPECIAL EDUCATION (21)1.E75.1007Principles and Strategies in Teaching Students with Mild to Moderate Disabilities(clinical faculty and public school teacher)

This course engages students in the process of planning and conducting lessons with curriculum adaptations in order to maximize the learning experiences for students with special needs. Tools and strategies for assessment and instruction are reviewedand presented throughout the course.

2.E75.1010Principles and Practices for

In this course, students learn techniques and strategies for curriculum selection, modifications, adaptations and implementation,

63

Students with Severe and MultipleDisabilities(faculty and publicschool teacher)

including assistive and augmentative technology (and the integration of behavior support models with instruction) in home, school, work and community settings.

This course focuses on assessment. Students will have increased

knowledge of effective instructional practices and strategies along with increased knowledge of assessment practices

Students will conduct a FunctionalBehavior Assessment (FBA)

Students learn how to differentiate instruction in mixedability classrooms.

See syllabus for more information. 3.E75.1012Integrating Seminarin EC/ECSE4.E75.1510The Role of the Professional in Early Childhood Special Education(faculty and clinical faculty)

In this block of classes, students: Develop and apply research skills

to inform classroom practice Incorporating teaching strategies

that are sensitive to the many forms of diversity represented in our society including race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, language, culture andspecial needs

Demonstrate an understanding of curriculum integration in EC/ECSE environments through planning and implementation of curriculum

Continue to develop your observation skills and abilities to get to know and understand children and their learning more deeply

5.E75.1035

In this course, students “examine the assessment process in order to

64

Classroom Assessment(clinical faculty and adjunct)

delineate the important decisions that are made for students who require special education services.” The coursework is designed to “familiarize students with the assessment proceduresas outlined in IDEA and as they apply to individualized educational assessment and planning.” Various assessments are analyzed such as high stakes testing, achievement tests, student portfolios, SBST evaluations, as well as types of informal educational evaluations. Students evaluate testing results and apply the knowledge to design curriculum and teaching strategies for all learners. Students collect assessment materials and reflect on the value of the assessment as well as the impact on hisor her decision making competencies about the youngsters. Students discuss topics such as:

Assessment terminology Purposes of assessment Individuals involved in the

assessment process Components of comprehensive

assessment Legal issues in assessment Methods of assessment Testing considerations Basic statistical concepts:

Validity and Reliability Preparing students with special

needs for tests Student portfolio assessments Using assessment information to

differentiate instruction Assessment of perceptual abilities

65

Assessments conducted by service providers

See syllabus and “Conversations with Faculty” section for more information.

6.E75.1035 Classroom Assessment(clinical faculty and public school teacher)

This course examines the assessment process as it relates to curriculum standards, developmental guidelines, learning modalities and alternative testing procedures.Students will:

Participate in a series of interactive experiences with various assessment tools

Practice using information for appropriate instructional planning

Familiarize themselves with assessment procedures

Review case studies to support their developing knowledge of different assessments

Students will be engaged in a selfassessment process related to their growing knowledge of students with special needs

Learn various methods of observation to be used as an assessment tool to help guide classroom instruction and interventions

Become familiar with the differences between formal and informal assessments

7.E75.1048Program in Undergraduate EarlyChildhood and EarlyChildhood Special Education

Class foci and activities: Further develop skills as

integrated curriculum planners Continue to observe, study and

assess children and classroom environments

Learn ways to modify instruction

66

“Friday Block of Classes”(clinical faculty and 2 adjuncts)

to better meet the needs of individual children

Learn to develop behavior plans that address the needs of challenging children

8.E75.1161Strategies for Teaching Children with Challenging Behaviors(adjunct)

The purpose of this course is to develop the skills necessary to conducta Functional Behavior Assessment and identify strategies and specific methods in order to construct and utilize a functional behavior plan. Thecourse focuses on how to collect evidence, identify, understand and effectively deal with challenging behaviors in the classroom. The course covers the following:

Characteristics of behavior disorders

Behavioral interventions Behavior management systems Working with parents Support plans Record keeping Behavioral assessments

9.E75.2025 Developing Strategies That Support Children’s Social Behavior(faculty)

As a result of this course, students are expected to become more knowledgeable and skillful at observingand recording children’s behavior to better understand their social and emotional functioning as well as planning and implementing problem solving strategies logically, creatively and resourcefully when approaching children’s behavior.

10.E75.2051Foundations of Curriculum for

This course explores current and past theories and practices in assessment asthey relate to knowledge about learningprocesses, motivation, communication

67

Diverse Learners(faculty)

and classroom management models. It provides an overview of formal and informal methods of assessment and their role in instructional decision making. Federal, state, and district content and performance standards are considered. Class sessions are dedicated to:

the role of assessment in curriculum planning and implementation

functions of assessment characteristics of effective

assessment what counts as evidence using 6 facets of understanding role of questioning in assessment models/methodologies of assessment

11.E75.2055Literacy of the Special Learner(adjunct)

This course provides an overview of assessment of literacy performance. There is also an overview of intervention strategies and lesson adaptation and modifications for struggling learners. Students explore the difference between assessment and instruction to promote successful student learning.

12.E75.2052Education of Students with Severe and MultipleDisabilities(adjunct)

In this course, the following knowledgeand skills are developed by students:

Become familiar with factors related to meaningful assessment and with strategies to evaluate student performance

Understand elements involved in planning and adapting curriculum activities for meaningful participation

68

13.E75.2128Principles and Practices in Early Childhood Special Education(clinical faculty)

This course addresses the cycle of planning, intervention, and assessment throughout the semester. Students collect information about children of interest including samples of work, notes, anecdotes, checklists of skills and work with Work Sampling on-line. Students develop goals for children based on this evidence. See more information in “Conversations with Faculty” section.

14.E75.2133Assessment and Instructional Design for Studentswith Mild/Moderate Disabilities(faculty)

Students complete a comprehensive project throughout the semester. Students identify a child who is experiencing learning (and perhaps behavioral) difficulties that affect his/her performance within this curriculum area. The student does a comprehensive assessment of his or her child’s current level of performance, learning styles and needs, and responseto instruction (through informal classroom-based assessment) and plan instructional intervention appropriate for this student relative to the class instruction.

15.E75.2133Assessment and Instructional Design for Studentswith Mild/Moderate Disabilities(faculty)

This course focuses on assessment, particularly the role of assessment in instruction, planning and evaluation. Class sessions are devoted to differentiating instruction. Students examine state standards and curriculum resources

16.E75.2160 Educating Students with Special Needs

“The focus in this course is to understand best practices in the field of early childhood special education, particularly as they support literacy,

69

in Early Childhood Settings(2 adjuncts)

play and the establishment of a pro-social environment.” Students work towards understanding that assessment and knowledge of children is an on-going process that is based upon observation, screening, interaction, and evaluation. Students examine, assess, and create appropriate educational environments for all children.

17.E75.2161Educating Children with Special Needs in Childhood Settings(clinical faculty)

Inclusive teaching within a supportive environment is introduced and examined in this course. This course acquaints students with “the reasoning underlyingthe creation and maintenance of inclusion programming and to provide strategies and ideas to accommodate diversity with the general education program. Students explore and discover:

classroom management strategies adaptations and modifications for

curriculum behavioral issues the structure and content of the

IEP initial referrals

18.E75.2502Observation in Early Childhood Special Ed (adjunct)

This course uses the text: Sandall, S.,McLean, M. & Smith, B. (2000) DEC Recommended Practices in Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education. Sopris West: Longmont, Co. Students use the book to familiarize themselves with best practices in the field (including assessment practices) and to inform their observations.

19. Class engages in seminar process to

70

E75.2508Integration Seminarin Special Education II (faculty)

share, analyze, and extend students’ professional experiences, including collaboration with other professionals and parents. Class participation, scholarly research, and a presentation of required components of the class.

20.E75.2511Integration Seminarin Early Childhood Special Education (adjunct)

The goal of this course is to begin theprocess of the transition from your role as a student to entering the fieldof education as a professional. Students discuss how curriculum is planned in their current setting and ifthey see evidence of effective curriculum planning in the classroom.

21.E25.1007Integrating Seminarin Childhood and Special Education III: Curricular Design and Instruction for Diverse Learners(doctoral student)

The seminar explores NYS and NYC science standards. Students conduct three case studies.

71

APPENDIX C-

Accountability in the DOE

Beginning in the 2006-07 school year, all city public schoolswill be held “accountable.” Accountability includes a review that can happen at any time during the school year. Accountability also includes school reports, which are published online and should be available about 5 weeks after the reviewers were in the school. The following is a brief overview of accountability in the Department of Education.

Progress Reports

Accountability includes progress reports that are based on (1) student progress (2) school environment and (3) student performance. Student progress is weighted most heavily of thethree. This evaluation is based on current year outcomes compared with the previous three years and compared to other schools with similar populations. Schools receive a grade ranging from A to F. Although the grading system is not completely determined, each category is broken down as follows:

Roughly the top 15% of schools of that range will receive an

A

the next 40% will receive a B for that category

the next 30% will receive a C

the next 10% will receive a D

bottom 5% will receive an F.

72

So to receive an overall grade of F must perform in bottom 5%on half the categories.

Quality Review

Schools receive grades of “well developed” (+) , “proficient”(√), “undeveloped” (Ø) depending on (1) how well the school knows know how each child is performing (2) how well the school plans and sets goals for improving each child’s learning and outcomes (3) how well the school uses its academic programs to meet the goals (4) how well the school uses its leadership, professional, and youth development services to meet the goals and (5) how well the school monitors each student’s progress throughout the year and makes the changes needed to assure the student improves as planned. These goals are evaluated compared to other schools and with attention to exemplary work/progress and areas for improvement.

The process of the quality review includes 2- 3 days of in-school observations performed or trained by Cambridge Education personnel. There are 1- 3 reviewers – all educational leaders. Eventually these reviewers will all be DOE employees but employees will never evaluate schools in their own district.

The team reviews the school’s self-evaluation form reviewed prior to entrance. This self-evaluation includes observations of classroom teaching, use of data, planning, programs, design and implementation, collaborative interaction among school professionals around academic improvement and involving principals, teachers, staff, students and parents.

Case studies of students making exemplary progress and of students failing to make progress will be conducted. These case studies are chosen by the school and usually represent

73

students who began equivalent and one progressed well and theother not.

A final report is sent to the school within 4 weeks and they have one week to review and correct any misinformation. The final report includes the school context (one page), the overview (one to two pages), the main findings (six to eight pages), and the school quality criteria scoring summary (two pages).

In terms of validity and reliability, every reviewer undergoes the same training, follows the same review process,and submits the same report formats. Team reviewer meetings are held to share best practices with teams and team leaders.Furthermore, reviewers went to schools in pairs during the Quality Review pilot to ensure quality and consistency. Finally, all reviewers attend a joint review and evaluation meeting. During this meeting, principals offer feedback to the Department of Education and the Quality Review provider on the quality and value of the review process;

The Department of Education tracks how the reviewers score each school and looks for patterns or information that might flag areas of concern. An appeals process is maintained for schools that feel the Quality Review did not capture the reality of their school and schools always have the opportunity to give feedback on the process and on the report. The goal is for schools to receive a grade of C or higher. Schools with an A and good quality review are offereda financial incentive for being used as demonstration sites for schools that are not performing well. Schools receiving agrade of D or F (or C for three consecutive years) are subject to improvement measures and target setting. If no improvements are made, then leadership may be changed (based on contracts) or the school may be restructured or even closed (as last resort). Quality reviews may play a part in the consequence.

In order to receive a high grade and a positive quality review, schools should focus on the following:

74

Periodic AssessmentsUsed every few months to assess the child

Each school chooses assessments based on their needs (5/year

gr. 3-8, 4/year gr. 9-12)

7 options:

1. Predictive Assessments – aligned to grade level standards – predict performance on state tests (up to 2/year)

2. Instructionally-Targeted Assessments – aligned according to specific period – where to go next (up to 3/year)

3. Customized Item Bank Assessments – bank of items to be chosen accordingly (anytime)

4. Computer Adaptive Assessments – online assessment based on how child answers questions (anytime)

5. English Language Learner Assessments – for English and Spanish proficiency used as compliment to above tools (up to 3 times/year)

6. K-2 Assessments – literacy assessments7. Design Your Own (DYO) Assessments – need to

apply for thisGoal to have teachers create their own assessments based on

these results

ARIS (Achievement Reporting and Innovation System)Online access to scores and reports on each individual

student

Available currently to teachers and principals

75

Available to all (families) by the fall 08

GoalsAccess

Timely updates. (with easy to understand charts)

Long-lasting records. (follows student through all DOE

schools)

Ability to spot classroom-wide trends

Power to share knowledge

The Department of Education holds that “a culture of continuous learning requires robust support, training opportunities, and a coherent organizational structure to embed the practice of evidence-based individualized instruction, self-evaluation, and continuous improvement in every school.  Principals, teachers, parents, students, and collaborative networks of improving schools will receive large-scale, ongoing school-based leadership and development and support, which are aligned around accelerated learning and include a broad inventory of exemplary practices.”

76