Advanced proficiency level: Kindergarten General Subject Matter

In this example, a CM reviews assessment materials with an Evaluator.

Support materials:
CM and Evaluator Transcript and Assessment Materials

Overall rating & analysis

Overall rating: Three E ratings and two AP ratings equals and overall rating of AP+

Beginning

Advanced

Exemplary

Strand 1: The alignment of assessments with learning goals, and the degree to which assessments are scaffolded

Creates or obtains diagnostics that assess students' readiness, as well as formative (including lesson assessments) and summative assessments that measure each learning goal taught. Assessments contain no questions unrelated to the learning goals taught.

Creates or obtains diagnostics that assess the extent of readiness of most students, as well as formative assessments (including lesson assessments) that, when appropriate, scaffold questions to discern extent of mastery of each learning goal taught and summative assessments that measure mastery of each learning goal taught. Assessments do not contain any items unrelated to the learning goals taught.

Creates or obtains diagnostics that provide detailed information about the extent of readiness of each student, formative assessments (as well as lesson assessments) that, when appropriate, scaffold questions to discern the extent of mastery of each learning goal taught, and summative assessments that measure mastery of each learning goal taught, including components requiring higher-order thinking. Assessments contain no questions unrelated to the learning goals taught.

Strand 2: The reliability of assessments, as indicated by the number and variation of assessment items aligned to the objectives being tested

Uses items (e.g., questions, rubric rows) aligned to the objectives being tested

Uses multiple items aligned to the same objective, in summative and, if appropriate, formative assessments (while also balancing the need for efficiency)

Uses multiple items in multiple modes, aligned to the same objective, in summative, and if appropriate, formative assessments (while balancing the need for efficiency)

Strand 3: The degree to which (and efficiency with which) assessments test students' genuine mastery of the objective

Ensures assessment reveals true mastery of the intended objectives

Ensures each item reveals true mastery (while balancing the need for efficiency)

Uses authentic assessments, when appropriate, to reveal true mastery (while balancing the need for efficiency)

Strand 4: The quality, reliability and efficiency of the grading systems.

Grading systems provide an accurate picture of student performance against goals to guide future planning, and the teacher can accurately articulate a vision of student mastery

Grading systems efficiently provide a detailed, increasingly reliable picture of student performance against goals to guide future planning, and the teacher can accurately articulate what explicit degrees of student mastery look like on items.

Grading systems are consistent and extremely efficient, provide a detailed, increasingly reliable picture of student performance against goals to guide future planning and the teacher can accurately articulate what explicit degrees of student mastery look like on individual items.


Analysis: Why did the teacher receive these ratings?

Rating: EStrand 1: The alignment of assessments with learning goals, and the degree to which assessments are scaffolded

Why E?

The range of formative and summative assessments (i.e., questions during guided reading, read aloud, and conferences; two multiple-choice assessments; and an extended response) includes items that measure the one learning goal for this unit. In this case, one learning goal per unit is appropriate, based on the grade level.


The rubric indicates that the questioning is scaffolded. Students must first make a prediction. Then they must point at the evidence. Finally, they must explain how the evidence supports their prediction.


The assessments include "components requiring higher-order thinking" because students are expected to both analyze and synthesize information in order to make a logical prediction with evidence


Each rubric row aligns to an objective.

Rating: EStrand 2: The reliability of assessments, as indicated by the number and variation of assessment items aligned to the objectives being tested

Why E?

The range of assessments does include "multiple items…aligned to the same objective.” Students are assessed on the objectives during guided reading, conferencing, read aloud, multiple-choice tests, etc.


The range of assessments incorporates items "in multiple modes" to ensure reliability and fairness. For example, students are given the opportunity to demonstrate mastery by drawing, answering multiple-choice questions, and responding orally.

Rating: EStrand 3: The degree to which (and efficiency with which) assessments test students' genuine mastery of the objective

Why E?

Considering the difficulty of collecting data with students who can neither read nor write, the teacher’s assessments are as efficient as possible. The teacher carries a clipboard at all times to collect data about student performance on the objective.


In addition, the teacher uses performance tasks that allow students to demonstrate mastery of the objective in an authentic context (i.e., while reading).

Rating: APStrand 4: The quality, reliability and efficiency of the grading systems.

Why AP?

The rubric grading system provides a "detailed, increasingly reliable picture of student performance against goals" because it reveals exactly which part of the objective students need help with.

Why not E?

Although the grading system is comprehensive because it indicates mastery on all of the objectives and is "increasingly reliable" because students are given the opportunity to demonstrate mastery in multiple contexts and in multiple ways, the rubric grading system does not provide an "easy-to-apply grading system." The teacher uses separate rubrics for each student in each of the contexts, which will necessitate an excessive amount of paper and will make it difficult to access a quick overview of student progress.

Rating: APStrand 5: The specificity of information provided by the tracking system.

Why AP?

The tracking sheet does not highlight "where individual students need improvement on particular objectives" (i.e., making a logical prediction, identifying evidence, or explaining evidence).