Once you have given an assessment, and found out that the kids can’t do something you thought they should be able to, you need to reteach. Now, I know that this is not really a very profound statement, and that good teachers will say that that is what they already do. However, I am constantly amazed at the teachers who feel that it is the fault of the kids or of the assessment if the results don’t turn out the way they intended. After determining if it is not the assessment, as in my example above, then perhaps you need to reteach, until the kids can succeed with the assessment. Maybe they need to work on reading and following the directions. Perhaps they have little experience with working in groups. Maybe they need to make connections between two sources of readings. What if they did not know how to use the equipment in the lab, thereby skewing the results? You need to take the "zero" scores, and break them down (remember the old item analysis on multiple choice tests?) and determine what the kids were and were not doing. That will tell you a lot about how to modify instruction prior to the next assessment (or the same assessment, again).

The only way for teachers and schools to identify which students can demonstrate proficiency on the Maryland Content Standards is to continuously assess and monitor students as part of their classroom instruction. This on-going monitoring is also the way teachers determine which students need instructional interventions and whether their instructional strategies are working. Student performance on assignments and assessments enable teachers to make informed instructional decisions regarding teaching and re-teaching specific indicators. It is probably obvious, though not always practiced, that classroom instruction and assessment must be aligned with the Maryland Content Standards if a school wishes to attain state standards.

From: Monitoring student Progress Data:

http://www.mdk12.org/data/progress/index.html

Use of data to inform instruction is the critical reason we collect the data. Collecting student performance data and not using it to inform instruction would be a waste of valuable teacher time and yet that is exactly what occurs in many schools. The usefulness of the classroom monitoring data is to help you understand where your students are in relationship to the content standard indicators so that you can make informed decisions about what you need to do next.

Once you have taught a lesson, regularly ask yourself these three questions:

o Where are my students?

o What evidence do I have?

o What will I do next?

Is the work good enough?

What is "good enough"?

In what ways does this work meet or fail to meet a particular set of standards?

What do the students' responses indicate about the effectiveness of the prompt or assignment? How might the assignment be improved?

What kinds of instruction support high quality student performances?

What does this work tell us about how well the student understands the topic of the assignment?

What initial understandings do we see beginning to emerge in this work?

How does this range of work from a single student demonstrate growth over time?

How can I support student growth more effectively?

What issues or questions is this student focused on?

What aspects of the assignment intrigued this student?

Into which parts of the assignment did the student put the most effort?

To what extent is the student challenging herself? In what ways?

From: Looking at Student Work:

http://www.lasw.org/primer.html

Excerpted from Looking Together at Student Work. (1999).
Blythe, T., Allen, D., & Powell, B. New York: Teachers College Press.
p.10, figure 2.2