a
his .
:. s
.

 

,, , 3%,.
2 . .3
"man..." v.3.
c.

in»;
3 .2

 

 

 

, a
ﬁg
v .P;
ash—.23...

 

u. .n 5.
sﬁurthw.
A “Dr!

 

z 9‘
3
P354".
‘3». I t
3:: I

5 ..~.. in". .1
.hwwxzz basil»!
4i.&...:.ﬁuur.1.. :1»...
Evan... I. 2:“..ﬁauﬁnﬁh.

a. . 5 i.
t . 3.. .
.r. ...
l “1.51.“. ......i...;...‘...d
$33....l 3‘. J...
I .u.‘.(...’ I 5..

s
a .‘l‘ 2 . .
his,” :r WE»..L§H.2
vanitxl a:

.2. .LL.

‘9. t3

.1

Eli; straw. 2
. Vagtsm
. V S .
1“»... 121: . a
e. \i‘i‘v‘
r 3>5
y I:
«Lu.
.3. 3...!

$1.;
5.3....
- an;

s

3.35.“.
i

9’“:
1.. {.55 v»
V J7; 4|.

 

 

Ergimm

msyg

/. LIBRARY
Michigan State

2 O Cq University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Teachers’ Responses to Mandated Assessment: Case Studies
of Teachers’ Assessment Practices in Elementary Classrooms

presented by

Karen Larsen Maloley

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Teacher Education

 

 

Lam/{247 44%

Major bote'ssor’s Signature
'72; 9,. 0 33

Date

 

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

nun—o—n-n-u-.-.—.-.-.-—-c-n-n-¢—-o-—--—--—--n-n-n-n-o—n—n-.-—-—n—-—-o--A-

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K'IProilAcc8Pres/ClRC/DateDue indd

TEACHERS’ RESPONSES To MANDATBD ASSESSMENT:
CASE STUDIES OF TEACHERS’ ASSESSMENT PRACTICES IN ELEMENTARY
CLASSROOMS
By

Karen Larsen Maloley

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Teacher Education

2008

ABSTRACT
TEACHERS’ RESPONSES To MANDATED ASSESSMENT
By

Karen Larsen Maloley

Since the 2001 passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, schools and teachers are
under greater pressure than ever to ensure that students meet outcome expectations. A
key component of the Act uses standardized, state-level assessments to measure student
achievement and to hold schools accountable for improving it. This study sought to
understand how teachers make sense of the complex, multi-layered context of demands
and expectations emanating ﬁom the NCLB as they construct their assessment practices.
The study asked, what factors seem most salient in teachers’ decision making about their
assessment practice?

This study applied a situated action framework to the case studies of two ﬁfth
grade teachers, one who taught reading and the other social studies, across a school year.
It identiﬁed macro, meso, and micro level inﬂuences on their assessment practices. To
provide broader context to the study, other school actors were also included. The school
site was located in the urban ﬁ'inge of a mid-size city; the school’s population was a near
even mix of White and racial minority students with half of the students qualifying for
free/reduced lunch. The school district had engaged in on-going efforts to maintain and
improve mandated test performance.

This study found that there was a proliferation of mandates at the district and

building-level. These mandates oﬁen overlapped and competed with one another, which

leﬁ teachers, who struggled to accommodate mandates, ultimately to use their discretion
in determining how to respond to the demands. The district and building devoted many
resources, both monetary and human, to support instruction of subjects afforded higher
priority because of NCLB mandates, but provided little to support instruction of those
that were not subject to such pressures. Further, this study found that social relationships
among school actors could inﬂuence the movement of policy into classrooms.

Though state assessments prompted a number of local mandates that formalized
the assessment of reading and writing, the study found that they did little to rationalize
teacher grading, a key aspect of classroom assessment. There was little agreement on the
meaning of students’ grades across teachers. Both teachers relied heavily on informal
observations rather than more formal measures of student learning believing they could
discern their students’ learning through watching and listening.

This study suggests several questions that should be considered by policy makers.
First, is a singular focus on assessment the best way to raise achievement levels of all
students? Might we do better by developing tools to help teachers design effective
instruction? Second, do we really want teachers to ‘teach to the middle’ at the expense of
students who are either above or below average? Wouldn’t it be more effective to
acknowledge the vast range of abilities teachers need to deal with in their classrooms and
support this work?

This study also suggests that teacher educators might consider along with their
students the question of what grades represent. Are they a measure of student learning, or
effort, or improvement, or something else? Teacher candidates need to be challenged to

consider the complexities of the issue before they arrive in classrooms.

C0pyright by
Karen Larsen Maloley

2008

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

No one ever accomplishes a worthwhile goal without the support of others, and
that is certainly true in my case. First, I want to thank the students, teachers, and principal
of Kensington School. They warmly welcomed me into their school, gave generously of
their precious time, and shared their thoughts with openness and honesty. I learned so
much from them about the challenges they faced in the every day pursuit of higher
student achievement as well as the unfailing dedication with which they faced it. It was a
pleasure to spend time in their space as I tried to capture a glimpse of the inner workings
of their world.

I have been so fortunate to work with such a wonderful advisor and dissertation
committee. I am grateful to my advisor, Dorothea Anagnostopoulos, who has been very
patient with me as I took the “long route” to ﬁnish this dissertation. She was supportive
and encouraging at every stage, even when I lost conﬁdence in my project. She was
persistent in pushing me to think deeper and focus on analysis rather than description. My
committee members, I an Alleman, Tom Bird, and Mary Kennedy, were consistently
supportive any time I contacted them. I am particularly grateful for their sustained
interest in me, even though I worked far from campus and had few opportunities for
personal contact with them.

I cannot overlook the “Millennium Cohort” of my fellow graduate students who
entered the program with me in the fall of 2000. They were a great group of people with
whom I had the opportunity to work and play. As we took classes together, taught classes

together, and undertook research projects together, I came to rely on their humor,

intelligence, and the generosity of their support. I must single out two of my colleagues
with whom I have formed what I hope will be lasting ﬁiendships. Lorraine Gutierrez
provided me, not only with a home when I was in East Lansing, but also with her
beautiful and loving spirit that sustained me throughout the trials and tribulations of
graduate school. She is a source of inspiration and a great ﬁiend. I also want to thank
Mary Kay Johnson who hung in there with me even after she graduated and obtained a
job in another state. She was extremely generous with her precious time, and for that I
will always be grateful. Our weekly phone calls and emails have been key to my
progress. I am indebted to her for her willingness to read my work, to offer thoughtful
critique, and to push me to make the leap ﬁom details to the big idea.

Finally, I wish to thank my family, without whose loving support I could not have
hoped to begin this project, much less ﬁnish it. I am grateful for my mother, whose
genuine compassion for others profoundly shaped my worldview. I am sorry she didn’t
get to see this project to completion. I also thank my children for their patience and
constant support. They were as anxious as I was for the process to be over. I am so very
grateﬁrl for my husband, who tolerated the brunt of this whole process. He suffered my
long absences, both physical and mental. He endured my ups and downs with great
patience. He learned to resist the urge to ask daily, “How’s it going?” Through it all, he
has been my bi ggest supporter and a source of much happiness and joy. For all this and

more, I am so grateﬁil.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ............................................................................ viii
List of Figures ............................................................................. ix
Chapter One Introduction and Overview .......................................... 1

Chapter Two Toward a Situated Perspective on Teachers’ Assessment

Practices ............................................................... 9
Chapter Three Methods ................................................................ 32
Chapter Four Classroom Context: Portraits of Teachers’ Embedded

Assessment Practices ................................................ 43
Chapter Five State Assessment Linked to Instruction ........................... 66
Chapter Six Assessment for Grading ............................................. 107

Chapter Seven Understanding Student Learning Through Classroom the

Context .................................................................. 147
Chapter Eight Conclusions ............................................................. 172
Appendices
A - First Semester Interviews: Focus Teachers .................... 189
B - Second Semester Interviews: Focus Teachers ................. 191
C - Non-Focus Teacher Interview Protocol ........................ 193
D — Interview Protocol: Principal .................................... 194
E - Academic Support Coach Interview Protocol .................. 196
F - Follow Up Interview: Focus Teachers Fall 2006 .............. 197
G - Follow Up Interview: Principal Fall 2006 ..................... 198
H - Follow Up Interview: Academic Support Coach ............. 199
I - Observation Form ................................................. 200
J - Australia Packet Rubric ........................................... 201
K- Student Timeline Assignment .................................... 202
L - Student Timeline Rubric .......................................... 203
M- SSR Log ............................................................ 204
N- Consequences and Support for Title I High Priority
School ............................................................... 205
0- Ms. Mathews’ State Assessment Report ........................ 207

vii

P-Kensington Writing Plan ........................................... 209
Q- Kensington Report Card .......................................... 211

References .............................................................................. 2 1 3

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Number Table Title Page
1 Explanation of Teachers’ Assessment Practices:
Comparing Educational Literature and Situated
Action ............................................................ 29
2 Demographics of Kensington School Population ......... 35
3 Study Participants at Kensington School ................... 37
4 Distribution of Observations and Interviews ............... 4O
5 Steve Adams’ Use of Assessment ........................... 61
6 Sue Williams’ Use of Assessment ........................... 63
7 Schedule of Subjects Tested on State Assessment ........ 68
8 Kensington’s Rank Order Among District Elementary
Schools on State Assessment Tests ......................... 81
9 District and School Responses to NCLB
and State Policies ................................................ 86
10 Graded Assignments in Observations
of Sue’s Instruction .............................................. 109
11 Graded Assignments in Observations
of Steve’s Instruction ............................................. 127
12 Sue’s Grouping Practices During Observations ............... 157
13 Steve’s Grouping Practices During Observations .............. 161

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Number Figure Title Page

1 Talisman Rubric ...................................... 13 8

Chapter One

Introduction and Overview

The school reform movement, which has held sway in the United States for the
last quarter century, mandates that schools and teachers be held accountable for student
outcomes. Proponents for accountability have argued that the education system must
establish rigorous content standards, prepare highly qualiﬁed teachers to teach that
content, and align instructional materials and curriculum with those standards. With the
passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) these propositions have become
indelibly part of our educational system. NCLB carries consequences for schools that fail
to attain Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) on standardized tests. In addition to offering
parents the choice of sending their children to a different school, schools must also offer
Supplemental Educational Services, (SES), or tutoring, for students who fail to meet
grade level standards. These sanctions wield strong pressure for school districts to
perform well on the tests. For better or worse, the most salient feature of NCLB is
mandated testing, which has been the focus of great controversy.

Proponents of accountability have argued that data from standardized tests will
help teachers improve student achievement by helping them diagnose student needs,
thereby making their instruction more responsive to their students. The US. Department
of Education claims on its website that, under NCLB, “Teachers utilize assessment data
and scientiﬁcally based teaching methods to improve classroom instruction” (US.
Department of Education, 2007) This claim is based on the assumption that teachers have

access to good data; it assumes that teachers draw on this data to inform their instruction

in a way that will meet the needs of their students. In addition, the NCLB Act assumes
that a once-a-year test is a reliable measure of student achievement and a motivator for
both teachers and students to improve.

Critics of NCLB claim that teachers’ tacit knowledge about teaching will become
unimportant. Teachers’ expert knowledge about their students will be irrelevant when
faced with the only source of knowledge about students that will matter—the state
assessment test that measures progress toward Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). W.
James Popham (2006), an expert on testing, warns that the tests are ﬂawed. He cautions
that the majority of standardized assessments in use are:
instructionally insensitive—that is, they’re unable to detect even striking instructional
improvements when such improvements occur. This signiﬁcant short-coming arises
because these tests are so strongly linked to students’ socioeconomic status that they tend
to measure what students bring to school rather than what they are taught there (Popham).
Popham further argues, since AYP targets are unrealistic, “more teachers are apt to
abandon sound instructional strategies like classroom assessment for learning.”

In addition, opponents of accountability mandates have argued that one of the
unintended consequences of such programs is that teachers “teach to the test.” Under
threat of sanctions, teachers may now feel that “Whatever is not on the test is not worth
knowing, and whatever is on the test need[s] be learned only in the superﬁcial manner
that is required to achieve a passing grade” (Labaree, 1997).

Another possible consequence of mandated testing is the narrowing of the
curriculum; because schools are under considerable pressure to show progress in reading
and math, they sacriﬁce other subject matter. Even Marshall S. Smith, one of the

architects of standards-based reform, has acknowledged this effect and now thinks it is

time to “redress this imbalance” (2006). Further, lawmakers who are considering renewal

of NCLB have come under considerable pressure from constituents who feel that their
“once-innovative public schools have increasingly become captive to federal testing
mandates, j ettisoning education programs not covered by those tests, siphoning funds
from programs for the talented and gifted, and discouraging creativity” (Weisman &
Paley, 2007).

Amid the swirl of controversy over accountability mandates, classroom teachers
ﬁnd themselves dealing with overlapping and sometimes competing demands to meet
federal, state and district expectations while addressing the learning needs of their
students. With a ﬁnite amount of instructional time available, classroom teachers make
decisions that shape their instructional, assessment, and grading practices to satisfy a
broad range of demands. Teachers must balance the use of class time among federal,
state, and district monitoring and accountability testing requirements on the one hand,
and their duty to evaluate everyday student performances and ultimately assign a grade
on the other. Further, teachers are under a great deal of pressure to improve their
students’ test scores at least enough to meet AYP. In addition, teachers may be conflicted
about the educational value of tests that measure discrete content knowledge versus other,
untested-for, and time-consuming educational goals that they deem important, such as
social and interpersonal skills and multicultural perspectives throughout the curriculum.

While these tensions most likely exist, no one is entirely certain what happens in
the milieu of the classroom when federal, state, district, and teachers’ assessment
practices meet. In part, this is due to the fact that, though teachers evaluate their students
regularly, how they do so has been relatively unexamined by researchers (Wilson, 1992).

Large-scale, mandated testing as well as small-scale assessment is a way of life in

classrooms, yet we do not know how teachers negotiate the delicate balance of outside
mandates against curriculum requirements and grading practices with limited time,
materials and resources. We do not know the relative weight given to these factors nor
the logic teachers employ when shaping their assessment practices. In short, we know
little about how teachers make sense of the complex, multi-layered context of federal,
state, and local mandates and expectations as they construct their assessment practices.

While our knowledge of how teachers make sense of these complexities is
limited, with the current focus of educational policy on accountability and the broad
implementation of standards-based practice, our need to understand what actually occurs
in schools and classrooms is at a critical high. Policy makers need to know whether
current educational policies have had their desired effect and to what extent these policies
enter into classrooms and shape teachers’ assessment practices. In order to address this
knowledge gap, I spent an entire school year in an elementary school studying teachers’
instructional and assessment practices as they were actually enacted by teachers in order
to meet the complex demands put on them.

As I spent time in the school under study, it became apparent that neither side of
the accountability dichotomy was completely right. What I saw instead was a complex,
dynamic interaction of teachers’ own personal preferences, personal histories, and their
experiences with students in their own classrooms. Across the building as a whole,
teachers’ interactions and relationships with colleagues played out in their assessment
practices along with pressures for improved student outcomes building-wide. Throughout
all of this, I saw the broader emphasis on assessment and the accountability discourse

woven among these other factors. The teachers I observed and talked with made

decisions about assessing their students that were bound up with all three of these levels
of inﬂuence in a dynamic, rather than clear cut or static way. I came to see that the
rationale the teachers employed to make assessment decisions was situated in a complex
environment. Their decisions were shaped by their interpretations of multiple messages
they got from this complex environment.

The quest of this study, then, was to explain how it came to be that some parts of
arguments on each side of the accountability question held sway. What factors seemed to
be most salient in teachers’ decision making about their assessment practices?

In the next chapter, I lay out what we currently know about teachers’ assessment
practices. Chapter two provides an overview of three strands of educational literature
concerned with teachers’ assessment practices. Most importantly, in this chapter I
identify an important gap in our knowledge about teachers’ assessment practices. Extant
research fails to explain the way teachers’ assessment practices develop and to what
extent they are inﬂuenced by various factors in the environment. Further, I argue that a
situated action perspective allows for a more complete way to look at teachers’
assessment practices. A situated action perspective extends existing literature by allowing
for an examination of many factors at once, thereby identifying the way in which
multiple factors inﬂuence teachers’ decisions.

In chapter three, I lay out the methods I employed to undertake a study of
teachers’ assessment practices, along with my rationale for the choices I made. I describe
Kensington School and its population. Because of the mix of races and economic levels
in the community, Kensington School provided an ideal context in which to explore the

way teachers’ assessment decisions were inﬂuenced by the nested nature of the

classroom, the building and district, and the greater social contexts in which they were
located. The district had engaged in ongoing efforts to improve student performance on
mandated assessment tests at all levels. This made for a rich site in which to conduct this
study. In addition, I explain the modes of data collection, as well as my data analysis
decisions.

Chapter Four presents the classroom context of the two focal teachers, Steve
Adams and Sue Williams. For each teacher, I describe typical lessons. In addition, I
describe an extended unit of study each undertook. The most important function of this
chapter is to lay out the embedded assessment practices each teacher employs in their
day-to-day instruction. These teachers exhibit very different teaching practices. In part,
this can be attributed to the different subject matter each teaches. However, that is not a
complete explanation for these differences. In order to understand how these teachers
developed different assessment practices, we need to also look at other factors that impact
their decisions. These will be taken up in the following chapters.

Chapter ﬁve traces the linkages that connect the state assessment to the
assessment practices of the two ﬁfth grade teachers who participated in this study.
Proponents of mandated assessment assume that such tests will help teachers adjust their
instruction to meet the needs of their students. However, this chapter shows that both the
district and the building-level administrators mediate the inﬂuence of mandated
assessments. The district and principal added layers of mandates on top of those imposed
by NCLB, creating overlapping and sometimes competing demands on teachers. As a
result, teachers in part exerted their own discretion about which demands they

accommodated and which they ignored.

Chapter six looks at the assessment practices of these teachers as they related to
grading. While grading is an institutional requirement, each teacher had to determine how
to make student learning visible and apply some kind of metric in order to translate
student learning into a grade. Each of these teachers faced difﬁculties in accomplishing
this. For Sue, making her students’ reading progress visible involved selecting the tools,
brought to her through mandates, that would best help her accomplish this. In addition,
she added her own beliefs about student effort into her grading problem. For Steve,
routines allowed him to readily quantify superﬁcial subject matter knowledge and
translate this into grades. The problem he faced, however, was how to measure the
deeper, substantive learning that be valued over the kind of knowledge that could be
measured on summative assessments. Neither of these teachers fully resolved their
difﬁculties with grading.

Chapter seven examines the rich resources of information about student learning
offered by the classroom context. Teachers pay attention not only to the academic content
of lessons, but also to the social nature of learning. The two teachers in this study drew
upon their day-to-day interactions with their students to understand each student’s work
ethic as well as the behavior they could expect when pairing and grouping students to
work together. In addition, when grouping students, the teachers’ perception of their
students’ academic abilities were also considered. This chapter highlights the many tools
and resources that were made available to Sue to teach reading and writing. She
determined which tools were important to her work and which she would use in her

everyday practice. Steve relied on informal observations to discern what his students

learned ﬁ'om his economics unit. In part, this was due to his beliefs about student learning
and the types of learning opportunities he provided for his students.

Finally, chapter eight summarizes the conclusions of this study. I identify factors
that inﬂuenced the assessment choices made by these teachers. I further trace the way
mandated assessment shaped the practices of these teachers in light of the main claims
made by proponents of mandated assessment: that such assessment will help teachers
adjust their instruction to improve student learning, and that it will help teachers
understand their students’ learning. Then, I raise some questions that are suggested by
this study, ﬁrst as it relates to educational policy, and second as it relates to teacher

education.

Chapter Two

Toward a Situated Perspective on Teachers’ Assessment Practices

This study seeks to answer the following questions about teachers’ assessment
practices: What are the salient factors that shape teachers’ assessment practices? What
institutional factors enter into teachers’ assessment practices? To what extent do broader
educational inﬂuences enter into teachers’ assessment practices? These questions address
the multilayered, complex environment of the classroom. Answers to these questions will
necessarily examine the links among these inﬂuences.

What follows is an examination of the literature that shows how others have
looked at the issue of assessment in classrooms. I will show how each of three prominent
strands of literature fail to provide a complete picture of the way teacher assess their
students. I will then move ﬁom a review of current literature to an explanation of a
situated action perspective that provides a viable alternative to existing literature.
Conducting the Literature Review

I began by conducting a search of the ERIC FirstSearch database. The search
revealed a small number of articles for each of the following descriptors: ability
grouping, tracking, reading groups, grading, teacher expectations, teacher attitudes (with
ability grouping), and teacher decision-making. A search using the descriptor of
“assessment” resulted in articles on large-scale quantitative assessment; although these
studies shed descriptive light on the design of quantitative assessments, they did not add

to my understanding of the way teachers use them.

I further narrowed the literature to exclude both secondary teachers and pre-
service teachers. I excluded literature about secondary teachers because my study took
place in an elementary setting. I excluded pre-service teachers because there is a vast
difference between the assessment practices of novices and those of experienced teachers.
In addition, pre-service teachers do not have the responsibility of preparation and
administration of mandated tests, or designing follow-up instruction. I wanted to focus on
current practice in actual classrooms.

In addition to these articles, I included books and articles I had encountered in
education courses and in previous research where they were applicable. As I read the
articles ﬁom the ERIC search, I found references to further articles that were valuable
additions to the literature under study.

While the literature review identiﬁed a wide range of studies about assessment
and grading practices, three main categories seemed to emerge: Prescriptive, Classroom
Context, and Cultural. In the next sections, I will deﬁne each of these strands of literature

and summarize their ﬁndings.

Prescriptive Literature
A large portion of the body of educational literature I reviewed prescribed various
ways content knowledge attainment should be assessed. A pedagogical debate that
focused on the best format of assessments that measure student achievement has
separated this strand of literature into two distinct threads: the ﬁrst promotes the use of
standardized tests to inform instruction and measure student progress, while the other

promotes the use of alternative forms of assessment, or what is typically called authentic

10

assessment. What both of these threads share in common is the belief that teachers lack
assessment literacy. This literature is written from an outsider’s perspective and
prescribes what educators ought to do to measure academic knowledge, so I have labeled
this stream of literature prescriptive. I will take each of the two threads in turn,
identifying the arguments each is making about assessment, and what they are attempting
to prescribe.
Large-scale, Standardized Testing

Proponents of large-scale testing argue that holding teachers and schools
accountable for student test scores will ensure more equitable learning opportunities and
outcomes for all students. Those who have endorsed standardization of the curriculum
and a system of national testing argue that both will pass on America’s “common culture”
to all students, and ensure that all students would be held to and meet the same standards
(Hirsch, 1987, 1996; Bennett, 1988; Ravitch, 1995; Ravitch & Firm, 1987). Because the
American school system is decentralized, there is great variation in cuniculum and
resources ﬁ'om district to district; high school diplomas are not comparable credentials
across districts. A system of national testing would hold all schools to the same standards
effectively making a diploma or degree a common currency readily acceptable by a
potential employer to use as a practical guide to hiring (Aronowitz, 1996).

Though a system of nationalized testing has not been realized, recent federal
legislation and policies, such as NCLB, have intensiﬁed the use of standardized testing
by tying rewards and sanctions for educators and students to the results of mandated tests.

States and schools are labeled as “failing” if students taking the tests in successive years

do not demonstrate adequate yearly progress. Such policies have pushed state legislatures

ll

to align state mandated tests with the federal standards. In addition, many states require a
passing grade on high school exit exams in order for students to graduate. Some scholars
argue that high stakes tests1 are a valid means of promoting achievement; by offering
rewards for success and sanctions for failure, testing will encourage improved instruction
and ensure that students who struggle in school receive adequate educational
opportunities (Smith & O’Day, 1991). It is also argued that such a system raises
expectations for all students (Aronowitz, 1996) thereby providing equitable access to
educational resources for all students.
Teachers’ Use and Misuse of Tests

The literature reveals that, in many cases, teachers do not utilize the results of
standardized tests to either inform their instruction or evaluate their students’ progress.
Many teachers see standardized tests as a necessary evil that must be tolerated, but for
their own classroom purposes they prefer to rely on other ways of assessing their students
(Daniel & King, 1998). Teachers use standardized tests as a supplement to other forms of
assessment, such as observation and self-written classroom assessments (Salmon-
Cox,l981; Stiggins & Bridgeford, 1985). Contrary to the hopes of proponents of
standardized tests, it has been found that many teachers rely substantially on
“observation” as a means of assessing student progress with standardized tests used

primarily as a supplement to this observation (Stiggins & Bridgeford).

 

' high stakes tests - Tests used to determine which individual students get rewards, honors, or sanctions.
Low-stakes tests are used primarily to improve student learning. Tests with high stakes attached include
college entrance examinations and tests students must pass to be promoted to the next grade. Tests affecting
the status of schools, such as those on which a given percentage of students must receive a passing grade,
are also considered high stakes. ASCD Lexicon of Learning.

12

Proponents of standardized tests are critical of teachers’ assessment literacy. They
argue that not only do teachers not understand standardized tests and their use, but also
they do not know how to properly construct their own assessment tools for use in their
classrooms. They blame teacher education programs for failing to include assessment
instruction in their programs (Mehrens & Lehmann, 1991; Stiggins & Conklin, 1992).
While Guskey (2003) argues that the best kind of assessment is one which provides
students feedback on their progress and that informs teachers about instructional
improvements they need to make, the literature suggests that this is not the case in
practice. Teachers do not use assessment either for self-improvement or student
diagnosis; rather, they believe testing results only if it conﬁrms that which they already
believe about their students or their instruction (Wilson, 1992). Because results of
standardized tests generally do not provide immediate enough feedback to meet teachers’
day-to-day classroom needs, teachers often write their own assessments for the purpose
of measuring student progress or to determine grades. In addition, teachers rely more
consistently on their own assessment materials than standardized test results. Researchers
such as Stiggins (1991) ﬁnd this troubling because, lacking knowledge, teachers cannot
“diagnose student needs, group students intelligently, assign meaningful grades, or
evaluate the impact of instructional treatments.” This assumption resonates with Daniel &
King (1998) who warn, based on the use of assessments to make “high stakes decisions
(e. g., promotion/retention decisions, program placement decisions, special education
screening), teachers’ inability to make informed judgments about the merits of these tools

could yield very distressing results.”

13

This literature paints a mixed picture for the way teachers use standardized tests;
on one hand, it appears that teachers do not use standardized test results to the degree that
proponents might wish, but on the other hand, there are some indicators that teachers do
pay attention to standardized test results. While Salmon-Cox (1981) found that teachers
rely a great deal on observation, she also found that they do use standardized tests as a
guide for instruction and grouping or tracking students. In addition, it has been widely
reported by educational researchers, such as Linda Darling-Hammond (2003), that
teachers “teach to the test,” thereby narrowing the curriculum that is taught to discrete
academic facts rather than deep understanding of content. An analysis of the effects of
testing on teacher and student interaction with classroom texts ﬁnds that such testing
narrows the deﬁnitions of reading, thereby working against efforts to raise standards and
improve student learning opportunities (Anagnostopoulos, 2005). Proponents of
standardized tests believe that teachers should teach to the test, arguing that if it is a good
test, teaching to the test will improve instruction. It will help both teachers and students
by identifying what they need to learn and what they need to focus on as well as to
diagnose students’ learning needs. Even if teachers who “teach to the test” replace
academic curriculum with test preparation lessons, doing so will allow students to
perform better on a critical test, thereby enhancing their knowledge with the “right”
academic knowledge.

Alternative Forms of Assessment

The form of assessment that has been discussed so far is traditional in nature;

standardized and classroom achievement tests that feature predominantly close-ended

items (multiple-choice, true/false, checklist, ﬁll-in-the-blank). Alternative forms of

14

assessment can be contrasted with traditional assessment. Alternative assessment,
sometimes called authentic assessment, is an umbrella term that encompasses several
different assessment strategies (Bintz & Harste, 1994; Worthen, 1993).

Alternative assessment techniques include performance-based assessments,

observation techniques, student self-assessment, and portfolios (a collection of

student work that might include the other types of assessment). Alternative
assessment is purported to be an authentic indicator of student performance
because it closely resembles what a student might be called on to do in class or on

a real-world task (Bol, Stephenson, O’Connell & Nunnery, 1998).

Alternative assessments are often promoted as a way to motivate students to take more
responsibility for their own learning and to embed the learning experience with authentic
activities that recognize more nuanced forms of student abilities than acts of
memorization and repetition of basic skills. Authentic assessment requires that teachers
use their judgment about their students, include feedback within the teaching process,
engage students in “real tasks” and adjust instruction to meet student needs (Wiggins,
1990).

Another proponent for performance assessment is David Niemi (1997); he argues
that real understanding of subject matter requires a highly organized body of knowledge.
Traditional tests measure simple, discrete facts, not highly organized bodies of
knowledge. Performance assessments are needed to assess whether students are
developing deep understanding and broad knowledge of subject matter.

Teachers’ Use and Misuse of Alternative Assessment
Criticism of teachers’ assessment literacy by proponents of alternative

assessments mirrors that found in the standardized testing thread; they argue that not only

do teachers not understand how to use alternative forms of assessment, they also do not

15

understand how to create their own effective assessment tools. Even though teachers
widely use performance assessments, Torrance (1993) found that they failed to plan their
curriculum based on information derived from performance assessments; teachers treated
assessments as an activity separate from teaching and learning. In addition, lacking self-
reﬂection, the teaching-learning process was replaced with grade-driven ritual. Teachers
report using observational assessment methods and performance tasks more ﬁ'equently
than traditional assessment. Bol, O’Connell & Nunnery (1998) posit that this may be
because teachers are growing dissatisﬁed with the use of close-ended questions
particularly when used in standardized tests for accountability purposes. Because they
lack speciﬁc training in assessment, teachers either rely on assessments offered by the
publisher of their textbook or “construct their own in a haphazard fashion” (Guskey,
2003). In addition, Wilson (1990) found that teachers’ self-written tests mirrored the
design of provincial tests in order to give students practice. Furthermore, Kahn (2000)
has found a disturbing effect of teacher developed assessments: it appears that once
teachers have developed tests, it is the tests, rather than instructional goals that drive the
curriculum. Teachers appear to design their instruction to cover information that is on the

tests; the tests become the raison d’étre for what is done in the classroom.

Classroom Context Literature
Another theme that emerges in educational literature acknowledges that
classrooms are complex social environments and that teachers’ assessment practices are
situated within that environment. This literature takes into account the complex social

organization of classrooms and the multiple purposes teachers have for using assessment

16

in these complex contexts. While teachers are informed in varying degrees by formal
assessment, they use the social context of the classroom and their interactions with
students to build their understanding of their students’ progress. Because this literature
explains how complex social environments inﬂuence teachers and that all assessment is
situated within that enviromnent, I have labeled it classroom context literature.

While most American classrooms display virtually the same outward appearance,
each is populated with a diverse mix of students with a variety of academic, social and
emotional characteristics; no two classrooms are alike. One of the most important roles of
a teacher is to establish a classroom climate that ensures student compliance with
behavioral norms (Lortie, 1975) and makes each student comfortable as a part of the
group; failure to do so will invite misbehavior as well as administrative and parental
concerns. The complex social nature of the classroom cannot be overstated; each teacher
must forge emotional bonds with students in order to encourage effort on their part as
well as interest in lessons (Lortie, 1975), while maintaining control over behavior.
Teachers engage in a daily balancing act of instructional and administrative roles; the
instructional role looks to the academic content of lessons, while the administrative role
oversees the organization of routines and procedures that enhance effective use of time.
In addition, teachers must deal with the spontaneity of classroom life; they judge when
students know or understand something by feelings, looks, sounds, and intuition
(Jackson, 1990) and adjust lessons accordingly.

The classroom context strand of literature documents the multiple purposes and
ways teachers assess student performance located within this complex classroom context.

In addition to academic achievement, teachers assess students’ social and emotional

l7

development. One of the major tools at teachers’ disposal for assessment of non-
acadernic goals is observation (Lortie, 1975; Salmon-Cox, 1981). Social goals lend
themselves more readily to observational (informal) assessment rather than more
traditional testing forms used to measure cognitive development. Elementary teachers,
especially, seem to highly value social goals for their students (Salmon—Cox, 1981),
naming “socializing” an important function of schooling in addition to the need to deal
with the “whole child.” Such teacher beliefs resonate with researchers who urge the use
of teachers’ “intuition” and the development of “relationships” as tools for assessment of
learning (Brazee & Johnson, 2001). In addition, there is evidence that teachers trust and
value their own observations even when they conﬂict with a students’ classroom
performance. Support for this high degree of conﬁdence is evidenced in a study that
found, despite the high level of subjectivity of observational assessment, teachers’
observational judgments about student development to be trustworthy when measured
against performance assessments (Meisels, DePrima, Nicholson, Xue, Atkins-Burnett,
2001). The literature does include a downside to an over-reliance on observations,
however. Observations are not highly structured, creating potential problems of
inconsistency of both the students observed and the curricular and social areas involved
(Nicholson & Anderson, 1993).

At least in part, teachers’ reliance on their own observational skills may be linked
to the insider/outsider perspective. Teachers have the most conﬁdence in their own
insider knowledge of their students rather that that of outsiders who do not know their
students. They feel conﬁdent in their own judgments and give more credence to their

observation of classroom performance than to standardized test scores (Salmon-Cox,

18

1981). Teachers trust their own continuous, on-going, observational assessment of their
students, rather than a “snapshot in time” picture that can be given by an outside testing
source. Outsiders can measure a student’s cognitive development, but have no knowledge
of social development that is so highly valued by teachers. Teachers reject the sole use of
test performance for decision-making without regard to “other information” as well
(Salmon-Cox, 1981); teachers gather such extraneous information ﬁom their interactions
with and observations of students to whom outsiders do not have access.
Grading

The complexity of teachers’ assessment practices is evident in the wide variety of
indicators used to produce periodic grade reports. In addition to cognitive evidence,
teachers use a mélange of indicators including observational data they gather from
classroom performance. Teachers imbue the same level of conﬁdence in their own
observational data for grade report purposes that they have in assessing the social
progress of students. Researchers have documented teachers’ tendency to award “a
hodgepodge grade of attitude, effort, and achievement” (Brookhart, 1991; Cross & Frary,
1996). A study by Bol et a1. (1998) found that teachers relied on observational data and
performance assessment tasks more frequently than traditional assessment to determine
grades. In general, teachers place the greatest weight on academic performance and
academic enabling behaviors (effort, improvement) when grading (Mcmillan, Myran &
Workman, 2002), though such behaviors are monitored through informal classroom
observations. In the speciﬁc case of elementary teachers Gullickson (1985) found the use
of non-test information, such as class discussion and student behavior, more inﬂuential

than test results in determining a grade; disruptive student behavior, grade distributions of

19

other teachers, and norm-referenced interpretations contribute little to grading for

elementary teachers.

Cultural Literature

The third strand of literature examines the pervasive inﬂuence students’ and
teachers’ cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds have on education. This literature
depicts American education as a constructed social system that exists within the broader
social and cultural context of the country. Schools cannot separate themselves from the
cultural environment in which they exist. Scholars and researchers who write from this
perspective assume that, while no one is accused of having ill intent, schools and teachers
reinforce and maintain social stratiﬁcation and inequality. According to this literature,
teachers assess students through the lens of their own culturally skewed glasses and both
perpetuate and justify the unequal distribution of school resources and learning
opportunities. Because this body of literature uses culture to examine the embedded
assumptions about race and class that shape teachers’ assessment practices, I have labeled
it cultural literature.

One of the most prominent scholars in this literature is Pierre Bourdieu.
Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction posits that the educational system transmits and
rewards the culture of the dominant class. Schools require students to possess the cultural
capital, comprised of both linguistic and cultural understanding, of the dominant class in
order to succeed academically though schools do not teach such understanding. Through
this concealment, as Bourdieu refers to it, the educational system reinforces the styles of

the elites and leaves most individuals who are not members of the dominant class with

20

little hope of achieving upward social mobility (Dumais, 2002; Bourdieu & Passeron,
1977, 1990; Lareau, 2000; LaMont & Lareau, 1988; Roscigno & Ainsworth—Darnell,
1999; Fritzberg, 2001). “Given that the dominant culture lies at the core of the “hidden”
educational curriculum, it is often difﬁcult for children ﬁom the lower social strata to
grasp the material being taught” (Bourdieu & Passeron, as cited in Driessen, 2001).
Kalmijn & Kraaykarnp explain that “children who are exposed to cultural capital may be
better prepared to master academic material, may develop a taste for learning abstract and
intellectual concepts, and may be favored directly by teachers over children who have
less cultural capital” (1996).

Many American researchers have found that students who arrive in our public
schools at a disadvantage based on their race or class, ﬁnd an educational system that
does nothing to improve their standing; in fact, schools work to reinforce this socially
constructed disadvantage. Teachers’ assessment practices contribute to these processes.
Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell (1999) have shown that differences between the cultural
capital and educational resources available to black and white students are mirrored in
racial disparities in achievement measures. The relationship between students’ race and
class, teachers’ assessment practices and student achievement has been documented in
the literature on ability grouping and tracking (Dreeben, 1987; Oakes, 1986; Fritzberg,
2001; Anyon, 1981). Much of this literature ﬁnds that poor children arrive at school
behind their more afﬂuent peers in schooled competencies and that this disparity is
exacerbated by unexarnined ability grouping practices. Anyon (1981) correlated social
class with educational track placement. Further, she argued that academic content and the

quality of teacher-student interactions varied based on the socioeconomic status of the

21

student. Students in higher tracks were challenged with higher order thinking skills and
more instructional interactions with the teacher. Students in the lower tracks were given
more knowledge-based curriculum with lower expectations for success.

The landmark work by Ray Rist (1973; 2000) looked at ability grouping practices
of teachers and found that school not only mirrored the class system of the larger society
but also actively contributed to maintaining it. The teachers Rist observed made
judgments about students’ academic abilities before any performance-based evidence
could be gathered. The teachers’ instruction and interactions with students were based on
these judgments. These early impressions, which were heavily inﬂuenced by racial and
cultural bias, shaped teachers’ instructional decisions and interactions with students, and,
over time, became quite rigid.

While stereotypes and cultural expectations that are available in the broader social
context are not entirely within the control of teachers (Dumais, 2002), the way they
evaluate and analyze student work is. When analyzing student work, teachers are
inﬂuenced by students’ socioeconomic background and other contextual data; some
researchers have identiﬁed a direct connection between this background information and
grades. Paul DiMaggio (1982) found that the cultural capital of families had a highly
signiﬁcant impact on grades earned in school, approaching the contribution of measured
ability. He also identiﬁed a gender difference in the cultural advantage passed down from
well-educated parents to their children; daughters receive more beneﬁt than sons. Further,
in a randomized study, it was found that by varying the cultural background information

provided to teachers about a ﬁctional student, teachers’ assessment of an identical

22

portfolio of the ﬁctional student’s work resulted in grades that correlated to the perceived
amount of cultural capital of the student (Wilson & Martinussen, 1999).

Other research within this strand of literature has examined the role the race of the
teacher plays in shaping teachers’ assessment practices. When teachers do not share the
same cultural background as their students, they may be inﬂuenced in their decision-
making by cultural understandings shared by the dominant cultural, or cultural models,
that inform their interactions with their students. Cultural models are “taken for granted
models of the world which are widely shared by the members of a society” (Quinn &
Holland, as cited by Lipman, 1998). These “cultural models frame teachers’ educational
decisions and their response to students” (Lipman). Even when teachers share the same
cultural background as their students they may, as products of past racial or class
discrimination, have internalized beliefs about their students that mimic attitudes held by
the dominant community, but that work to the detriment of the students (Anyon, 1995).

These ﬁndings resonate with research that has long documented the relationship
between student achievement and economic and social structures over which the school
and classroom teacher have little control. Since the ﬁndings of Coleman (1 966), many
studies have looked at the relationship of a student’s background and academic
achievement. Empirical work that has examined test scores from schools across a broad
economic range has found that the higher the economic status of the student population,
the higher a school’s aggregate score on achievement tests. Student achievement is more
a function of the school’s demographic and socioeconomic status than of the
“effectiveness” of instructional practice (Alspaugh, 1991; Caldas (1993); Jencks et al.

1972; Klingele & Warrick, 1990; Sutton & Soderstrom, 1999).

23

Limitations of Current Literature

While each of these strands of literature addresses some aspect of assessment,
none fully explains the way teachers’ assessment practices develop and to what extent
they are inﬂuenced by various factors in the environment. The prescriptive literature uses
a technical lens to explain the rationale and need for various forms of assessment. Of the
three strands of literature under examination in this review, this is the broadest and most
contentious. The question of high stakes accountability testing is arguably the most
politically entangled issue in education today. Proponents argue that standardized
accountability testing is necessary to uphold high, uniform standards and to give
equitable access to all students. Opponents argue that accountability testing actually
lowers teaching standards by focusing instruction on narrowly deﬁned, discrete subject
matter knowledge. Despite the rationale of equity for all students, the proponents of high
stakes testing do not address the intractability of the achievement gap among races. Nor
do they have an alternate explanation for the direct relationship between the
socioeconomic status of students and their achievement scores. Another contentious issue
highlighted in this literature is the philosophical divide between traditional and
alternative assessment. Proponents of alternative assessment are often critics of more
traditional assessment, arguing that they assess only discrete measurable knowledge
while ignoring the process of learning. On the other hand, proponents of traditional types
of assessment counter that close-ended items and assignments are more objective and
reliable than alternative types of assessment. In sum, we are not left with an adequate
explanation of the way a classroom teacher negotiates his/her way through the territory of

assessment.

24

The classroom context literature uses a social lens to explain how teachers assess
their students; it draws on the local knowledge and expertise of the classroom teacher. It
acknowledges the variety of subtle forms of information a teacher can attain about
students; this assessment is immediate and considers more than discrete subject matter
knowledge. It acknowledges the complex milieu of the classroom, but it does not give us
a complete explanation of the forces brought to bear on teachers’ decisions concerning
assessment. Each classroom is populated with a diverse mix of students with a variety of
academic, social and emotional characteristics; teachers use a variety of measures to
evaluate students’ progress and development. This literature does not acknowledge the
multi-layered context in which classrooms exist. Teaching and learning occurs in a
context of social interactions (classroom) that are nested within broader institutional and
social relations (district/community). Policies, such as mandated testing come down from
higher levels of the school system itself (federal/state). An explanation of teacher choice
and decision-making that stops at the classroom door is thus incomplete. Classrooms are
not sealed environments separated from broader inﬂuences that deﬁne and limit the
choices teachers can make.

The cultural literature uses a cultural lens to explain school failure looking at
issues of race, class and gender, but it does not give us a complete understanding of the
way teachers assess their students. While it rightly points out that some students come
into the school system at a disadvantage because of their race, class or gender, it seems to
leave us with an “all or nothing” proposition. We either have to accept that teachers are
culturally insensitive and are the sole cause of student failure, or we have to reject the

hypothesis entirely. They leave little room to accept that some teachers are culturally

25

sensitive and take steps to counteract the hidden cuniculum of the dominant culture, but
do not have the wherewithal to entirely counteract larger social constraints to which they
themselves are subjected. Further, the cultural explanation of school failure deﬁnes the
problem as entirely social in nature and does not examine the possibility that it may be a
problem of measurement. The intractability of the achievement gap between the races
may stem in part from technical inadequacies in the structure of our measurement tools
rather than simply an inevitable march toward social reproduction. Finally, the cultural
explanation does not take into account the nature of teaching as both work and task. As
Lortie noted several decades ago, teaching is highly uncertain. Teachers have long
responded to such technical uncertainty by routinizing practices and reducing goals. This

is true regardless of the race or class of their students.

Situated Action as a Framework

In order to address the limitations of the previously described literature, I will
delineate situated action as a framework that offers advantages that are not present in
current literature. A situated action approach is built on the understanding that a full
explanation of individual activity needs to take into account the fact that choices and
action occur within a multilayered social context, which affects interpretation and
meanings at the local level (Vaughan, 1998, 2000; Suchman, 1987). Rather than isolate
an action from the circumstances, a situated action perspective examines the link between
an individual’s position in a structure and interpretive practices, meaning, and action at
the local level (Vaughan). Further, decision-making cannot be disentangled from the

social context, which shapes preferences and, thus, what an individual perceives as

26

rational. The ways people make sense of and act in their social world are informed by
frames of reference that get developed over time by practical experiences within
particular settings; these frames of reference are shaped by institutionalized beliefs
available in the larger society and by the norms and taken-for—granted assumptions about
appropriate action that exist at the organizational level (Anagnostopoulos, 2003). A
situated action perspective keeps the focus of research on the situational logic and
contingency of a situation while broadening our vision to include macro and meso level
factors, enabling us to examine the linkage between environment, organizations, and
individual action and meaning (Vaughan, 2002).

Diane Vaughan (2002) has traced the lineage of the situated action perspective
through organizational theory, as well as theories of the sociological nature of structure
and order. She credits Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell for contributing
“transformations” to sociological theory, resulting in a new “theory of practical action.”
They emphasized the cognitive dimension of action, focusing on “pre-conscious
processes and schema as [individuals] enter into routine, taken-for-granted behavior
(practical activity)” According to Vaughan, they drew on the works of Giddens on
structuration, Goffman on ritual order, and Collins on interaction ritual chains, ﬁnding
that these theorists maintained the importance of cognition and revealed the routine
elements of practical reason. Still missing, however, was the macro—micro link between
individual behavior and social structure. DiMaggio and Powell suggest that Bourdieu’s
(1977) theory of habitus, with its attention to taken-for—granted aspects of social action

and consciousness, make this connection.

27

Taking a situated action approach allows the researcher to take into account the
complexities of various contexts in order to understand the logic of decisions and actions
of individuals. It accounts for institutional logics, comprised of practices and symbolic
meanings, guided decision-making and, consequently, action.

The micro level focus and point of entry will allow us to observe the situational
logic and contingency that marks a situation while at the same time broadening our
vision to encompass macro and meso level factors, enabling us to examine the linkage
between enviromnent, organizations, and individual action and meaning (Vaughan,
2002)

To illustrate, in this study the situated action framework enabled me to investigate
the link between the multilayered, social context in which teachers work and teachers’
individual decisions and actions taken in the classroom. A full explanation of teachers’
assessment practices merged micro level factors that inﬂuenced teachers’ day-to-day
decisions and choices about assessment and grading, as well as the routines and rituals
that were part of everyday classroom practice, meso level factors within the school that
inﬂuenced the interpretation and implementation of policies and how these became the
shared norms of the school, and the macro level factors of federal and state accountability
policies, professional expectations and norms about teacher’s work, as well as cultural
ideas about achievement and how we measure it. These nested, multilayered forces
simultaneously narrowed options and shaped choices teachers considered rational at the
time they made them within the context of their work.

Table 1 illustrates a comparison of the explanation of teachers’ assessment

. practices that is currently available in the educational literature with the explanation

offered by the situated action perspective. The situated action perspective allows for a

28

more complete explanation of teachers’ assessment practices than is present in the

educational literature that has already been reviewed.

Explanation of Teachers’ Assessment Practices:

Comparing Educational Literature and Situated Action

 

Prescriptive

Classroom Context

Cultural

Situated Action

 

Micro

*Teachers’ lack
of assessment
literacy

‘How teachers
should use
assessment

*Teachers’
assessment decisions
based upon classroom
contingencies

*Teachers’ unexamined

assessment practices based

on students’ race, class,
gender (habitus)

*Teachers’ everyday
practices based on their
assessment literacy
*Teachers’ beliefs about
students, instruction &
learning

*Routines and rituals
*Daily contingencies

 

Meso

*Teachers’ decisions
and practices shaped by
collegial interactions
*Shared norms about
assessment
*school/district policies
and expectations

 

Macro

*Cultural models of race,
class, and gender
*Cultural models of
school success/failure

*Teachers’ assessment
practices shaped by
professional norms and
beliefs

 

*Cultural models of
race, class and gender
*Notions of school
success/ failure
*Beliefs about testing
*Federal/state
accountability policies

 

 

 

 

 

Table l

The prescriptive literature points to teachers’ lack of assessment literacy.
Educational policies assume that teachers will use the information gained from
standardized testing to both inform their instruction and to assess their students’ learning
needs, while the prescriptive literature criticizes teachers for not doing so. Prescriptive
literature, however, fails to look at the complex classroom environment in which teachers
work, it does not account for issues of race, class, or gender, nor does it consider the

mediating force the organization of schools can have on the choices teachers make about

29

 

assessment. The classroom context literature acknowledges the complex classroom
setting in which assessment practices take place, but it does not examine the multi-
layered context in which classrooms exist. It does not consider the broader institutional
and social context (district/community), nor does it explain how policies, such as
mandated testing, that come down from higher levels of the school system itself
(federal/ state) impact teachers’ assessment practices. The cultural literature considers the
role of habitus (micro) and cultural models (macro) and the way they impact a student’s
achievement, but it does not acknowledge the multilayered social context of schools.
Teachers and students draw on their own understandings of cultural factors while
negotiating those meanings within the context of their school.

I argue that in order to understand teachers’ assessment practices, we must
understand that people act and interpret messages in a nested, multilayered context; it is
within this context that teachers do their work. Applying the situated action perspective
gives me a systematic way to look at many things at once. At the micro level, it allows
me to examine how teachers’ everyday assessment practices are shaped by their
knowledge of assessment, their beliefs about instruction, their beliefs about students and
learning, as well as the routines and rituals they have developed over time in their
classroom. While allowing me to look at individual level processes, actions, and
interpretations and how they become routinized, at the same time they can be open to the
contingencies of local, everyday interactions. At the meso level, the situated action
perspective allows me to examine how teachers’ decisions and practices are shaped by
their interactions with other teachers, their shared norms about assessment and good

instruction, as well as their shared beliefs about students and what students are capable

30

of. At the school level, I am able to examine formal mandates from the district, and how
the district interprets and enacts policy mandates by both state and federal governments.
At the macro level, the situated action perspective allows me to examine how teachers’
assessment practices are shaped by broader understandings about schooling and what
teachers’ work is, and cultural models of types of students. All of these, taken together,
shape teachers’ understanding of the choices that are available to them and what makes
the most sense in any given situation. The situated action perspective allows me to

analyze the complex school environment in an organized manner.

31

Chapter Three

Methods

Research Design

In order to understand the socio-cultural processes at work and how they shaped
the assessment practices of elementary teachers, I used a qualitative case study approach
(Yin, 1994). This approach seemed to be most compatible with a situated action
perspective. According to Vaughan, “to fully capture the structure/culture/agency
link. . .case studies in naturalistic settings offer the greatest potential” (1998). This
approach provided the following beneﬁts: (a) it allowed me to study events as they
naturally happened and without manipulating them; (b) it allowed me to study teachers’
assessment practices in a real classroom context; and (c) it allowed me to collect multiple
sources of data around my questions (Yin, 1984). In addition, it allowed me to start with
analysis at the local level to understand teachers’ logic within their classroom context,
and then work out to the meso and macro levels.
Selecting the Site

My original goal was to have two elementary schools in each of two different
counties as sites for my study. I contacted principals who had an ongoing relationship
with the university; each was a placement site for the university’s interns. In June 2005,
three principals agreed to allow me to conduct my research study in their buildings. Since
I would not be able to talk to the teachers until August and knowing that some teachers

might not wish to participate in the study, I felt that the extra site would be good

32

insurance that I would still be able to attain two sites. In the case that all three schools
agreed to participate, I would have conducted my study at three sites.

In order to get the consent of the teachers to participate, I had the principals set a
time for me to meet with the teachers as a group. I presented an overview of my study to
the teachers. I then asked the principal to contact me when the teachers had decided
whether or not they wished to participate in the study. After presenting my research
model to the teachers in all three schools, the teachers at two of the schools chose not to
participate. I then proceeded to contact additional principals. I obtained agreement from
another school principal, but again, the teachers did not wish to participate. That left me
with one school site for my study. I procwded with that site.

While conducting my study at one site was not what I had planned, the single site
offered an advantage. Focusing on a single case allowed a depth of observation that
would not have been possible had I been working across different sites. By increasing my
time in one building, I not only got to know the teachers and the social/professional
relationships better, I was also able to capture the subtle and iterative processes by which
these teachers constructed and reconstructed their assessment and grading practices.
Although not generalizable, the in—depth observation made possible by the single case
provided the opportunity to theorize and generate new hypotheses about the relationships
of micro-, meso, and macro level processes that would otherwise have remained invisible
to me.

Kensington School 2
Kensington School is located in a city with a population of over 45,000.

According to the city’s website3 the racial makeup of the city is approximately 80%

 

2 All names used in this paper are pseudonyms, including school and teachers.

33

White, less than 10% Black, 6% Native American, 4% Hispanic/Latino, and under 2%
Asian/Paciﬁc Islander. The median income for a household in the city is approximately
$46,000, with approximately 5% of families living below the poverty line. Out of the
total population, approximately 8% of those under the age of 18 and 6% of those 65 and
older are living below the poverty line.

The National Center for Education Statistics has labeled the school district as
“urban ﬁinge of a mid-size city.”4 The district in which Kensington School was located
had ten elementary schools, three middle schools and one high school with a total school
population of nearly 7000 students. The district was bounded on the north by an urban
district, on the west by another district similar to itself, on the east by a mostly white,
middle-to-upper class suburb, and on the south by a mostly rural township that was
quickly becoming ﬁlled with new housing developments of large, expensive homes.

Given its location and demographics, Kensington School provided an ideal
context in which to explore the way teachers’ assessment decisions were inﬂuenced by
the nested nature of the classroom, the building and district, and the greater social
contexts in which they were located. The community was comprised of a mix of races
and economic levels; this provided a rich mix of diverse viewpoints that were represented
in the school population. The district had engaged in ongoing efforts to improve student
performance on mandated assessment tests at all levels. These efforts were manifest in

Kensington School and in the classrooms in which I conducted my research.

 

3 In order to maintain conﬁdentiality, the website is not being cited.

4 Urban Fringe of a Mid-size City: Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or non-place territory
within a CBSA of a Mid-size City and deﬁned as urban by the Census Bureau. Prior to 1994—95, deﬁned as
any incorporated place, Census designated place, or non-place territory within a CBSA or CSA and deﬁned
as urban by the Census Bureau, with a principal city with a population less than 400,000 or a population
density less than 6,000 people per square mile. NCES

34

Demographics of Student Population

Table 2 reports changes in the student population at Kensington School from the

1998-1999 school year to 2004-2005 school year, the last year for which statistics are

available.5 The * replaces the last digit in the total enrollment for the school. The other

categories are stated as a percentage of the total population for each school year.

Demographics of Kensington School Population6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School Year 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05

Total 41* 41* 42* 43* 39* 39* 37*

Enrollment

Total n/a 25% 30% 36% 46% 48% 50%

Free/Reduced

Asian 7% 6% 9% 4% 4% 6% 6%

Hispanic 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 5%

Black 1 7% 20% 26% 35% 40% 43% 42%

White 70% 70% 61% 57% 53% 47% 47%
Table 2

Table 2 shows that the number of students who qualiﬁed for free or reduced lunch
increased over ﬁve year’s time from 25% of the school’s population to 50% of the
school’s population. in addition, the racial distribution of the school population changed
from a 70% majority of White students to a more evenly balanced mix of White and
Black students. Further, this demonstrates that, even though the Black population in the
community was less than ten percent, they were highly represented in the population of

Kensington School.

 

5 National Center for Education Statistics: Common Core of Data Public School Data
6 Numerical data has been approximated to further obscure the identity of the school, yet not mislead
interpretations.

35

 

Grade Level/Subject Matter

In order to provide depth to this study, I concentrated my focus was on the ﬁfth
grade teachers and limited the content areas to social studies and reading. While social
studies is my main subject matter interest, there were good reasons to include reading in
the study. Reading is often integrated with social studies instruction because most often
students must read some sort of text during social studies instruction. Many teachers take
advantage of this integration by using the reading of social studies text for reading
instruction. In addition, in this study, reading is an umbrella term that includes language
arts and writing instruction. In the elementary grades, it is difficult, if not impossible to
parse out the instruction of reading, language arts and writing. The instruction of these
subjects is integrated and, therefore, all have been included in observations.

The ﬁfth grade was chosen as the focus of this study because of the schedule of
the state’s assessment tests. The ﬁfth grade is the site of several state assessment tests:
Reading, Writing, English/Language Arts, Math, and Science. The 2005-2006 school
year was the ﬁrst time the social studies state assessment test was given in the sixth
grade. The social studies test had previously been taken in the ﬁfth grade, so the ﬁfth
grade teachers were familiar with the test and its content coverage. In addition, since the
state moved the social studies test to the fall of the sixth grade, the ﬁfth grade teacher was
expected to provide the lions’ share of test preparation to the ﬁfth grade students who
would take the test the following fall as sixth graders.

Another complicating factor impacted this study. When I originally discussed my
project with the building principal, each ﬁfth grade was a self-contained classroom in

which each teacher taught all subject matter. At the time I started my study in the fall of

36

2005, the ﬁfth grade had departrnentalized instruction in science, social studies, math,

and reading/language arts. Instead of having two ﬁfth grade teachers who taught all

subjects to their own class, I had one ﬁfth grade teacher who taught science and social

studies to both classes and the other ﬁfth grade teacher who taught math and

reading/language arts to both classes.

In order to add breadth to this study, I included teachers in the fourth and third

grades who agreed to participate in the study. (One third grade teacher chose not to

participate in the study.) My rationale was to include the other teachers in the building

whose students took the state assessment tests. The year in which this study took place

was the ﬁrst time third grade students were included in the state assessment schedule.

This allowed me to make cross grade comparisons in relation to teachers’ decision

making and their assessment practices. In addition, it gave me a better understanding of

the social relationships at work in the building. Further, the principal and the academic

support coach were included in the interview schedule to include more cross-grade,

school context data.

Study Participants at Kensington School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Grade Years Teaching Years at Kensington
Steve Adams 5m 16 6
Sue Williams 5““ 2 1
Nancy Lyons 4m 19 8
Greg Murray 4‘h 5 1
Kim Anderson 3“ 27 16
Mary Locke Academic Support 24 16
Coach
Wilma Mathews Principal 6 (as teacher) 2 (as principal)
Table 3

37

 

Table 3 shows the participants in my study, along with their grade level or role in
the school, the total number of years they had been teaching, and the number of years
they have been at Kensington School.

Data Collection

I used several modes of data collection for this study: (a) scheduled interviews,
(b) classroom observations, (0) informal observations and conversations with
participants, ((1) observations of various staff meetings throughout the school year, and
(e) artifacts of practice.

Interviews-I conducted scheduled interviews with the two focus teachers six times
across the 2005-2006 school year (see Appendix A and B). I conducted two scheduled
interviews with the third and fourth grade teachers (see Appendix C), the principal (see
Appendix D), and the academic support coach (See Appendix E). In addition, I conducted
follow-up interviews with the focus teachers (see Appendix F), the principal (see
Appendix G), and the academic support coach (see Appendix H) in the fall of the 2006-
2007 school year. In addition to the questions in the interview protocols, I asked follow
up questions when appropriate to elicit more information or to clarify answers that were
given. These interviews were tape recorded and later transcribed.

Classroom Observations-I conducted classroom observations of all the teachers
who participated in this study, but I concentrated on the classrooms of the two ﬁfth grade
teachers. I made three classroom observations of the participating third grade teacher and
both fourth grade teachers. In addition, I was able to observe two lessons taught by the
academic support coach. I used a generic observation form (see Appendix I) on which I

noted the academic content being taught, the instructional strategies being used, the

38

student assignment, and the assessment for the assignment. While I asked teachers to
allow me to observe instruction in social studies and reading classes, they were entirely in
control of the lessons I observed. All observations were scheduled at the teacher’s
convenience; there were no surprise classroom observations.

Informal observations and conversations-I was able to make informal
observations of the teachers at various meetings throughout the year. I attended school
improvement team meetings (3), staff meetings (5) and meetings concerning the
administration of the state assessment tests (2). I also attended an all-day inservice of
teacher training for the Lindamood-Bell program. During these meetings I sat in close
enough proximity to be able to hear conversations and take notes, but I did not sit among
the teachers. I took notes during the meetings including the topics being discussed, any
side conversations I could hear, and noted seating arrangements and whether
seating/ grouping was directed or self-selected. In addition to these formal observations
and conversations, I had access to ad hoc conversations that took place between teachers
before and after school, and in the hallways. I made note of comments from these
conversations as soon after they took place as was possible. At times, I was able to repeat
what I heard directly into my tape recorder, such as when I got into my car.

Artifacts of practice — I asked the teachers to share with me any assessment
instruments they used throughout the year. I collected most of these at the time of an
observation of a lesson during which the artifact was being used. In one case, at the end
of the year Steve Adams gave me the book containing the social studies textbook
publisher’s assessments and marked the pages he had used. I made the copies myself. In

addition to assessment instruments, teachers also shared student assignment sheets,

39

rubrics used to evaluate student work, handouts from faculty meetings, and copies of
district assessments. The principal gave me a booklet that was given to parents about
mandated assessments, copies of the 3rd, 4th, and 5’h grade report cards, the school’s
annual report, and handouts ﬁom the professional development meetings.

Distribution of Observations and Interviews

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Grade Interviews Observations
Steve Adams 5 7 1 1
Sue Williams 5 7 14
Nancy Lyons 4 2 3
Greg Murray 4 2 3
Kim Anderson 3 2 3
Academic Support
Mary Locke Coach 3 2
Wilma Mathews Principal 3 n/a
Table 4

Table 4 shows the distribution of interviews and observations that took place with
the participating faculty at Kensington School. Most of the interviews and observations
were with the two ﬁfth grade teachers, Steve Adams and Sue Williams.

These modes of data collection combined breadth (interviews with faculty across
grade levels, members of SIT, the principal, the academic support coach) with depth
(scheduled interviews and observations of a subset of focus teachers). I was able to
observe several teachers across half-days of observation, rather than dropping in for a
bounded time period of a single lesson, giving me access to teachers’ ad hoc and informal
conversations with their colleagues. Observing in focus teachers’ classrooms for several
days in a row provided a sense of ﬂow and continuity of instruction in the near term, and
doing observations at different times in the school year provided insight into change over

time.

40

 

Data Analysis
Data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously throughout the study year
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). Initial codes identiﬁed emerging themes and highlighted
areas for additional data collection. After all data was collected I obtained N-vivo, a
qualitative data analysis software program, to further code and sort the interview
transcriptions. I did not use the software to code classroom observations, observations of
meetings or ad hoc conversations. I typed those up and coded them manually using the
same codes I had identiﬁed in the interview data. I crosschecked all forms of data to
detect disconﬁrming evidence (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
My codes for the teachers were as follows:
Teacher Knowledge and source of that knowledge
Subject Matter knowledge
Assessment knowledge
What/who determines subject matter content of instruction?
Teacher decision (micro)
School/district (meso)
Mandated tests (macro)
Where/how do teachers learn about their students?
Classroom interactions (micro)
Other teachers, school sources (meso)
Mandated tests (macro)
Grading
Teacher (micro)
School/district policy (meso)
My codes for the principal were as follows:
Mandated testing
District (meso)

NCLB/state assessment (macro)

Principal as a player in the process - link between meso/macro
Does principal emphasize macro testing expectations?

41

Does principal institute school-wide policy to meet/exceed
mandates?

In addition, in the N-vivo program I initially coded six “Free” nodes: Prescriptive,
Classroom Context, Cultural, Micro, Meso, and Macro. I added Social Studies Text and
Reading Text codes when it appeared that they could be factors to be considered in the
ﬁndings. In addition, I coded six major “Tree” nodes: Teacher Knowledge, Instructional
Content, Source of Knowledge About Students, Grading, School Culture, Classroom
Assessment Practices.

After the initial coding was completed, I summarized the micro, meso, and macro
inﬂuences for each of the focus teachers. I then did the same for the other participants. As
I did so, major themes and key interactions became evident.

Several features of my research design were intended to ensure that the patterns
and conclusions from this study would be representative of this speciﬁc research site.
These include intensive immersion at the research site across an entire school year
(Eisenhart & Howe, 1992), systematic sampling of evidence (Miles & Huberman, 1994),
efforts to explore disconﬁrrning evidence (Miles & Huberman, 1994), systematic coding

of data (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

42

Chapter Four

Classroom Context: Portraits of Teachers’ Embedded Assessment Practices

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to understand how teachers’ assessment practices are
situated in a multilayered context and what factors inﬂuence their decisions. Their
practices are shaped by the teacher’s own experiences, organizational norms, and broader
understandings of teaching and learning. Using the situated action perspective as an
analytic tool allows me to expose and examine the interactive nature of conditions,
inﬂuences, and factors of the micro, meso, and macro levels. These conditions and
norms, however, are not static; they are dynamic and can change over time or in speciﬁc
circumstances. While teachers spend most of their time teaching in their own classrooms
behind closed doors where they have autonomy to control their own instructional choices,
they are not immune ﬁom the normative pressure exerted by colleagues who share
common goals in a common workspace. At the same time, individual teachers can exert
inﬂuence on individual colleagues as well as the collective practices and norms of the
building. These individual and collectively agreed upon instructional and assessment
practices are further nested within broader cultural understandings and scripts available in
the environment regarding teaching, students, and schooling.

In order to understand the situated nature of teachers’ assessment practices and
the dynamic interaction of the micro, meso, and macro inﬂuences on them, in this chapter

I will provide detailed portraits of each teacher’s assessment practices. This chapter

43

focuses on the classroom context of the two ﬁfth grade teachers at Kensington School.
This allows for a side—by-side comparison of two different subject matters as it relates to
the teachers’ embedded assessment practices as well as their personal preferences, habits,
understandings and trainings that have gotten built up and into their everyday practice
over time. First, I present an overall picture of the teacher’s background and teaching
history, instructional resources used in their classroom, as well as a description of typical
instruction procedures and embedded assessment practices. In order to add breadth to
each portrait, I then give a description of an extended unit of study undertaken by each
teacher in their assigned subject area.

Steve Adams and Sue Williams are the ﬁfth grade teachers at Kensington School.
The ﬁfth grade curriculum was departrnentalized for the instruction of the four core
subject areas.7 Each teacher had a homeroom of students for whom they were
responsible, except for the subject matter taught by the other teacher. Steve taught
science and social studies to both classes and Sue taught math and reading/language arts.
In the morning, the teachers taught to their own homeroom of students. In the afternoon,
the students switched classrooms and were taught the other subjects by the other teacher.
I will ﬁrst present a portrait of Steve Adams who taught social studies to both ﬁfth grade
classes at Kensington School. This will be followed by a description of the instructional
and assessment practices of Sue Williams who taught reading and language arts to both

ﬁfth grade classes.

Steve Adams: 5’" Grade Social Studies

 

7 The four core subjects are math, science, social studies, and reading. As was described in the methods
chapter, this study focuses on the subjects of social studies and reading/language arts. The other subjects
are included only when they help explain the context.

44

Steve Adams came to teaching as a second career. Through his volunteer
involvement in his own children’s school, he found he was very interested in teaching as
a career. After successfully completing one education class, he decided to return to
school full-time in order to obtain teaching credentials. He majored in social studies at a
local college with a religious afﬁliation. He was a substitute teacher for two and a half
years in the adjacent urban district before getting his ﬁrst full-time teaching job. At the
time of this study, he had sixteen total years of teaching experience, six of which were in
Kensington School.

Steve’s teaching experience prior to arriving at Kensington had been in third
through sixth grades in a variety of classroom settings. He taught self-contained classes,
departrnentalized classes where he has shared responsibility with other teachers for
curriculum coverage, and he taught in a third through ﬁfth grade multi-age setting. In the
multi-age setting, there were three classrooms that participated in switching rooms for
math, language arts, science, and social studies. Students were grouped either by grade
level or by ability, depending on the subject. Steve remained in that classroom for three
school years, but with a change in administration, that program was eventually
discontinued. Steve has taught ﬁfth grade for the six years he has been at Kensington.

The 2005-2006 school year, the year of this study, was the ﬁrst time the ﬁfth
grade cuniculum had been departrnentalized at Kensington School. Steve chose to teach
science and social studies to both 5‘h grade classes, while the newly hired teacher, Sue
Williams, was assigned math and reading/language arts. Each teacher taught their
homeroom students in the morning, and in the aﬁemoon, classes switched for a block of

time to allow instruction to the other class. Soon after the school year started, Steve and

45

Sue mutually agreed that there was not sufﬁcient time available in the afternoon for the
instruction of both math and reading/language arts. Because there was more time
available in the morning when Steve taught his own homeroom, he took on the guided
reading portion of the reading/language arts curriculum for his own homeroom, and Sue
continued to teach his class the self-selected reading, writing, and working with words
portions of the reading/language arts cuniculum.

Steve used a variety of instructional resources to teach social studies at
Kensington School. He used the district selected social studies textbook8 as the
centerpiece of the 5‘h grade social studies curriculum. For the most part, the textbook
provided the scope and sequence of his instruction. He did supplement the textbook with
an economics unit he had obtained from other teachers in the building. In addition, he
used Time for Kidsg, a weekly news magazine which came with accompanying support
materials, such as copy-ready comprehension questions and other activities to support the
teaching of the topics covered in each issue. He also used worksheets from a book called
Daily Geography. '0 One page was usually assigned per week, rather than daily. He
skipped around the geography book depending on what related to the topic being studied
in the textbook at the time. Steve had also assembled a “packet” consisting of four
worksheets for each of the continentsl 1. The ﬁrst page included a map of the continent
with political and geographical information. The following pages consisted of questions,
some of which could be answered with information found on the map, and others that

require additional. research. In order to facilitate answering the various geography

 

8 The United States and its Neighbors (1993) Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company.
9 Time for Kids, World Report Edition (2006) Time, Inc.

'0 Daily Geography (1991) McDougal, Littell & Co.

” Frank Schaffer Publications, Inc.

46

questions, for these packets and the Daily Geography worksheets, a variety of reference
materials were available in the classroom such as maps, atlases, and the intemet. The
classroom had four desktop computers with encyclopedia programs, as well as two
additional sets of encyclopedias, which could be used for social studies research. The
school’s library was another resource for students to use for social studies assignments,
especially because of its extensive selection of biographies available for reports.

Social Studies Instruction in Steve Adams’ Classroom

My personal goal is that I cover the things we are required to cover in a

way that the kids ﬁnd interesting so they will be able to pick up the

information, and that they are successful working on activities that we do,

and they walk away ﬁ'om it remembering important points.

(KC.5SA.05.09.28)

The most notable feature of Steve’s classroom was that every available inch of
wall space is covered with signs, posters, and displays of science and social studies
related topics. The social studies displays ranged from posters of world explorers, picture
charts of colonial times, a chart of ﬂags of the world, maps of each continent, a ﬂow chart
depicting the three branches of the federal government, and posters about Native
American tribes. The bulletin boards were covered with layers of overlapping pictures,
notices, schedules and other information. Every ﬂat surface in the room was covered with
piles of books, papers, supplies, and student projects. There was a permanent teaching
station at the front of the room near a useable section of whiteboard that included a table
for the teacher’s materials, an overhead projector on a cart, and a pull-down screen. This

area too, was overﬁlled with an accumulation of the effluent of six years of teaching in

the same classroom.

47

Student desks were arranged in groups to facilitate cooperative activities. Many
times, students were asked to work with their seating partners. Most of the time they were
allowed to self-select partners with whom they wished to work cooperatively; however,
Steve did occasionally assign working partners based on academic or social
considerations. Sometimes, he chose to partner a student who was “struggling” with
another who was “doing well” in order to give peer support. At other times, he assigned
partners who would not “be too social” in order to maintain order in the classroom and to
facilitate students getting their work done. In addition, he did not hesitate to reassign self-
selected partners if they did not maintain behavior expectations.

Steve taught social studies twice a day; in the morning he taught his homeroom
class, and in the afternoon the classes switched and he repeated the day’s lesson for Sue
Williams’ class. The day’s agenda and schedule was always written on the board for all
students to see so they could have materials ready for class.

Embedded Assessment Practices

During a typical social studies lesson in Steve’s class, student work was corrected
as a whole class activity. In one such lesson, class began with students correcting a Time
for Kids worksheet that was completed after reading the previous week’s issue. Steve
kept a jar containing craft sticks, each with a student’s name. He randomly pulled a stick
and called on the student whose name was on the stick. He occasionally asked a follow
up question to the student’s response, such as “Did the article name the students?” (N o)
“How many years was it?” (9 years). When one student shared an answer that other
students disagreed with, he had them go back to the article to support their answers. At

one point when another student conﬁrmed that the disputed answer had been correct,

48

Steve said, “You have a good researcher sitting next to you.” In one case, students had
interpreted a question differently and come up with different answers. Steve agreed with
the students that the question was not clear and referred to the teacher’s answer sheet to
conﬁrm the intended answer. He told students who had an alternate answer to the
question that if they could provide evidence from the article to support their answer, he
would accept it. When they were nearly ﬁnished correcting the worksheet, Steve pointed
out to them that they could have gotten clues from the subheadings in the article to help
them ﬁnd the answers. He made a connection to material they had read previously when
the article mentioned Asian features on a skull found in Washington State. He reminded
them that they had previously read about the theory of a land bridge that might have been
used by ancient people to come to the North American continent. When all questions had
been covered, he announced that the assignment would get 10 points. There would be 1
point for each of the seven questions and one each for including the student’s name,
student number”, and the date. This same procedure was used when correcting students’
answers to end-of-chapter questions in the textbook.

Lessons usually included reading a selection either from the textbook or from an
issue of Time For Kids. In one such lesson, students were assigned a couple pages in the
textbook. Prior to reading Steve set the purpose for the reading selection by posing the
question, “Why was trade important to New England?” Students pair-read the selection.
When they ﬁnished reading, they were asked to cooperatively write a paragraph, with a

minimum number of sentences, to answer the question. Steve asked for “someone with

 

'2 Each student was assigned a student number that corresponded to the alphabetical order his or her name
appeared in the class list. In this way, Steve could quickly put assignments in number order before be
marked his grade book This method saved time for him.

49

good handwriting” to write the pair’s answer. When asked how he would assess the
assignment, he said he would see if they were ﬁnding the answer.

Steve included geography in his social studies curriculum with materials that were
not included in the textbook. Daily Geography worksheets were given once a week and
the packets of worksheets on the continents were distributed occasionally when they did
not have other projects in the works. One such lesson that was observed included both the
Daily Geography worksheet and the packet for Australia. Before students were “let
loose” to do their work, Steve went over the various places students could look to ﬁnd the
answers. He randomly drew student names to assign eight students to the four computers
available in the classroom. Students then worked either alone or in groups to complete
the assignments. Students were given one week to complete the Daily Geography
worksheet and two weeks to complete the Australia packet. The Daily Geography
worksheet would be corrected in a whole class activity, each question being given one
point. Steve would correct the Australia packet using the rubric he had designed for the
assignment (Appendix J), which was worth 100 points. Each assignment would be part of
the marking period grade. He often provided his students with both an assignment sheet
that explained his expectations as well as a rubric that showed students the points they
received for each part of the assignment. Examples of these are found in Appendix K and
Appendix L.

Steve designed “hands-on” assignments that he included as part of his social
studies instruction. For example, he had students design and create a talisman or amulet
in connection with their study of Native Americans of North America. They also built a

model teepee. Each of these assignments was accompanied by a rubric Steve created that

50

denoted the point value of each portion of the assignment. For example, the talisman
assignment (Figure l, on p. 139) included a written portion: deﬁnition of talisman (4pts.),
description of materials used (3 pts.), reason they were used (3 pts.), the meaning the
student ascribed to his or her own talisman (15 pts.); as well as an artistic portion: the
actual talisman made by the student (30 pts.), and a color drawing of the talisman (15
pts.). In addition, students are given an additional 30 points for assembling the written
pieces and the color drawing into a ﬁnal copy that was turned in.

Steve gave occasional summative tests that became part of the marking period
grade. The chapter and unit tests were provided along with the textbook series. He
sometimes adjusted these tests, deleting material he might have skipped in the textbook
or adding questions on material he had emphasized.

Economics unit

Steve’s economics unit spanned the entire school year, with parts of it initiated
early in the school year and the culminating activity at the end of the year. At the
beginning of the school year, Steve’s students “applied” for various classroom jobs (such
as cleaning the gerbil cage, passing out materials, keeping track of playground
equipment, being materials vendors or bankers for the class bank, etc.) for which they
were paid weekly in classroom money. If a student was absent he or she had to pay the
substitute who completed the job while they were away. On the weekly payday, students
were paid $5.00 in classroom money if they had turned in all ﬁve of the assignments
Steve had designated for that week. The bankers managed student accounts and kept
track of accumulated savings. Students participated in a classroom contest to design the

“money” to be used for the year. They participated in a poll concerning the products and

51

services they wished to have included in their day of sale; other students referred to the
list when deciding what business they would create.

Near the end of the school year, the projects began in earnest. Each student, or
pair of students, if they chose to work together, decided on a service or product they
would sell. They named their business, applied for a business license, rented a location
for the business, rented special equipment for the day of the sale (such as a power cord),
and prepared advertising posters. Students had to “buy” or “rent” materials used to make
their posters. Steve taught lessons on sales and marketing, including a lesson on various
forms of businesses (sole proprietor, partnership), as well as advertising techniques
(bandwagon, testimonial, celebrity endorsement, comparison, etc.) to be used on their
posters.

The culmination of the unit consisted of one hour of sales that took place on two
days, a week apart. After the ﬁrst day, students were encouraged to evaluate what went
well and what could be improved, what product or service sold well or didn’t sell well, to
determine what further supplies would be needed for another day of sales. Teachers and
students in all other classes in the building were given a complimentary amount of class
“money” to spend at these businesses. Each class came to the sale for an assigned time
slot in order to give every student in the building an opportunity to participate.

The things Steve took into account as he assessed his students’ participation in the
economics activity were: their proﬁt and loss sheet, their participation in the product idea
poll, whether their business poster contained the requisite components, whether the
business license contain the name of the business and was it properly endorsed, whether

the business was set up in the manner described on their business plan, as well as

52

worksheets on business terminology and concepts. Points were assigned for each of these

and were included in their grade for the marking period.

Sue Williams: 5”I Grade Reading/Language Arts

Sue Williams was a second year teacher at the time of this study. She graduated
from a large, state university in 2003 with a major in science. In the ﬁrst year after
graduation, she taught as a substitute in various elementary buildings in the area,
including the urban district that is adjacent to the site of this study. In January of that
year, she obtained a long-term substitute job teaching French in a middle school. The
following school year began with more subbing in elementary schools. In November she
obtained a long-term subbing job teaching ﬁfth grade in an elementary school in the
urban district. She was the fourth teacher in that classroom at the time she was hired. She
was hired at Kensington School in June of 2005. This gave her the summer to prepare for
her ﬁrst full-time job.

At the time she was hired at Kensington School, she knew that she would be
responsible for teaching reading/language arts and math to both ﬁfth grade classes. Over
that summer, Sue received one-on-one instruction in the Four Blocks framework for
literacy instruction from the academic support coach at Kensington. Sue was somewhat
familiar with the model because it had been used in her previous school, but she had not
been given any Four Blocks training at that time. In her ﬁrst year teaching at Kensington,

she received further professional development training in Everyday Math (three

53

113 writing, and Big Four Blocks literacy model, which I describe

sessions), Six Traits +
below.

Sue Williams used a wide variety of instructional resources for reading and
language arts. The main source of reading material was the district’s adopted textbook
series.14 In addition to using the stories for guided reading, she also used the end-of-story
comprehension questions and writing prompts. She had several classroom sets of novels,
including Number the Stars15 , which she used for guided reading content. She assessed
students after reading the novel using materials ﬁ'om a Literacy Unit book that
accompanied the set of novels. She also used a notebook of miscellaneous materials for
reading and language arts instruction that she had compiled of materials shared by the
reading consultant from her previous teaching position. She started the year adhering
closely to a district-supplied 20-day plan of reading and language arts lessons speciﬁcally
designed to help students get ready to take the state assessment in October. She continued

using these materials throughout the school year. She also used Daily Oral Language16

materials for grammar and punctuation instruction.

Four Blocks Literacy Model
Kensington School used the Four Blocks Literacy Model as a framework for
reading and language arts instruction. Big Blocks is a modiﬁed version of Four Blocks

for 3rd grade and higher. Sue Williams used the Big Blocks format for her ﬁfth graders.

 

13 Northwest Regional Educational laboratory. (2004). This writing assessment model attributes six key
qpalities deﬁne strong writing; the “+1” is presentation or the look of the writing on the page.
Literacy at Work (1996) Scholastic, Inc.
'5 Number the Stars. (1989) Lois Lowry. Houghton Mifﬂin Company. Boston, MA.
'6 Daily Oral Language, Young People’s Press.

54

The Four Blocksl7 ﬁamework was developed more than a decade ago for ﬁrst
through third grades (Cunningham, Hall, & Defee 1991, 1998). Four Blocks is what
many would call a balanced literacy18 approach. Based on the premise that children learn
to read in different ways, this model provides 150 minutes per day of four different
approaches, or blocks, for reading instruction. What follows is a description of the
Guided Reading, Self-Selected Reading, Writing, and Working with Words blocks of
instruction").

Guided Reading Block — the purpose of this block is to build comprehension and
ﬂuency, and to introduce students to a variety of texts including stories, informational
text, and poetry. The teacher uses a variety of pre-, during-, and post-reading strategies to
instruct students of all reading levels in whole class or small group reading sessions. The
teacher may read a portion of the selection aloud, an individual student may read a
portion, or students may take turns reading to each other (pair share). During a guided
reading instruction block, students receive a great deal of support from the teacher and
classmates with the goal of becoming independent readers.

Self-Selected Reading Block — the purpose of this block is to build ﬂuency in
reading, to allow students to read and enjoy text that is appropriate to their own
independent reading levels, and to build conﬁdence in students as readers. The block

may begin with the teacher reading selection aloud. Students choose what they want to

 

'7 Four Blocks materials published by Carson-Dellosa Publishing Company, Inc.

l8Over the years, there have been two general insu'uctional approaches to reading instruction. They are
generally known as Phonics and Whole Language approaches. Each reﬂects different underlying
philosophies and stress different skills. The philosophy underlying the Whole Language approach is that
reading is a natural process, much like learning to speak, and that children exposed to a great deal of
authentic, connected text will naturally become literate without much in the way of explicit instruction in
the rules and conventions of printed text. Phonics advocates argue that in order to learn to read, most
children require a great deal of explicit instruction in the rules of printed text. A balanced literacy approach
seeks to use the best of both phonics and whole language in order to meet the needs of most readers.

'9 Adapted from http://www.paris.kl 2.tn.u§/~meyerk/overview.htm. Accessed November 2006.

55

read from a wide range of levels, topics, and genres. While students silently read self-
selected reading material, the teacher holds one-on-one conferences with three to ﬁve
students a day. The teacher keeps a log noting progress, preferences, and responses.
Every child should have a one-on-one conference with the teacher every week. At the end
of the self-selected reading block the teacher may choose to have a student share, for
about two minutes, what they have read and answer a few questions from other students.

Writing Block - The purpose of this block is to build ﬂuency in writing, to apply
the writing process, to reﬁne and apply knowledge of phonics, and to build students’
conﬁdence as writers. This block begins with a mini-lesson where the teacher models real
writing incorporating a skill and/or strategy. Students spend time writing on either a self-
selected topic or a class assignment. The teacher conducts editing conferences with the
scheduled students while the rest of the class writes. Sometimes the session ends with a
student sharing their writing and answering a few questions from classmates.

Working with Words Block - The purpose of this block is to ensure that all
children read, spell, and use high-frequency words correctly, and that they learn the
patterns necessary for decoding and spelling. While the lower grades use a word wall
covered with the most commonly occurring words, the fourth grade posts a list of the
“Nifty Thrifty Fifty” words and the ﬁfth grade posts “Big Words for Big Kids.” Words
are also introduced from the curriculum. The teacher guides whole class activities to help

children learn spelling patterns.

Reading/Language Arts Instruction in Sue Williams’ Classroom

56

I like parts of it; I don’t like other parts of it. But you can still kind of

make it your own as long as you’re doing those four kinds of

things. . .that’s a big part of where things come from.

Sue Williams’ classroom was bright, orderly, and arranged to create instructional
spaces. While a few posters displayed math themes, most of the materials on the walls
conveyed that this was a classroom focused on reading and language arts. A teaching
station was located in front of a large white board, and included an overhead projector
and a pull-down screen. In one corner of the room, shelves lined the wall with books
sorted by reading level, topic, and genre. Carpet on the ﬂoor, a beanbag chair, director’s
chair, and small table with four chairs made this a comfortable comer for reading or small
group work. Colorful posters on the wall listed editor’s marks, steps in the writing
process, and book genres. In addition, state standards related to the current instruction

120. Student desks had been clustered into groups of four to

were posted on the wal
facilitate collaboration. The room arrangement was changed several times throughout the
school year, giving everyone a different vantage point.
Embedded Assessment Practices

A typical reading/language arts lesson in Sue Williams’ classroom began with
self-selected reading. Students chose their own reading matter. While the class read
silently, Sue would call one student at a time to read to her and answer comprehension
questions about the content of what they had read. Sue kept careful records of what each

student chose to read, their ﬂuency, the strategies used, their comprehension, and the

level of reading material they chose. She generally completed three to four individual

 

2° W.PR.05.04 Constructively and speciﬁcally respond orally to the writing of other by identifying sections
of the test to improve writing skills.

W.PR.05.05 Independently and collaboratively edit and proofread writing using grade level checklists.
W.PS.05.01 Exhibit individual style and voice to enhance the written message.

57

conferences in the time allotted for SSR and met with each student individually every two
weeks.

For the guided reading segment of the Four Blocks literacy model Sue usually had
her students read in pairs or to themselves. Whether the assigned reading selection was
from the district selected textbook series or a novel, she used pre-reading, during reading,
and post-reading strategies to set the purpose for reading and monitor comprehension
throughout the reading process. Class discussion of the reading selection was usually
included. Following the reading selection, students were given a short assignment to be
completed independently and then shared in pairs. Occasionally, small groups would
collectively discuss and compare what each had found. Sue collected these written
assignments to monitor student work. Sue also had students write out answers to
comprehension questions included in the textbook for each story read. These assignments
would be given a point value and become part of the marking period grade. At the
completion of a novel, Sue gave a comprehension test. For example, after reading

t21 that included matching the character to the correct

Number the Stars. she gave ates
description, some true or false, some ﬁll in the blank, and an essay question (student
chose one of three questions to answer). The score on this test was used as part of the
marking period grade.

The writing block of language arts instruction usually began with a mini-lesson on

a speciﬁc skill or strategy. For example, Sue would teach a short lesson on commas or

 

2' Taken from literature unit book accompanying Number the Stars. By Kathy Jordan, published by
Teacher Created Materials, Inc. ISBN # 1-55734-424-8

58

homophones. Another short lesson might be built on a Daily Oral Language22 example.
The mini-lesson would be followed by a writing lesson. Most of these lessons spanned
several days, in the manner of the following lessons on writing cross-text analysis. On the
ﬁrst day, Sue read The Legend of the Ladv’s Slipper.23 On the second day, she reviewed
the previous day’s story and elicited from students examples of courage that were
exhibited in that story. On the second day, she read Brave Irene.24 Throughout the
reading of the story she asked comprehension questions and asked the students to predict
what they thought would happen next in the story. After the story, she asked students to
suggest ways Irene was brave. She asked value-laden follow-up questions to student
responses, such as ‘was that foolish,’ or ‘was she right or wrong?’ The class then
produced a comparison chart of ways the stories were similar and ways they were
different. The next day the school’s academic support coach, Mary Locke, modeled for
Sue how to go about teaching the writing of cross-text analysis. For this lesson, the
support coach also modeled for students by “thinking out loud” as she considered what
she would include in her paragraph. The students offered suggestions that were then
included in the paragraph. In successive lessons, Sue provided students with different
texts that were paired because of some common theme. Students read the stories and, on
their own, wrote a cross-text analysis paragraph. These paragraphs were evaluated using
the same rubric that would be used to evaluate student writing on the state’s assessment

test and the district’s common assessment test. Other student writing assignments were

 

22 Daily Oral Language lessons consist of several sentences that contain grammar or spelling errors. These
are displayed to the students (on board or overhead) and read out loud by the teacher. The students then
write the sentences correctly. Procedures for DOL vary widely depending on teacher preferences.

2’ The Legend of the Lady’s Slipper (2001). Kathy-jo Wargin. Sleeping Bear Press, Chelsea, MI.

2’ Brave Irene (1986). William Steig. Sunburst Book.

59

also scored using this rubric. The students’ scores became part of the marking period
grade.
Poetry Unit

Sue started her poetry unit with the Haiku. She read the book Haiku Hike,25 about
a class that goes on a hike and writes haiku poems about what they saw on their hike.
Using the overhead projector, Sue wrote the requirements for a haiku and displayed
samples. She and her students wrote a haiku together. She then distributed a topic poster
to students in each group of clustered desks (bird, spring, ground, night, sky). Each group
wrote on the poster ideas related to their poster’s topic. Students then rotated to the
different topic posters until each group had written on each poster. Sue used the poster
ideas to help the whole class co-write a haiku about each topic. Students then wrote a
haiku of their choice in their writing journal. At the end of class, some of the students
read their work to the class.

Sue taught similar lessons for couplets, autobiographical poems, limericks,
diamante, and cinquain, having students write their own version of each poem in their
writing journal. At the end of the lesson on cinquain, she distributed 4x6 index cards to
students. She asked them to write their favorite cinquain on one side of the card and to
illustrate it on the other side. Sue made a booklet of these poems to have on display
during parent-teacher conferences.

At the end of the unit, Sue had her students type their poems when they were in
the computer lab. Sue reviewed them for spelling and grammatical errors. Then each

student assembled his or her poems into a booklet. To grade this assignment, Sue created

 

2’ Haiku Hike. (2005) Fourth Grade Students of St. Mary’s Catholic School of Mansﬁeld, Massachusetts.
Scholastic, Inc. New York.

60

a rubric that gave a possible 15 points for each type of poem, additional points for
creativity, and points for oral presentation, for a total of 100 points.

As the culminating activity for the poetry unit, the room was rearranged into a
“coffee house” atmosphere. Desks were pushed back against the wall, lamps were
brought in the room, rugs and cushions were on the ﬂoor for seating, and hot chocolate
was served. Students took turns sitting on a stool in front of the group reading their
poems. Each student read at least one poem that they had written themselves, receiving
feedback ﬁom classmates.

Summary of Embedded Assessment Practices of Steve Adams and Sue Williams

In this section I will identify the assessment practices of each teacher separately.
First I will examine the practices of Steve Adams, then I will examine the practices of
Sue Williams.

Summary of Steve Adams ’ Assessment Practices

Table 5 summarizes the forms of assessment used by Steve Adams in his ﬁfth

grade social studies class and the purpose for which he used the information:

Steve Adams’ Use of Assessment

 

Table 5 . . Lesson Promotion/ Screen
Grading Grouping Content

Assrgnment Retention for
Purpose: (Across) Serv1ces

 

 

Sources of information: (Down)

 

Last year's teacher

 

_B_eginning of year diﬁnostic

 

Daily interactions/Social behavior X

 

Informal/observational assessment x X

 

Teacher designed assessment X

 

Textbook assessment X

 

District assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State assessment X x

 

 

61

Standardized assessment j I I l l I
Table 5 Continued

 

In order to assign a marking period grade to each student, Steve drew on a number
of resources. He used informal, observational assessments of his students; such as the
way he monitored his students’ work in his economics unit. He used various assessment
tools he had designed himself; such as the rubrics he wrote to accompany his lessons on
the design and construction of teepees and talismans. He also utilized the summative
assessments that accompanied the district-selected textbook series, including both end of
chapter questions and the publishing company prepared tests. In some cases be adjusted
the chapter tests to more closely match what he had actually taught.

When grouping students, he based his decisions on knowledge he had gathered
through daily interactions with students and his understanding of their social interactions
with other students. In addition, he sometimes made these choices based on the academic
needs of his students. For example, he sometimes paired a “struggling” student with
another who “is on top of it” even if they weren’t friends. At other times, he asked
students who might be “too social” to either work by themselves or with a different
partner.

There were no district or standardized assessments of social studies in the ﬁfth
grade, so these categories did not apply to Steve. However, he reported that he used what
he had come to know over time about the state assessment test to determine both lesson
content and the assignments he gave to his students. For example, he reported that the
state assessment asked about various Native American tribes and how they lived, and also
about early movement over land bridges, so he emphasized this information in his

lessons.

62

This summary shows that Steve Adams was inﬂuenced by a number of factors.
He used the textbook that was supplied by the district. He supplemented this with
materials he either attained himself or gathered from colleagues; in addition he made his
own additions to the social studies curriculum. He used personal knowledge of his
students that he attained through classroom interactions in order to grade and group his
students. He was inﬂuenced by his own accumulated teaching experience that told him
what could be expected on state assessment tests. So we can see, in the case of Steve, that
micro, meso, and macro factors worked together to shape his assessment practices.
Summary of Sue Williams ’Assessment Practices

Table 6 summarizes the forms of assessment used by Sue Williams in her ﬁfth
grade reading/language arts class and the purpose for which she used the information:

Sue Williams’ Use of Assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Lesson . Promotion/ Screen
Purpose: (Across) Grading Grouping Content Assrgnment Retention for

Serv1ces

Sources of information: (Down)

Last year's teacher

Egginning of year diagnostic

Daily interactions/Social behavior X

Informal/observational assessment X X X

Teacher designed assessment X

Textbook assessment X X

District assessment X X

State assessment X X

Standardized assessment (SR1)
Table 6

In order to assign a letter grade for her students’ reading and language arts work,
Sue used several sources of information. Her own informal observations informed her

assessment of students’ reading comprehension. For example, she found some

63

discrepancy between the understanding students showed through their written answers to
comprehension question and answers they were able to give her during reading
conferences. This changed the way she graded some students because she factored in the
understanding that was shown in one-on-one conferences even if the student hadn’t
shown the same understanding in written work. She designed her own assessments, such
as the rubric she designed for the poetry unit. She also used the textbook comprehension
questions found at the end of each story as a resource for grading students. She recorded
the SRI on the report card as mandated by the district, but did not use it to determine their
grade. She would not give a student a failing reading grade just because they read below
grade level. On the other hand, if a student with high ability did not seem to be putting
forth their best effort, she lowered their grade.

When grouping or pairing students to work together she took into account the
student’s social connections to other students, avoiding putting students together that
would enjoy each other’s company rather than work on their assignment. In addition, she
tried to pair students who would bring different strengths to the task. Sue drew upon her
own understanding of her students’ reading progress to make grouping decisions; she
tried not to put students together whose reading levels were too far apart in ability.

Sue’s instructional content was directly inﬂuenced by what she learned about her
students through both informal and formal assessments. When she noticed in SSR
conferences as well as the textbook assessments that her students did not understand the
author’s purpose or that they had difﬁculty making inferences, she included more lessons
aimed at those skills. Her lesson content was also directly inﬂuenced by the state and

district’s mandated assessments. She made sure that her lessons, especially in writing,

64

covered the grade level content expectations of both the state and district. In addition,
students’ assignments were designed to prepare her students to do well on those tests. For
example, writing lessons and the student assignment ﬁ'om cross-text analysis lessons
would be very familiar to students when they would encounter those questions on the
state and district tests.

In this summary, we can see multiple levels of inﬂuence on Sue’s assessment
practice. In grading, she used her own preferences for determining which aspects of
student work she would include in the grade as well as the weight afforded to each. She
used the knowledge she gained about her students through daily interactions in the social
context of the classroom. She was inﬂuenced by the school’s Four Blocks model for
literacy and writing instruction. She also utilized the state assessments’ scoring rubric to
evaluate students’ writing samples. In the case of Sue, we also see micro, meso, and
macro inﬂuences at work in her assessment practices.

Summary
In sum, my interviews and observations of these teachers show two teachers with very
different assessment practices. In part, this difference can be explained by differences in
subject matter taught and the teaching experience of the two teachers. As I’ll show in the
remaining chapters, however, these differences can also be explained by the dynamic
interplay of micro, meso, and macro factors that impacted these teachers to varying
degrees; each responded to external pressures differently. In the next chapter, I trace the
way the state assessment entered into the classrooms of Sue and Steve and impacted the
content of their instruction. Further, I identify the mediating inﬂuences of both the district

and the school on these teachers’ responses to the state assessment.

65

Chapter Five

State Assessment Linked to Instruction

One assumption that underlies mandated standardized testing at both federal and
state levels is that such tests will help teachers better assess their students’ academic
progress and guide them in adjusting their instruction to meet the academic needs of their
students (Hirsch, 1987, 1996; Bennett, 1988; Ravitch, 1995; Ravitch & Firm, 1987; Smith
& O’Day, 1991; Aronowitz, 1996). This chapter explores whether and how mandated
state tests helped Sue and Steve assess their students’ learning and informed their
practice. In contrast to the assumption of policymakers that the state assessment directly
informs and improves teachers’ practice, this chapter will show that the effects of the
state assessment on Steve and Sue’s instruction were mediated by district and school
policies. The state assessment shaped and informed their instruction, but not directly as is
often assumed by policymakers; rather, it entered Sue and Steve’s classroom practices
through the mandates and resources that the district and school created in response to
state assessment. It was further mediated by the teachers’ response to these mandates and
use of these resources. Whether and how Sue and Steve used these resources depended
on the subjects they taught, their relationship to key school actors and, in Sue’s case, her
own perceptions of the credibility of the resources.

In the next section, I explore the state’s assessment policies at the time of this
study. Next, I turn to the district and school’s responses to these state policies. I then
trace how the responses made by the district and the school conditioned Sue and Steve’s

own responses and use of the state assessment in their teaching.

66

State ’s Assessment Policies

The state in which Kensington School exists has aligned its assessment policies
with the federal No Child Left Behind Act (2001), commonly called NCLB. Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) is one of the cornerstones of the NCLB Act. AYP is a measure of
a school’s year-to year student achievement on the state’s assessment tests. Under NCLB,
each state must develop annual target goals for AYP. The state must raise the targets in
gradual increments with the expectation that 100 percent of the students will demonstrate
proﬁciency on state assessments by the 2013-14 school year. If a school does not attain
the target AYP goal, as set by the state, for two or more years in a row, it falls under a
plan of consequences and support from the state and is designated a “high priority
school.”

In addition, the plan of consequences and support differed for Title I or non-Title
I schools.26 Because Kensington School received Title I monies ﬁom the federal
government, had it not met the state’s AYP benchmarks in any two or more consecutive
years, it would have been designated a Title I high priority school. Under the state’s plan,
Kensington School would have been placed on a Phase 1 plan for Title 1 high priority
schools. (See Appendix N for the full plan of consequences and support for Title 1 high
priority schools from the state’s Department of Education website.) In each succeeding
year that the school did not meet AYP benchmarks, it would have been moved to the next
phase of sanctions and support. Under phase 1, the school would be required to notify

parents of the school’s status and offer them the option of transferring their child/ren to a

 

2" Federal Title I funds provide ﬁnancial assistance to schools with high numbers or high percentages of
poor children to help ensure that all children meet state academic standards. Federal funds are allocated
through formulas based primarily on census poverty estimates and the cost of education in each state.
Source: US. Department of Education website

67

different school with the transportation being provided by the school or district. In
addition, the school would be required to write a school improvement plan (SIP) and to
use 10% of Title I funds for targeted professional development for teachers. The state’s
plan offered support for schools in phase 1 by providing Process Monitors who would
visit the school four times a year. These monitors would provide a comprehensive needs
analysis for the school. The state also provided the School lrnprovement Framework and
the School Improvement Plan template to support the development of the school
improvement plan. The full plan (Appendix N) shows that in each consecutive year that a
school does not meet AYP, it receives an increasing amount of consequences and support
from the state. Each of the elementary schools in the district under study, including
Kensington, met the state’s AYP requirements and did not fall under the plan of
consequences and support.

The state developed a schedule of tests, as shown in table 7, for grades 3-8 based
on the requirements of NCLB. NCLB currently requires that testing begin in the third
grade. It determines AYP based on school-wide scores in English/Language Arts and
Mathematics. While science and social studies are included in the state’s testing schedule,
these subjects are not included in NCLB mandates.

Schedule of Subjects Tested on State Assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade Subjects Tested
3 English/Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics
4 ELA, Mathematics
5 ELA, Mathematics, Science
6 ELA, Mathematics, Social Studies
7 ELA, Mathematics
8 ELA, Mathematics, Science

 

 

Table 7

68

 

The preceding table shows that in each year from grades three through eight,
students are tested in English/Language Arts and mathematics. In ﬁfth and eighth grades
they are also tested on science. In the sixth grade, along with ELA and mathematics, they
are also tested on social studies. The ﬁfth graders of Kensington School were tested on
ELA, mathematics, and science. Steve’s students were not given the social studies test in
ﬁfth grade because they would take that test the next year in the sixth grade.

The 2005-2006 school year, the year of this study, was the ﬁrst time that the state
assessment moved ﬁom a February testing schedule to October. As a result of this
schedule change, the time available in the school year to prepare students for the
assessment was greatly shortened from a full semester to a few weeks. In addition, the
February test in previous years had resulted in confusion over which grade level material
was being tested. With the new fall assessment date students were clearly being tested on
previous years’ instruction, rather than the current year’s instruction. The change in
schedule from a winter test to a fall test made previous grade levels’ teachers more
accountable for the assessment results. The winter date of assessment had made teacher
accountability ambiguous; especially since the test results were not known until the end
of the school year. This did not offer teachers an opportunity to respond to test results and

target their instruction for improvement.

District Responses to State Assessment Policies
Recent research has identiﬁed the important role the school district plays in
mediating the linkage between federal and state policies aimed at improving student

achievement and classroom implementation of such policies. Prior research has

69

documented how, despite past reform efforts, classroom instruction seemed resistant to
signiﬁcant change (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). As the federal government has become more
involved in educational policy-makin g, many states have responded with their own
mandates intended to ensure that schools will meet federal AYP requirements. James
Spillane (1996) has observed that as the state’s role in educational policy-making
expands, the district’s policy-making expands also.

As [states] establish stronger and more coherent policies at the state level

in support of ambitious outcomes. . .they are likely to provide occasions for

district instructional policy making. The result is more, rather than less,

guidance for classroom teachers. (Spillane, p.83)

This section describes the various policies enacted by the central administration of
Kensington School’s district, illustrating Spillane’s argument of the proliferation of
policy making at the district level in response to the state’s policy making. Further, the
principal of Kensington School, Ms. Mathews, added her own mandates to those already
in place from the state and the district. The result of all this policy making created more
layers of mandates for Kensington’s teachers.

At the time of this study, the ten elementary schools in Kensington’s school
district continued to meet AYP requirements. The district took a number of steps
intended to ensure that this would continue each year. First, it adopted district-wide
textbook series for reading. According to Mary Locke, who was appointed to serve as
Kensington’s academic support coach, the reading texts were chosen because they most
closely matched the content and skills tested on the yearly state assessments. The district
adopted the Scholastic reading series for elementary reading instruction in all buildings

district-wide. Along with this book series, the district required that its schools use the

Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI), a computer-based reading assessment that equates a

70

student’s reading performance to a Lexile score. The district mandated that elementary
teachers administer the SR] twice a year and record the equivalent Lexile score on
students’ report cards.

It was unclear whether the other textbook series were chosen in response to
NCLB mandates, but the district required schools to use common texts. The district
adopted the Everyday Math series, commonly called Chicago Math, as the basis for math
instruction across the district. For social studies, the district adopted the
McMillan/McGraw-Hill textbook series. At the time of this study, the series had been in
use in the district for more than a decade, so its use predated NCLB.

The district also required quarterly and semester common assessments in math
and writing. The district assessments were prepared by the curriculum department and
presented to all the principals at a district-wide meeting; the responsibility for making
sure these tests were administered fell to the principals. According to Ms. Mathews,
Kensington’s principal, these tests were designed to test how well students met the state
standards in the reading and math.

In response to the state adding third grade to its testing regime in the 2005-2006
school year, and the addition of the ELA test in the ﬁfth grade, the district assigned a
central-district administrator to write “20-day Plans” for the different subjects covered by
the tests. These plans were to be used by teachers from the beginning of the school year
up until the week prior to the state assessment, when the state disallowed test preparation.
20-day Plan notebooks were produced for reading, writing, mathematics, science, and
social studies and distributed to all teachers in the district who taught these subjects in the

tested grades.

71

The district also implemented the Fast F orWord27 program at each building that
received Title I money. The program represented a district effort to maintain AYP by
directly targeting low-scoring students. Seven of the district’s ten elementary buildings,
including Kensington, were Title I schools and used the Fast F orWord program at the
time of this study. Fast F orWord provided reading support for students in kindergarten
through the ﬁfth grades. Students received computer-based instruction during the school
day if their SR1 score was below grade level or after school on a voluntary basis if
students chose to participate.

In addition, the district required each school to have a School" Improvement Plan
(SIP), even if it had met AYP. According to Ms. Mathews, Kensington’s principal, the
rationale for this was that each school needed to have a plan in place to continue to meet
the changing benchmarks set by the state each year.

School Responses to District and State Policies

The district’s response to the state assessment and NCLB sanctions conditioned
the school-level responses primarily through district curricular policies. The principal
reinforced district mandates and teachers utilized the various curricular and testing
resources the district made available. The school’s response was also shaped by the
principal’s own efforts to maintain AYP and improve test scores, and to do so within the
context of being a new principal.

In Kensington School, Ms. Mathews responded to the district’s accountability
goals by making sure that the teachers in the building enacted and followed through with

district goals and mandates. In particular, she monitored the administration of the

 

27 Fast ForWord is a phonerrric awareness, computer-based program that teaches students to hear the sounds
so they can read better.

72

district’s common assessments and reported the results to the district. She also mandated
that teachers complete the entire district-developed math curriculum during the school
year. In prior years, only one math journal was completed instead of the two included in
the district’s adopted curriculum. She, along with Mary Locke, provided planning
assistance to the teachers to make sure they implemented the 20-Day Plan books prior to
the state assessment. Finally, Ms. Mathews monitored the SRI test results and identiﬁed
low-scoring students who needed to participate in the Fast ForWord reading support
program.

Ms. Mathews also expanded on the district goals by implementing her own
policies aimed at improving school-wide reading scores. This study took place in the
second year of Ms. Mathews’ tenure as principal in Kensington School. During her ﬁrst
year at Kensington, she had observed that several teachers were using the Four Blocks
Model for reading instruction. Because she believed that the Four Blocks Model would
support district and school goals of improved student reading performance, in her second
year as principal Ms. Mathews required all teachers in Kensington School to implement
the Four Blocks Model. Thus, while the district required the use of the Scholastic reading
textbook, the use of the Four Blocks Model was a requirement of the Kensington
principal”.

Interestingly, while she had taken steps to enforce the use of the Four Blocks
framework for reading instruction, Ms. Mathews had tempered those steps, recognizing

her status as a new leader in the school. Most of the teachers at Kensington School had

been on the staff since the building opened in 1990. The majority of the teaching staff

 

28 Four Blocks was being used at some of the other elementary buildings at the discretion of the building
principal.

73

had a long history of working together as a cohesive team. Five teachers who taught at
the third, fourth, and ﬁfth grades were newer additions to the teaching staff. At a staff
meeting Ms. Mathews told the staff that she had not mandated that teachers strictly
conform to the program’s ISO-minute Four Blocks block schedule. According to the
program’s framework, all teachers, across the whole school, would be required to teach
reading and writing for 150 minutes each day without interruptions or pullouts. As Ms.
Mathews noted during a staff meeting, “I felt that if I had walked in as a second year
principal and implemented that across the board, it would have gone over like a brick. If
you’d like to look at that, we can. I’m not making that decision without your support”
(KC.SIP.06.03.20).

Ms. Mathews provided additional technical support for reading instruction in her
building by devoting a large portion of her budget to contract with Lindamood-Bell
Learning Processes to bring their program to Kensington School. Ms. Mathews intended
to use the Lindamood-Bell program to bring below-grade-level readers up to state
standards on the state assessment. She did get district support for this program through
the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum who paid for a portion of the teacher training
out of the district budget. Lindamood-Bell trainers taught the Kensington teachers how to
administer batteries of standardized reading tests and how to group students for reading
instruction based on the results. Ms. Mathews selected the students who would receive
the services of this program. She was constrained by space and a limited number of
instructors available at any one time, so she limited the program to grades 1-4. Beginning
at the lowest grades, she selected students who were reading below grade level according

to the SRI, and included as many students as could be accommodated. Ms. Mathews

74

rationalized the implementation of Lindamood-Bell as a means of meeting the needs of
students who were not being served in another way. As she noted in an interview, it was
intended for “kids who fall through the cracks. They don’t qualify for special ed[ucation],
but they aren’t at grade level.” It was through Ms. Mathews’ determination that the
program was implemented, teachers were trained, and money was found in the budget to
support the program.

Another change Ms. Mathews implemented that was not directly related to the
state assessment, but which had consequences for Sue and Steve’s relationship with the
state assessment was departrnentalization at the ﬁfth grade level. Ms. Mathews saw that
Kensington School was the only elementary in the district that had not departrnentalized
instruction for the ﬁfth grades. While the fourth grade teachers at Kensington had self-
selected to departmentalize some of their instruction the year before Ms. Mathews
arrived, the ﬁfth grade teachers had not. At the end of her ﬁrst year as principal at
Kensington, a veteran ﬁfth grade teacher retired. Ms. Mathews saw this as an opportunity
to enact a change that would put Kensington ﬁfth grade students on par with ﬁfth grade
students in other elementary buildings in the district. She took the initiative and
approached Steve about departrnentalizing instruction of the core subjects. He did not
oppose the change because it allowed him to elect to teach science and social studies,
while jettisoning reading/language arts and math. The reorganization of the ﬁfth grade
meant that, by choosing to teach science and social studies, Steve was no longer teaching
the subjects that were the focus of state and federal testing mandates and accountability

policies. It also meant that the new teacher, Sue, was responsible for teaching reading,

75

writing, and math, all of which were closely monitored under NCLB regulations, the state
department of education, as well as the district.
Mary Locke: A Key Player in Implementing District and School Policies

Along with Ms. Mathews, Mary Locke was also central in shaping the school’s
response to the state assessment. She held a unique position. Mary was one of the original
faculty members who remained on the staff since the school’s opening in 1990. At the
time of the study, she was also serving as a quasi-district ﬁgure. She was in her second
year as a district appointed academic support coach29 at Kensington and one other
elementary building in the district. In this capacity, Mary worked closely with the
principals to provide support to the teachers in the form of teaching demonstration
lessons, providing lesson planning ideas and materials, observing teachers’ instruction
and giving feedback. According to Mary, while her position was to support all
instruction, most of her time was spent supporting the teaching of reading and writing. In
her position as an academic coach, Mary became a central link between the state
assessment, the district response and teachers’ classroom practices. She played a key role
in the implementation of both district and school-level policies at Kensington School.

In order to understand Mary Locke’s unique, dual position as both district
employee and faculty member of Kensington School, it is necessary to know how she ﬁt
in with the original faculty members and the school’s mission. With twenty-four years of
teaching experience at the time of this study, she had taught fourth grade at Kensington
School for fourteen years. The ﬁrst principal of Kensington School had selected the

original staff for the building. She hired teachers who “would give 110%,” according to

 

29 The district created the academic support coach position to support instruction in the Title 1 buildings in
the district. Academic support coaches were assigned to cover more than one building.

76

another teacher who was brought to Kensington School in 1990. The school operated
under a site-based management arrangement in which the district placed much of the
decision-making power at the building level. The principal encouraged teachers to
collaborate and bring ideas to the whole school. At the beginning of each school year the
teachers decided together on the learning goals for the year. Many school-wide learning
projects were implemented over the years. One year the theme was “under the sea.” The
school’s lobby was transformed into an under sea world, with murals on the walls and sea
life art projects hanging from the ceiling. Each class contributed to the project based on
what was developmentally appropriate for the grade level. Teachers were encouraged to
bring their personal interests and passions into these projects. Mary Locke and another
teacher went to space camp in Alabama one year and brought back the idea of a
simulated space launch, which became a yearlong project for the school. Another year,
Mary Locke went to a rain forest in Costa Rica to learn about that environment. When
she came back and shared with the faculty, the theme for the school year became the rain
forest. Another year, after she experienced spelunking the school lobby was turned into a
cave with stalactites and stalagrnites as part of the whole-school project. Mary thus had a
long history of being an instructional leader in Kensington.

Mary brought this same passion and excitement to her instruction of reading and
writing. After hearing about Four Blocks being used by a teacher in another school in the
district, she requested permission for herself and another Kensington teacher to observe
in that teacher’s classroom. Her principal granted them professional development time to
make this observation possible. According to Mary, she “picked [the teacher’s] brain”

and came back to Kensington very excited about Four Blocks. She read everything she

77

could ﬁnd about Four Blocks over the summer. The next year, she convinced her fourth
grade teaching partner that they should use the Four Blocks model in their classrooms.

That particular year we did not have a reading coach or reading teacher
and our principal had heard about [someone who presented a Four Blocks
workshop]. [The Four Blocks presenter] and I talked quite a bit and she
was just giving me more information on Four Blocks pieces that I didn’t
have from my reading. I embraced it all. My partner teacher came along.
He wasn’t quite in the same place I was but he was very willing to come
along. Together we realized we had a huge job in front of us. . .We came
up with a formula for how we were going to get these kids where they
needed to go [using Four Blocks].

In the same way that Mary had shared her interest in science with other teachers in the
building, she also shared the Four Blocks model and her experience with it. Other
teachers in the building began using Four Blocks. When Ms. Mathews became principal
of Kensington School, she observed that Four Blocks was an effective way to teach
reading so she mandated that every teacher in Kensington School would use the Four
Blocks model for reading instruction.

Mary worked closely with Ms. Mathews to support the latter’s efforts to maintain
AYP and to improve assessment results. In an interview, Mary discussed her work with
Ms. Mathews in helping the teachers improve their reading instruction.

Our principal is seeing success. Now this is just her second year, but she is

feeling that we need to expect that more and more. The teachers who have

embraced [Four Blocks] wholeheartedly are doing wonderful things. Part

of the problem. . .is a teacher may say ‘I am teaching Four Blocks,’ but

they don’t embrace all of the structure. They may say ‘I am doing this, but

I don’t really like that part.’ Then that impacts the whole thing. So that is

really where our principal wants to ferret out those little things that are not

completely in line with the structure and then we are going to look at

those. KC.rconML.06.01.31
Together, Ms. Mathews and Mary Locke took on both a support role, as well as an

oversight role to ensure that the Four Blocks model would be used correctly. While Mary

78

provided support in the way of demonstrated lessons, lesson ideas and materials, Ms.
Mathews also visited classrooms often to make sure the mandated literacy model was
being implemented as it should be.

Mary also worked with Ms. Mathews to support teachers in their instruction of
writing. While she was happy that the district had provided the 20-Day plan notebooks,
she felt that teachers needed follow-up throughout the school year to support their
practice.

My concern is the district really got on the bandwagon and developed [the

20—Day plan], but once the [state assessment] was done, how have we

supported our teachers? We have not. . .I am happy that the principal here
has said let’s give them support. KC.rconML.06.01.31

[The 20-day plan didn’t take] into account that we didn’t actually have 20
days [to prepare for the state assessment]. In this building we did that as
best we could and then the principal asked that I take [20-day plan] and
break it down for 3rd, 4th and 5th... I have a 20-day extended plan for just
thinking of Six Traits, Content and Ideas. I did that for 3rd, 4’”, and 5th and
I even did one for 2nd because they need to be getting on the same page.
That started in November and it ends today”, however, not all of those
teachers have even completed that 20-day plan. Then I have another one
ready that I haven’t even given to them for February. That will be focusing
on organization and then there will be a March and an April and May will
just be reﬂecting on things that we need to still be doing.
KC.rconML.06.01 .31

She further supported both the district and the principal’s goals to achieve better
performance on the state assessment for writing. The district required that student writing
be evaluated using the same rubrics that are used to evaluate student writing on the state
assessment. Mary brought rubrics to teachers when she taught demonstration lessons in

their classrooms. She revealed her belief in the importance of the scoring rubrics when

she made a presentation on writing to teachers at an SIP meeting. Mary told the teachers,

 

3° End of January

79

“You don’t need to score every piece of writing, but you need to score writing regularly
using the [state assessment] rubric in order to drive your instruction”
(KC.rconML.06.05.30).

Mary’s role as academic support coach supported both the district’s goal of
meeting NCLB and state AYP requirements and the principal’s mandates and goal of
maintaining AYP and improving student performance on the state assessments.

I turn next to look at a speciﬁc meeting that illustrates how both Mary Locke and
the school principal critically shaped the school’s response to state and district
assessment policies.

Shaping Building-wide Response to Assessment Results

In this section, I describe one school improvement meeting that Ms. Mathews led
in which the faculty discussed the state assessment results and decided upon steps for
improvement. This meeting shows both Ms. Mathews and Mary Locke’s role in linking
the state assessment, the district response, and the school’s own response and in fostering
teachers aligning their instruction with each. The two women worked to both enforce and
expand upon district instructional mandates. As part of that, Ms. Mathews negotiated the
space between wanting teachers to meet expectations and also giving them opportunities
for input and collaboration. It is important to note that this meeting shows how, in some
ways, the school supported and reinforced the district’s mandates, such as enforcing the
district’s math curriculum by requiring teachers to complete both math journals, while in
other ways they seemed to overlap and duplicate each other, such as with the Lindamood-
Bell program that seemed to be directed at the same students as the district’s Fast

ForWord program. Ultimately, the school’s response to the state assessments and the

80

district’s mandates provided the teachers with both an array of instructional resources as
well as some additional mandates that constrained their work.

In the ﬁrst interview I had with Ms. Mathews, she stated her main goal for
Kensington School was that it would be a school with “high expectations and equal
expectations for all students” (KC.prinWA.05.10.26). In the meeting I describe in this
section, she attempted to move the teachers beyond deﬁcit models some held of their
students in order to improve instruction for all students. She used state assessment results
to push the teachers to change their instruction.

Ms. Mathews devoted the ﬁrst SIP meeting following the release of the fall 2005
state assessment results to examining those results with the teachers. She presented a
report of Kensington students’ scores to the teachers. Her report compared Kensington’s
performance to the nine other elementary buildings in the district. Table 8 indicates the
rank order of Kensington out of the ten elementary schools in the district.

Kensington’s Rank Order Among District Elementary Schools on Fall 2005
State Assessment Tests

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade Reading Writing ELA3 1 Math Science

3rd #8 #8 #8 #5

4th #7 #8 #7 #5

5th #5 #9 #5 #4 #43’2
Table 8

 

Table 8 shows that Kensington School’s third graders ranked near the bottom (number
eight out often) of the district’s elementary schools in reading, writing, and ELA. The

fourth graders ranked near the bottom in reading, writing and ELA (numbers eight and

 

3 l The ELA assessment includes reading, writing, speaking, and viewing/listening strands. In this report,
Ms. Mathews has separated reading and writing out from the overall ELA scores and listed them
separately.

32 Only ﬁfth grade students took the science test.

81

seven out of ten). However, the ﬁfth graders scored in the middle of the pack (number
ﬁve out of ten) in both reading and ELA. The most glaring weakness for the whole
school was apparent in the results of the writing assessment. Looking at this table across
grade levels it is apparent that each grade had a problem with the writing assessment
(they were numbers eight and nine out of ten). This is a subject that Ms. Mathews
addressed speciﬁcally in the meeting that is described below. In addition, looking across
grade levels, we see that the Kensington students performed their best overall on the math
assessment. The math assessment showed an improvement over the previous years’
scores in math, according to Ms. Mathews’ report. She attributed this improvement to the
school’s efforts over the previous school year to provide teachers with professional
development in Chicago Math instruction as well as her personal goal of having the
teachers cover the entire math curriculum for their grade.

When the teachers had ﬁnished looking over their ranking in the district for the
various subjects, Ms. Mathews asked them what they thought affected the assessment
scores most. One teacher suggested that there were students who were learning the
English language. Ms. Mathews responded that only three of Kensington’s students were
from a home where English was not spoken. Another teacher suggested that transient
students from the apartments and duplexes were a problem. Ms. Mathews countered that
the transience rate was only 12%. After pointing out that two other elementary buildings
in the district with lower SES and more diverse student populations had performed better
than Kensington, she told her teachers “We have to stop blaming our changing population
for poor scores. I don’t want to call it race. It’s SES. Poor is poor. But the SES argument

is gone when you look at these other schools” (KC.SIP.06.03.20).

82

She then distributed a handout containing the breakdown of Kensington’s scores
by grade level (Appendix 0). Her report identiﬁed the number of students at each grade
level who were deﬁcient on various test items. She speciﬁcally pointed out the results of
the writing test on which the scores were lowest. The teachers were given time to look
over the results for their grade level. Ms. Mathews asked the teachers how they felt after
looking it over. “Not good,” one said. “Tired. We work so hard,” said another. Ms.
Mathews then acknowledged that they did work hard and that she knew she had a
“fantastic” staff. “I’m not going to sugar coat what this looks like. We have to stop
blaming our changing population for our scores when two other schools with similar
populations did better than us.”

Ms. Mathews continued to focus the discussion on the writing scores, which were
poor at every grade level. One teacher asked, “Are we going to hit this like we did
math?” Ms. Mathews responded that she was willing to try “everything” but wanted to be
careful how they implemented it “because it has to be supported.” The teachers wanted to
know what the top ranked elementary building in the district was doing that they weren’t.
Ms. Mathews shared that the principal of that school went into every classroom every
week, scheduled a ISO-minute block of time for Four Blocks instruction that was
uninterrupted, and she scheduled what her teachers taught every day.

During this meeting, the teachers agreed that writing was the lowest test score of
all the subjects tested, and that the greatest weakness in their writing was including
details. In order to help students with this weakness in their writing, Mary Locke

introduced Structure Words‘l’3 that were to be used to help students include more details in

 

33 Bell, Nanci. (1991) Visualizing and Verbalizing: For Language Comprehension and Thinking. Nancibell,
Inc. Revised Ed.

83

their writing. Every teacher was given a folder with overheads and structure word cards
to support their instruction of the structure words with their students. The structure words
were: what, color, shape, movement, background, when, size, number, where, mood,
perspective, and sound. Ms. Mathews directed the teachers to teach their students to use
the structure words. She suggested that they preface their lessons saying something like,
“This is why it is important to visualize when we read.” One teacher reported that she had
taught one lesson to her class using the structure words to describe a picture of a pig.34
She had her students provide descriptors about the pig’s picture for each of the structure
words. The principal also suggested that it would be good to have “reading buddies” use
the structure words to have their reading partner answer questions about their reading
selection. After being introduced to the structure words in a whole class activity and with
some practice with partners, teachers were to include structure words in writing
assignments. The assignment could be as simple as asking students to write a paragraph
about what they did during recess, using the structure words to support their statements.
The principal then asked the teachers to incorporate these structure words into
their lessons right away. They were to be used at every grade level in order that all
students would be familiar with the words and would come to use them to add details to
their writing. Ms. Mathews asked how often it would be reasonable for everyone to teach
a structure word lesson. The consensus of the teachers was that they would conduct a
lesson using the structure words once a week for the remaining weeks of the school year.

The principal announced that a sign-up sheet would be in the lounge in order to have

 

3’ Structure words must have been discussed or introduced at some other point, because this teacher had
already taught one lesson using structure words. It is not clear whether Mary Locke or Ms. Mathews had
arranged for this lesson to be brought up at the SIP meeting or whether the teacher did it on her own.

84

either Mary Locke or the principal come in to teach a demonstration lesson for any
teacher who wanted support to get started.

In addition, at this meeting the principal asked the teachers if it would be helpful
to have a plan for writing lessons for the remainder of the school year. The collective
response was positive. Ms. Mathews asked Mary Locke to develop a writing plan to be
distributed to the third, fourth and ﬁfth grade teachers that would ensure that each of the
different forms of writing that are covered on the state assessment would get covered by
the teachers. Appendix P shows the writing plan created by Mary Locke for the months
of April and May. Taking into account a week for spring break and a week for parent-
teacher conferences, this plan included lessons for seven weeks of writing instruction.
The plan covered all the different forms of writing covered on the state assessment. The
focus on each of the forms of writing, personal narrative, peer reﬂection, cross-text
writing, stars and wishes, reﬂects the fact that the state assessment assesses each of these
forms of writing. Shortly after this meeting, Ms. Mathews added one further mandate.
Teachers were required to turn in their weekly lesson plans for writing for Ms. Mathews
to review.

Thus, this SIP meeting shows how the school responded to the district’s mandates
and the AYP expectations under NCLB. Both the district and the school generated
numerous curricular and instructional mandates in response to the state assessment and
NCLB’s focus on reading, writing and math scores. The following table illustrates the
ways in which the district and the school instituted policies intended to ensure that AYP
would be maintained and that student performance on the state assessment would

improve.

85

Summary

District and School Responses to NCLB and State Policies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRICT SCHOOL

ODistrict-wide textbook series OFour Blocks Model
Reading OSRI OLindamood-Bell

OFast F orWords

020-day plan

ODistrict 20-Day Plan OStructure Words
Writing oDistrict Common Assessment OSchool Writing Plan

OState Assessment Rubrics OTurn in Lesson Plans for

Review
ODistrict-wide textbook series OEnforce District Policy
Math 020-day Plan
ODistrict Common Assessment

 

Table 9

Table 9 summarizes the way the state assessment and federal NCLB policy produced a
proliferation of responses at both the district and school levels. In order to meet AYP
requirements in reading, the district adopted a common textbook series for reading
instruction, mandated that the SR1 be administered and recorded on report cards, it
instituted the use of Fast ForWords in the Title I schools, and it produced 20-day plan
notebooks for teachers to prepare their students for the assessment. In addition, the
school’s principal added the mandate of the Four Blocks model for reading instruction,
and she added the Lindamood-Bell program for students who read below grade level
according to the SRI.

In order to meet AYP requirements in the area of writing, the district produced
20-day plan notebooks, instituted a district-wide common assessment in writing, and
required that the state assessment writing rubrics be used to assess students’ writing. In
response to her school’s performance on the state assessment, Ms. Mathews mandated the

use of structure words to get more detail into student writing, and she had Mary Locke

86

create a school writing plan that would ensure that teachers covered all the forms of
writing covered on the state assessment. She also required teachers to turn in their writing
lesson plans so she could review them each week.

The district’s response to the state assessment on math was to adopt a common
curriculum for math instruction throughout the district, produce 20-day plan notebooks
that would help teachers prepare their students for the assessment, and they instituted a
common assessment for math district-wide. Ms. Mathews did not add to these mandates,
rather she enforced the district’s curriculum by requiring that teachers cover the entire

curriculum by teaching from both math journals.

Teachers ’ Responses to District and Building Mandates

In order to gain an understanding of the building-wide context and teachers’
responses to district and building level mandates, I interviewed and observed third and
fourth grade teachers in addition to Steve and Sue who taught the ﬁfth grade. This section
speciﬁcally looks at the responses of the other teachers in Kensington School to the
layers of mandates they had to react to in the day-to-day choices they made in their
classrooms. The responses of these teachers varied.35

Mary Locke reported that the initial response to the district’s 20-day plan
notebooks that she heard from the teachers was “you’ve got to be kidding” and “we have
only so many hours in the day. How do you expect us to accomplish this?” She sensed
that the frustration on the teachers’ part, especially in the content area of writing, was due

to the fact that the expectations were “huge.”

 

’5 The responses of the third through ﬁfth grade teachers to mandates were revealed in interviews. None of
the kindergarten through second grade teachers, who all had been teaching at Kensington School since
1990, was included in the study.

87

It wasn’t in just writing for knowledge and experience. It was writing in

cross-text; it was knowledge of genres; it was knowledge of stars and

wishes; it was knowledge of revising; knowledge of informational text. It

was huge. To have all of this along with starting the year, getting to know

your students, and all of the stuff that we have going was awful [for them].

KC.rconML.06.01 .31
In addition to being overwhelmed, there was frustration because the district’s plans did
not take into account that they really didn’t have 20 school days to present the material
contained in the notebooks. Without revealing who she was talking about, Mary Locke
related that a teacher told her, “I felt kind of angry at ﬁrst, but as I’ve spent time with it, I
see it makes sense. There is value in it” (KC.rconML.06.01 .3 1). Despite their apparent
ﬁ'ustration, the teachers of Kensington School seemed to give their best effort to use the
district’s 20-day plans, as far as I could tell by everything I was told and observed.

Two of the teachers expressed concerns with the district’s Fast F orWords
program. One veteran third grade teacher and a new-to-Kensington fourth grade teacher
were critical of the program’s expense. One teacher noted, “We’re spending money on
computer programs when we should be spending money on more teachers”
(KC.GM.06.02.22). Only these two teachers criticized the program in my interviews and
observations. The other teachers had little if anything to say about it. Further, teachers’
opinions didn’t have any impact on the delivery of the Fast F orWord program. It was
taught as a pull-out program during the school day or as an after school program for
students who chose to participate.

There were some signs of resistance by some teachers to building-level mandates.

For example, Ms. Mathews reported that she met with some negative reactions when she

required that teachers ﬁnish the entire district adopted math curriculum.

88

Last year was the ﬁrst time they were supposed to ﬁnish journal two and

there was some resistance. ‘We can’t do this.’ I thought, I’ve seen research

and data from buildings [where they] do get through journal two and we

are going to do this. KC.PrinWA.06.06.16
Ms. Mathews saw the state assessment results as proof that her teachers had complied
with her mandate.

Four Blocks presented a challenge to one new-to-Kensington teacher. In an
interview, be related that Mary Locke had been working with him to get “up to speed” on
Four Blocks. “[Mary] has been telling me that she’s been really invested in this
effort. . .and in the training of the teachers” (KC.4GM.06.02.22).

I’m trying to ﬁt myself into this Four Block format. It’s been a difﬁcult

process but it will be worth it because Four Blocks is not going away.

KC.4GM.06.02.22
While he was working to adopt the Four Blocks method, it didn’t seem that he believed
that it was the best way to instruct his students in reading. Rather, he was adopting Four
Blocks because he was resigned to the fact that it would not go away. Further, his
classroom provided an interesting look at the intersection of the district’s mandated
textbook and the building level mandate of Four Blocks. Admitting that he had been
“ﬂoundering” trying to become accustomed to material that was new to him, on his own
he acquired a teacher’s manual for the textbook he had taught from in his previous
school. He typed up and made copies of stories from that textbook and distributed them
to his students for reading instruction. Thus, while he was trying to accommodate the
building-mandated Four Blocks format of reading instruction, he chose to forgo the
district-mandated textbook. He may have needed the ‘stable ground’ offered by the

familiar reading textbook on which he could feel ‘solid footing’ while dealing with so

many new materials and mandates at once.

89

Another teacher, who had taught at Kensington for eight years, expressed
generalized dismay about mandated testing. She shared in an interview her feeling that
the state assessment had changed the way teaching was done in her classroom.

It’s very much more business-like. There is no room for fun anymore. I
used to give the state test and then not pay attention to it anymore. I could
get down to what I really wanted to teach. . .It used to be that by this time
of year36 I had ﬁnished teaching what I had to teach and we could do some
ﬁrn things. Now, because of high-stakes tests, it is much more high stress.
There is much more pressure to continue the teaching to the last day of
school. KC.4NL.06.05.1 5

This interview revealed that at one point in her teaching career, she was able to pretty
much ignore the state assessment. She administered the test and then forgot it. It didn’t
impact what she taught in her classroom. The change had come about with the NCLB and
AYP requirements that she referred to as “hi gh-stakes testing.” She had not considered
the state assessment a high stakes test when she was able to give the test and forget about
it. Now, she was forced to pay closer attention to the content of her lessons and felt that
she needed to remain focused on that content throughout the entire school year.

Further, she wasn’t persuaded that the overlapping mandates and programs
intended to support reading and writing were the answer to her students’ difﬁculties.

We have done this Four Blocks thing for a few years and it’s like we’re
almost giving them too much. I don’t know if they can’t understand it, or
if we’re doing too many things. . .trying to teach them leads, and then teach
them paragraphing, and then teach them this and. . .I just can’t get this
writing thing going. I just think we are trying to do everything at one time
and maybe we are overloading them somehow. . .Mary Locke comes in
and sometimes I think the kids are almost confused because she comes in
and teaches something and then I try to re-teach or do my thing. Now we
have this Patricia37 coming in teaching about visualization. So sometimes I
think, ‘are they totally confused on who’s doing what, or how this is all
connected, or are some connecting it?’ I mean, for me, I don’t know if
that’s more confusing or if it’s helpful for some. I mean they seem to be,

 

’6 Mid-May
37 From Lindamood-Bell

90

some of them seem to be catching on, but there’s some that are still

struggling. So I don’t know. It’s just different. Different ideas, different

strategies, different people. . .It’s good and bad I guess. Sometimes it’s not

as consistent as if you were trying on your own. KC.4NL.06.05.15
This revealing portion of the interview illustrates the plight faced by the teachers at
Kensington School. Even though the teachers tried to accommodate the wide variety of
programs going on in the school, the problem for them was the abundance of programs
coming at them at once. They were dealing with several different mandates and
resources, each bringing different people in and out of their rooms. This teacher posits
that perhaps the students were confused by all of this. It seems that she was being pulled
in several directions at once as she tried to meet the demands that were placed on her.
While the state, district and school mandates provided additional resources for the
teachers, they also constrained teachers’ own decision making in their classrooms. The
problem this teacher pointed out was that she was unable to assert any kind of coherence
or consistency in her classroom with so many people and programs in her classroom at
once. The ultimate question posed by this teacher, but faced by all of the teachers was, is
this helpful? Did it help her teach her students the content they needed to know?

This seemed to be the modal response of the teachers in Kensington School. They
were inundated by mandates and programs, each of which they tried to accommodate.
The mandates of the state resulted in district level mandates. The mandates of the district
resulted in more policy making at the building level. The teachers, while being provided

with resources to meet the mandates, were constrained by these mandates in the choices

they could make in their classrooms.

91

In the next two sections, I show how the state, district and school-level
mandates, described above, entered Steve and Sue’s classrooms. As each of these
teachers tried to accommodate the policies and mandates there were similarities in their
responses, but there were differences as well. Part of the difference can be accounted for
in the way each asserted their individual discretion in the face of co-existing demands and
mandates.

The State Assessment and Reading and Writing in Sue’s Fifth Grade Class
I observed several ways in which the state assessment entered into and shaped
Sue’s reading and writing instruction. The state assessment was carried into her practice
through district and school-level mandates and resources. Sue’s relationships with Mary
Locke and the principal inﬂuenced her adherence to these mandates. Working closely
with her mentor, Sue took up and used all of the resources that were made available to
her. However, she still exerted some discretion over the way in which she used them.
Relationships that Inﬂuenced Sue ’s Practice. Sue’s relationship with Mary
Locke began shortly after Sue was hired the preceding summer. Mary had Sue come to
her house to give her instruction in Four Blocks. At school, the two worked together
before, during, and after school hours on plans and materials for both reading and writing
instruction. In an interview at the end of the school year, Sue described the ways Mary
had helped her.
She is my mentor and also our academic support coach. I’ve been able to
go to her whenever I need something. Even with math, because she taught
here for so long and she knows the program, at a different grade level, but
she knows the program. So I’ve been able to kind of pull ideas from her
too and especially with that language arts stuff. I can say, ‘What am I
doing?’ and at report card time [when I had one parent angry with me,] I

went to Mary and said, ‘What do I do?’ She has been a big support for me
just with any kind of question I have had. KC.SSW.06.05.16

92

Sue’s relationship with Mary even seemed to inﬂuence the attitude she brought to
her work. Sue embraced the Four Blocks model with the same enthusiasm that
Mary exhibited. Sue also echoed Mary’s opinion of the district-mandated
textbook. In interviews, Mary stated that the Scholastic textbook was a “good
series” that included “so many materials for reading and writing.” Sue described
her feelings about the textbook saying, “It’s a nice series because it has a lot to
pull in for writing and other things.”

Through her interviews, it was apparent that Sue had a profound professional
respect for Ms. Mathews as a principal. Sue described Ms. Mathews as an “amazing
principal.” In another interview she noted that Ms. Mathews “gives us the support we
need to succeed.” One speciﬁc instance of support Sue cited was that Ms. Mathews made
sure that Sue received as much professional development as she requested. Beyond their
professional relationship, Sue developed a personal relationship with Ms. Mathews
through the activities such as faculty potlucks, “payday” events in the lounge, as well as
socializing before and after school. Through observations of them in the school the two
seemed to have a positive and easygoing relationship.

Through her close work with Mary Locke and her good relationship with Ms.
Mathews, Sue seemed to accept whatever mandate was put before her. She made no
negative comments about either district or building level mandates. Mary’s role as
academic support coach put her in the position of representing both the district and the
school; her role as Sue’s mentor put her in a close working relationship with Sue. In part,
Sue’s acceptance of the district and building level mandates could have come from a

sense of obligation to Mary for the time she had devoted to helping Sue. In addition,

93

Sue’s ﬁiendly relationship with Ms. Mathews may have inﬂuenced her acceptance of
building level mandates. Following the SIP meeting previously described, Sue’s goals for
her own classroom instruction in writing seemed to be the same as the principal’s goals
for the school.

State Assessment Inﬂuences on Reading Instruction. The state assessment of
reading inﬂuenced the content of reading lessons in Sue’s classroom. The state
assessment traveled into Sue’s classroom through the mediating inﬂuences of both the
district and the school. The district mediated the state assessment’s inﬂuence by adopting
the Scholastic reading series, which seemed to most closely match the objectives of the
yearly state assessment in reading. The content of Sue’s reading instruction was
prescribed by the district-adopted textbook series. It served as the main source of reading
material for her students. In addition to using the stories for guided reading, she used the
end-of-story comprehension questions and writing prompts. The textbook series, by way
of the district mandate, thus linked the state assessment and the content of Sue’s reading
instruction.

At the school level, Ms. Mathews and Mary Locke actively transported the state
assessment into Sue’s classroom by way of the Four Blocks model of reading instruction
as well as by encouraging use of the district’s 20-Day plan. Sue used her discretion when
she added the reading of a novel to the reading content for her students. Mary Locke, who
helped her adapt the materials accompanying the novel to the Four Blocks model,
supported Sue in this.

Both the district and the school inﬂuenced the way Sue conducted her reading

instruction. The district’s 20-day Plan for reading was designed to ensure that the

94

appropriate material would be reviewed and taught prior to the administration of the state
assessment. In contrast to the ﬁ'ustration that had been expressed by some other teachers,
Sue responded to the 20—day plan saying, it was “nice” that the district played a big role
in making sure that teachers were prepared with material that would help get students
ready to take the state assessment “because we don’t know what’s on it and it’s different
every year” (KC.5SW.05.12.08). Sue felt that the plan pretty much included topics that
she normally would have taught, with the exception of one--genre. Genre was included in
the 20-Day Plan because it had been taught in the fourth grade and could, therefore, be
included on the state test. At the school level, Sue’s reading instruction was shaped by
Ms. Mathews’ mandate that the Four Blocks model be used for reading instruction. As
she noted in an interview, Ms. Mathews believed that it provided the best format for
reading instruction that would assure the school continued to meet AYP and would,
ultimately, help students perform better on the state assessment of reading. Mary Locke
was an active agent in getting Sue, as well as the other teachers school-wide, to use Four
Blocks by demonstrating lessons in classrooms. Further, as Sue’s mentor, she had
instructed Sue in the ﬁner points of Four Blocks in one-on-one training sessions over the
previous summer. Mary spent a lot of time with Sue, before, during, and after school
working together on plans. Mary helped Sue adjust her plans for the district-adopted
textbook to ﬁt the Four Blocks format. In addition, Mary helped Sue adapt materials
when she had her students read a novel. (Four Blocks and Sue’s use of it in her classroom
was described in detail in chapter four.)

In addition, the state assessment inﬂuenced the way Sue assessed student

learning. The district adopted the Scholastic reading series because it perceived the series

95

to be most closely aligned with the state standards. Along with this series, the district
mandated that the SRI be given to students each marking period. This test was used to
determine whether students were reading below-, at-, or above-grade level. Sue met the
district’s mandate by administering the SRI and recording it on report cards, but she
didn’t use the SRI because she didn’t really trust it as a reliable gauge of reading level.

I don’t feel like it’s the most accurate. I had a student who tested very,

very, low--below grade level and she is a very high reader. We retested

her and she was high... Then sometimes I think they aren’t as low as they

tested on that test. KC.SSW.05.12.08
Sue preferred to draw upon what she learned about her students reading performance
from the Four Blocks reading conferences and the speciﬁc notations she made about
student reading progress in the student reading logs. “I have seen how they are in class
and know what I can expect from them.” She used this knowledge to determine pairing
and grouping of students. When pairing her students to work together, she based her
decisions on her understanding of their reading ability.

I look at the student’s reading level and try to. . .put “like” students

together. I don’t want to put the highest student with the lowest student

because they are so far apart. But I don’t want to put the lowest student

with another low student so I kind of pull ﬁ'om the middle for the really

low students. The high students I end up pairing together.

KC.SSW.05.12.08
The state assessment inﬂuenced Sue’s assessment of her students’ reading by way of the
district-mandated use of the SRI. While Sue accommodated the mandate, she exerted her

discretion over the use of the score and chose instead to rely on what she learned about

her students’ reading within the classroom context.

96

State Assessment Inﬂuences on Writing Instruction. The state assessment of
writing was the main factor that determined the content of writing instruction in Sue’s
classroom. The state assessment covered several different forms of writing. These forms
were also included on the district’s common assessment of writing and the district’s 20-
Day Plan for writing. The forms of writing were also covered on Kensington School’s
writing plan (Appendix P) which was put together as a result of the previously described
SIP meeting in which the 2005 fall assessments were reviewed. Sue followed the
district’s 20-Day Plan and, when the Kensington writing plan was instituted, she followed
that plan closely.

Sue taught the various forms of writing that were included on the school’s writing
plan. The plan called for cross-text analysis and personal narratives, both of which have
been described in previous chapters, and peer reﬂection every week. The peer reﬂection
writing called for students to critique someone else’s writing. Sue described the difﬁculty
her students had when trying to accomplish this.

They have to grade another student’s writing and give them strengths

about their writing and weaknesses and what they could do instead. That is

on the [state assessment]. That’s really, really hard. KC.SSW.05.12.08
The speciﬁc difﬁculty Sue’s students had with peer reﬂection writing was identifying an
area of improvement other than spelling and grammar, “which is not what the state
assessment scorers want to see” (KC.SSW.05.12.08).

Sue’s writing instruction was, ﬁrst, inﬂuenced by the district’s 20-Day Plan,
which was shaped by the state assessment of writing. Sue used the 20-day plan both to

prepare her students prior to administering the state assessment, as well as to formulate

lesson plans after the state assessment had concluded. Following the SIP meeting,

97

previously described, at which state assessment results were reviewed collectively by the
faculty, Mary Locke created a school writing lesson plan that covered all the forms of
writing students would encounter on the state assessment and that would that ensure that
all of the weak points identiﬁed in the test results would get covered throughout the year
(Appendix P). Sue adopted and followed the school writing plan in her classroom. As Sue
noted in an interview, “Our biggest language arts focus is writing because that’s where
[Kensington] had struggled on the [state assessment]” (KC.SSW.05.12.08). Sue explained
that there was a weakness in writing even in the previous year’s fourth grade assessment
results. Sue’s mentor, Mary Locke, was the link from the state assessment to Sue’s
practice. Mary demonstrated teaching writing lessons, provided feedback to Sue on her
teaching, and provided support for the instruction and evaluation of writing that would
likely improve Sue’s students’ performance on the state tests.

One of the speciﬁc writing areas Sue worked on with her students was including
details in writing. Sue pointed out that the reason she focused on this aspect of student
writing was because of the state assessment test results.

They didn’t do a lot of [state assessment] speciﬁc writing last year. This

year the biggest thing the kids lacked was details. And we saw that across

the board in almost every kid, even our strong writers. [Reading from the

previously mentioned report by Ms. Mathews (Appendix 0)] There were

32 ﬁfth graders who needed details and examples to adequately develop
the ideas and content. So that’s 32 out of 50. Basically 38 fourth graders

and 33 third graders needed that same detail. So that’s kind of been a 3rd,
4th, 5th grade thing this year.” KC.SSW.06.05.10
Sue followed the writing plan and included lessons using the structure words. Structure

words were being used school-wide because the state assessment tests from the fall

showed that Kensington students lacked details in their writing. “We worked on using

98

those structure words because it is something the whole school is implementing so next
year the fourth graders will know it when they come here” (KC.5SW.06.05.10). Sue
posted the structure words on one of her bulletin boards so her students could refer to the
list often. One lesson format used by Sue to teach her students to use the structure words
followed the reading of a selection of text. Using the overhead to model for her students,
Sue displayed the structure words and had her students supply as many descriptors about
the story for each of the words that they could think of. After this brainstorming as a
group, the students were given their writing assignment and asked to include many of the
details the class had come up with into their writing assignment. Sue repeated this lesson
format with several reading selections and encouraged her students to include details in
their writing. After several lessons that included teacher modeling and support, Sue asked
her students to include details in their writing without teacher modeling.

Evaluating Writing. In addition to the types of writing students were asked to do
in their assignments, the state assessment tests also deﬁned the way Sue evaluated her
students’ writing.

We got this whole packet of all the ways that they are graded on writing

on the [state assessment]: personal narrative, writing in response to

reading, across text, writing from knowledge and experience, reporting

and reﬂecting. So there are all these different pieces that we are supposed

to be using to grade their writing. KC.5SW.06.05.10
The scoring rubrics used by Kensington teachers to evaluate student writing were the
same rubrics used to evaluate student writing on the state assessment. The district
distributed these rubrics to the teachers. Kensington’s principal and academic support

coach fostered the use of the state assessment rubrics to evaluate Kensington students

writing. Mary Locke brought these rubrics with her when she demonstrated teaching

99

lessons in Sue’s classroom, as well as others, and offered to help the teachers practice
using the rubrics. The principal set up time for grade level teachers to get together to
trade student work and evaluate the writing of students from other classes in order to
assure that the teachers were using the rubrics and evaluating student work the same from
classroom to classroom. Mary Locke noted the importance of this shared scoring time for
the teachers at the previously described SIP meeting.

It is critical that you are scoring these and it’s even better to meet together

and get someone else’s opinion because we tend to say ‘it was a bad day’

or ‘here’s what he meant.’ That is what those disinterested readers don’t

know. That is going to drive our writing scores. KC.rconML.06.05.30
In speaking about the use of the rubrics to assess writing Sue said, “This has been helpful
for me.” In addition to the use of the rubrics, the sharing of student work with other
teachers and grading other students’ work gave Sue conﬁdence that she was assessing her
students’ writing consistently with those rubrics.

State Assessment and Social Studies Instruction in Steve’s Fifth Grade Class

Unlike Sue’s case, where the district and school mediated the state assessment’s
inﬂuence on her instruction and assessment of student learning, Steve’s instruction was
shaped more directly by the state assessment, without any mediating levels of mandates.
There were no mandates or supports for the instruction of social studies, either by the
district or the school. Rather, Steve relied on knowledge he had gained over the years
about the content of the state test to determine the content of his social studies lessons.

Though social studies was not considered a priority subject either in the school or the

district, the state assessment did inﬂuence Steve’s instruction in social studies. Rather

100

than being mediated by district or school policies, however, as it was in Sue’s case, the
test shaped Steve’s instruction through his own knowledge of what content was tested.

Steve was strongly inﬂuenced by the state social studies assessment test in
deciding which topics of the social studies curriculum he would include in his day-to-day
social studies instruction. Steve made his decisions about which content should be
emphasized or which could be skipped in the textbook based on his knowledge of the
state assessment. In addition to the material found in the district-adopted textbook, he
added material to fortify topics he expected would be on the state assessment. The way
Steve taught social studies, however, was not inﬂuenced by the state assessment. It was
largely shaped by his teaching philosophy, as described previously. He added projects,
which included both visual interest and hands-on opportunities for his students to support
these topics.

I have seen enough questions over the years on the [state assessment] test

about the Iroquois League, about a fellow named Deganawida, and some

other things about how the plains Indians lived, and teepee building. . .I put

a lot more in like the teepee project that we are doing right now. That’s

something that the kids can put their hands on and then they really

remember more. All of those things I can tell you I have seen on the [state

assessment test]. KC.SSA.05.09.28

The major projects he added included the teepee project, the talisman project, and
the economics unit, which have each been described in chapter four. For these projects as
well as his day-to day instruction, Steve relied on what he knew about the state
assessment tests.

How is it that we can enjoy tropical ﬁ'uits in the winter that have been

shipped up from Florida? A lot of kids only know that the stuff comes

from the grocery store but they don’t think beyond that. How things are

shipped and the importance of railway lines and airports and trucking lines

and how goods and services get moved back and forth. These are things
that I’ve seen over and over again on the [state] test and so I know that

101

those things are important for us to focus on with the kids.
KC.SSA.05.09.28

I know the state thinks these are important concepts because they keep

repeating them. We didn’t used to talk that much about the economics of

where people settle and how goods and services move back and forth but

it’s much more important to talk about now than it used to be in social

studies because of the [state] test. KC.SSA.05.09.28

While he did not experience pressure from his principal concerning student
performance on the state social studies test, Steve did feel some pressure about the tests,
especially as he expressed with the notion of policing or surveillance of teachers’ work.

It’s one thing for it to be written in the state standards and then its another

thing for it to be tested through the [state assessment test] so that people

go ‘Oh they’re really watching what’s being taught through these state

standards.’ It’s deﬁnitely the police ofﬁcer of state standards.

KC.SSA.05.09.28
In addition to surveillance on the part of the state, through some informal comments
made after the conclusion of an interview, Steve expressed his belief that the district was
watching his work as a social studies teacher.

Our superintendent is a force behind the district’s emphasis on the [state

assessment]. I know after the 6m graders take the test next fall, if [my

students] don’t perform well, they will come back to us and say “Why

wasn’t this taught?” and “This should have been taught better.”

KC.5SA.06.02.08
Interestingly, Steve believed that both the state and the district would scrutinize the social
studies assessment results, even though in Kensington School the principal’s attention
was focused on reading, writing and math, which fall under NCLB requirements.

While using the textbook to cover the social studies cuniculum along with the

knowledge he had about the content of the state assessment addressed what he should

teach, it didn’t address the way he should teach it. He believed that relying solely on a

102

textbook was not the most effective way to teach social studies. Steve believed that
substantive, active leanring projects helped his students both understand and retain
knowledge and that such projects allowed students to gain deeper understanding than was
possible from reading a textbook. Because of this belief, Steve used his own discretion by
including projects that supported the curriculum while, at the same time, he was

cognizant of the content that was on the state assessment of social studies.

Discussion

In response to the pressure schools are under to meet AYP mandates, what we see
in this context, as has been shown by Spillane (1996), is a proliferation of district- and
school-level mandates and tools that became both resources and constraints on teachers. ‘
This raises the question of whether these mandates are productive for teachers’ work. We
don’t really know. In one way, it brought many resources to classrooms. In another way,
the mandates overlapped or co-existed as was pointed out by a Kensington fourth grade
teacher who found it all quite confusing. Lack of coordination of district and school
efforts can create overlapping and even competing policies (Wong, Buice & Cole, 2006).
In the case of Kensington, the district and the principal produced multiple mandates that
addressed the same problem. The district required the SRI be administered to students,
which ostensibly would determine students’ reading levels and could be used to group
students for instruction. The principal mandated the use of Four Blocks, which also
provided various means of grouping students for reading instruction. On top of that, the
principal acquired the services of Lindarnood-Bell in order to provide teachers with

standardized test scores that were to be used to group students for instruction. It is unclear

103

whether these really worked together, or at odds, or simply co-existed. In addition, Ms.
Mathews acquired the services of Lindamood-Bell that was to provide support to students
who were reading below grade level. The district’s Fast ForWord program was aimed at
these same students. Ms. Mathews did not offer an explanation or discuss the reason she
felt it necessary to add Lindamood-Bell on top of the district’s reading support plan. Did
she feel that the district’s Fast ForWord program was inadequate? When Ms. Mathews
talked about the ways she was attempting to continue to meet AYP, she didn’t mention
the district, even though she did support the use of the Scholastic reading series and the
SRI in her building.

Despite the many mandates teachers faced, they were still able to exert some
discretion over how they would accommodate the demands put upon them. In Steve’s
case, even though he taught a subject that was not on the district or principal’s radar, he
was mindful to cover the material that was expected to be on the state assessment for
social studies. He exerted discretion over the way he covered the material. He moved
away from relying on the textbook as the sole source of material and added his own
projects that he believed would help his students learn and retain the subject matter
knowledge. Ironically, in Steve’s case, the state had a more direct effect on his instruction
than on Sue’s. Despite being left pretty much on his own to teach social studies, he
covered the content that the state assessment required without the mediating inﬂuence of
district- and school-level mandates and resources.

In Sue’s case, despite being bombarded by mandates and resources with which
she tried to comply, she was still able to exert some discretion over her use of the

resources. Though she accommodated the mandate to administer the SR1 and record it on

104

report cards, Sue chose not to use it to determine her students’ reading levels. Rather, she
preferred to draw upon the knowledge she gained about her students through use of the
Four Blocks tools. She believed these tools, by allowing her to interact with her students,
gave her a better understanding of her students’ abilities. Sue made her own choices
among these tools. The district produced the 20-day plan notebooks in order to help
teachers prepare their students to take the state assessment. However, the school didn’t
really have 20 days of school prior to the testing. Sue was not able to cover all of the
material the district had determined to be necessary for students to be familiar with before
taking the test. She exerted some discretion in selecting the material to cover, and even
after the test, whether to continue using the notebooks to shape her instruction.

It is also important to note the way people were central carriers or mediators of
state and district policies. Mary Locke held a unique, quasi-district role at Kensington
School. She inﬂuenced the use of Four Blocks as the preferred form of reading
instruction through her own experience using it as a classroom teacher, as well as through
her inﬂuential position as a longtime faculty member at Kensington. She worked both
alongside the principal, as was evident at the SIP meeting, and alongside teachers, as was
evident in her work with Sue and others. For Sue, this was especially important because
of the personal and professional relationship that developed between her and Mary
Locke. The principal, Ms. Mathews, played an important role in shaping the way state
and district policy played out in her building. While supporting and enforcing district
mandates, Ms. Mathews added her own mandates for reading and writing instruction. Her
actions pushed the boundaries of her role as principal, expanding her authority into

classrooms and over instruction. Principals traditionally have authority over school-wide

105

policies, while teachers maintain authority over their classroom domain. Ms. Mathews
used the state assessment results to push teachers away from the deﬁcit models some held
of their students. The state test results framed the low expectations and deﬁcit models
held by some of the teachers. She confronted these misconceptions at the SIP meeting
and provided teachers with tools and resources that would help all students succeed. The
district extended its boundaries by creating the position of academic support coach for the
Title I schools. The academic support coach extended the reach of the district into the
school-wide decision-making arena. At Kensington School this was important because it
put Mary Locke in a pivotal role as a carrier of policy into the school and classrooms.
This chapter has traced the path of state assessment policy into the classrooms of
Kensington School. In the next chapter, I will look at the ways these teachers sought to
assign grades to their students’ work. Grading is one way that teachers represent their
understanding of their students’ learning in a visible way. Each of these teachers
approached the task differently, and each carried personal beliefs about learning and

grades that shaped the their practice.

106

Chapter Six

Assessment for Grading

Giving students grades, whether on individual assignments or cumulative report
card grades, is one of the most visible assessment practices engaged in by teachers. While
the ofﬁcial mandate for grades comes ﬁom the district and the school, the formulation of
that grade is often left entirely up to the individual teacher. Though largely taken for
granted, the issue of grading raises a number of dilemmas for teachers. First, there is an
assumption that a grade is a valid representation of student learning in relation to the
grade level of the student. However, it is largely left for the teacher to decide what the
grade depicts in his or her classroom. Teachers must decide what assignments, or
representations of student learning, will be included in the report card grade and what
weight will be given to each of these representations. He or she must try to make student
learning visible in a way that it can be measured and translated into a grade. In addition,
teachers need a rational system for assigning grades because they may have to justify to
others, ﬁrst and foremost to parents, the grades they assign to students.

This chapter explores the difﬁculties the teachers in this study faced as they
graded their students and how they sought to resolve these difﬁculties. The resources and
strategies the two teachers drew upon to resolve them differed according to both the
teachers' years of experience and the subject matter. Both teachers experienced
challenges ﬁnding ways to quantify complex learning. For Sue, a new teacher, this

challenge revolved particularly around reading and was further complicated by her efforts

107

to account for student effort as well as perceived ability. The ways in which Sue
attempted to resolve this challenge led to further difﬁculties including conﬂicts with
students' parents and lowering her expectations for student learning. For Steve grading
had become efﬁcient. He had instituted several routines, which allowed him to readily
quantify student learning. At the same time, he continued to face challenges of
maintaining student interest and ensuring retention of contentlknowledge.

For each of these teachers, the issue of grading brought different dilemmas to the
surface. Further, the resolution of these dilemmas brought additional dilemmas to the

surface.

Sue ’s Assessment Practices for Grading

The central challenge Sue Williams experienced in grading was ﬁnding a way to
measure student progress in reading, making it visible in ways that could be translated
into a grade that she could justify. While Sue also taught writing and language arts to
these ﬁfth grade classes, the grading of these subjects posed less of an internal conﬂict
for her than the grading of reading.

In the next section, I describe the observed lessons and assignments Sue included
in her students’ grades. These assessments helped Sue as she sought to resolve the
problem of grading her students in reading, writing, and language arts.

Graded Assignments in Observations
I observed Sue’s classroom instruction on fourteen occasions. These observations

ranged from one hour to two hours in length. Several of these lessons included more than

108

one graded assignment. The following table summarizes the eighteen graded assignments
that were given during the lessons observed.

Graded Assignments in Observations of Sue’s Instruction

 

Obs #

t—‘
i...
N
b)
J:
(Jr
(Jr
0‘
O\
\l
00
\O

10 10 ll 12 l3 14

O)
U
m
0"
m
c
O?
c

 

Reading a a o a a a o o

 

Writing a a a o o

 

ELA

 

01"‘00

Formal

 

Informal

 

Teacher 000000000 0 cacao
checked

 

Class 0
checked

 

Writing a a a
Journal

 

Four Blocks 0 c o c a a o
SSR Log

 

Test a

 

State/ a o o o a
District
Rubric

 

Teacher’s a a
Rubric

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage o a o c

 

 

Table 10

DOL=Daily Oral Language; P=Poetry

The ﬁrst row in table 10 indicates the observation number. When a single
observation produced more than one graded assignment, they were separated out as “a”
and “b” assignments. Table 10 also indicates whether the lesson was part of the reading,
writing, or language arts grade. I have ﬁrrther labeled a Daily Oral Language lesson and
two lessons from Sue’s poetry unit (These were more fully explained in chapter four). I
have also noted whether the assessment was formal or informal. I use the term formal
assessment to indicate an assignment that produced a written document, such as a test,

quiz, or paper. This document created a record of student performance that the teacher

109

could evaluate and translate into a numerical score or grade as part of the report card
grading process. I use the term informal assessment to indicate that the teacher assesses
student progress in a more casual manner, such as observation of students, inventories,
participation in class discussions, and social interactions. While the teacher may make
note of some of these Observances, they are usually kept “in their head” as overall
impressions of how their students are doing, either individually or collectively.

Eight of the classroom observations included graded assignments for reading, ﬁve
of the assessments were for writing, and ﬁve of the assessments were for language arts.
Seven of the reading lessons observed included SSR reading conferences. The only
exception was the administration of the district common assessment for writing. The
assessments for the SSR conferences have been labeled both formal and informal, which
may at ﬁrst, seem counterintuitive. However, Sue kept detailed notes in the SSR Log (see
Appendix M), which provided a formal record of her assessment of the student’s reading
performance on speciﬁc indicators. In addition to these formal records of performance,
Sue indicated through interviews that she had informally drawn upon these conferences
to inform her instruction (this will be discussed in chapter seven). For this reason, these
conferences were labeled as both formal and informal forms of assessment. The table also
indicates whether the assessments were teacher checked or checked by students as part of
a whole class activity. While I only saw one assignment corrected together as a class (the
DOL), Sue indicated in interviews that the end-of-story questions were often corrected
together as a class, rather than teacher checked. The next three rows indicate the
document or record of student work the teacher used to assess student learning (writing

journal, SSR Log, test). The last two rows indicate the instrument the teacher used to

110

evaluate student work, such as the state/district rubric for writing, a rubric developed by
the teacher, or by the percentage of correct answers.
Making Reading “Visible” and Accounting for Effort

As a young teacher, Sue did not have a lot of experience giving report card
grades. Report card grades present a greater challenge for teachers than daily grades
because these are “public” records that are scrutinized, not only by students, but also by
parents and the school administrator. While the district report card enumerated the
subjects and the speciﬁc standards to be measured and graded, the decision about which
student assignments would be included and how each would be weighted in the grade
was largely left up to each teacher to determine. Sue was responsible for grading both
ﬁfth grade classes in reading, writing, and language arts. The district report card
organized and grouped subjects; in addition, standards were included for each subject
area. The students’ Lexile score was to be recorded each marking period. The Kensington
report card required Sue to determine a percentage and letter grade for reading and the
combined subjects of English and writing into one grade. In addition, she needed to score
each of the standards using a rubric score of l - 4. Appendix Q shows the portions of
Kensington School’s ﬁfth grade report card that are relevant to this study.

The district report card provided a partial resolution to Sue’s quandary about how
she would go about determining grades. Sue used the report card format to determine
how she would sift through student work to determine grades. “There’s a lot of stuff, so I
just kind of stuck to what the report card was asking for” (KC.SSW.05.11.21). The report
card separated the subject of reading from the subjects of English/writing and enumerated

the standards that were to be graded. Despite this, Sue still had to evaluate the various

lll

forms of data she had available for each subject and determine how she would come up
with these grades.

The problem of grading reading. Sue expressed the inner conﬂict that grading
posed for her on several occasions, especially in the area of reading. Even before the ﬁrst
marking period ended, she was beginning to contemplate the difﬁculty of the task. “Now
it’s hard to pull a grade from that [reading] conference. . .I haven’t really thought about
that yet because I haven’t had to do that report card grade yet” (KC.5SW.05.10.18). Her
uncertainty continued even into the second marking period as she struggled with her own
beliefs about grades.

Reading I feel is one of the hardest things to grade because its not that

they know how to read or they don’t. If they are having a hard time

understanding I don’t feel that they should get a bad grade because we are

working on doing it together. So I do struggle a lot with putting that grade

on the report card (KC. 05.12.08).

One option Sue could have used, but rejected, would have been to use the student’s
reading level as the determiner for the grade. “Reading is hard to assess how they’re
doing besides just saying, OK, they’re at this level” (KC.5SW.05.12.08). The district
mandated that students’ reading level be recorded on report cards; each marking period
students were tested with the computer-based Scholastic Reading Inventory. This district-
mandated test reported student reading level as a Lexile score. Each grade level is
equated to a range of Lexile scores.

It’s on [the report card] because we have done one reading inventory and

we are doing another one right before report cards. Usually they don’t do

it at the beginning of the year, but this year the principal thought we

should do it so we can see how they have grown. So we have a base line

from the beginning of the year. They take it at the end of the year, but then

they have a whole summer where they lose a lot. . .so we do it every
quarter before the report cards (KC.SSW.05.10.18).

112

While the Lexile equivalent of the SRI score was recorded on the report card, Sue
rejected using the Lexile score as the sole basis for determining the report card grade for
reading for several reasons. First, she didn’t really trust the test, as noted in chapter ﬁve.

I don’t feel like it’s the most accurate... I had a student that tested very,

very low--below grade level and she is a very high reader. We retested her

and she was high” KC.05.12.08).

In addition, she expressed concern that using the SRI score to determine the reading
grade would be too harsh an assessment for students who read below 'grade level, but who
put in extra work on their reading because of the out-of-class support they were getting.

Technically, based on their reading level they are at a second or third

grade level, but giving them a failing grade is not what I want to do. . .I

think it would be detrimental to them and their parents to see a low grade

even though they are working so hard at it (KC.SSW.06.01.31).

For Sue, it was necessary to come to an understanding of her students as learners
in order for her to assign a letter grade to their reading. She rejected the readily available
SR1 as a metric that could be translated into a rationalized grade. Rather, she sought to
ﬁnd ways to make her students’ learning visible through means that she could rationalize
to herself and others. Sue utilized a variety of data resources available to her to assess her
students’ learning and turn that information into grades that ﬁt the institutional
requirements imposed by the district as well as her own personal beliefs about grades.

In sum, while Sue had various technical measures available that could be
translated into report card grades, she weighed their value against what she knew about
her students as learners of reading. She did not entirely trust these instruments as a

reliable measure of her students’ progress. Sue came to depend on her own interpretation

of her students’ development as readers, utilizing tools available to her through the

113

district’s reading program, but relying on her observation of them over time in the
classroom.

One resource that was instrumental in Sue’s grading formula for reading was the
Four Blocks Literacy Model. Several components of Four Blocks were central in Sue’s
assessment of her students’ learning. One such resource was the Self-Selected Reading
Log on which Sue noted student progress on several indicators including ﬂuency, use of
reading strategies, comprehension, and appropriate reading level of text (See appendix
M). In addition to the prescribed notations, Sue also kept many speciﬁc notes on
individual student’s reading and comprehension as she heard them read and assessed the
answers to her questions.

Sue described the SSR reading log and how she kept detailed notes that
could help her assess her students’ learning.

It doesn’t have any questions on it. It has what I’m looking for while I’m

listening to them read. Then for comprehension it just has what their

comprehension is, but I usually write myself notes. What kind of questions

I asked, what their answer was. . .I ha[ve] to try to be very explicit with the

note. . .I tell the kids ‘tell your friend to come next but wait a couple

minutes’ before they come so I can get this down before I go to the next

kid. (KC.5SW.05.12.08)

When asked after the ﬁrst marking period how she had graded reading, she
mentioned the SSR reading log, speciﬁcally in relation to grading her students on the
reading standards.

I used a lot of our self-selected reading and we do student conferences, so

we took a lot from that. I asked a lot of comprehension questions, and I

keep notes so I can see where the kids are. We also made sure they are

reading at their level because we talk to them a lot about that. In choosing

books they use the ﬁve-ﬁnger rule. Then we just have a lot of discussion
in those conferences (KC.SSW.05.11.21).

ll4

Then depending on. . .where their skills were when I spoke with them, we

have our standards that we grade 4,3,2,l, and that’s more where I chose

that instead of taking it from their actual grade. Just seeing if they met

those reading standards (KC.SSW.05.11.21).

The SSR reading log was an important tool Sue used to assess her students’
progress in reading, to determine what areas of focus would be most helpful to her
students, as well as an integral part of her reading grades.

It’s a lot in my head ﬁguring out what they are learning and where they

are at and then pulling. . .I’ll look back to at this during reading and say

‘where were they struggling’ so I can write a comment on the report card

and know what to work on for the next marking period.

(KC.SSW.05.12.08)

While Sue did rely on the SSR reading log as a tool, she added her own detailed notes
and observations of her students’ reading performance during the reading conferences. In
addition to relying on those notes for her interpretation of their reading progress, she also
used them to justify her grading decisions.

Another resource that was available to Sue in the guided reading portion of the
Four Blocks model was the district-adopted textbook and the end-of-story questions
included as part of that text. Sue conﬁrmed that she used this as a resource for her reading
grade. “We have a basal series and we read from that. We do comprehension questions
from that. We write paragraphs and I pull a lot from that” (KC.SSW.05.11.21). This
provided Sue with a relatively objective means of grading based on the number correct
and the number wrong for each set of questions. In fact, at the end of the ﬁrst marking
period, Sue named this as the main source she drew on to formulate the percentage and
letter grade on the report card.

Most of the grade came from actually grading comprehension questions

through the basal series. . .and some other things that we did in class, just
some stories that we. . .had to read and answer some questions. I mostly

115

just graded those questions and then had an average grade.
(KC.5SW.05.11.21)

While Sue used these questions as a means to obtain a percentage that could be
converted to a letter grade, her concern remained focused on student learning.

Most of the actual report card grade is based on those comprehension

questions and a lot of them check together and will change some things so

that they understand. So they are not necessarily getting them all wrong if

they didn’t understand when we go to that grade because I feel we have to

talk about it. I’m not just going to say ‘here’s your question, OK, go on to

the next story’. (KC.SSW.05.12.08)

Hence, Sue used the reading text comprehension questions not only as a means of
obtaining a numerical score that could be used for grading, but also as a means of
analyzing her students’ reading comprehension in a way that informed her grading
decisions. She did not use these questions merely as a technical measure that was
translated into a grade, rather she used them for further discussion that helped her come
to understand her students as readers.

In addition to the components of the Four Blocks Literacy Model just described,
Sue obtained other resources that she incorporated into the assessment of her students.
Sue found instructional materials in her classroom that had been left by the previous
teacher. Among these materials were classroom sets of novels along with lesson plans
and a literature unit book containing tests for the novels. Sue drew on the help of her
mentor to use these materials in a way that ﬁt the Four Blocks model. After reading one
of the novels, Sue gave her class a test from the literature unit book. This test was graded
by a percentage and became part of the marking period. grade.

In order to solve the problem of grading her students in reading, Sue utilized

many resources available to her in the classroom. She rejected using merely technical

116

means that didn’t provide her with what she felt was an understanding of her students as
readers. Rather, she used these resources as tools to help her come to that understanding.
She used her own observation of her students’ reading performance as well as the
information these tools provided. She brought all this information together to come up
with a grade that she could justify. At the end of the process, she could feel conﬁdent that
the letter grade she put on each student’s report card represented her understanding of his
or her progress as a reader.

The problem of grading English/writing. While the grading of her students in
reading was the central challenge Sue faced, she was also responsible for grading her
students in English (commonly called language arts in the elementary curriculum) and
writing. Even though these subjects posed less of an inner conﬂict for her, Sue still had to
come up with a plan for turning student learning in these subjects into grades. The district
report card required a percentage and letter grade for English/writing, with rubric scores
of l- 4 on ﬁve standards (Appendix Q). There was no clear delineation on the report card
between English (or language arts) and writing, so the determination of how these two
areas were combined into one grade was left up to the teacher.

Sue acknowledged her struggle with grading writing. “Writing is hard. It’s very
hard to grade” (KC.SSW.06.05.10). Part of the difﬁculty in grading writing is that it is
such a time consuming task. Writing assignments are not as easily corrected as are
assignments on which there are clear right or wrong answers that can be counted up and
translated into a percentage. In addition to the amount of time involved in evaluating
writing, the volume of writing assignments required by the ﬁfth grade curriculum made it

hard for Sue to keep up.

117

I have a pile the kids have been asking about. I said, ‘I’ll get it back to

you’ because I had something from last week that I just didn’t get a chance

to get to and then we did this [district writing] prompt. And I’m like, ‘I

have to grade your prompt ﬁrst. Sorry. You’ll get it back, I promise.’ I

have 50 of them to grade. (KC.SSW.06.05.10)

One resource that eased Sue’s problem about grading student writing was the state
assessment rubric for writing. The district and Kensington School utilized the state’s
writing rubrics for all students’ writing. In this way, the teachers used the same rubric to
assess writing whether it was a classroom writing assignment or an assignment intended
to prepare students for the state assessment of writing. This meant that Sue didn’t have to
construct her own system for the review and grading of her students’ writing.

An additional resource that eased Sue’s problem was that the school district gave
inservice training to all teachers in the district in the use of the rubrics. At Kensington
School, the teachers got together with samples of student writing. These samples of
writing were assessed by several teachers and traded in order to assure that a common
standard was being applied to all students’ writing.

This has been helpful for me and we kind of came up with, as a school,

that we would grade one piece of writing a week even though we are

doing two or three or four. And that personal narrative is three days [a

week]. This week we just did one. Next week we’ll be doing two. It just

depends on what it is. So we decided that we will grade cross text and next

we’ll grade a personal narrative. So there is one graded piece per week.

(KC.5SW.06.05.10)

In sum, the practice of collectively working on student writing lessened the tension
Sue experienced concerning grading writing. In addition, the school-wide decision to
grade one formal piece of writing a week, rather than every assignment, eased the volume

of work for Sue. Sue found the assessment of writing to be very time consuming and she

struggled to be able to give her students timely feedback on their work. The school plan

118

assured that students would get ongoing, weekly feedback about their writing and at the
same time it made the process of grading student work less overwhehning for Sue.

The other portion of the English/writing grade includes the portion of the
cuniculum that is commonly called language arts in elementary schools. For this portion
of the grade teachers could use the standards to delineate the speciﬁcs that were to be
included. The standards, in addition to the writing process, included grammar, a variety
of types of writing, and oral presentations. Sue was left to determine for herself what
would be included in the grade and how she would weight different assignments. Sue

utilized both formal and informal forms of assessment that she then compiled into a
’ report card grade.

Sue had several resources available to her for both the percentage and letter grade
portion that the report card called English/writing. First, she utilized the DOL worksheets
she found in her room as well as other worksheets that Sue presented as mini-lessons on
grammar and punctuation. These worksheets were collected and assigned a number score
which was used as part of the percentage portion of the grade.

Another source for the percentage portion of the grade was Sue’s poetry unit. The
poetry unit met the standard requirement of having students use a variety of forms of
writing. Sue constructed her own rubric for the grading of her students’ work on the unit.
This provided a formal assessment of student work on the unit.

The whole process was. . .they were learning the form for each type of

those poems. As we did their ﬁnal copies, which we typed in the computer

lab, we double checked to make sure that they were really matching the

syllables, and they had commas, and the poetry kind of stuff. . .When they

turned in their ﬁnal poetry book, that’s what I graded. I had a rubric and

each poem was worth 15 points. I kind of just broke that down into, did

they follow the form that we set out as a class? Then I put in a couple
points for spelling and punctuation, just because that was their ﬁnal-ﬁnal

119

[copy]. We had written it three or four times. Then they also had points for
creativity because they did illustrations for every page. . .we did a little oral
presentation too and they got a few points for that also. . .it was a total of
100 points. (KC.SSW.06.05.16)

In addition to the formal assessment of the students’ work, the poetry unit also provided
an informal assessment opportunity for the ﬁve standards for English/writing portion of
the report card. Sue created a way for students to share their written work through oral
presentation, another required standard, as well as listen to the work of others.

We not only [wrote] poetry, but we had a ﬁnal ‘coffee shop’ atmosphere

in here where we shoved all the desks out of the way. We had lamps that

we borrowed from all the teachers in the building. We did hot chocolate

and cookies and the kids got up on a stool and read one of their

poems. . .Basically, they had to choose at least one of their poems that they

had written themselves. Most of them read three or four. They read poems

they found in books, so they really got into it. That was kind of another

way we used for assessment too, just to see if they were understanding the

different kinds of poems. . .they gave a little feedback after other people

read. . .We decided on the book just because they put so much work into

all of these poems. I didn’t want to just see them in their journal. Then we

tied it in with the computer lab because they have to learn word processing

anyway. (KC.5SW.06.05.16)

In order to solve the problem of grading student writing as well as English skills,
Sue came up with a variety of resources to accomplish this task. She used classroom
resources of DOL and grammar worksheets. In addition, she formulated a poetry unit that
helped her account for the standards on the report card. The poetry unit required students
to write in a variety of formats as well as give an oral presentation. For this portion of the
report card, there were few aids provided by either the district or the school. Sue relied on

her own interpretation of the report card requirements to come up with a solution to the

challenge of grading.

120

Accounting for effort. Sue’s struggle to resolve the dilemma of grading her
students raised another dilemma because she believed that student effort needed to be
taken into account in their grades. Sue used various forms of formal and informal
assessment to get a picture of what her students were learning. She sought ways to state
this learning in the form of a grade, but this didn’t completely resolve the grading issue
for her. Drawing upon her close work with her students, Sue had a sense of what they
were capable of accomplishing in reading. She wanted to reward the work ethic of
students who were putting forth effort that she felt was above their ability. She also
wanted to reprimand students who weren’t working up to their ability by incorporating
the factor of effort into their grades.

One way this manifested in her grading practice was ﬁguring out what to do about
students who were getting reading support through Fast ForWord. These students were
doing extra work in reading, both at school and at home. Sue struggled trying to balance
between their actual reading level and the amount of work they were putting into reading.
Sue approached it by “ﬁguring out what percentage would be for each level and then
[writing] a lot of comments on those kids’ report cards too” (KC.5SW.05.12.08). When
asked if this boosted the students’ grades, she conﬁrmed that it did. “Yes, a little bit just
because I know how much they’re working (KC.SSW.05.12.08).

At the other end of the spectrum, Sue’s incorporation of effort into the grade
resulted in some student grades being lowered. In one case, Sue gave a student a B- for
reading on her report card. Sue justiﬁed this grade saying she didn’t think the student was
putting much effort into the post-story comprehension questions. These were often

corrected as a whole class, giving students an opportunity to change their answers.

121

I don’t think she was taking her time and concentrating and answering

those comprehension questions that we actually wrote out. I know that she

is a stronger reader than that but I felt she earned that B- even though I

know she is a stronger reader. (KC.SSW.05.11.21)

This was not the only case of a student’s grade being lowered because of lack of effort on
the student’s part.

There were a few other kids like that too. The same kind of thing this

marking period we saw a lot. Not so much for science and social studies,

they do a lot of projects, but with the math and language arts. Just not

putting all their effort into it and getting a lot lower grade than they

actually deserved. (KC.SSW.05.11.21)

Sue had a strongly held belief that grades should reﬂect the effort put forth by
students. Effort is neither visible nor measurable, but Sue included her interpretation of
the effort her students had put into their work as part of their grade. Sue drew upon her
observations of her students and her knowledge about what they were able to do in
particular subject areas to determine the amount of effort they were capable of putting
into their work. This completely subjective aspect of her grading process led to further
dilemmas for Sue.

Dealing with parents. Sue’s efforts to resolve her inner conﬂict about grades by
factoring in effort as part of student grades resulted in another challenge—problems with
parents. Sue found that it was difﬁcult explaining to parents how she came up with
grades, even though she had a clear rationale that she had worked out for to her own
satisfaction.

Parents don’t understand how you get the grade. . .It’s hard to explain even

after you come up with it. Even if you say, ‘OK, they met a four’ and you

read it. They are like, ‘what does that mean?’ I said a four was 85% but
they got an 83. (KC.SSW.06.05.10)

122

The parents of Sue’s student who received a B- in reading objected to their child’s grade.
They were “upset” at the conference because their daughter had not gotten an A. The
parents asked Sue to reconsider the grade because the student had previously been an all-
A student. Sue was conﬁdent in the grade she had come up with and declined to change
it. “So that was a choice that I stuck with because she earned that grade. I told them she is
a strong reader but she’s not putting that effort into it” (KC.5SW.05.11.21). Though the
parents ultimately accepted Sue’s decision, Sue was disconcerted about the parents’
complaint. Sue consulted her mentor concerning this grading issue.

At report card time I had a parent that was angry with me because their

child got a B instead of an A, you know. And it really was a B instead of

an A. She wrote me this very not nice letter and I kind of went to Mary

Locke [Sue’s mentor] and went, “What do I do?” (KC.SSW.06.05.16)

Sue’s mentor, Mary Locke, gave her moral support and boosted her conﬁdence
concerning her grading rationale. Sue and Mary discussed the grading issue and Mary
concluded that there was no reason why Sue should change the student’s grade.

Sue described interactions with other parents during those conferences, where the
parents were surprised by their child’s grade, but some parents had been more accepting
of it.

But I think the parents kind of said this is their wake up call and they have

to be more responsible and they’re in ﬁfth grade now. I think a lot more is

coming at them than they were prepared for. (KC.SSW.05.11.21)

Report card grades resulted in another kind of problem with a parent. There was a
glaring dissimilarity between one student’s performance on the state assessment and his

performance in the classroom. While the student had performed quite well on the state

tests, his grades were poor due to incomplete and missing assignments. At spring

123

conferences, Sue tried to explain this discrepancy to the parent who wasn’t accepting of a
critical assessment of her child. The parent felt that because her child had the ability to do
the work, he should be graded accordingly. Steve Adams, the other ﬁfth grade teacher,
who had the same experience with the student, supported Sue in this issue. Both teachers
made the same point at their individual conference with the parent, conﬁrming that they
were sure the student could do the work, but his refusal caused him to get failing grades.

Effort raised another problem: compromise of learning. In another instance,
Sue’s attempt to reward effort and keep her students involved in a difﬁcult lesson
ultimately caused her to compromise the content of the lesson. On one hand, she needed
to encourage student effort to master the content while, on the other hand, maintain their
interest in the lesson. In order to do accomplish this, in one lesson, she eliminated vital
criteria for writing a Haiku when she feared that they wouldn’t try if they felt the work
was too hard.

During her poetry unit, Sue introduced her lesson on haiku poetry by reading
Haiku Hike”. On the overhead, Sue wrote the required number of syllables for each line
of a haiku. She also displayed several examples of haiku poems and had the class count
the number of syllables in each line. She then distributed poster paper to each of the ﬁve
groups of desks on which she had written topics (bird, spring, ground, night, sky). Each
group wrote ideas about the topic on their poster. Each group of students then rotated to
another poster and continued in the same manner until all students had put ideas on each
of the ﬁve topic posters. Sue collected the posters and put them on the board in the front

of the room. The teacher and the whole class then wrote haiku poems together using the

 

’8 Haiku Hike (2005). by Fourth Grade Students of St. Mary’s Catholic School of Mansﬁeld,
Massachusetts. Scholastic, Inc. New York

124

ideas on the posters. Sue then had students write a haiku individually, but told them that
the number of syllables didn’t have to be exact if they had trouble making it work out. At
that point, the building principal came into the classroom to do an observation of the
teacher. Students took turns reading their haiku poems to the whole class. When a student
read a haiku that didn’t have the correct number of syllables, the principal interrupted,
saying that the student had better count again. One of the students sitting near the
principal said, “She told us we didn’t have to be exact.” Sue asked the students to read
and count the syllables of the haiku of the person sitting next to them in order to help
them check their work. While students read and counted, the principal said to the teacher
that she couldn’t help but count. Sue said, “That’s OK. I wasn’t counting. I was so
excited that they were writing.”

When she was later asked how she assessed the Haiku lesson, she described her
idea of poetic license.

We tried to teach that form, but it’s hard to have a 5-7-5 for Haiku, you

know. We kind of tried to teach them that poets have creativity and they

can kind of veer away from the form a little bit as long as they are still

kind of sticking to that idea. So I think just showing them that kind of

thing and that it’s the poem in itself in the end not the form to begin with.

(KC.SSW.06.05.16)

In this response, Sue reveals that she believed that the Haiku assignment was hard
for her students. In order to keep them involved in the lesson, to keep trying and not give
up, she transformed the focus of the lesson ﬁom the form of the Haiku to the effort of her
students, even if that effort didn’t meet the requirements of the form of the Haiku. Thus,
Sue struggled between the value of the lesson and the value of keeping her students

involved with the lesson. Ultimately, this move lowered the learning expectations Sue

had for her students.

125

Sue drew upon a number of resources in her effort to solve the problem of grading
for reading, English and writing, but she never fully solved it. The issue of effort
continued to be a complicating factor for her grading practices in several ways. While she
rewarded students for effort or penalized them for the lack of it, this raised the dilemma
of problems with parents. Further, in order to maintain students’ effort in class work, she

eliminated some of the criteria for Haiku, thereby compromising her learning goals.

Steve’s Assessment Practices for Grading

Steve’s experience with grading raised different problems than those experienced
by Sue. While Sue’s struggle was near the surface in her thinking because she was
resolving the dilemma as a new experience, Steve felt that he had solved the dilemma a
long time ago. The central challenge of Steve’s grading practice was ﬁnding a way to
measure the kind of student learning that Steve considered important and translating that
learning into a grade. On one level, he didn’t seem to be concerned about producing
student grades because he had developed efﬁcient means of doing so. At the same time,
he constantly looked for opportunities to construct learning activities that would make
learning “come alive” for his students. In doing so, he constructed activities that involved
students in hands-on projects. These activities were assessed using rubrics Steve had
developed, but the actual learning resulting ﬁom the projects was not so easily assessed
and translated into a grade. I will draw upon observational data as well as interviews to

support these claims.

126

In the next section, I describe the observed lessons and assignments Steve

included in his students’ social studies grades. These assessments helped Steve as he

sought to resolve the problem of grading his students in social studies.

Graded Assignments in Observations

I observed Steve’s classroom instruction of social studies lessons on eleven

occasions. These observations ranged from one hour to nearly a full school day in length.

Several of these lessons included more than one graded assignment. Table 11 summarizes

the ﬁfteen graded assignments that were given during the lessons observed.

Graded Assignments in Observations of Steve’s Instruction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obs # 1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4 5a 5b 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11

Resource T T T DG PKT T DG T T T EC EC EC EC EC
F F F .
K K K

Formal o c o a o o a o o o

Informal o o o a a

Teacher 0 a a a a a a a a

checked

Class 0 a a o c a

checked

Daily 0 c c a a a o a a

Grade

Test

Project a

Rubric o

 

 

Resources: T=Textbook; TFK=Time For Kids; DG=Daily Geography; PKT=Geography Packet;
Table 11

PJT=Project; EC=Economics Unit

127

The ﬁrst row of table 11 indicates the observation number. When a single observation
produced more than one graded assignment, they were separated out as “a” and “b”
assignments. Steve used various resources for the graded assignments in these lessons
that were described more fully in chapter four. He gave assignments from the textbook;
these were usually written answers to questions at the end of sections of text. He used the
Time For Kids publication. This included questions and worksheets that went along with
the articles read by the class. He used Daily Geography worksheets. He also used a
packet of geography worksheets on the continent of South America. In addition, he
taught his economics unit, which included many assignments that comprised part of the
social studies grade.

This chart also indicates whether the assessment was formal or informal. It also
denotes whether the teacher checked the assignment or whether students graded it as part
of a whole class routine. In addition, the chart makes note of the relative “weight” of the
assigrnnent. As will be explained later, Steve gives increasing weight to daily
assignments, projects, and tests. The last row indicates when the assignment is graded
using a rubric Steve has developed for grading projects and assignments he has designed

himself.

Steve’s Problem of Grading. As a teacher with sixteen years of experience, Steve
had been through the grading process many times. He did not express the uncertainty that
his colleague, Sue, struggled with to come up with grades. Over the years he had
developed routines and procedures that efﬁciently met the institutional mandate for report
card grades. On the surface, it didn’t appear that Steve experienced a problem with

grading; he believed that he had resolved it over the years. However, through

128

observations and interviews it became apparent that his procedures did lead him to
experience conﬂicts between efﬁciency and leaming. In some instances, classroom
procedures caused him to accept some compromises to student learning. In addition, he
revealed a belief that substantive learning was embedded in learning activities that gave
students hands-on experience. The challenge became a matter of translating “real”
learning into a metric that represented that learning.

Steve ’s Resolution of the Grading Problem. Steve was conﬁdent in the procedure
he had developed to come up with report card grades. When asked shortly after the ﬁrst
marking period what he had taken into consideration for the social studies grade, he
described the process of setting up his computerized grading program. He invested a
considerable amount of time setting it up with different categories: tests, quizzes,
projects, daily assignments, notes and journals. He assigned point values to weight the
assignments differently. Daily grades were worth the fewest points, projects were worth
more and tests were worth the most. Assignments were given a point value that could
conveniently be converted to a percentage.

The way that I usually grade these [daily assignments] is I look at what

kind of questions there are, try to ﬁgure out something I could do, either

on a 10 point scale or a 25 point scale and that way I can get something

that will calculate out roughly so they can get 100% somehow.

(KC.SSA.05.11.21)

While the end result was a quick conversion of points into a grade, Steve had
invested a lot of time over the years developing a fair and consistent way to
convert student work into report card grades. In addition to deciding what would

be counted as part of the grade, he also had to decide which assignments had more

value in the creation of the grade.

129

This is the hierarchy of the assignments as I do it throughout the year.

Tests are highest, large projects (reports), lesser projects (like talisman,

continent packet), under that would be quizzes, then daily assigrments.

(KC.5SA.05.11.21)

Quizzes are weighed a lot less heavily than a test. These daily worksheets

are less than a quiz. If we get two or three tests in a marking period, those

are about 40% of the grade. Quizzes are worth 15-20% of the grade, daily

assignments about 10%. Because they are all weighted that way, when

they are put into the computer program will just keep averaging

everything so that it can spit out at the end of the marking period a

percentage for the overall work they did. (KC.SSA.05.11.21)

Through his experience over the years, Steve’s system had developed in a manner
that accounted for different types of assignments, different weighted assignments, and
recently, it included a computer program to aid in the tracking and translation of scores
into grades.

His grading system accommodated the variation from marking period to marking
period depending on how many tests, quizzes, and projects fell within the marking
period. He adjusted the timing of the projects and geography packets to coincide with
topics being covered in the textbook.

Tests are 40%, large projects about 25-3 5%, small projects are 20-30%,

quizzes are about 15-20%, and daily assignments are 10%. That’s howl

usually weight them. These move back and forth depending on how many

we give. I usually will have two unit tests in the marking period,

sometimes I have two or three projects depending on what theme we are

working with. (KC.SSAQ.05.1 1.21)

Steve maintained ﬂexibility in his system as he constantly made adjustments to the

content being covered, the pace at which it was being covered, and the daily

contingencies of classroom life.

130

When asked if he had experienced a quandary deciding what grade to give a
student, he responded that he had not. He credited his grading system for alleviating
problems with grading. His record keeping system allowed him to alert his students to
missing assignments in time for them to get them done. “They knew ahead of time that
the grade was either going to go up or down based on whether those assignments were
turned in. It was pretty cut and dried based on the assigmnents they turned in”
(KC.5SA.05.11.21).

Another grading issue that Steve had resolved over the years was clarifying
student grades for parents. Steve developed rubrics that were used to grade his project
assignments. One of the reasons he cited for using these rubrics was that it clariﬁed his
expectations for both students and parents. In the past, “some of the students and parents
would come back and say, ‘what did you base that grade on?’ As a result, he developed
rubrics. He reasoned that using rubrics for all assignments made expectations clear from
the beginning.

In some cases, with some of the activities, I’ve had the parents sign off on

them when the assignment is given so that I know they have seen the

instructions. And that way there is no question about point value assigned

to different things and what I’m looking for so they know when the grade

comes back they can see where it came from” (KC.SSA.05.11.21).

The use of rubrics allowed Steve to anticipate and alleviate misunderstandings
before they happened. Drawing on his experience over the years, he had developed
rubrics that clariﬁed both his expectations for assignments as well as the resulting grades
not only for students but also for parents. -

Steve’s classroom routines and procedures facilitated his assessment of student

work and the paperwork it generated. He instituted routines to ease the distribution of

131

materials, handing in work, grading work, returning that work to students, and sending
paperwork home. One very important routine had to do with the record keeping duty of
teaching. Each student was assigned a student number that correlated to the alphabetic
order of his or her last name. In this way, Steve could quickly put papers in alphabetic
order by putting them in numeric order before recording scores in his grade book.

Another important routine in Steve’s classroom was the correction of work as a
whole class. This routine holds a legitimate value and beneﬁt for both the teacher and the
students, allowing the teacher to identify misunderstandings and clarify material to the
whole class at the same time. In Steve’s class, whole-class correction also served as a
record-keeping routine intended to efﬁciently correct student work without wasting class
time.
Tensions Between Efficient Procedures and Assessment of Learning

Taken at face value, it would appear that Steve had solved the problem of grading
through the record keeping system he had developed. There was evidence in Steve’s
practice, however, that even though he felt he had resolved this problem, it was not
totally resolved. There were instances when the tension between efﬁciency and student
learning surfaced. As he tried to attend to both the efﬁcient matter of turning student
performance into grades on one hand, and actual student learning on the other, conﬂicts
between the two goals caused him to accept a compromise. On one particular occasion, I
observed an apparent conﬂict between Steve’s efforts to efﬁciently correct student work
as a whole-class activity and the substance of the lesson. The following vignette

illustrates this conﬂict.

132

During one class session, Steve was leading the whole class through the
correction of a Daily Geography worksheet. Students had been given the sheet several
days before and had been given time to research the answers. Students were asked to
name three states with a panhandle. When they got to that question on the worksheet,
Steve told the class that a panhandle had “two right angles.” As students shared answers,
Steve wrote an abbreviation for each on the board. Steve accepted and wrote the
following answers on the board: OK, ID, an, Ala, NM, Tenn, Miss, Utah, MD. When a
student suggested New York, Steve did not directly dismiss the student’s answer, but he
ignored it and added to his previous deﬁnition saying that a “panhandle has three straight
sides.” He didn’t write New York on the list. A student shouted out Alaska, but Steve
ignored it. He added Pa, FL and NY to the list, even though he had previously rejected
New York as a correct answer. One student said, “Florida doesn’t have a panhandle.”
Steve said, “It is called a panhandle.” He then added CT and NH to the list of accepted
answers (KC.5SA.06.03.21).

In Steve’s classroom, the challenge of assessing for a grade surfaced when he
experienced this conﬂict in the classroom. The conﬂict between his efﬁcient classroom
routine and student learning forced him to make “in the moment” compromises in order
to maintain the momentum of instruction and complete the activity in a timely manner. It
has been documented that teachers tend to maintain the momentum of a lesson even if it
compromises student learning (Kennedy, 2005). It was not possible for Steve to separate
the need to efﬁciently get through the grading activity and his need to attend to student
leaming, but because these demands occurred simultaneously, he had to choose to

compromise one or the other. The need to maintain the momentum of this activity and his

133

decision to ignore student confusion caused him to lose the potential advantage offered
by the whole-class activity of correcting work.
The Challenge of Steve’s Theory of Learning

Another conﬂict that underlay grading was Steve’s desire to make social studies
both interesting and valuable for his students as well as to quantify student learning into
computed grades. Steve expressed concerns that reading the text could be a boring
activity for students. In order to keep them actively involved in his lessons, he included
activities that offered opportunities for both visual interest and hands-on variety.
Throughout my interviews with him, Steve consistently espoused the learning theory that
students would retain information better if it were acquired through a hands-on learning
activity. While it is not possible to conﬁrm the source of this theory, he cited his teacher
preparation program for his use or belief in this theory of learning and that it had been
conﬁrmed for him through his years of teaching. Steve’s rationale for including hands—on
and artistic assignments was stated several times in interviews; he believed that students
remember better when they do hands on activities. Steve noted that the teepee project for
which students created a model of a teepee was “something that the kids can put their
hands on and then they really remember more (KC.SSA.05.12.08). He believed that any
time students could put their hands on something rather than just read about it, they
would actually be able to recall it later more successﬁrlly than without such activities.

We were reading about the Inuit Indians up in the Arctic in the northern

part of Canada and I thought how are they going to remember anything

about this even though I’ve seen a few questions over the years on this

too. I’ve been ﬁnding little statues carved out of a soft stone that were

carved by the Inuit and I brought those in. It is one thing for them to see a

picture in the book of someone working on something, but another thing
altogether for me to pass those things around the room and then talk about

134

them and compare them to what we saw in the book. I know that things
like that will stay with them. (KC.SSA.05.12.08)

One way that Steve included visual interest for his students can be illustrated with
a classroom activity he designed to help them understand the three branches of the federal

government.

One thing I did was start a project where the kids had to do an illustrated
poster showing each branch and it had to look like an organizational
chart. . .show all three branches, who are the key people in each one, and
underneath a breakdown of who works under them, and what their tasks
are. Then they had to put illustrations on it. We pulled things off the
intemet. One thing the kids had to learn about was the president’s cabinet.
Who are members, and what are their jobs? We got on the intemet in the
classroom with that. And they knew, with the war in Iraq going on, who a
lot of the key players were under Bush because their names are on TV all
the time. So once they could see those same people as members of the
cabinet and saw their positions and what they were responsible for that
made that come alive for them. KC.SSA.05.09.28

Further, Steve tied active learning and visuals to his assessments of student learning as a
way to augment students’ learning. In assessing this project Steve “created some quizzes
that had visuals on them as well. In some cases they had to ﬁll in blanks or else they had
to ﬁnish the organizational chart.” In addition, he gave his students opportunities to
participate in role-playing activities.

Someone would be the president and they read a situation. Who would

they have to talk to about getting something done? Or a bill comes to the

president to sign, after he signs it what happens to it? Then we could talk

about if it went to the supreme court to make sure that everything was

written correctly and they interpret the law... we had some people sit

down and actually act that out. KC.SSA.05.09.28

Thus, Steve faced the twin challenges of maintaining student interest in his
lessons as well as ensuring retention of content knowledge. He delivered social studies

instruction in a way that he felt would meet these two challenges. He developed what he

believed to be meaningful learning activities as well as a means to assess his students

135

learning ﬁom these activities. His assessments were designed to turn student learning into
a grade for the report card.
Assessing Meaningful Learning Activities

Steve believed that active projects would not only be more interesting for his
students, but also they would spark substantive learning that would be retained better and
longer than by merely reading the textbook. For Steve, substantive, long-term learning
was embedded in the activities and projects he developed for his students. The challenge
this belief raised for Steve was that it added to the already complicated task of making
student learning visible in a way that could be measured. On one hand, Steve had a
system that turned easily measurable content knowledge into a grade, but on the other
hand, he was faced with the problem of turning deeper, substantive learning into a grade.
Classroom observations and interviews with Steve revealed the tensions created by the
on-going problem of assessing students’ learning in social studies through meaningﬁrl
learning activities, as well as ﬁnding a way to measure and translate what he considered
to be substantive learning into a grade.

Steve had to develop his own resources of meaningﬁrl learning activities for
social studies. While he believed that these kinds of activities were easier to ﬁnd for the
science curriculum, Steve used his creativity to develop projects that connected to the
social studies curriculum. The learning activities Steve developed always contained an
element of both visual interest as well as hands on items. He made a point of bringing in
objects that students could actually see and touch, and that would connect to the reading
ﬁ'om their textbook. His stated purpose for including such items was that it would be a

“hook to remember it by.”

136

I know that things like that will stay with them. Next year when they are
taking the [state assessment test], if any of those questions pop up, I’m
hoping it will jog their memory about what we talked about.
KC.5SA.05.12.08

By creating requirements that involve them to actually do things, put the
project materials together. They put more of themselves into it. I think
that, not only is their learning going to be a little more complete because
they’ve really lived the experience, but more of their emotions go into it so
they have more investment. They’re going to retain a lot more information
about what we’re doing and the terminology because I’ve been using that
terminology every day and they have to use it and with their buy-in
they’re going to be less likely to drop that information to the wayside.
KC.SSA. 06.05.24

In sum, Steve conﬁrmed his strongly held belief that meaningful learning took
place when students were interested and involved in the lessons. His main purpose for
providing such learning activities was to ensure that they retained content knowledge.

Substantive Projects. One such project, taken up in connection with the study of
Native Americans, involved the creation of talismans. This learning activity included
both visual interest as well as hands-on activities that would ensure both student interest
and retention of Steve’s learning goals. Steve made clear to his students that this was not
merely an art project.

At ﬁrst the kids were thinking, “I get to work with beads and create this

thing to wear.” I had to say, “Hold it. When they wore these things they

had meanings. If we are going to choose some objects to make for

ourselves, let’s tie some meaning to the ones we are making so each can

tell a story.” ...We deﬁned what talisman and amulet meant. . .we talked

about meaning of color in some cultures and how some symbols warriors

would wear, some symbols elders would wear, so that it could help

distinguish those people in their group. [Students] would come up with

some self-created meanings for those objects on theirs and then they’ll
write down a description of that. KC.SSA.05.11.21

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  

 

i liven-timiwl
. . l , ' : 11.423111}; M Ilrlrumhr (impii
I 1(‘M1’4 (West's

hitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"‘1' Tired? aﬁirsﬁm‘ fry,” ”‘ﬁ: frr'rf -.--:
1133¥g> A11triti1i1n35. alts. [1111311 draft: ._,2 _ .-_r_;'_:.-.-; ._.
{15‘an $ Color~19rawrn5a—* g ., '- -;

‘3. ‘ mitt \ «11.111 111 cursiva 1111111214 -.._ H
( % (“410(1411'2 1'19“ 01111:k1'10nii F41K§34Mﬂrmordraum

1 RC $511. 0811 11
Teacher Artifact- Figure 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

138

Assessment of the talisman project. Steve assessed his students’ talisman projects
using a self-developed rubric (Figure 1). Students deﬁned talisman, explained what they
were/are made of, and why they were created and used (10 points). After constructing
their own talisman (30 points), they wrote a description of each material they used in its
construction and the symbolism of each (15 points). They drew a picture of their own
creation and colored it (15 points). The ﬁnal draft of the completed project was evaluated
for neatness, capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and the color drawing (30 points).
Looking at the breakdown of this project, 45% for drawing and construction of the
talisman, 30% for the neatrress and grammatical correctness of the written work and 25%
for explaining the symbolism or meaning of various aspects of the talisman. Steve
explained the rubric to the class at the outset of the project in order that they would
understand the expectations and realize that this was not merely an art project, rather the
project had meaning.

I made a key so they could understand what each means, so when they are

done with everything I’ll give them a rubric that will have the point values

I assigned based on the work I felt they did. They’ve got their points right

up front. When they are working on something they can go, ‘I know what

this is for, we talked about this.’ It’s not like they are going to do this like

a fun art project without realizing the meaning behind it.

KC.SSA.05.11.21

Steve was able to give value to his students’ understanding of the meaning carried
with their talisman creation, while at the same time, three-fourths of the grade for the
project captured more surface level features such as the artistic creation and neatness and
grammar. Steve’s rubric provided an efficient way to translate the project into a grade by

breaking it down into points for both the artistic creation and the written output. While it

is difﬁcult to really know the quality of his students’ learning or its lasting value, Steve

139

could quantify such things as writing mechanics and the artistic merits of his students’
talisman projects. Steve believed that projects provided powerful learning activities for
students, but when it came to grading these activities he had to rely on measures that
were quantiﬁable. The tension that existed for him was that the learning he valued the
most is difﬁcult to quantify, so he was left to evaluate student output that could be
quantiﬁed.

Steve’s Economics Unit. The economics unit Steve undertook with his class,
which was more fully described in chapter four, also sought to develop deep subject
matter knowledge as well as long-term retention. This was a large, long-term project that
provided his students with many hands-on activities that provided for active participation
in lessons. This unit is another example of the way Steve provided his students with
activities that he believed would enhance their learning experience and result in long-
terrn retention of subject matter knowledge.

If we weren’t actually going through making a business and them putting

everything together, and talking about it with the terminology, none of

them would even remember, I don’t think, what a sole proprietor is. But

because we are using that terminology everyday and when they buy their

business license and it makes a difference in how much they are paying

for a license based on whether they are in a partnership or a sole

proprietorship, they had to tell the ﬁnes and fees clerks that information.

They are going to be remembering the economics terminology they are

using and that they need to know by actually living it. KC.SSA. 06.05.24

Assessment of the Economics Unit. Steve’s assessment of student learning
throughout the economics unit was, for the most part, observational and informal, which

will be discussed in the next chapter. He did, however, have several formal assignments

that allowed him to measure student performance and apply a metric that could be

140

translated into a grade. Early in the unit, Steve had presented the vocabulary that students
would be expected to understand for the unit. He checked their understanding with a
vocabulary worksheet. These were corrected and scored with a percentage that was
included in the marking period’s letter grade. Another assignment that Steve could check
for understanding was the poster students created to advertise their business. When
looking at students’ business poster, Steve checked to see if the poster included at least
two of the advertising techniques that had been included in that lesson. When looking at
their business license he checked to see that it included the business name as well as all
the appropriate endorsements.

Steve incorporated the experiential activities he believed were so valuable to
student learning into the economics unit but was left with no way to measure what they
had actually learned from the experience. Though he had high goals for his students’
learning, he had no way to translate their experiences into report card grades. Rather, he
was forced to focus primarily on the vocabulary worksheet, the business poster, and the
business license to measure surface features of the assigmnents that he could be
translated into a grade.

The economics unit was a much longer, and more involved learning activity than
either the teepee or the talisman projects, but it involved the same challenges for Steve.
He needed to balance his learning goals for his students with activities he could actually
see and assign some kind of metric that could be translated into a grade. In addition,
though it was his desire that students would retain this content knowledge into the future,

there was no way to measure this. Instead, he had to rely on some measurable student

141

output that could be turned into a report card grade and hope that students would retain
the content knowledge.
Grading Procedures

Even though he reported his grading procedures as pretty “cut and dried,” Steve
responded to the particular situations of his students and allowed another factor to
inﬂuence student grades. For the most part, he relied on percentages as reported by his
computer based grading program, but he did choose to limit the penalty for late work.

If a student didn’t get it in on time I knocked 5 points every day if it was

late, and I put a ceiling of 15 on that because I know that some of the kids

don’t get any help at home. So unless they get that assistance here, then

their hands are tied when they are at home. [If] I couldn’t work with

them. . .I didn’t want to penalize them beyond the 15 points. Otherwise

they would still have struggled and done all of that effort and then handed

it in and gotten a failing grade. I didn’t want that to happen.
(KC.5SA.05.11.21)

Discussion

Both teachers in this study faced different dilemmas around the grading of their
students. Sue sought ways to make the learning of reading “visible” in a way that she
could quantify and turn into a report card grade. In addition, she held a personal belief
about the importance of student effort and the way that should be reﬂected in report card
grades. Sue’s incorporation of effort in student grades raised further dilemmas for her,
including problems with parents and lowering her expectations for student learning. Steve
didn’t recognize that he faced dilemmas concerning grading. He had instituted a number
of routines and procedures in his classroom that facilitated the process for him. He no
longer articulated grading as a problem, rather, he saw it as being fairly routine and

unremarkable. However, these routines didn’t always ensure that his students were

142

learning complicated subject matter. Despite his efﬁcient routines, he continued to face
the challenge of maintaining student interest in lessons as well as providing substantive
learning experiences for his students. Because Steve designed lessons that portrayed
complicated subject matter, it was difﬁcult for him to measure and quantify student
learning. Another dilemma Steve faced was that he wanted to ensure that his students
would retain the knowledge he intended for them to learn. However, there was no way he
could know or measure whether his students would remember content at some time in the
future.

There are a number of factors that explain the reason these teachers experienced
the grading of their students in different ways. One factor that accounts for this is the
difference in the teachers’ teaching experience. Sue was a relatively new teacher who was
facing the grading of her students for the ﬁrst time at Kensington School. The dilemma
was fresh for her and she struggled to ﬁnd a way to grade her students that could be
justiﬁed, especially for parents. Steve had sixteen years of teaching experience. Over the
years he had developed his own efﬁcient routines and procedures that provided an
efﬁcient way for him to quantify student progress and turn this into report card grades.
While Sue acknowledged her dilemma, once she came up with a means of grading her
students that was reasonable to her, she refused to change student grades, even in the face
of pressure from parents. On the other hand, Steve no longer experienced the dilemma of
grading; he felt he had solved that problem with his routines. Even though he didn’t
acknowledge grading as a dilemma, he faced the problem of trying to quantify student
learning that was not easily measured. He believed that his students learned best through

the activities and projects he designed for them, but it was not easy to quantify the kind of

143

learning he valued. Because of this, Steve’s report card grades came from assignments
that were easily quantiﬁed, rather than ﬁom the kind of learning experiences that he
believed were most valuable for his students.

Another factor that explains, in part, the way these teachers experienced the
problem of grading differently is the subject matter taught by each. Sue taught reading
and language arts; both of these subjects are covered by the state’s accountability tests
yearly. In addition, schools are expected to meet Adequate Yearly Progress measures
under the federal No Child Left Behind Act in both reading and math. Sue experienced
the pressure of high expectations from the district, the principal, and parents for good
student performance on the state accountability tests. Steve, on the other hand, taught
social studies. While students take a state assessment test covering social studies in the
sixth grade, social studies is not part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Not only
did Steve not experience the accountability expectations experienced by Sue, he did not
even receive any feedback concerning his students’ performance on the sixth grade test.
While the faculty and principal of Kensington School careﬁrlly examined and dissected
the test results for reading, writing, and math, there was no such scrutiny of the social
studies results. In addition to the difference in accountability expectations for subject
matter, there was also a difference at both the district and the building level of resources
available for instruction of different subject matter. As the reading teacher, Sue had all
the materials of the Four Blocks Literacy Model available to her. In addition, the
instruction of reading was supported by the district through in-service training. At the
building level, reading was fully supported by the entire faculty. Many staff meetings and

professional development days at the building level were devoted to supporting the

144

instruction of reading. The academic support coach at Kensington School put most of her
energies into the support of reading and writing instruction. This is contrasted with the
experience of Steve. Social studies had no such support at the district or building level.
The district—adopted textbook was available for Steve’s use. Beyond that, he subscribed
to Time For Kids and developed his own projects and activities that supported his
instruction of social studies. Steve was left to his own devices to determine how best to
instruct his students in social studies, whereas Sue was given the support of the entire
educational community to help her instruct her students in reading and writing.

Another factor that inﬂuenced the way these teachers experienced the dilemma of
grading can be seen in the difference in the connection each had to the building-wide
community. Sue was assigned a mentor when she arrived at Kensington School. Sue’s
mentor model-taught lessons in reading and writing instruction, observed and critiqued
Sue’s instruction, provided materials for instruction, as well as advice on how to evaluate
student work. Sue deve10ped a close relationship with her mentor. When she received a
parent’s complaint about a report card grade, she turned to her mentor for advice. In
addition, Sue developed mutually supportive relationships with a number of teachers as
well as the principal. They provided support to each other concerning the instruction of
reading and the grading of writing. Steve, on the other hand, was one of the ﬁrst faculty
members to arrive in the long-established, cohesive faculty at Kensington School. He did
not have a mentor and was basically on his own to “ﬁgure things out.” While he had
cordial relations with other faculty members, he remained pretty much to himself when it

came to ﬁguring out how to go about teaching and grading social studies.

145

For each of these teachers, the resolution of the grading dilemma raised further
dilemmas. For Sue, grading was a new experience. In her solution to the dilemma, she
accounted for student effort in her grades. This led to a further dilemma when she
received a parent complaint about a grade. For Steve, the grading dilemma had been
resolved over years of teaching through the development of classroom routines and
procedures that facilitated the quantiﬁcation and grading of student learning. His efﬁcient
procedures, however, did not help him account for the kind of learning that he really
valued. He was able to use assignments that were easily quantiﬁed to assign a report card
grade, but he was not able to measure student learning that he considered as being
valuable.

In the next chapter, I examine the way these teachers used assessment beyond
assigning grades. Steve and Sue drew upon the rich resources available to them within
the day-to-day context of their classrooms to assess what their students knew and were

able to do.

146

Chapter Seven

Understanding Student Learning Through the Classroom Context

Teachers draw upon a numerous forms of assessment other than formal
assessment. In the classroom context teachers draw upon a number of different ways
available to them to come to an understanding of what their students know and are able to
do. Teachers use student work products, such as homework and classroom assignments to
learn about their students’ progress. In addition, teachers rely on observation of student
participation and behavior as well as their own one-on-one interactions with students to
draw conclusions about their abilities. Teachers have reported relying on observational
assessment methods more frequently than traditional assessment methods (Bol,
Stephenson, O’Connell & Nunnery, 1998) to understand their students’ learning.
Research has shown that teachers use informal means in their day-to-day interactions in
the classroom, such as classroom discussions, answers given to teachers’ questions, and
observing how students perform various classroom tasks (Salmon-Cox, 1981) to
understand their students’ learning. These forms of assessment are important because, as
we saw in the case of Sue, teachers do not always trust standardized measures of student
ability. Further, teachers form impressions of students’ social and academic behavior and
draw conclusions that shape their instruction. In sum, teachers do not depend solely on
prescribed assessment instruments, such as the state assessment or the SRI to gauge their
students’ ability and progress. Rather, they draw on a number of informal ways available

to them in the classroom context to assess their students’ learning.

147

This chapter will look at the informal ways that Sue and Steve relied on to learn
about their students. Particularly for Sue, paying close attention to her interactions with
students, listening to their talk and reading their writing was a valuable means of
understanding their learning and determining what she needed to do to facilitate that
learning. Sue developed some assessments on her own, but she also used the tools
provided by school mandates. For Steve, informal assessment was more tacit than in
Sue’s case. He used opportunities to listen to what students were saying, to watch them at
work, and to question them both individually and in groups to discern what they were
learning. Steve didn’t have formalized mechanisms like those provided Sue.

This chapter will illuminate both the richness and the complexity of the sources
teachers use to learn about their students. Teachers attend not only to the academic
content of lessons, but also the social nature of learning. Prescriptive assessment
proponents tend to reduce assessment to measurement of learning. While this is certainly
important, teachers must also attend to social and behavioral considerations that cannot
be measured prescriptively. Indeed, academic learning occurs within and through social
interactions. Therefore, teachers’ moves that take into account social interactions are not
only, or even primarily, an attempt to keep things moving; they are attempts to ensure

that learning can occur.

Sue ’s Understanding of Student Learning Through the Context of Her Fifth Grade
Classroom

Sue found opportunities in her classroom to learn about her students that were not
drawn from either formal assessment or from her grading procedures. She used what she

learned about her students to develop her instruction. Sue incorporated changes to her

148

instruction not because she needed to put a grade on the report card and not necessarily
because students would need to be able to use or exhibit the skill or knowledge of
particular content on the state assessment. Rather, it was through her close work with her
students and careful observation of their work that she identiﬁed speciﬁc academic needs

and responded to them.

Understanding student learning through formative assessment of class work.
Sue drew upon student work products in writing and reading to both understand student
learning and to develop her instruction. In writing, for example, as Sue evaluated her
students’ writing, she learned about what they had learned from her instruction. Based on
this information, she adjusted her up-coming lessons by re-teaching concepts that
students had not grasped.

I was reading some of their ﬁrst take-home writing assigmnents last week.

Usually we do all our writing together. They had these great leads and

then they just kind of disappeared. The end of their story just kind of

ended and there was no ending. They were writing a newspaper article and

it just stopped. We’re going to work on some things like that. These were

things I thought they had down, but once I sent it home I went, ‘I guess

they really don’t understand it.’ So we’ll have to revisit that.

(KC.SSW.06.01.31)

Another student work product that Sue used as an informal assessment tool was
the end-of—story comprehension questions provided by the textbook. As described in the
previous chapter, Sue did not merely use these questions in order to assign a letter grade
on the report card. She used them both as an assessment of students’ understanding of the
story being read, and also as a means of identifying particular problems students had with

comprehension in order that she could incorporate remedial lessons. For example, when

she noticed through whole-class correction of students’ written answers to the end-of-

149

story comprehension questions that the class as a whole did not understand the author’s
purpose, she decided that she needed to “go back and do another lesson to go along with
that.” When she noticed during reading class that students had difﬁculty inferring, she
asked more questions that required inference. She often revisited speciﬁc types of
questions with which students seemed to have a problem.

They were having trouble with inferring things this year. They get

[concrete questions, like] ‘What happened at this point in the story?’ But

‘What do you think will happen?’ was a really hard thing for them to

ﬁgure out. . .some were just reading the whole story and then going back

[but] they weren’t really inferring on their own. They were actually

reading what happened next and then just writing the answer. So we had to

talk about, ‘This is your opinion. It’s not necessarily a right or wrong

answer’ because I have some kids who need that ‘right’ answer.

KC.SSW.05.12.08

Another way Sue adjusted her instruction was by including additional content to
meet student needs. Through evaluation of her students’ writing Sue determined that they
did not have skills using the mechanics of English grammar. Sue found grammar
worksheets among the materials that had been left in her classroom by the previous
teacher. She incorporated them periodically into her lessons, selecting the worksheets that
focused on the areas she identiﬁed that students needed to work on. Sue voiced her
opinion that she felt her students needed to have good grammar in order to be good
writers. “I don’t know how they can be good writers without it” (KC.SSW.05.11.21).

Sue provided insight into the conclusions she drew about student learning based
on their writing, as well as her own teaching, when she discussed the poetry books that
were assembled as the culminating product of her poetry unit. It is important to focus on

the poetry unit because it shows that Sue discovered the value of formative assessment in

assessing student learning. After reviewing her students’ books of poetry, Sue concluded

150

that her students created the best poems when she built in multiple opportunities to read
and review their work, as she had done with the limerick.

Some of the poems we assessed throughout, like the limerick. We did it on

St. Patrick’s Day. So they wrote up a ﬁnal copy on a little shamrock. I

had a chance to see that before the ﬁnal-ﬁnal copy. I think I liked that.

KC.SSW.06.05.16

They had successfully followed the form of the poem and their poems made
sense. Sue saw that her students were successful when she was able to read their work at
several stages and provided them with multiple opportunities to re-do it. She was able to
intervene in their learning and address their difﬁculties at each stage of the writing
process.

By contrast, her students did not have as much success with some of the
other poems.

Some of the types of poems I didn’t see until they were in the computer

lab typing them or I was helping them ﬁx a few things. Then they were

turning them in and I’m like, ‘You kind of went in a totally wrong

direction here.’ KC.SSW.06.05.16
One poem that Sue pointed out as being particularly confusing for her students was the
couplet. She did not elaborate as to the reason/s she had not seen the couplet until the
ﬁnal product, whether it was due to time constraints, or if she didn’t think they needed
intervention at that point. Perhaps it was mere serendipity that the limerick was being
studied near St. Patrick’s Day and presented her with reasons to have students write them
several times, whereas the couplet had no such connection with a holiday. When reading

through her students’ poems she determined that she had not effectively taught the

couplet because students’ poems showed general confusion about it.

151

I ended up not even putting the couplet in the ﬁnal book because the kids

just sort of understood [emphasis in original] the idea, but they weren’t

getting the different lines and they had a really hard time with that.

KC.SSW.06.05.16
She recognized that when she failed to review her students’ work on the couplet in the
same way she had on the limerick, the result provided a striking contrast in student work.

Further, Sue used the outcome of the poetry unit, not only to assess her students’
work individually, but also as a means to evaluate her unit and adjust her instruction. At
the time of this interview, Sue was trying to decide whether to include the lesson on the
couplet or to delete it the next time she taught the unit.

There’s no set [list], like ‘Here’s what kind of poems you have to teach,’

it’s just, ‘learn to write and read different types of poetry.’ So that might

be one that I don’t even look at next year. KC.5SW.06.05.16

She reasoned that it really wouldn’t matter if students didn’t learn to write a
couplet because the district standard did not require speciﬁc forms of poetry. Rather, the
standard (Appendix Q) required students to apply “writing skills in a variety of types of
writing, such as narratives, research, poetry, and informational works.” This standard
gave Sue some leeway in the construction of the poetry unit. She was not constrained in
the content of her poetry unit, as she was, for example, when she followed the school-
wide writing plan. The Kensington School writing plan was based directly on the state
assessment. She followed and implemented the school writing plan in order to prepare
her students to perform better on the state assessments. Her adherence to the plan did not
take into account whether she felt the various forms of writing were important to her

students as writers. When Sue reﬂected on her poetry unit, however, she did not have to

restrict or conform the content to a prescribed formula, rather she chose the content,

152

chose to adjust or change the content, and she evaluated student work products in a way

that she felt was useful for them as well as for her.

Understanding student learning through one-on-one interactions. Sue found the
school-mandated Four Blocks model to be helpful in understanding student learning. The
Four Blocks literacy model provided Sue with opportunities to pay close attention to her
students’ learning during reading conferences. The SSR log (Appendix M), which was
described in chapter four, provided Sue with a place to record speciﬁc notes about each
student’s reading and comprehension, including ﬂuency, use of reading strategies,
comprehension, and appropriate reading level of text during one-on-one conferences with
each student. Sue’s notes, made during reading conferences, provided a record across
time of patterns of student comprehension of texts, of vocabulary words to work on, of
comprehension problems and progress. Through her one-on—one conferences, Sue
believed she came to know the speciﬁc needs of her individual students. She was able to
target her reading conference questions speciﬁcally to meet what she perceived to be the
needs of the student. These conference notes helped Sue by giving her a record of her
students’ performance as individual readers as well as to inform her of areas of general
misunderstanding in the class that she could focus on in future lessons.

Sue diagnosed students’ reading progress both on the spot during conferences, as
well as by taking note across time in order to adjust her lesson plans for the class. For
example, she learned through these conferences which words should be studied as
vocabulary lessons.

We do a lot of vocabulary study as part of our reading. [We] do that
because that’s another way to pull in some of those ‘you didn’t know what

153

that word meant so what can. you do to ﬁnd out what it is?’
KC.SSW.05.12.08

Sue chose speciﬁc vocabulary words for her lessons based on words her students didn’t
know when she listened to them read during reading conferences.

Individual reading conferences also contributed to Sue’s understanding of her
students in more informal ways. She drew upon her accumulated knowledge of her
students in order to assess them on the required reading standards. When discussing the
way she evaluated her students on the reading standards and the source she drew upon,
Sue referred to the reading conferences.

A lot of that did come from comprehension questions, but also from those

conversations that l was able to have with the kids. ‘Well, they didn’t

really get the author’s purpose when they were answering those questions

but when I talked with them they seemed to understand a little more’ so

then I might be able to change that. (KC.SSW.05.11.21)

Sue learned from talking to her students that sometimes they were able to answer
questions orally that they had difficulty communicating in writing. Sue applied that
understanding of her students when she assessed them on the reading standards and when
she designed lessons.

Sue kept track of problems individual students were having when listening to
them during reading conferences. She was able to remediate some reading problems
during the conferences as well as plan follow up strategies for her students. For example,
when she knew a student had difﬁculty with inferring, she directed more of those
questions to that student during conferences. She didn’t hesitate to stop a student after
each paragraph if she felt the student did not understand the text.

We’ll talk about things, like if they’re not sounding out words we’ll

stop. . .they are just, “it starts with an ‘r’ so it is this word.” And that is
something that a lot of the kids need to work on because it doesn’t make

154

sense. I tell them to “Stop every sentence if you have to.”
(KC.5SW.05.12.08)

I have some who just want to keep reading and don’t want to answer any
questions. So we stop a lot and every paragraph we’ll stop instead of
reading a bigger chunk. . .they just read words and they don’t think about
it. (KC.SSW.05.12.08)

By listening to her students read during Four Blocks reading conferences, Sue
learned about their speciﬁc weaknesses and was often able to respond to them
during the conference.

As a demonstration of the way she used the reading log (Appendix M), Sue pulled
out a student’s SSR log and read from the notes she had made during one of their
conferences. She pointed out that the form didn’t specify questions to be asked; that was
the teacher’s decision depending on the material that was being read and the needs of the

speciﬁc student. The form speciﬁed that comprehension was to be assessed using the

99 6‘

qualiﬁers “excellent, good,” “fair,” or “poor.” Sue read from the student’s SSR log:
I usually write myself notes, [like] what kind of questions I asked [and]
what their answer was. [This] student was reading a story about Anna and
a big storm. When I was student teaching we read that as a whole class so
I know that book really well. There is a big storm and the store is closed
and she goes with Grandpa [to a store]. When I asked her why she thought
the door was locked she said it was jammed and they took a day off of
work. We had just read three pages about how there is this big storm and
everything is closed. So we had to go back and look at it again. So I wrote
myself a note that she is coming up with ideas but they do not have to do
with the story. So that is something that she and I are going to need to
work on during our self-selected reading times. I had to try to be very
explicit with the note or I would have lost it. I just read with her yesterday
so I still remember but I write a lot of little notes in here.
KC.SSW.05.12.08

In addition to noting that the student’s comprehension had been poor, Sue noted that the

student hadn’t understood the whole premise of the story and that basic comprehension

155

questions needed to targeted to that student. Also, she noted that she should stop the

student often to check comprehension.

Understanding student learning through classroom interactions. While some
researchers argue that teachers should rely on standardized test results to “diagnose
student needs, group students intelligently, assign meaningﬁrl grades, or evaluate the
impact of instructional treatments” (Stiggins, 1991), it is widely acknowledged that
teachers rely more consistently on their own observations of students to make such
decisions (Stiggins & Bridgeford, 1985; Daniel & King, 1998; Stiggins & Conklin, 1992;
Wilson, 1992; Salmon-Cox, 1981). While standardized test results can provide one
source of information about students, such tests cannot provide information that takes
into account the complex social environment of the classroom. Each teacher must
establish a classroom climate that ensures student compliance with behavioral norms. At
the same time, they must forge emotional bonds with students in order to encourage
effort on their part as well as maintain their interest in lessons (Lortie, 1975). It is
important to look at the ways teachers group students together for instruction because
learning occurs in and through social interactions. Teachers’ grouping decisions weigh
not only academic but also social considerations to ensure that learning can occur.

Sue made daily choices about whether her students would work independently, in
pairs, or in groups during instruction. These decisions were based on what she had
learned about her students’ behavior and work ethic, as well as their academic abilities.

The following table reports on the different ways that Sue grouped students
during the fourteen classroom observations I made in Sue’s classroom. The table

indicates whether students worked independently, in pairs, or in groups during the

156

observed lesson. It also indicates whether the teacher assigned students to pairs or groups,

or whether students made the choice of who to work with.

Sue’s Grouping Practices During Observations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obs Independent Pair Group Whole Class Student Teacher
choice choice
1 writing journal reading a
2 SSR
3 worksheet instruction 0
4 SSR Haiku ."
activity
5 Worksheet/ writing Haiku Instr'uction/ ."
journal activitL practice
6 SSR/ district writing
assess.
7 SSR Tcr read
aloud
8 Writing journal instruction 0
9 SSR Tcr read
aloud
10 Writing journal Review test/ 0
instruction

1 1 SSR
12 Worksheet! district Review a

writing assessment personal

narrative

13 SSR
14 Read story/ Pair read

Cross-text analysis

Table 12

 

SSR=Sustained Silent Reading

Table 12 shows that for most lesson activities students worked independently. In two

lessons (numbers four and ﬁve) Sue had her students work in groups with their seating

partners. In one lesson (number fourteen), Sue allowed the students to read in pairs and to

choose their reading partner.

To summarize the table of observations, it appears that Sue made most of the

decisions about when her students would work independently or in groups. In the two

 

' Observations 4 & 5: Students worked with seat partners. Seating assignments made by the teacher.

157

lessons in which students worked in groups, Sue had essentially chosen the grouping
because the groups were based on seating arrangements. Sue reported that she based her
seating chart decisions on behaviors she had observed in the classroom and on her
knowledge about which students could or could not get along together. In observation
number fourteen, when students were allowed to choose a partner with whom to read,
Sue warned the students that she reserved the option to separate students who did not
focus on the assignment.

From table 12, it appears that Sue did not group her students for instruction.
However, none of the fourteen observations were of guided reading time during which
her students were, for the most part, paired up. Sue’s guided reading time coincided with
Steve’s social studies lessons, so I never saw her guided reading lessons on the days I
observed classes. As prescribed by the Four Blocks format, guided reading occurred
everyday. Sue did discuss in interviews that she had speciﬁc reasons for the way she
paired her students for guided reading.

When we are doing guided reading I do more partners than groups just

because I think that works better and they focus better. But I don’t usually

let them choose (KC.SSW.05.12.08).

Sue’s choice of using pairs rather than groups seems to be based on the classroom
management concern of having students remain “focused” on their work. Groups provide
more opportunities for student interactions that can disrupt the lessons.

Further, Sue explained what she took into consideration when pairing her students
for guided reading.

I look at the student’s reading level and try to decide how to put them

together. Usually I like to put sort of “like” students together. I don’t want

to put that highest student with the lowest student because they are just so
far apart. But I don’t want to put that lowest student with another low

158

student. So I kind of pull ﬁom the middle for the really low kids. The high

kids I end up pairing together just because I think they are going to work

better together and not be ﬁustrated. Those middle and low kids I just kind

of pair together so that they are closer in levels. KC.SSW.05.12.08
It is important to remember that, because Sue didn’t really trust the SR] as an indicator of
student reading level, she drew upon her own knowledge of her students and the
judgment she made of their reading level. She gained this information from the individual
reading conferences she had with her students. In addition to considering reading levels,
she was also concerned about maintaining the work environment of the classroom. She
wanted her students to be able to “work better together” and felt that frustration would
lead to acting out.

In addition, Sue paired students when she and a second grade teacher put their
students together as reading buddies once a month. In addition to the students’ reading
level, again, behavior and work ethic were of concern to her.

The second grade teacher and I sat down and we did that with the reading

level. Who is kind of a high second grader and a high 5th grader? We

wanted them to be similar, but then we also have to look at their behavior

just because you have to know who doesn’t work well together and who is

not going to focus with so-and-so. That’s a big part too with that reading

instruction because it’s important for them to focus on what they are

reading and answer when we’re doing comprehension questions.

KC.SSW.05.12.08
Through her experience with her students, Sue had come to know what she could expect
from them in the way of behavior and whether or not they were likely to be conscientious
about completing their work. She acquired this knowledge in the context of working with

them in her classroom and seeing them perform over time. In addition, as we saw in the

previous chapter, Sue didn’t trust the SRI to determine her students’ reading level. Sue

159

trusted her own knowledge of her students as readers that she had acquired through the

individual reading conferences.

Steve’s Understanding of Student Learning Through the Context of His Fifth Grade
Classroom

For Steve, a respectful classroom environment was important. In order to
understand how he learned about his students through day-to-day interactions, it is
important to know what kind of atmosphere he tried to maintain daily. Steve constantly
modeled the respectful language and behavior he wanted his students to use with each
other. Throughout my observations of his teaching, Steve was always even-toned and
maintained a calm demeanor with his students. I never heard him raise his voice despite
the occasional chaos that occurred when students were working on projects. He was
always respectful of his students and praised his students often. When correcting work
together, he often responded with praise, such as “good thinking process.” If a student’s
response was incorrect he avoided directly stating that it was incorrect; he often had them
go back to the text to ﬁnd evidence to support their answer; in this way, they usually
corrected their own error. On one such occasion when another student found evidence to
support his classmate’s answer, Steve responded with “you have a good researcher sitting
next to you.” (KC.SSA.06.03.21).

Understanding student learning through observation. Steve made daily choices
about whether his students would work independently, in pairs, or in groups during
instruction. These decisions were based on what he had learned by observing his students

and through the classroom interactions he had with them over the school year.

160

The following table represents the eleven classroom observations that were made
in Steve’s classroom for this study. The table indicates whether students worked
independently, in pairs, in groups or as a whole class. It also indicates whether the
grouping decision was the students’ choice or the teacher’s choice.

In observations one and two, Steve assigned the students to read with seat
partners. In observation number three, collaboration was optional at the students’ choice.
In observation numbers seven through eleven, students had previously chosen to work
either independently or with a partner of their choice.

Steve’s Grouping Practices During Observations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obs Independent Pair Group Whole Class Student Teacher
choice choice
1 Read text/ 0
write
aragﬂh
2 Read TFK/ 0
write
paragraph
3a DG 0
3b a PKT o a a
4 Read text; write
questions/answers
5 TFK
correction
6 Text questions
correction
7 0 EC 0 0 Instruction 0
(poster)
8 0 EC 0 0 Instruction 0
(advertising)
9 0 EC 0 0 Instruction 0
(advertisirig)
10 0 EC 0 a a
ll 0 EC 0 c a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DG=Daily Geography; TFK=Time for Kids; PKT=continent geography packet; EC=economics unit
Table 13

161

It is interesting to note the difference between Steve and Sue’s use of grouping for
instruction. In this table we see that Steve had his students work in groups often, while
Sue’s table indicates that this occurred only rarely in her classroom. This section will
look at why Steve made grouping decisions the way he did, how he grouped his students,
and what he learned from it.

Steve’s decisions concerning grouping were closely tied to his philosophy about
the way students should be treated as well as the atmosphere he liked to maintain in his
classroom.

I like to give them the choices. I like, rather than saying, “This is who you

are going to work with,” to say, “I’d like you to choose someone or ask

someone to work with you. You need to get a partner.” I like to give them

some choices because a lot of what we are doing this year is getting them

ready for middle school. I want them to get used to more independence. I

don’t want to say, “This is who you will work with, and this is where you

are going to work.” I give them some choices and within the structure of

that they have to make those choices. It gives them a feeling of being able

to make choices rather than just being told or dictated to.

KC.5SA.05.12.08
For Steve, maintaining a smooth-running classroom was important. His routines and
procedures worked to support this as well as the way he allowed his students to make
choices. Student cooperation was important to keeping lessons moving along and making
the best use of time.

For most of the independent activities, I let them choose their partner or

choose to work alone. I know that if I give them a block of half an hour

and say you need to get x amount accomplished and the project is not due

for another week. . .I’ll tell them they can work with the partner of their

choice. KC.SSA.05.12.08
He was able to keep control of the behavior of his students because he did not hesitate to
separate students who did not focus on the assignment at hand. He also reserved the right

to assign students to a workspace where he could keep a closer watch over their work.

162

We have a pod outside the classroom so sometimes partners can work in

the pod if it looks like they are doing a good job. A lot of the kids like

working out there so that gives them some incentive to stay on task rather

than sit there and socialize. KC.5SA.05.12.08
Students knew they would be separated if they did not work on the assignment, and for
the most part, they responded to the opportunity to work with their ﬁiends in the way
Steve wished.

When Steve made grouping choices for his students, he had speciﬁc reasons for
grouping them as he did. In observations one and two, Steve had students work with seat
partners. These are labeled teacher’s choice because Steve had made the seating
arrangement decisions based on what he had learned about his students through
classroom interactions and his knowledge about the way his students would behave when
seated near each other.

Steve pointed out that there were speciﬁc times when he made partner
assignments, rather than allowing student choices.

In some of the structured activities if I’m timing it or if I want them to

break away from what they are used to then I’ll insist that I choose the

partner. KC.SSA.05.12.08
These assignments were made based on deliberate criteria. When he assigned partners for
students, he weighed the complexities of social and academic considerations.

It’s never really the same reasons. With one particular student one time I

might, if she’s a student who has been struggling, I may pair her with

another student who is doing really well. Just because they may not be

social ﬁiends, but I want the two to work together so the student who is

really on top of it and knows what’s going on can assist the other. At other

times I will make decisions based on whether that pair might be too social

so then I’ll suggest that they either work on their own or that they choose
someone that they don’t normally choose. KC.SSA.05. 12.08

163

Steve illustrates the range of issues teachers have to deal with as they think about
student learning-from learning the subject matter to learning how to interact
productively.

When Steve did assign students to groups, without giving them their own choice,
he could come up against some resistance. Steve maintained that same calmness that was
described previously when working with difficult students. In one interview, he told a
story about a student who was not happy in the group to which he had been assigned.

He preferred to be in a different group and because he couldn’t be he just

sat there and folded his arms and started to pout. It made it hard for that

group but I felt that it was still a great learning situation because they were

pretending that they were part of a company that was working on this

piecework project. I said, ‘You know, there will be times in real life where

an employer at a company is going to ﬁnd that he’s got a difﬁth

employee or he’s got someone who’s going to refuse to do that work and

you guys are still trying to get this contract. You still have to ﬁgure out

how you are going to do it even though that employee isn’t coming

through.’ I talked with the student and he still wasn’t going to participate

so he had a consequence later but I just let him sit there because I wanted

the others to work with the fact that he wasn’t assisting them.

(KC.SSA.05.12.08)

This story reveals not only the way Steve learned about his students through classroom
interactions, but also how he found life lessons in every situation. There was more to be
learned from this assigrunent than the academic lesson at hand. Steve turned this incident
into an opportunity to teach social skills as well. Further, this may be an additional reason
why, for the most part, Steve allowed his students to choose their own work partners
rather than assigning them.

Understanding student learning through informal assessment. Steve’s

economics unit, as described in chapter four, was a year-long, experiential project for his

164

students. While Steve had several assignments that could be quantiﬁed and translated into
a grade, most of this project was evaluated through informal observational assessment.

I’ll say everything I am assessing for the economics unit is going to be

informal, with the exception of worksheets that we had about a month ago

where we talked about the terminology and the concepts.

KC.5SA.06.05.24
Steve described the way he was using classroom interactions to assess his students’
understanding of the terminology from the unit.

I’m not doing any kind of a formal assessment where I ﬁnd out, ‘OK,

which terminology did you remember and are you using it correctly?’ But

I am picking up on that just from what I am hearing [in the classroom].

KC.5SA.06.05.24
Steve listened to the way his students used the terminology and showed their
understanding in their project work. As his students busily prepared for the culminating
sales event, Steve walked around from group to group, observing what they were doing,
listening to their discussions, and asking and answering questions. In an interview, he
identiﬁed some speciﬁc things he would be looking for on their ﬁrst sales day. “The ﬁnal
part of it is going to be how they’re doing when they open their business and how they
relate to the customers.” (KC.SSA.06.05.24).

Steve scheduled a debrieﬁng session that followed the ﬁrst sales day. He asked
his students to reﬂect on how the event went for them.

I want them to ﬁnd out from what they were selling, did things move fast?

Did they move too fast? Did they move too slow? Were there some things

that just didn’t sell? Where were you located? Did you get many

customers? Should you change location? Should you change pricing?

Should you change the way you had your product displayed? Things like

that. We’ll talk about that after this ﬁrst time they have been opened. We

will talk about evaluating those things so they can decide when they open
next Friday what they need to change. KC.SSA.06.05.24

165

Thus, the debrieﬁng session provided Steve with information about student
learning, but it also provided students with a way to assess their own performance
and adjust their business based on what they learned. Steve identiﬁed the second
sales day as the most important observation he would make in order to know what
his students had learned.

When they open the second time, in another week, I’ll ﬁnd out what they

have learned from it because they have to make some kind of changes.

KC.5SA.06.05.24
Steve drew on classroom interactions, watching his students working on their projects,
and observing the way they adjusted their business operations in order to assess the
learning that took place in his economics unit.

Understanding student learning through formative assessment. Steve
acknowledged in an interview that he saw the need to implement more formative
assessment opportunities with his students. He understood that formative assessment
could provide information that would help him adjust his instruction. Steve voiced the
need to take measures of student progress more often than his unit tests.

What I’ve realized through what I’ve done so far is that I want to give

them more periodic quizzes so that I’m getting feedback on a regular basis

of where they actually are, what they’ve picked up on so that I know

whether I need to hit something else or not, or hit it in a different way, like

revisit it as a review. Again with the unit test, there are a few things that I

didn’t quiz on before I gave the unit 1 test and I found there were a lot of

students who missed a couple things, where all of them had missed out on
that. If I had quizzed them beforehand I would have found that out before
giving the test. (KC.SSA.05.12.08)

That interview took place in early December. The topic of formative assessment was

revisited in an interview at the end of the school year. Steve shared that he had not

instituted formative quizzes to inform his instruction prior to giving unit tests.

166

The lack of formative assessment in Steve’s classroom illuminates his strongly
held belief about student learning. He believed that substantive student learning came
from experiential and participatory learning his students gained by being involved in
projects, rather than from textbook learning. Irnportantly, the kind of learning that Steve
valued couldn’t be readily quantiﬁed and translated into a numerical grade. Textbook
learning, such as that measured by the unit tests, could be quantiﬁed and turned into a
grade. Even though Steve acknowledged at one point that he could have learned more
about what his students were learning as they progressed through the textbook unit, he
didn’t really value that kind of knowledge about his students’ learning; that kind of
learning was reserved for assigning a grade. The important, substantive learning that took
place in his classroom was difﬁcult for him to measure. That is why he relied on
observational assessment for his yearlong economics unit. The important learning wasn’t
connected to a grade. Instead, Steve believed that the important learning that his students
attained was long term and immeasurable. All of the assessment considerations Steve
cited in his interviews centered on coming up with a report card grade. His formal
assessments, such as unit tests, were summative and, along with daily work and other
projects, became part of the marking period grade. It was the on-going, daily assessments
that he made of student learning through interactions with them through which he sought

to assess what he viewed as their actual learning.
Discussion

What we see in this chapter is the range of rich resources the classroom context

provides for teachers to understand their students’ learning. Teachers do not rely solely

167

on prescribed assessment as a way to understand their students’ learning. Rather, they
draw upon their experiences with their students in the classroom to provide valuable
information about students. For Sue, it was important to use close work with her students
to understand their learning. In her case, a resource provided through Four Blocks, the
mandated format for reading instruction, brought a useful tool with which to pay attention
to her students’ learning, the SSR log. Informal observational assessment provided Sue
with another layer of understanding of her students. Perhaps it was because she was a
new teacher that she needed to use her close work with her students to understand their
learning. Observational information is a valuable way of gaining understanding of
students that cannot be prescribed. Although, in Sue’s case, it was the prescribed Four
Blocks model that gave her a useful tool with which she could organize and preserve her
observational understanding of her students.

Sue did not use all of the resources that came to her through mandates equally.
For example, she rejected the SR1 as a valid measure of students’ reading level. It appears
that Sue chose to use the tools that facilitated close work with her students and their work
products. It was those tools in which she had the most trust. Tools, such as the SSR log
and the reading conferences, supported her close work with her students and provided her
with information that she drew upon for on-going assessment of her students as well as
immediate, on-the-spot interventions that addressed student learning as well as her own
instruction. Decisions that could be postponed to the future, such as adjusting her poetry
unit, were based on other things, such as the state standard that allowed her some room to

make decisions. Again, we see that she accommodated the tools that were provided to

168

her, but in some instances she made her own decisions about which tools were important
to her work and how she would use the tools in her everyday practice.

For Steve, informal observational assessment of his students’ performance in the
classroom was the best way he could try to understand what they were learning from his
long term economics unit. In part, this was due to his beliefs about student learning and
the types of learning opportunities he provided for his students. They were not easily
quantiﬁed and turned into a grade. In addition, he didn’t value the surface knowledge that
could actually be measured. He provided his students with active, participatory,
experiential projects through which they would learn concepts and ideas that he hoped
would remain with them for a long time.

It is interesting to look at the contrast in the grouping decisions made by these
teachers. Steve made his grouping decisions based on his philosophy about the way
students should be treated and about the level of independence they should experience.
Sue didn’t think philosophically when making her grouping decisions. Rather, she paired
students for guided reading based on her perception of students’ reading levels and the
behavior she could expect when different students worked together. Steve’s decisions
have more grounding in his beliefs about students and student learning than Sue’s. This
can be explained in part because of Sue’s relative inexperience in teaching. Over the
years Steve had come up with a range of strategies for assessing student learning in
informal, tacit ways that were hard to see in classroom observations. It came out through
interviews that he had developed strategies to help him see student learning. One strategy
he used was grouping. It allowed him to enact his philosophy of student learning and it

allowed him to learn about his students in informal, almost invisible ways. One of the

169

reasons proponents of prescriptive assessment are critical of teachers is that they don’t
think teachers use assessment. In some classrooms, it may not look as if teachers are
assessing, whereas, they may indeed be involved in subtle, tacit ways of assessing their
students. What Steve shows us is that if we observe teachers and look for formal, overt
forms of assessment, we may miss the important and subtle forms of assessment that
teachers utilize in their classrooms. At the same time, Steve said that he should have used
more formative assessment in his social studies instruction. He noted that he would have
learned about how his students were doing before the summative unit test. Steve is a good
example of how teachers’ work can be misinterpreted. He is grounded with a rationale for
what he does in the classroom and he is clear about what he believes about student
learning. But Steve also shows us the limits of informal assessment. He acknowledged
that there was a need for more than just informal assessment and if he had used more
formative assessment he might have been able to intervene and help his students’
learning.

Formative assessment is a valuable tool that allows teachers to understand their
students’ learning and, as in Sue’s case, to develop their instruction. Some external
mandates can actually shut down the formative assessment process. In the case of SR1,
Sue didn’t rely on it because she didn’t ﬁnd it valid. The 20 day plan shut down the
process because, not only did teachers not have time to teach the entire plan, but also they
didn’t have time to adjust their instruction based on what they learned from it. Other
external mandates, such as Four Blocks, have actually built in opportunities for very
careful, close interaction with students. Steve had to build those opportunities into his

instruction himself; he didn’t have formalized tools such as those that Sue had. Careful

170

attention needs to be paid to the types of mandates that are put into place so as to assure
that these classroom processes are not shut down. Teachers need to have opportunities to
conduct the kind of work they think is very important.

While Sue learned about her students through close attention to their work, the
state assessment was not without inﬂuence. The state assessment inﬂuenced the way she
attended to what she learned from working closely with her students. In the case of the
state assessment and the school writing plan, if Sue found that students did not perform
well on writing assignments, she needed to address those problems immediately. As in
the case of her poetry unit, however, when content was not prescribed Sue had leeway to

postpone a decision about her instruction or even decide not to cover that topic at all.

171

Chapter Eight

Conclusions

While the school reform movement has succeeded in legislating mandated
accountability testing in America’s schools, policy makers and stakeholders on both sides
of the issue argue over its effects. Proponents of accountability testing argue that highly
qualiﬁed teachers must teach to rigorous content standards and that instructional
materials and curriculum must be aligned to those standards. Further, they argue that
standardized test results give teachers information they need to improve their teaching,
thereby improving student learning. Opponents argue, in response, that yearly
accountability tests overrule teachers’ tacit knowledge about teaching and result in a
curriculum that only covers what is on the test and that superﬁcial knowledge of that
content is all that will be taught.

It became apparent during this study that neither side of the accountability
dichotomy has it entirely right. Instead, when I examined Steve and Sue’s practices
closely, I saw a dynamic interaction of micro-, meso-, and macro-level factors that
inﬂuenced their decision making in their classrooms. A complex mix of personal
preferences, teaching experience, and day-to-day experiences with students shaped each
teacher’s classroom practice. The district and the principal added mandates on top of
those promulgated by NCLB. This resulted in overlapping mandates that teachers tried to
accommodate in order to improve student learning. The broader policy context with the

emphasis on assessment and accountability became woven among these other factors.

172

The decisions Steve and Sue made about assessing their students were bound up with all
three of these levels of inﬂuences in a dynamic, not static way. I came to see that the
rationale these teachers employed to make assessment decisions was situated in a
complex environment and shaped by their interpretations of multiple messages they got
from the environment in which they conducted their work.

What Shapes Assessment Practices?

The two teachers in this study were impacted to different degrees by several
factors. In particular, the situated action perspective employed in this study made visible
the relationship between each teacher’s individual practices, their relationships with other
school actors, and the presence of mandates from the state, the district, and the school.
The way the state assessment entered into teachers’ practice was mediated by all of these
factors.

Proliferation of Mandates

Since the passage of NCLB, states have scrambled to align their curriculum and
state assessments with federal mandates. As states have instituted more mandates,
districts and schools have followed suit. This study showed the way these processes
worked in Kensington School; both the district and the school mediated and complicated
the messages teachers received about accountability and assessment from federal and
state policies. The district implemented common assessments in reading and math that
schools were to administer each semester, produced 20-day plans that prescribed how
teachers were to prepare their students for the state assessments, and created the academic
support coach position in the Title I schools which provided in-class support for teachers,

especially in the areas of reading and writing. The district also instituted the Fast

173

ForWord progam to support readers who were below gade level. The principal
supported the mandates of the district by ensuring that teachers administered the SR1
quarterly and insisted that teachers complete the full district adopted math curriculum.
She further mandated the use of Four Blocks for reading instruction and acquired the
services of Lindamood-Bell to support readers who were below gade level. She also
requested that Mary Locke write a school-wide writing plan and mandated that teachers
turn in their writing lesson plans weekly for her review. All of these mandates were
intended to help teachers better instruct their students and ensure that the school would
continue to meet AYP expectations.
Co-existing and Overlapping Demands

All of this policy making at the district and school levels resulted in co-existing
and often overlapping mandates that teachers had to deal with. Research has shown that
instructional policy, especially those policies aligned with accountability systems,
enacted at higher levels in the system can result in such overlapping of mandates
(Spillane, 1996), especially when there is no coordination between the district and school
levels (Wong, Buice & Cole, (2006). In the case of Kensington School, some district and
school mandates provided multiple tools intended to address the same problem. For
example, some of the tools intended to help teachers goup their students for instruction
included the SRI, Four Blocks’ guided reading procedures, as well as the Lindamood-
Bell assessments. Both Fast F orWord and Lindarnood-Bell progams were aimed at
supporting students who read below gade level. Further, these mandates brought
different people into classrooms to demonstrate lessons for teachers and to monitor

compliance. Mary Locke demonstrated lessons in Four Blocks instruction as well as

174

lessons intended to help students write successfully on the state assessment. Instructors
from Lindamood-Bell demonstrated lessons using structure words in writing. In addition,
the classroom teachers taught lessons in writing to meet language arts standards. One
teacher expressed the confusion she thought this raised for students and hinted that it
confused her as well. Some mandates actually presented contradictions that teachers tried
to accommodate, but were ﬁ'ustrated with. The district’s 20-day plans did not take into
account that teachers did not have twenty school days available prior to administering the
state assessment in which to present the lessons included in the plan. Further, this plan
didn’t end up helping teachers adjust their instruction to meet student needs because there
was no time for them to do so before the assessment.
Discrepancy in Tools and Resources

A further consequence of district and school accountability-oriented policy
making was that resources were not evenly distributed among various subjects. This
study highlighted the discrepancy in tools and resources made available to teachers
within the same school. In addition to curricular and instructional mandates, Sue also had
many tools available to support her teaching of reading and writing. She had the Four
Blocks model of literacy instruction, the support of the academic support coach, technical
support for below gade level readers in the form of Fast ForWord and Lindamood-Bell,
inservice training and professional development opportunities, as well as assessment
rubrics ﬁom the state to assess writing. By contrast, Steve was left to his own devices to
ﬁgure out how to teach and assess social studies.

In part, the difference in resources and tools available to these teachers was due to

the importance placed on some subjects under NCLB. Subjects that fell under NCLB

175

mandates, such as reading and math, received more attention, and therefore, more tools
and resources ﬁ'om the district and school were devoted to those subjects. While social
studies was tested on the state assessment, it received very little attention and few
resources were directed at social studies teaching by the district and school because it was
not a priority under NCLB. While Sue got detailed feedback on her students’
performance on the state assessment at the school’s SIP meeting as well as the collective
support of the faculty who ageed to work together toward improving those results, Steve
never received any feedback on his students’ performance on the sixth gade social
studies test. Whatever gets prioritized at the federal level then gets prioritized at the state
level, and so on, down to the school level with a proliferation of mandates and efforts to
address these priorities. One beneﬁt of such priorities is the expanding amount of
resources and tools that are made available to support the teaching of reading, writing,
and math. On the other hand, teachers can be overwhehned with the demands made upon
them with overlapping and sometimes contradictory mandates.
Social Relationships

In this study, I traced how district and school mandates entered into Steve and
Sue’s practices in the form of tools and resources. School actors were important carriers
of these tools and resources. At Kensington School, Mary Locke and the principal were
crucial to the translation, production and implementation of both district and building-
wide mandates. This was especially evident in the case of Sue. Sue had a plethora of
resources and tools available to her, in part because she taught reading and writing, but
also in part because of her close relationship to Mary Locke. Because of her district

appointment and her history with Kensington, Mary carried the authority of both the

176

district and the school. Irnportantly, she also had a personal relationship with Sue that
reinforced Sue’s use of mandated materials and assessments. By contrast, Steve had few
such close collegial relationships outside his classroom that were evident. Further, he
taught social studies which received little attention from the district or the school. He
determined how to assess his students and designed his instruction based largely on his
own experience and professional beliefs.
Reexamining Extant Research

I began this study by laying out three prominent strands of educational literature
that have looked at the issue of teachers’ assessment practices. I identiﬁed the
prescriptive, classroom context, and cultural strands of literature that each seek to explain
the ways teachers assess or ought to assess their students. In this section, I explain how
this study contradicts, substantiates, or extends each of these literatures.
Prescriptive Literature

Proponents of standardized testing are critical of teachers’ assessment literacy.
They assert that teachers do not adequately assess their students’ learning and, are not
able to objectively measure student achievement. They advocate the use of standardized
tests as a means by which to counter teachers’ subjective grading. This study suggests
that school actors will respond to standardized tests in some of the ways that their
proponents propose. The principal and teachers of Kensington School carefully examined
the test results of the state assessment. Student progess was evaluated collectively rather
than individually. Ms. Mathews’ report identiﬁed areas in which most students needed
improvement. The teachers ageed that writing needed to be the new focus ‘of

instructional improvement. Sue responded to this information by following the school

177

writing plan as designed by Mary Locke. She based her writing instruction on the
assessment results and used the state assessment rubrics to evaluate her students’ writing.
The assessment results in math were taken as conﬁrmation of the schools’ past attempts
to improve instruction in math. The assessment results in reading also indicated that
improvements had been made. In order to continue that trend, the school decided that the
Four Blocks Literacy Model and the Scholastic textbook series would continue to be
used.

While the school, thus, did utilize standardized test scores to make instructional
decisions, proponents of standardized testing rrright argue that such tests should be looked
at individually, rather than collectively. However, in the case of this study, the district
and principal held such results. The assessment results were given to the teachers as
reports by gade level. Perhaps this is an indication that the district and principal did not
trust teachers’ assessment literacy. Whatever the reason, considering the multiple
demands put upon these teachers and the confusion such demands caused, the review of
collective assessment results may offer the best way to ensure that teachers are offered
plausible rather than impossible demands. The manner in which the Kensington principal
had teachers review the assessment allowed the teachers to form their instructional
decisions. Had each teacher considered the assessment results of each individual student
and tried to desigr an appropriate instructional response, the results might have been
overwhelming and might not have been carried out.

Proponents of alternative assessment also claim that teachers do not understand
how to use alternative forms of assessment nor do they know how to create their own

effective assessment tools. The case of Steve would tend to substantiate such claims. The

178

projects and activities that Steve used in his social studies instruction could be labeled as
authentic learning activities as described by Wiggins (1990). While Steve’s projects, such
as the economics unit, allowed his students to engage in real tasks, he lacked ways to
formally document and provide students feedback on their learning. This inhibited his
ability to adjust his teaching to meet the needs of his students, an integal part of
Wiggins’ description of authentic assessment. Steve’s case substantiates what many who
advocate authentic assessment criticize in teachers’ practice. Torrance (1993), for
example, found that teachers fail to plan their curriculum based on information derived
from performance assessments. Steve’s movement through his set curriculum without
providing feedback to his students concerning their performance and without altering his
instruction to attend to emergent student needs and difﬁculties supports this claim.
Steve’s assessment of his students’ learning remained tacit; he did not formally attain
information from his students concerning their performance in a way that could inform
his instruction. His assessment of their performance throughout the unit consisted of a
few assignments that evaluated only the most basic elements of student learning, not the
type of higher order skills and knowledge that Steve hoped his students actually
developed through the activities.

Another argument made by proponents of mandated standardized testing is that
such testing will ensure more equitable learrning opportunities and outcomes by holding
all students and schools accountable to the same standards. While this study did not
speciﬁcally address this issue and, therefore, can neither contradict nor substantiate it, I
proffer my own conclusion here. This argument might hold true if all schools had access

to the same resources, both ﬁnancial and human; but in reality, they do not. The district

179

in which Kensington exists had adequate resources to support efforts to maintain AYP;
the district supported progams such as Fast ForWord, provided textbooks for all
students, offered appropriate professional development to support instruction in the
methods district ofﬁcials deemed most suited to meeting AYP, and district ofﬁcials
created the position of academic support coach for all Title I schools. Not all districts and
schools can support such progams. As long as there are schools in which students are not
provided adequate instructional materials, in which teachers are not provided appropriate
professional development, and that lack adequate funding to maintain safe and healthy
facilities, the disparity of learning opportunities will remain a reality for many students.
Students in schools labeled “failing” under the NCLB system are most likely to be taught
by the least qualiﬁed and least experienced teachers. In order to really offer equitable
learning opportunities to all students, we need to have a system that provides equitable
ﬁnancial support for all students. The system of merely offering rewards for success and
sanctions for failure seems, to me, to be doomed to perpetuate the inequality already
endemic in our school system.
Classroom Context Literature

The classroom context literature describes the way teachers build their
understanding of their students’ progess by drawing upon various sources of information
available to them through day-to-day classroom interactions. Teachers have multiple
purposes and ways of assessing students’ academic as well as social gowth as observed
in the classroom.

Opponents of mandated assessment claim that such tests will make teachers’ tacit

knowledge about teaching and about students unimportant and thus, over time work to

180

deskill teachers and constrain their autonomy. The ﬁndings of this study suggest that
opponents of mandated testing need not fear that teachers’ tacit understanding of their
students will disappear because of such tests. Both of the teachers I studied relied heavily
on what they came to know and understand about their students through day-to-day
classroom interactions. Both drew upon informal observation of students’ interactions to
make gouping decisions based on what they knew about students’ behavior and work
ethic. At the same time, for Sue at least, some of the resources associated with school
accountability mandates enabled and sharpened such observations. At the same time, this
study substantiates the ﬁndings of Salmon-Cox (1981) that teachers give more credence
to their own observations of classroom performance than to standardized test scores. Sue
rejected the SRI as a true measure of students’ reading level. Rather, she relied on what
she learned about her students’ reading performance in one-on-one reading conferences.

Further, the classroom context literature reports that teachers rely heavily upon
informal classroom observations of classroom performance when assigning gades. A
study by Bo] et al. (1998) found that teachers rely on observational data and performance
assessment tasks more frequently than traditional assessment to determine gades. This is
conﬁrmed by Steve’s use of informal observational data that he kept in his head during
his economics unit. In addition, teachers place the geatest weight on academic
performance and academic enabling behaviors, such as effort, when gading (Mcmillan,
Myran & Workman, 2002) even though these behaviors are monitored through informal
classroom observations. This study substantiates this claim in light of Sue’s inclusion of
student effort as part of her gading practices.

Cultural Literature

181

The cultural strand of literature posits that the American school system reinforces
and maintains existing social stratiﬁcation and inequality that is present in American
society at large. Scholars and researchers who write from this point of view claim that
teachers’ taken-for-granted assumptions about race and class shape their assessment
practices.

This study contradicts the basic assumption of this strand of literature. The main
assumption of this literature is that teachers are not reﬂective about race and culture and
that this is a central cause of student failure. Ms. Mathews’ actions at the SIP meeting
showed that many school personnel are willing to forthrightly address such assumptions
in order to provide better opportunities for all students. Ms. Mathews was aware that
some teachers held deﬁcit views about some of their students. She addressed this issue
squarely and forced teachers to put such excuses aside in the face of assessment results
from other, comparable schools. Further, this study demonstrated the multiple demands
teachers faced in trying to improve student learning. It is not fair to blame student failure
on teachers’ beliefs alone. Disparity in educational backgound of families, available
family and community support networks, and the in- and out-of-school environment,
ensures that many children will always struggle to reach the level of performance
demanded by NCLB. Government, religious, and social institutions have been unable to
erase the presence and the impact of racism and poverty inthe lives of children. We
cannot expect teachers to counteract social ills over which they have no control.
Summary

Overall, this study attempts to move away from the dichotomy of extremes that

exists in much of the present literature about mandated testing. On one hand, proponents

182

claim that accountability testing will improve both the content that is taught and how well
it is taught. Opponents fear that such testing deskills teachers and will move their practice
away ﬁom considering what is developmentally appropriate for students toward teaching
only to the test. Each side seems unable to acknowledge any value in the other’s view.
This study points out that mandated testing is neither all good, nor all bad. Instead, the
reality of teachers’ lived experience in the age of accountability is more complex and
nuanced than clear-cut. How mandates enter classrooms and what happens depends on
the decisions that many actors make, including the district and the principal, as well as
teachers. As mandates proliferate at different levels of the organization, they can either be
overlapping and competing, or they can be coordinated to support each other. In addition,
some mandates bring tools that seem to require teachers to march through with no
consideration to the needs of students. Other tools seem to facilitate teachers’ close
attention to students and their work.

Further, this study considers what teachers themselves think about their work and
the conditions of their work as an important consideration for research. This study looked
at teachers’ relationships with other people with whom they work as an important piece
of the puzzle of why teachers assess the way they do. Teachers’ experiences, as seen
through their eyes, and how they feel about them is important. This conﬁrms what other
literature on policy implementation (Anagnostopoulos & Rutledge, 2006; Spillane, 1996;
Coburn, 2001) has found. Policies do not move directly from paper to classrooms.
Rather, different actors act upon them at different levels, giving rise to overlaps,

duplication and contradictions. In this complex environment, teachers make sense of the

183

messages they receive about policies based on their personal experience and beliefs, their

relationships with others in the school, and their situated practice.

Questions Raised

Proponents of mandated testing claim that such testing provides teachers with
information that helps them understand what their students know and helps them to adjust
their teaching to improve student learning. This study showed that mandated assessment
did, indeed, impact the instruction of these two teachers. But, key questions remain; did it
help them adjust their instruction to improve student learning? And did it help tlnern better
understand their students’ learning? Though it is problematic to draw deﬁnitive
implications from the study of two teachers in one school, the study raises questions to be
considered both in terms of policy and in terms of teacher education.
Policy Questions

One policy question raised by this study is, in the matter of accountability, is a
singular focus on assessment the best way to raise achievement levels of all students. For
the teachers in this study, the focus on testing outcomes did not help them design
effective instruction. While both Steve and Sue used the content of the assessments to
focus the content of their instruction, it did little to help them design effective lessons.
Sue had the beneﬁt of the Four Blocks format and the textbook series to help her shape
the delivery of her lessons. At the same time, Steve didn’t have any feedback about the
performance of his students on the sixth gade test. One teacher had the beneﬁt of district

and school mandates to shape instruction, while the other didn’t have any.

184

Do we really want teachers to ‘teach to the middle’ at the expense of students who
fall either above or below average? Under NCLB, teachers work to ensure that students
reach the mandated AYP scores, but in the end, students who are above or below average
lose. High achievers may not be challenged to move beyond average performance, and
struggling students might not be given the support they need to reach proﬁciency. Even
though it is the aim of policymakers to raise achievement of all students, in reality, AYP
requirements result in teaching that is aimed mostly at students who are in the middle. It
is time to look at a progam that acknowledges the vast range of abilities teachers need to
deal with in their classrooms and support this work. Under NCLB, every child is treated
as capable of average proﬁciency. Individual abilities and knowledge are lost in this
constructed vision of students. Children who need more challenging curriculum and
children who need more scaffolding and support are left behind. In truth, no child is
average. Every child is different, and researchers and policymakers need to design a
progam that acknowledges that fact.

Questions for Teacher Educators

Along with questions for policymakers, the ﬁndings ﬁ'om this dissertation raise
questions for teacher educators. In particular, how is it that these two teachers have
arrived in their classrooms with so little krnowledge about how to go about gading their
students? The question for both of these teachers is what do gades represent? Do they
represent an actual measure of what students have learned in a given period of time? Do
they reﬂect student performance relative to standards? Is the purpose to give feedback to
students or parents? Do gades represent progess or effort? The district’s report card

seems to indicate that the issue is settled for the district, so why is it not settled for Sue?

185

While Steve has a settled routine that turns student assignments into percentage points, he
appears to have little idea of how to measure his students learning on the projects he
values. This certainly confrrrns the beliefs that teachers’ lack of assessment literacy as
found in the prescriptive literature. More importantly, it suggests that something as
fundamental as the meaning of gades and the mechanism for calculating them have yet
to be institutionalized. On the one hand, this might be just a reﬂection of the endemic
complexity of teaching. Further, we might not want gading to be so rationalized.

Instead, we might want teachers to apply a range of criteria and to do so with the best
interest of the child in mind. On the other hand, such clear lack of guidance and
rationalization does suggest that the profession, as a whole, has a way to go to develop at
least a basic codiﬁcation of one of the most basic tasks of teaching. It is beyond the scope
of this dissertation or my current capacities, and probably most other people’s as well, to
land upon an answer to these questions. Instead, I argue that teacher educators might best
help prospective and in-service teachers think more careﬁrlly about gading by engaging
them with these very questions. In particular, teachers need to be challenged to consider
the limits of informal observation in understanding student learrning. Further, they need to
be given more tools tlnroughout their pre-service education that will enable them to
actually capture and assess student learning through more formal means. Sue seemed to
discover through her poetry unit that her students performed better when she built in
opportunities to review their work prior to a ﬁnal product. Steve acknowledged that he
should have utilized more formative assessment rather than relying only on summative
assessment of the social studies units. Clearly, formative assessment needs to be

emphasized as part of pre-service teachers’ education, something that policymakers, even

186

proponents of standardized testing, can support. In the end, though, teachers will remain
responsible for sorting through the meaning that assessment holds both for their

instructional practices and for their students.

187

APPENDICES

188

APPENDIX A

First Semester Interviews: Focus Teacher

Initial Interview:

1.

2.

9.

What do you see as the strengths of this school?
What are some of its challenges? How are these being addressed?
Tell me about your teaching experience. (How long, what districts)

What sources do you draw on when you are teaching [social studies, reading]?
(Courses you have taken, your own backgound knowledge, district curriculum,
textbook, state assessment tests)

What are your goals for [social studies, reading]? How did you choose those
goals?

How do you go about deciding how you will assess your students’ learning? Can
you tell me about a time when your struggled to ﬁgure out how you would assess
students? Can you tell me about times when it seemed obvious to you how to
assess them?

What sources of information do you draw upon when assessing your students?
(teacher prep courses, inservice) Who presented? Where ﬁom? Collegial

instruction?

Has your district mandated its own testing for [social studies, reading]? How do
you use the information from these tests?

What information have you gleaned from previous years’ state assessment tests?

10. What use did you make of that information?

Interview #2 (timed to occur soon after parent-teacher conferences after ﬁrst marking
period):

1.

What information did you take into account in determining gades for your
students in [social studies, reading]? (formal assessment, informal assessment,
class participation, homework, projects)

How did you weight each of these? What inﬂuenced your decision about tlnis?
(own beliefs about what is important, district guidelines, other)

189

Was there ever a time when you found it difﬁcult deciding what gade to give a
student? What are some other issues that played into your decision?

As the marking period progessed, did anything you learned ﬁ'om formal and
informal assessments change either the content or the way you taught [social
studies, reading] ﬁom the way you had intended to teach it?

Did the state assessment tests play a part in determining gades?

Has anything you have learned so far about your students changed the way you
intend to go about teaching [social studies, reading] as the year goes on?

End of First Semester Interview (#3):

1.

Can you tell me about a time you gouped your students for instruction? What
information was important to inform your decision? Where do you get this
information?

Can you tell me about a time you found it difﬁcult to goup your students? What
issues made it difﬁcult?

. What have you learned so for this school year ﬁom your assessment of your

students in [social studies, reading]? How will this inﬂuence what you plan to
teach or re-teach?

How do you decide what type of assignment will be best for your teaching goals
in [social studies, reading]?

Other than formal assessments, what other ways do you ﬁnd helpﬁrl to assess
your students’ learning?

How did the fall state assessment tests impact your planning, instruction, and
assessment of [social studies, reading] so far this year?

190

APPENDIX B

Second Semester Interviews: Focus Teacher

Interview #4 (timed to take place at beginning of second semester):

I.

Now that you have completed one semester with your class, are there any ways
that you have had to adjust your long-term [social studies, reading] goals in
response to the speciﬁc needs of this class?

What information did you take into account in determining your gades for this
marking period?

Was there an instance this marking period when you had a difﬁcult time deciding
what gade to assign to a student? What made it difﬁcult? What did you take into
account?

Interview #5 (timed to occur after spring parent-teacher conferences):

1.

5.

6.

What information did you communicate to parents concerning the state
assessment tests?

What questions did parents have about the state assessment tests? Were their
questions concerned with the performance of the school as a whole? Their own
child’s performance? Both?

[social studies teacher only] What feedback have you gotten from the sixth gade
concerning the performance of your former students on the social studies state
assessment test? Was this transmitted through formal means, or was it done
informally between teachers?

[social studies teacher only] What fornns of assessment did you use this semester?
What do the state assessment test results tell you about your school as a whole?

What does it tell you about your own students?

Will this information impact your planning, instruction, or assessment next year?

Interview #6 (at the end of the school year):

1.

I observed your lesson/s on . You chose to assess by . What made
this assessment a good choice? What did you take into consideration?

191

2. What did you learn about your students from that assessment?

3. How are new teachers inducted into the learning community in this school? Is
there a planned way they are informed about the school’s expectations? Is it done
more informally, such as the gade level teaching partrner passing on information?

4. How was the decision made to departmentalize instruction this year? Was it
teacher initiated, or administration irnitiated? What input did teachers have in
determining who would teach which subject and the manner in which class
changes, etc., would be handled?

192

APPENDIX C

Non-Focus Teacher Interview Protocol
Interview #1
1. What do you see as the strengths of this school?
2. What are some of its challenges? How are these being addressed?
4. Tell me about your teaching experience. (How long, what districts)
5. What are your goals for [social studies, reading]?
6. What resources do you use to reach those goals?

7. What is the source of those resources? Your teacher prep progam, district
inservice, texts, other teachers, any other sources?

8. Has the state assessment test impacted or changed the way you teach, what you
teach, or the pressure you feel to do well?

Interview #2

5. I observed your lesson/s on . You chose to assess by . What made
this assessment a good choice? What did you take into consideration?

On

. What did you learn about your students from that assessment?

7._ What do the state assessment results tell you about your school as a whole?

8. What does it tell you about your students?

9. Will this information impact you planning, instruction, or assessment next year?
10. How are new teachers inducted into the learning community in this school? Is

there a planned way they are informed about the school’s expectations? Is it done
more informally, such as the gade level teaching partner passing on information?

193

APPENDIX D

Interview Protocol: Principal

Interview #1 (Beginning of school year):
1. What are some of the strengths of this school?
2. What are some of the challenges? How are these being addressed?
3. What are the strengths of your teaching staff?
4. What teachers do you see as leaders? In what way are they leaders?

5. Does this district conduct assessment to monitor students’ progess toward state

or NCLB goals? If so, what is your role in communicating expectations to your
staff?

6. What is your understanding of the state’s expectations for your school under the
state assessment policy?

7. What is your understanding of the expectations for your school under the NCLB
policy?

8. How do you talk to parents about these tests?
9. Do you talk to teachers about assessment practices? If so, is it mostly about tests?

10. Do either state assessment tests or NCLB play a part in student gades in your
school or district?

11. Who establishes the manner in which gades are determined?

Interview #2 (End of Year):

1. This school has many progams that support student achievement in reading (Fast
F orWord, Lindamood-Bell, etc.). Are these progams being used in other
elementary buildings in the district?

194

. What gade levels are included in these progams? Are they going to continue
next year?

. Is there a standard criteria for choosing students to participate, or is it up to the
teachers’ discretion?

. You have dedicated a lot of your school’s budget to the training of your staff for
tlnese progams. Do you sense any resistance to this, or do you feel that everyone

is on board and using tlnese tools in their teaching.

. In light of this year’s state assessment results, what would you say contributed to
the successes?

. What do you intend to implement as a way of improving any disappointing
scores?

195

APPENDIX E

Academic Support Coach Interview Protocol
Interview #1:
1. What is the strength of this school? What is its geatest challenge?

2. Can you tell me about the district state assessment preparation materials? Who
prepared these?

3. What was the response of the teachers in this building to the materials, in your
estimation?

4. Do you have any sense of why Kensington is more successful, especially as far as
state assessment results, as compared to other schools with similar demogaphics?

Interview #2:

5. In your estimation of Kensingtons’s state assessment results, what was the
geatest strength it revealed? What was the geatest weakness? How will this be
addressed before the next state assessment is adrrninistered?

6. This school has many progams to support student achievement. How are
students chosen for progams such as Fast ForWord? (test results, lowest in class,
student who will beneﬁt most)

7. How are students chosen to participate in the Lindamood-Bell progam? (test
results, lowest in class, student who will beneﬁt most)

8. In the school’s Four Blocks program, the SRI is used to test students. What are

the test results used for? How was it decided that that test would be the best?
Who decided?

196

APPENDIX F

Follow Up Interview: Focus Teachers Fall 2006

1. What is the arrangement for departrnentalization this year in 5th gade?

2. Did you have any input into those decisions?

3. [social studies teacher only] Have you gotten any feedback (whether through formal
means or informal social contacts with other teachers) about how your former students
performed on the sixth gade social studies state assessment test last fall?

4. [social studies teacher only] Last year you mentioned a social studies committee that
had been in existence previously, but didn’t meet last year. Have you been reconstituted
for this year? Who was on the committee? Were you appointed or did you volunteer?m

5. Are there any new district mandated or building level assessments this year?

6. Can you remember/trace where/when you learned about assessment? (As student, in
undergrad elementary classes, in master’s level classes, or in Professional Development)

197

APPENDIX G

Follow Up Interview: Principal Fall 2006

. What changes have you noticed this year because of the redistricting?

. Is writing the core subject area that is the focus for improvement this year? Are
teachers meeting together to score student writing?

. Your school has implemented various progams that support student achievement
in reading—are you using the same progams as last year? (Fast For Word,
Lindamood-Bell, etc.). Are there any new progams in place this year?

. What gade levels are included in these progams?

. How are students selected to participate in these progams?

. Last year you told me that you and your staff determined tlnree goals for the

school and three personal goals for themselves—how would you say you did at
achieving those goals?

198

APPENDIX H

Follow Up Interview: Academic Support Coach

Mary Locke: formerly the academic support coach has changed her position this year.
She is currently the third ﬁfth gade teacher.

1.

Now that you are back in the classroom, what stands out for you as your
challenges?

What are some of your successes?

How do you see the work you did as academic support coach being used in the
school?

Are you using that work now that you are a ﬁfth gade teacher?

Are there any insights you have now that you are no longer the academic support
coach?

Now that you are on the other side, how are teachers treating you? What are your
relationships with other teachers?

199

APPENDIX I

Observation Form
Code:

 

Subject Matter: Instructional Methods:

Instructional Content:

 

 

Assignment: Assessment:

 

 

200

 

APPENDIX I

Australia Packet
Rubric

Name:

 

Page 1: (10 pts.)
Page 2: (20 pts.)
Page 3: (10 pts.)
Page 4: (56 pts.)
Full Name: (4 pts.)

Total:

 

201

Name:

APPENDIX K

Student Timeline Poster Assignment

Start Date:

 

 

Due Date:

 

Use the poster paper to create a horizontal Timeline illustration of your life from
birth to the present.

1.

Your timeline should have a title. (15 Points)
(Titles should be decorative, and in color.)

You are to include-
ten events on your timeline. (40 Points)
(Events should be two sentences long.)

. Each event you write about should include -

a visual and date. (20 Points)
(Dates should be Month, Day and Year, if you can get that accurate.)
(Visuals can be photos, drawings, or pictures cut from magazines.)

Your poster should have a border desigg (10 Points)
(Borders should be in color and show creativity.)

. Neatness will count. (15 Points)

(Take your time on this poster -
Your ﬁnished product should show planning and careful work!)

202

APPENDIX L

Student Timeline Rubric

 

Name:
Title (in color) .................. (15 pts.)
Ten Events -
(two sentences long) ........... (40 pts.)
Ten Visuals & Dates ........... (20 pts.)
(Drawings, Photos, or Cut Outs)
Border Design ................... (10 pts.)
(in color)
Neatness ........................... (15 pts.)

Total:

203

APPENDIX M

Teacher’s Self-Selected Reading Log

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Key:
Reads: Check appropriate box
Strategies Used: Plus(+) uses strategy
, Minus (-) not using strategy
Student 3 Name: Comprehension: Check appropriate box
Level: Check appropriate box
Reads Strategies Used Comprehension Level
Date Book Title .5 w w 3
1.. ’O m
>~ g 5 :5, E m 8 ‘5 >‘ .53 '°
g a», 3 8 D g t: g '8 3: i3 5] E. :1?
3 -° {4 r r o 8 8 ° :2 ° o 9 o
-- 'o 3 -- a. >< 0 9* o o- o
”t ‘5 5 8 5. °‘ 7. m i- “ I-
o <
3 U) U m U)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 111111

I

l

1

Teacher may add comments in blank spaces below checkmarks.

204

 

 

APPENDIX N

Consequences and Support for Title I High Priority Schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

status
0 Offer School Choice and

Transportation

 

Phase Consequences for Title I High Priority Support for Title I High Priority Schools
Schools
1 0 Notify parents of School’s AYP 0 Process Mentors visits 4 times/year
status 0 School Improvement Framework
0 Offer School Choice and - Comprehensive Needs Analysis
Transportation 0 Aligned curriculum and supports for
0 Write and implement a new School the curriculum
Improvement Plan 0 School Improvement Plan template
0 10% of Title I funds must be used
for targeted
professional development
2 0 Notify parents of School’s AYP - Process Mentors visits 4 times/year
status 0 School receives targeted audit if the
- Offer School Choice and only reason they
Transportation did not make AYP was for Special
0 Offer Supplemental Educational Education or Limited
Services English Proﬁciency (LEP) subgoups
0 hnplement 2nd year of School 0 School Improvement Framework
Improvement Plan 0 Comprehensive Needs Analysis
0 10% of Title I funds must be used - Aligned curriculum and supports for
for targeted the curriculum
professional develoiment - School Improvement Plan template
3 0 Notify parents of School’s AYP - Process Mentors visits 4 times/year
status - School receives Comprehensive Audit
0 Offer School Choice and 0 School receives additional funds to
Transportation support building
- Offer Supplemental Educational level initiatives that support their plan
Services 0 Principal receives Leadership Coach
- Write and implement Corrective for 100 days
Action Plan 0 Principal attends Principal Fellowship
0 School Improvement Framework
0 Comprehensive Needs Analysis
- Aligned curriculum and supports for
the curriculum
- School Improvement Plan template
4 0 Notify parents of School’s AYP - Process Mentors visits 8 times/year

- School receives Comprehensive Audit
0 School receives additional funds to
support building

 

205

 

 

0 Offer Supplemental Educational level initiatives that support their plan
Services 0 Principal receives Leadership Coach
- Plan for Restructuring for 100 days

0 Principal attends Principal Fellowship
0 School Improvement Framework

0 Comprehensive Needs Analysis

0 Aligned curriculum and supports for
the curriculum

0 School Improvement Plan template

 

 

5 or - Notify parents of School’s AYP - Process Mentors visits 4 times/year
higher status 0 School receives Comprehensive Audit
- Offer School Choice and 0 School receives additional funds to
Transportation support building
- Offer Supplemental Educational level initiatives that support their plan
Services - Principal receives Leadership Coach
0 Implement Restructuring Plan for 100 days

0 Principal attends Principal Fellowship
0 School Improvement Framework

0 Comprehensive Needs Analysis

- Aligned curriculum and supports for
the curriculum

- School Improvement Plan template

 

 

 

Auditors: Auditors are trained educators (often retired principals and superintendents)
who collect data on a building. They visit teachers, the school improvement team, and the
principal. Data is collected in relation to the research-based school improvement
framework to examine the school at that moment to view the school beyond [state
assessment] scores.

Comprehensive Audit: A comprehensive audit will look at the entire school to collect
data with respect to the research-based [State] School Improvement Framework.
Leadership Coach: A leadership coach helps the principal strengthen skills and broaden
leadership tools.

Principal Fellowship: Hosted and developed at [a state university], principals attended a
two-week residential fellowship focusing on instructional leadership skills. Content is
focused on strengthening instructional leadership.

Process Mentors: A team of three people; one representing the district in which the
school resides, one representing the ISD, and a third representing the [State Department
of Education] trained to assist the school with school improvement planning and
implementation, systemic or institutional barriers, and acceptable uses of federal funds.

206

 

APPENDIX 0

Ms. Mathews’ State Assessment Report

3rd Grade Analysis (48 students)

 

 

 

Writing

# Condition Codes

5 Off Topic/ Insufﬁcient

1 Blank/Refused to Respond

4 No Connection to the Question

# Comment Codes

4 Lacks focus on one central idea

1 1 Demonstrates limited control over sentence structure, vocabulary and/or
conventions

33 Needs details and examples to adequately develop the ideas and content

10 Lacks coherent organization and/or connections between ideas

1 Needs richer development of the central idea with some additional,
relevant details and examples to get a higher score

1 Needs geater precision and maturity of language use to get a higher score

Reading

# Comment Codes

1 Lacks a clear position

3 Lacks clarity, which causes confusion

15 Needs examples and details from the reading selections to adequately
develop the position

18 Supports the position with examples and details ﬁom only one reading
Selection

30 Does not make a connection across two reading selections

2 Contains misconceptions about the content of the reading selections

2 Needs richer support of the position with some additional examples and

details from the reading selections

4th Grade Analysis (58 students)

 

 

Writing

# Condition Codes

2 Off Topic/ Insufﬁcient

13 No Reference to Either Selection

# Comment Codes

4 Lacks focus on one central idea

21 Demonstrates limited control over sentence structure, vocabulary and/or

207

WC

NUJNIH:

18

ll

Conventions

Needs details and examples to adequately develop the ideas and content
Lacks coherent orgarnization and/or connections between ideas

Needs richer development of the central idea with some additional,
relevant details and examples to get a higher score

Needs geater precision and maturity of language use to get a higher score

Reading
Comment Codes
Lacks a clear position
Lacks clarity, which causes confusion
Needs examples and details from the reading selections to adequately
develop the position
Supports the position with examples and details ﬁ'om only one reading
Selection
Does not make a connection across two reading selections
Contains misconceptions about the content of the reading selections
Needs richer support of the position with some additional examples and
details from the reading selections
Needs geater precision and mastery of language use

5th Grade Analysis (50 students)

#
l

#
5
14

32
18
1

Condition Codes
Off Topic/ Insufﬁcient

Comment Codes

Lacks focus on one central idea

Demonstrates limited control over sentence structure, vocabulary and/or
conventions

Needs details and examples to adequately develop the ideas and content
Lacks coherent organization and/or connections between ideas

Needs richer development of the central idea with some additional,
relevant details and examples to get a higher score

Reading
Comment Codes
Lacks clarity, which causes confusion
Needs examples and details from the reading selections to adequately
develop the position
Does not make a connection across two reading selections
Contains misconceptions about the content of the reading selections
Needs richer support of the position with some additional examples and
details ﬁom the reading selections
Needs geater precision and mastery of language use

208

APPENDIX P

Kensington School [state assessment] Writing Plan

 

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

 

Week
One:

Personal
Narrative

Personal
Narrative

Personal
Narrative

Peer Reﬂection
Verbal Response

Cross-text writing
Teacher models the
complete piece

 

Week
Two:

Personal
Narrative

Personal
Narrative

Personal
Narrative

Peer Reﬂection
Verbal Response

Teacher models
cross-text writing,
then gives guided
practice as students
write their
restatement and agee
or disagee portion.
Teacher then models
the completion of this
writing, with the help
of students

 

Week

Three:

Personal
Narrative

Personal
Narrative

Personal
Narrative

Peer Reﬂection
Teacher models
written response

Cross-text - No
teacher modeling,
unless needed.
Students write the
cross-text piece
answering all the
questions and/or
statements as given in
the_prompt.

 

Week
Four:

Personal
Narrative

Personal

Narrative-

Add Stars
& Wishes
in the
sharing
part of
writing

Personal
Narrative

Peer Reﬂection
Teacher guides
students in
written response

Cross-text - Model
only if students still
need this help.
Students write the
cross-text piece
answering all the
questions and/or
statements as given in
the prompt.

 

 

Week
Five:

 

Personal
Narrative-
-Stars &
Wishes
insharing

 

Personal
Narrative

 

Personal
Narrative

 

Peer Reﬂection

Student written
response

 

Cross-text - No
modeling. Students
write the cross-text
piece answering all
the questions and/or

 

209

 

 

 

 

 

part statements as given in
the prompt.
Week Personal Personal Personal Peer Reﬂection Cross-text. No
Six: Narrative Narrative Narrative-- modeling. Students
Add Stars Student written write the cross-text
& Wishes response piece answering all
in the the questions and/or
sharing part statements as given in
of writing the prompt.
Week Personal Personal Personal Peer Reﬂection Cross-text. No
Seven: Narrative Narrative— Narrative modeling. Students
- Student written write the cross-text
Add Stars response piece answering all
& Wishes the questions and/or
in the statements as given in
sharing the prompt.
part of
writing

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cross-Text Writing Example:
Released question ﬁom Fall 2005--4th Grade state assessment test

People can achieve goals when they work together. Do you agree or
disagree with this statement? Explain your answer using speciﬁc details
and examples ﬁom both “My Life With Bears ” and “Hannah. ”Be sure to
show how the two selections are alike or connected.

Yes and restatement of question: Yes, I agee that people can achieve goals when they
work together.

Specific details and examples for 1‘t story linking to the question: In the story “My
Life With Bears” many people worked together to learn more about bears. In the Great
Smokey Mountains National Park, a study of black bears has been going on for more than
30 years. For this study to be kept up to date, many peOple worked together to track,
measure, and tag the bears.

Speciﬁc details and examples for 2"d story linking to the question:_In the story
“Hannah” there were many people who worked together to achieve a goal. Hannah, the
blind girl, wanted to be able to read and write, but the special books and materials she
needed were too expensive for her family to buy. Many of her ﬁiends worked together to
help her win a potato-digging contest. The winner received $5.00 and that was enough for
Hannah to buy special materials.

How the two stories are connected or alike: It is clear that both stories support the idea
of people achieving goals when they work together. In “My Life With Bears” with many
people working, the goal of knowing the bear population in the Great Smokey Mountains
was achieved. In the story “Hannah” many people helped this main character achieve her
goal of reading. Both stories support this theme.

210

 

 

APPENDIX Q

 

 

Kensington Report Card
Evaluation Key
A 93%-100% B- 80%-82% D+ 67%-69%
A- 90%-92% C+ 77%-79% D 63%-66%
B+ 87%-89% C 73%-76% D- 60%-62%
83%-86% C- 70%-72% E 0%-59%

 

 

 

#w

originality.

Goes beyond the requirements. Shows accuracy, appropriateness, quality and

3 Meets the requirements. Can apply the skill or concept correctly and independently.

Shows accuracy, appropriateness, and quality.

2 Shows some understanding. However, errors or misunderstandings still occur.
Teacher reminders, hints and suggestions are incorporated with understanding.

Quality is not consistent.

I Cannot complete the task or skill independently. Shows little understanding of the

concept or skill. Quality is lacking.

 

Note: If blank, not assessed that marking period.

 

Marking Period

 

1234

 

Lexile Level:

 

Reading:

 

Comprehends a variety of texts (identiﬁes main idea and supporting details, uses
context clues, recognizes author’s purpose, and compares/contrasts themes)

 

Locates and retrieves information from a variety of sources

 

English / Writig:

 

Utilizes the writing process (prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, publishing)

 

Applies correct grammatical and mechanical skills

 

Applies writing skills in a variety of types of writing, such as narratives, research,
poetry, and informational works

 

Applies writing skills in other subjects

 

Delivers oral presentations using appropriate speaking techniques

 

 

Social Studies

 

Civic Perspective: Identiﬁes and explains the branches of the American government

 

Economic Perspective: Analyzes how government decisions on taxation, spending, and
regulations impact the US. economy

 

Geographic Perspective: Analyzes and explains how geography inﬂuences people,
laces, and cultures

 

Historic Perspective: Learns about various signiﬁcant events and key people/goups in
American history

 

Cultural/Global Perspective: Investigates, identiﬁes, and analyzes consequences of
stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination

 

 

 

 

 

 

**[Reading, English/Writing, and Social Studies are given letter and percentage gades.

Applicable standards are given 1, 2, 3, or 4.]

211

 

 

REFERENCES

212

Alspaugh, J. (1991). Out-of-school environmental factors and elementary school
achievement in mathematics and reading. Journal of Research and Development
in Education, 24(3), 53-55.

Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). “To be better people”: Ending social promotion and the
moral ordering of urban high schools. Paper presented at AERA, SanDiego.

Anagnostopoulos, D. (2005). Testing, tests, and classroom texts. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 37(1), 35-63.

Anagnostopoulos, D. & Rutledge, S. (2006). District policy as an uncertain catalyst for
school change: School sanctioning in urban high schools. In K.K. Wong & S.
Rutledge (Eds), Systemwide eﬂorts to improve student achievement (pp.195-225).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 3-42.

Anyon, J. (1995). Race, Social Class, and Educational Reform in an Inner-city School.
Teachers College Record, 97(1), 69-94.

Aronowitz, S. (1996). National standards would not change our cultural capital. The
Clearing House, 69.

Bennett, WJ. (1988). American Education: Making it Work. Washington, DC: US.
Department of Education.

Bintz, W. & Harste, J. (1994). Where are we going with alternative assessment and is it
really worth our time? Contemporary Education, 66, 7-12.

Bol, L. Stephenson, P.L., O'Connell, A., Nunnery, J. (1998). Inﬂuence of Experience,
Grade Level, and Subject Area on Teachers' Assessment Practices. Journal of
Educational Research, 91(6), 323-330.

Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1977, 1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture.
London: Sage Publications.

Brazee, P.E. & Johnson, K. (2001). Challenging the old paradign: Doing collaborative,
intuitive assessment. The New England Reading Association Journal, 37(1), 7-12.

Brookhart, SM. (1991 ). Grading practices and validity. Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 10, 35-36.

Caldas, SJ. (1993). Reexamination of input and process factors effects on public school
achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 86, 206-214.

213

Coburn, CE. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate
reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis,23(2), pp. 145-170.

Cohen, D. (1988). Teaching Practice: Plus Que Ca Change. In P. Jackson (Ed.),
Contributing to Educational Change. Berkeley: McCutchan.

Coleman, J .S. (1966) Equality of Educational Opportunity Study. Washington, DC: US.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Ofﬁce of Education/National
Center for Education Statistics.

Cross, L.H. & Frary, RB. (1996). Hodgepodge gading: Endorsed by students and
teachers alike. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on
Measurement in Education in New York, April, 1996.

Cuban, L. (1993). How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American
Classrooms, 1880-1990. 2"d ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cunningham, P. M., Hall, D. P. & Defee, M, 1991. Nonability gouped, multilevel
instruction: A year in a ﬁrst gade classroom. Reading Teacher, 44, 566-571.

Cunningham, P. M., Hall, D. P. & Defee, M. (1998). Nonability gouped, multilevel
instruction: Eight years later. Reading Teacher, 51.

Daniel, L.G. & King, D. (1998). Knowledge and Use of Testing and Measurement
Literacy of Elementary and Secondary Teachers. Journal of Educational
Research, 91 (6), 331-344.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Achieving our goals: Superﬁcial or structural reforms?
Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 286-295.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2003) Standards and assessments: Where we are and what we
need. Teachers College Record, Retrieved February, 26, 2003.
http://www.tcrecord.org

DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture
participation on the gades of US. high school students. American Sociological
Review, 47(2), 189-201.

Dreeben, R. (1987). Closing the divide: What teachers and administrators can do to help
black students reach their reading potential. American Educator: The Professional
Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 11(4), 28-35.

Driessen, G. (2001). Ethnicity, forms of capital, and educational achievement.
International Review of Education, 47(6), 5 1 3-53 8.

214

Dumais, SA. (2002). Cultural capital, gender, and school success: The role of habitus.
Sociology of Education, 75 (January), 44-68.

Eisenhart, M.A. & Howe, KR. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M.D.
LeCompte, W.L. Milroy, and J. Preissle (Eds), The handbook of qualitative
research in education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Fritzberg, G.J. (2001). Less than equal: A former urban schoolteacher examines the
causes of educational disadvantagement. The Urban Review, 33(2), 107-129.

Gullickson, AR. (1985) Student evaluation techniques and their relationship to gade and
curriculum. The Journal of Educational Research, 79(2), 96-100.

Guskey, TR. (2003). How Classroom Assessments Improve Learning. Educational
Leadership, 60(5), 6-11.

Hirsch, E. D. (1887). Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Hirsch, E. D. (1996). The Schools We Need: Why We Don ’t Have Them. New York:
Doubleday.

Jackson, PW. (1990). Life in classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Jencks, C., Smith, M., Ackland, H., Bane, M.J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Haynes, B., &
Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the eﬂect of family and
schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.

Kahn, E. A. (2000). A case study of assessment in a gade 10 English course. The
Journal of Educational Research, 93(5), 276-286.

Kalmijn, M. Kraaykarnp, G. (1996). Race, cultural capital, and schooling: An analysis of
trends in the United States. Sociology of Education, 69, 22-34.

Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Klingele, W.E. & Warrick, B.K. (1990). Inﬂuence of cost and dernogaphic factors on
reading achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 83, 279-282.

Labaree, DR (1997). Public schools for private advantage: Conﬂicting goals and the
impact on education. In How to succeed in school without really learning: The

credentials race in American education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lamont, M. & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in
recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6, 153-168.

215

Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary
education. Lanharn, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld Publishers, Inc.

Lipman, P. (1998). Race, class, and power in school restructuring. Albany: State
University of New York Press.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Mcrrnillan, J ., Myran, S., & Workman, D. (2002) Elementary teachers’ classroom
assessment and gading practices. Journal of Educational Research, 95(4), 203-
13.

Mehrens, W. A., & Lehmann, I. J. (1991). Measurement and Evaluation in Education and
Psychology, Fourth Edition. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.

Meisels, S.J., DePrima, D.D., Nicholson, J., Xue, Y.& Atkins-Burnett, S. (2001).
Trusting Teachers' J udgnents: A Validity Study of a Curriculum-Embedded
Performance Assessment in Kindergarten to Grade 3. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(1), 73-95.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, AM. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook, Second Edition. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.

Nicholson, D.J. & Anderson, J .O. (1993). A time and place for observations: Talking
with primary teachers about classroom assessment. The Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 39(3), 363-374.

Niemi, D. (1997). Cognitive science, expert-novice research, and performance
assessment. Theory Into Practice, 36(4), 239-46.

No Child Left Behind Act (2001) commonly known as NCLB (Public Law 107-110).

Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track, Part 1: The policy and practice of cuniculum inequality.
Phi Delta Kappan, 62(2), 12-17.

Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track, Part 2: Curriculum inequality and school reform. Phi
Delta Kappan, 62(3), 148-153.

Popham, W. J. (2006, February). Assessment for learning: An endangered species?
Educational Leadership, 63(5), 82-83.

Ravitch, D. (1995). National Standards in American Education: A Citizen’s Guide.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

216

Ravitch, D.F. & Finn, CA. (1987). What Do Our 1 7-Year-01ds Need to Know: A Report
on the First National Assessment of History and Literature. New York: Harper &
Row/Perennial Library.

Rist, RC. (1973). The urban school: a factory for failure; a study of education in
American society. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Rist, RC. (2000). The enduring dilemmas of class and color in American education.
Harvard Education Review, 3, 257-301.

Roscigno, V.J. & Ainsworth-Darnell, J .W. (1999). Race, cultural capital, and educational
resources: Persistent inequalities and achievement returns. Sociology of
Education, 72(July), 158-178.

Salmon-Cox, L. (1981). Teachers and standardized achievement tests: What's really
happening? Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 631-634.

Smith, M.S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrrnan & B. Malen
(Eds), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-267). New York: Falmer
Press.

Smith, W.S. (2006, February 15). Chat wrap-up: Standards-based reform. Education
Week, p. 35.

Spillane, J .P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state
instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87.

Stiggins, R.J. (1991). Relevant classroom assessment training for teachers. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7-12.

Stiggins, R.J. & Bridgeford, NJ. (1985). The ecology of classroom assessment. Journal
of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 271-286.

Stiggins, R.J., & Conklin, NR (1992). In teachers' hands: Investigating the practices of
classroom assessment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Suchman, LA. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine
communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sutton, A. & Soderstrom, I. (1999). Predicting Elementary and Secondary School
Achievement with School-Related- and Demogaphic Factors. Journal of
Educational Research, 92(6), 330-338.

Torrance, H. (1993). Combining measurement-driven instruction with autlnentic
assessment: Some initial observations of national assessment in England and
Wales. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 81-90.

217

Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995). T inkering toward utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

US. Department of Education (2006). No Child Left Behind Act is Working. Retrieved
March 2007. http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/imprtance/nclbworking.html

Vaughan, D. (1998). Rational choice, situated action, and the social control of
organizations. Law & Society Review, 32(1), 23-61.

Vaughan, D. (2002). Signals and interpretive work: The role of culture in a theory of
practical action. In Cerulo, K. (Ed.), Culture in the mind: Toward a sociology of
culture and cognition. (pp.28-54). New York: Routledge.

Weisman, J. & Paley, A. “Dozens in GOP turn against Bush's prized ‘no child' act.” The
Washington Post, Thursday, March 15, 2007; Page A01.

Wiggins, Grant (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 2(2).

Wilson, R.J. (1990). Classroom processes in evaluating student achievement. The Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 36(1), 4-17.

Wilson, R.J. (1992). Evaluation of student achievement: Perception vs. reality. Canadian
School Executive, 1 1(10), 13-16.

Wilson, R.J. & Martinussen, R.L. (1999). Factors affecting the assessment of student
achievement. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45 (3), 267-277.

Wong, K.K., Buice, J .B. & Cole, KR. (2006). Integated governance in Trenton public
schools (NJ): Coordinated efforts to raise performance in high schools. In Wong,

K.K. & Rutledge, S. (Eds), Systemwide eﬂorts to improve student achievement.
(pp.123-146). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Worthen, BR. (1993). Critical issues that will determine the future of alternative
assessment. Phi Delta Kappa, 74, 444-456.

Yin, R. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Second Edition) Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.

218

A

”11111111111111,11111111‘111111111"s