The District asked, so we answered.
By Linda Guthrie
Former UTLA Secondary Vice President
Periodic assessments—love them or leave them? Do they support the educational process or are they just another mandate? It’s no stretch to say that most of our members have a problematic relationship with the periodic assessments, mainly because the assessments were imposed from the top down by District officials who work far away from the classroom. The problems are compounded when there are logistical issues, as happened when the District switched contractors. The changes didn’t go smoothly, and it created new headaches for our members. Teachers spoke up, and the District made some changes to the system.
UTLA worked with the District on a survey to ask teachers if the program had truly improved. Surveys were sent to all 23,237 teachers involved in giving the periodic assessments. Almost 30 percent of our members returned those surveys, with a whopping 6,750 of teachers providing feedback. Even more impressive is that almost half of those teachers took the time to write constructive comments and suggestions, showing the District once again that we are more than willing when asked—to provide meaningful feedback on how to make programs better.
So what did our teachers say?
The logistics seemed improved, with 87 percent of teachers receiving their answer sheets on time, and another 84 percent of teachers said the answer sheets matched their class rosters. However, only 63 percent of teachers said that the entire process was significantly improved, so it’s obvious that more changes need to be made. The major issues are outlined below, and I will keep you informed about our progress in implementing these new changes.
We have asked for these surveys to come out twice a year now, so look for the first one at the end of this year, and keep sending in your concerns and suggestions for improvement. I know that responding to the surveys adds yet another time consuming task to your already full day, but as classroom practitioners, you’re the ones who best know how to fix problems with District designed programs.
Issue 1: We need individual reports to hold students accountable for learning
Beginning in 2007-08 a new student report will be available so that teachers will be able to generate individual student reports to share with students and with parents at parent conferences.
Issue 2: Teachers complained that assessment results were not available within 24 to 48 hours after being picked up from schools and that reports were difficult to print.
Printing out assessment results takes time, and many teachers were not aware that they did not have to be at a school site to access assessment data. Teachers and coaches can view data from any computer connected to the internet at https://lausd.princetonreview. com within 24 to 48 hours after answer sheets are picked up by the Mail Unit. In addition, District staff has said it will work with Princeton and teachers to create and make available even more user-friendly, printer-friendly reports in 2007-08.
Issue 3: Primary teachers said that it is difficult and time consuming to bubble student answer sheets.
Many teachers complained last year that time was wasted by scanning at every school site, which was why the District went to central scanning. However, to address the real concerns over now having to bubble using pencils instead of markers, a new online scoring option will be added in 2007- 08 to not only allow primary teachers to score directly online, but to give all teachers the ability to add late scores for absent students or to make corrections. (Now if the District could only ensure that every teacher has a computer and paid time to do this.)
Issue 4: Not enough time is given for teachers to analyze periodic assessment results together.
In addition to schools scheduling time on their own when they want to use faculty or grade-level meetings, minimum days, or common-planning time, the District issued Memorandum MEM- 3808.0 titled “Guidelines for Periodic Assessment Data Analysis Using Professional Development Banked- Time Days in 2007-2008” (July 23, 2007), which provides information on how they can use banked time as common time for analyzing periodic assessment data. In addition, the District created an electronic mailing list (Periodic Assessment ListServ) open to all teachers to share information and facilitate discussion around using periodic assessments effectively. To join this list, send an e-mail from your LAUSDnet e-mail account to listserv@list.lausd. net and type “SUBSCRIBE PALS” in the body of the e-mail message.
Issue 5: Teachers asked for more guidance and training to navigate the Princeton website and to interpret periodic assessment data.
The District has agreed to offer LAUSD salary point courses for those who would like more information about how to generate reports and analyze student achievement data. The schedule of classes should be announced soon. In addition, the District will work with Princeton to jointly develop a series of CD-based professional development sessions on these same topics. I am demanding that teachers be involved in the production of these training materials, so I’ll let you know our progress.
Issue 6: Many teachers expressed concern over the developmental appropriateness of special education students taking the periodic assessments.
It is important that all students be given equal access to instructional materials and activities. Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), No Child Left Behind, State Education Code, and District policies, students with disabilities are to be assessed in accordance with their IEPs or Section 504 plans at grade level. It is the IEP team that determines the testing variations for students with disabilities, and all students who take the CSTs are expected to participate in the periodic assessments that are aligned to the State Standards and curriculum frameworks.
Issue 7: Teachers need to see the standards assessed on the periodic assessments and want to know they are aligned to the CSTs.
The District created CST-Periodic Assessment Comparability Charts to show the connections between the periodic assessments (formative assessments) and the CSTs (summative assessments). There is a chart for each grade level/course and subject area where there are both periodic assessments and CSTs. The charts are available from local District administrators of instruction and online on the periodic assessments web page on Inside LAUSD.
Issue 8: Teachers wanted to know why there were assessment calendar conflicts.
Content-area directors and the Office of Instruction produced new calendars for 2007-2008. They tried to eliminate conflicts with CST schedules and to minimize overlaps with other District wide testing. Assessment windows common to all content areas were created at the secondary level in response to teacher requests to make the system more coherent so the whole school could look at data at the same time.
Issue 9: Many of the Options and Continuation schools do not have internet access but were still expected to give the periodic assessments.
The District ITD says it is working with its contractors to get all schools online by December 2007, so these sites will finally have access to their periodic assessment data.
Issue 10: Teachers want access to assessments ahead of time so they could plan their instruction by looking at what students were expected to know.
Assessment “blueprints” are available in the Instructional Guides and were used in the creation of the CST and PA Comparability Charts. Additionally, in the past, Elementary Science, Secondary Science, and Secondary Mathematics have made assessments available to teachers ahead of time.
For the full survey results: A complete compilation is posted on the periodic assessment webpage on Inside LAUSD.
Published in the United Teacher Volume XXXVI, Number 12, August 17, 2007
