Today at a conference hosted by the Alliance for Excellent Education, titled Teachers'?? Use of Data to Impact Teaching and Learning , I was quickly reminded of how critical it is to be explicit in describing what one means by phrases like "data-driven instruction." The presenters called for a "fundamental shift" in the way the teaching profession thinks about assessment and student learning. In the new paradigm, teachers would take responsibility for the achievement of all students. They would embrace testing as a tool to improve student learning, rather than bristling at it (see an earlier post about why Cleveland State University education professor Karly Wheatley is wrong to demonize testing).
This sounds like common sense, but it might not be. I wonder if perhaps the two camps (those who rally behind increased testing and data-driven instruction, and those who show hostility toward it) are using two totally different definitions of "testing." Today's conference reiterated that assessment can take many forms, and encompasses far more than the end-of-year summary assessments???i.e. state standardized tests. I imagine this is the type of testing that Wheatley has in mind when he describes the collateral damage it creates. But what about formative assessments that can be given every week or every few weeks, to signal whether students have mastered the most recently taught objectives? If interim assessments allow teachers to create richer lesson plans, know the status of each and every student, and be more far more effective in the classroom, how can anyone be against it?
