Earlier today, I retested one of the kindergarten boys. He had tested as a Tier Three this month. His teacher wasn't sure that was accurate. We are allowed to retest if we want to. I'm a reading interventionist, and I've been trying to pull those types of kids every time I have a free minute or two.
F was delighted to come to the library to read with me. I watched as he took the test. Made notes about what he could and couldn't do. Marveled at his kindergarten brain.
And now we are meeting to discuss the data. C's partner comes over from next door. It's not a scheduled meeting. She doesn't have to come. But she does. Because she cares about kids. Because we want to understand this assessment. So we can do a better job with our kids.
We look at the numbers. I tell them a few stories about the things I noticed as F worked through the test. How he made personal connections to the stories, but then got so excited about those that he forgot to listen to the rest of the question he was supposed to answer. How he burst out into the "ch" digraph song, when a test item about digraphs came up. How he knew beginning sounds and rhyming words, but had trouble when the test alternated with these two types of questions.
And he how he had tested not as a Tier Three reader, but rather as a Tier One reader, when he worked one-one with me.
We wondered which results were accurate. Wondered whether the littlest guys would do better with iPads. Wondered how much of what the test measured was developmental. How much was about kids' familiarity with technology. We talked about how we might be able to test all of our Tier Three readers one on one to see whether they might do better in a one-one situation.
We thought about which kids were not being represented accurately by their March scores. Listed the ones we wanted to retest. Talked about what we thought we could do to solidify F's understandings of beginning sounds and rhyming.
And pretty soon, a five-minute, "Let me tell you what F did this afternoon, when I worked with him" had turned into a 30 minute conversation.
A time when real decisions about real instruction were made.
A data meeting, at its finest.
I found it took several cycles of giving an electronic test before everyone got comfortable with the protocol , teachers and students It just shows the need for triangulated data. No one flat assessment is going to give us a full picture. Have you read Assessment in Perspective?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't get better than this, does it, Carol? " It's not a scheduled meeting. She doesn't have to come. But she does. Because she cares about kids. Because we want to understand this assessment. So we can do a better job with our kids." So glad there are teachers who want to do a better job with their kids & to understand the assessment because they care about kids.
ReplyDeleteAnd when you retested F . . . Absolutely love these words: "I watched as he took the test. Made notes about what he could and couldn't do. Marveled at his kindergarten brain." I celebrate teachers like you and C's partner!
Carol - I love the way your slice ends, with the "real" data. I understand accountability , but testing little ones so many times just doesn't make sense. I'm so glad the focus of the conversation turned to what everyone knew about this student.
ReplyDeleteCarol,
ReplyDeleteIt's so important to use this data in conjunction with other data in order to understand what students are doing successfully and where they may need to go next. All of the nuances of how children think about what they are reading and how they interact with text cannot be measured by a computerized test alone, especially when we're talking about early childhood. Conversations about kids that go beyond the test scores are so important. Good luck with this!