Preparing Your 2010-2011 Rosters

With the arrival of summer ATI staff members responsible for Galileo student data management shift their focus to, of all things, fall. This focus is primarily on new classes, rosters, and accommodating all staff changes a district may undertake throughout the summer.

For districts new to Galileo, the best way to create your class lists and rosters is through Galileo Data Import (GDI). The GDI process involves three basic steps:

1. Districts provide an export from their Student Information System (SIS) that lists all classes, teachers, and students within the district.
2. ATI staff import this data to a test database and perform a thorough quality assurance review – any problems are resolved with the district before the data is imported (step 3) into the live Galileo database.
3. ATI staff import the district-provided information directly into Galileo K-12 Online.

Detailed instructions for GDI can be found in the Tech Support section of Galileo K-12 (and Preschool) Online, as well as at the following links:

Preschool: http://www.ati-online.com/pdfs/ImportInstructionsPre-K.pdf

K-12: http://www.ati-online.com/pdfs/ImportInstructionsK-12.pdf

As you prepare your 2010-2011 program year data for import, please remember the following important points:

1. Be sure to include all required information in your import.
2. Optional information is not required in the Galileo database, but failure to include this information may adversely affect future report filtering.
   • Any omitted optional data can be imported at any time throughout the program year, either as part of GDI or as a separate process – contact ATI for more information.
3. If TeacherID or StudentID fields change within your SIS, please notify ATI prior to providing any import files to ensure proper transition within the Galileo database. Large-scale ID changes may require extra processing time so please notify ATI as far in advance as possible so we can help you plan accordingly.
4. Due to new class structures and teacher assignments, the quality assurance process is typically longest during the first upload of the year. Getting uploads underway as soon as data is available will help ensure adequate processing time before your first assessments of the year.
   • Providing ‘shell’ data with class structures and teachers as soon as they are entered into your SIS this summer will provide opportunity to perform thorough review of class alignment, course codes and teacher assignments. This will speed the processing of files containing student enrollment in the fall.

Please refer to the links above for more details about the import process.

ATI and the Common Core Standards

With the June 2, 2010 release of the Common Core Standards by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, a new set of opportunities has been presented to educators to establish more rigorous and beneficial academic expectations for students and schools.

The development of these standards has already influenced the standards revision process in many states. Those states currently in the process of revising and updating their local standards will now have an opportunity to consider how the Common Core Standards will inform their new educational objectives, whether through direct adoption or mapping of common goals, as part of a collective effort to raise student achievement across the nation.

Assessment Technology, Inc. is eagerly anticipating the opportunity to assist districts using Galileo K-12 Online in the transition to new state standards and in aligning their standards with the Core Curriculum Standards. ATI’s existing process of specification to develop precise assessment and instructional content is the key factor in the process to manage this transition.

As we develop materials and questions to instruct and measure student success on the state standards we write specifications that not only accurately and effectively measure the standard, but further refine the process by defining the particular skills or knowledge inherent in components of that standard. This fundamental, systemic approach places the full content of the Galileo K-12 Online banks in a format that allows for detailed and precise mapping, or in this case remapping, of assessment items and instructional materials to particular characteristics of state standards.

The diversity of our 74,000+ item bank and 1,500+ Instructional Dialogs draws on our experience writing to measure the standards present in each state and then finding the exact mapping appropriate to those items in other states where that same skill or knowledge is demanded. Rather than applying generic items at the most broad levels, we have defined the specifications to allow lessons, activities, and items to be used exactly where they are needed. This expertise will be a tremendous asset as ATI works with our partner-districts in the transition from the generation of standards we have all been using over the last five to eight years, to the new state or Common Core Standards as they are adopted by the states.

Interim and End-of-Course Examinations in Standards-Based Education

Interim and end-of-course examinations are among the oldest and most common forms of assessment in education. For as long as they have been in use, interim and end-of-course examinations have been designed to hold students accountable for the mastery of course material. However, these examinations have also been used to guide instruction to promote further learning. With the advent of the education reform movement, the guidance function of course examinations is receiving increased attention. The education reform movement (e.g., Ravitch, 2001) has placed increased responsibility on educators to raise the level of student academic accomplishment. As part of the reform effort, the movement has promoted standards-based assessments including benchmark and formative assessments, which provide information to guide instruction. The contrasting purposes of accountability and guidance require special attention in light of the significant changes that have occurred in assessment practice and instruction promoted through the education reform movement. Historically, the accountability function served by course examinations has focused on identifying and separating able students from those less able. Since its inception, the educational reform movement has been concerned with identifying able teachers and effective educational practices that can raise the level of achievement for all students. In order to achieve the goals of the education reform movement, it is important to reconcile the contrasting purposes of accountability associated with course examinations and guidance associated with standards-based assessments. This post recounts the purposes of course examinations and details the ways in which these types of assessment can be adapted for use in standards-based education to enhance student learning.

Interim and End-of-Course Examinations

The purposes of interim and end-of-course assessments have been understood for a very long time. We revisit them here to differentiate course assessments from standards-based assessments. The discussion of differentiation provides a foundation for integrating the two forms of assessment to promote student learning.

Interim and end-of-course examinations are designed to assess knowledge and skills targeted in course instruction. Interim examinations assess knowledge and skills covered during part of a course. For example, an instructor may decide to administer a mid-term examination half way through a course. The mid-term examination will cover material addressed in the first half of the course. The end-of-course or final examination may cover material reflecting the entire course, or it may cover material presented since the previous interim examination.

Course Examinations and Accountability

Although course examinations have always played a role in guiding instruction, their role in accountability has also been extensive. Moreover, the importance of accountability increases as children progress through school. Interim and end-of-course assessments hold the student accountable for learning what has been taught. As students advance through the grades, teachers place increasing responsibility for learning on student shoulders. The teacher’s responsibility is to provide opportunities to learn the material presented. The student is responsible for learning the material. Interim and end-of-course examinations provide information on the extent to which students have effectively met their responsibility for learning.

As more and more responsibility for learning is assigned to the student, interim and end-of-course examinations increasingly become high stakes assessments. The consequences associated with different performance levels on these assessments significantly impact future instructional options that may be available to the student. Students who fail course examinations will likely fail the course and as a consequence not receive credit for taking the course. Failure may require that the student take the course a second time. In some cases, poor performance on course examinations precludes the opportunity to take certain advanced courses. Poor performance on course examinations may also limit options for higher education. Sometimes failure experiences lead students to conclude that continued pursuit of education is not worth the effort. One consequence associated with this conclusion is an unacceptably large high school dropout rate.

Standards-based educational practice offers an alternative to traditional practice related to course examinations. In standards-based education, high stakes assessment is typically limited to consequences associated with performance on a statewide test. The principal purpose of local standards-based assessments is to provide information that can be used to guide instruction. Data from benchmark and formative assessments are used to plan interventions to promote further learning. The student has the ultimate responsibility for learning. However, the teacher assumes greater responsibility than that typically required in the absence of a standards-based initiative. For example, if a benchmark assessment reveals that a student is at risk for not meeting standards on a statewide test, an intervention may be undertaken to bring the student on course to meet standards. This is in direct contrast to the situation associated with interim and end-of-course assessments, in which the responsibility of mastering material is primarily on the shoulders of the student, and the interim or end-of-course assessment simply indicates to the student whether or not he or she was successful in achieving that goal. The discussion that follows suggests changes in the use of course examinations that make it possible to employ these examinations within the context of standards-based initiatives designed to elevate student achievement.

Standards-Based Course Examinations

Typically interim and end-of-course examinations are informal examinations constructed at the classroom level for the purpose of assessing student proficiency related to material covered in the course and presented in the class. Additional benefits can be derived from these assessments to the extent that they can be linked to standards-based procedures designed to enhance learning.

Informal interim course examinations are like the short formative assessments used in standards-based education in that the psychometric properties of both forms of assessment are generally not examined. In both cases the number of students taking the assessments is generally too small to support statistical analyses necessary to establish the psychometric properties of the instruments. Another similarity is that both forms of assessment are generally constructed by classroom teachers. The fact that the assessments are teacher-constructed helps to ensure that the assessments reflect what has been taught. Major differences include the fact that course examinations are not required to be aligned with standards whereas formative assessments used in standards-based education are required to be aligned to standards. In addition, course examinations are not necessarily used extensively to guide instruction whereas the central purpose of formative assessments is to guide subsequent instructional planning.
In order to apply informal course examinations in standards-based education, it would be necessary to ensure that the assessments were used not only to document what had been learned, but also to inform instructional decisions designed to elevate learning. To make this happen, the items in the examinations would have to be aligned to standards. In addition, instruction would have to be planned based on assessment results. Typically an upcoming course examination is preceded by instruction including a review of material previously presented. This instruction-assessment sequence is consistent with standards-based educational practice. However, in standards-based education, it is also important to ensure that assessment results are used to guide future instruction. Inclusion of this component of the assessment-instruction sequence increases the potential contribution of course examinations to student learning.

In some cases, interim and end-of-course examinations are administered to large numbers of students enrolled in multiple sections of the same course. These examinations are often taken by sufficient numbers of students to support psychometric analyses examining reliability and validity. Interim and end-of-course examinations that are subjected to psychometric analyses are like benchmark assessments used in standards-based education. Benchmarks are designed to provide reliable and valid assessments aligned to standards reflecting the district curriculum. Benchmarks indicate the extent to which standards targeted for instruction at successive time periods have been mastered. They also are used to forecast performance on upcoming statewide assessments. Interim and end-of-course examinations can function as benchmarks if the items included in the examination are aligned to standards and if reliability and validity are established. For example, if an interimor end-of-course assessment is to be used to forecast performance on a statewide assessment, then the assessment must be long enough to achieve acceptable reliability levels, and its validity, or effectiveness in forecasting statewide assessment performance, must be established.

Conclusion

Interim and end-of-course examinations support long-held views regarding the responsibilities of teachers and students related to learning. The responsibility of the teacher is to provide opportunities for students to learn. The responsibility of students is to take advantage of those opportunities in ways that will enable them to achieve their full potential. These views have made a significant contribution to the foundations of American education, and they remain critical components of our educational system. Yet, rapid advances in technology, the explosion of knowledge in the information age, and the advent of the global economy have called for new approaches to education that will lead to elevated achievement necessary to maintain a competitive edge in the new world that confronts us. The challenge of today is not merely to judge the achievements of students who have been given learning opportunities. It is to elevate the achievement of all students.

Standards-based education has clarified the nature of this challenge and the possible approaches that can be taken to meet the challenge. It has provided standards representing valued educational accomplishments. It has produced evolving assessment technology to measure the attainment of standards. It has introduced the power of measurement technology into local assessment programs, and it has made it clear that the national goal of elevating student achievement is attainable. The task ahead related to interim and end-of-course assessments is to link assessment to measure student achievement with assessment to guide instruction in ways that will raise achievement to new levels. This post has described some of the ways in which linking might occur.

Pretests and Posttests

Pretests and posttests are among the most familiar forms of assessment in education. Moreover, interest in their use is rising as the nation becomes increasingly aware of the importance of assessing student academic growth over time. Although pretests and posttests are familiar forms of assessment, the ways in which they can be used and misused are sufficiently unfamiliar to deserve discussion. Determining how best to design and implement pretests and posttests is complex because these forms of assessment can be used effectively in many ways. Each way introduces the possibility of misuse. When misuse occurs, the potential value of the information that these assessments can provide is compromised. The purpose of this blog is to outline the uses of pretests and posttests and to factors issues related to use and misuse that can assist in preserving the considerable information value that can be realized when these forms of assessment are implemented effectively.

Uses of Pretests and Posttests

As its name implies, in education a pretest is an examination given prior to the onset of instruction. By contrast, a posttest measures proficiency following instruction. Pretests and posttests may serve a number of useful purposes. These include determining student proficiency before and after instruction, measuring student progress during a specified period of instruction, and comparing the performance of different groups of students before and after instruction.

Determining Proficiency Before or After Instruction

A pretest may be administered without a posttest to determine the initial level of proficiency attained by students prior to the beginning of instruction. Information on initial proficiency may be used to guide early instructional planning. For example, initial proficiency may indicate the capabilities that need special emphasis to promote learning during the early part of the school year. A posttest may be administered without a pretest to determine proficiency following instruction. For example, statewide assessments are typically administered toward the end of the school year to determine student proficiency for the year.

The design of pretests and posttests should be informed by the purposes that the assessments are intended to serve. For example, if the pretest is intended to identify enabling skills that the student possesses that are likely to assist in the mastery of instructional content to be covered during the current year, then the pretest should include skills taught previously that are likely to be helpful in promoting future learning during the year. Similarly, if a posttest is intended to provide a broad overview of the capabilities taught during the school year, then the assessment should cover the full range of objectives covered during that period. For instance, the posttest might be designed to cover the full range of objectives addressed in the state blueprint.

Measuring Progress

A pretest accompanied by a posttest can support the measurement of progress from the beginning of an instructional period to the end of the period. For example, teachers may use information on progress during the school year to determine whether or not proficiency is advancing rapidly enough to support the assumption that students will meet the standard on the upcoming statewide assessment. If the pretest and posttest are to be used to measure progress, then it is often useful to place pretest scores on a common scale with the posttest scores. When assessments are on a common scale, progress can be assessed with posttest items that differ from the items on the pretest. The problem of teaching to the test is effectively addressed because the item sets for the two tests are different. More specifically, it cannot be claimed that students improved because they memorized the answers to the specific questions on the pretest. Item Response Theory (IRT) provides one of a number of possible approaches that may be used to place pretests and posttests on a common scale. When IRT is used, the scaling process can be integrated into the task of estimating item parameters. Integration reduces computing time and complexity. For these reasons, ATI uses IRT to place scores from pretest, posttests, and other forms of assessment on a common scale.

Comparing Groups

A pretest may be given to support adjustments needed to make comparisons among groups with respect to subsequent instructional outcomes measured by performance on a posttest. Group comparisons may be implemented for a number of reasons. For example, group comparisons are generally required in experimental studies. In the prototypical experiment, students are assigned at random to different experimental conditions. Learning outcomes for each of the conditions are then compared. Group comparisons may also occur in instances in which there is an interest in identifying highly successful groups or groups needing additional resources. For example, group comparisons may be initiated to identify highly successful classes or schools. Group comparisons may be made to determine the extent to which instruction is effective in meeting the needs of NCLB subgroups. Finally, group comparisons involving students assigned to different teachers or administrators may be made if a district is implementing a performance-based pay initiative in which student outcomes play a role in determining staff compensation.

If a pretest and posttest are used to support comparisons among groups, a number of factors related to test design, test scheduling, and test security must be considered. Central concerns related to design involve content coverage and test difficulty. Both the pretest and the posttest should cover the content areas targeted for instruction. For example, if a particular set of objectives is covered on the pretest, then those objectives should also be addressed on the posttest. Targeted content increases the likelihood that the assessments will be sensitive to the effects of instruction. Both the pretest and the posttest should include a broad range of items varying in difficulty. Moreover, when the posttest follows the pretest by several months, the overall difficulty of the posttest generally should be higher than the difficulty of the pretest. Variation in difficulty increases the likelihood that instructional effects will be detected. For example, if both the pretest and the posttest are very easy, the likelihood of detecting effects will be reduced. In the extreme case in which all students receive a perfect score on each test, there will be no difference among the groups being compared.

When group comparisons are of interest, care should be taken to ensure that the pretest is administered at approximately the same time in all groups. Likewise the posttest should be administered at approximately the same time in all groups. Time on task affects the amount learned. When the time between assessments varies among groups, group comparisons may be spuriously affected by temporal factors.

Test security assumes special importance when group comparisons are made. Security is particularly important when comparisons involve high-stakes decisions. Security requires controlled access to tests and test items. Secure tests generally should not be accessible either before or after the time during which the assessment is scheduled. Galileo K-12 Online includes security features that restrict access to items on tests requiring high levels of security. Security imposes a number of requirements related to the handling of tests. When an assessment is administered online, the testing window should be as brief as possible. After the window is closed, students who have completed the test should not have the opportunity to log back into the testing environment and change their answers. Special provisions must be made for students who have missed the initial testing window and are taking the test during a subsequent period. When a test is administered offline, testing materials should be printed as close to the scheduled period for taking the assessment as possible. Materials available prior to the time scheduled for administration should be stored in a secure location. After testing, materials should either be stored in a secure location or destroyed.

Misuse of Pretests and Posttests

The misuse of tests generally occurs when tests are used for purposes other than those for which they are intended. This is true for pretests and posttests as well as for other kinds of assessments. As the previous discussion has shown, pretests and posttests are designed to serve a limited number of specific purposes. When these assessments are used for other purposes, there is a risk that the value of the information that they provide will be compromised. For example, if a pretest or posttest were to be used as a customized benchmark test, assessment results could be misleading. Conversely, if a customized benchmark assessment were used as a pretest or posttest, the credibility of assessment results could be compromised.

The central purpose of customized benchmark tests is to inform instruction. This purpose carries with it implications for test design and implementation that are generally not compatible with the purposes served by pretests and posttests. Benchmark assessments are interim assessments occurring during the school year following specified periods of instruction. Benchmark assessments provide a measure of what has been taught and an indication of what needs to be taught to promote further learning. Pretests and posttests are generally not well suited to serve as benchmarks because they often include constraints that limit their use in informing instruction. For instance, it is useful for teachers to analyze performance on benchmark assessment items to determine the kinds of mistakes made by students. This information is subsequently used to guide instruction. Pretests and posttests often call for high levels of security that curtail the analysis of specific items for purposes of informing instruction.

The temptation to use pretest and posttests as benchmarks may stem from the laudable motive of reducing the amount of time and resources devoted to testing students. Reductions in testing time increase the time available for instruction and reduce the costs associated with assessment. These are desirable outcomes. Unfortunately there often is a heavy cost associated with using assessments for purposes for which there are not intended. Often the cost is to compromise the validity of the assessments. When validity is compromised, results can be misleading. Pretests and posttests are valuable assessment tools. When they are appropriately designed, they can make a highly significant contribution to the success of an assessment program.

What Constitutes an Effective, Research-Based Instructional Improvement System?

The question above is the million, or perhaps more appropriately, the multi-million dollar question inherent in effectively responding to one of the key areas of education reform called for in the Race to the Top (RTTT) Application for Phase 2 Funding CFDA Number: 84.395A. Fact of the matter is, the use of local, technology-based instructional improvement systems that measure student growth and successes and that inform teachers and principals about how to improve instruction is rapidly becoming an integral part of the educational landscape and a growing necessity for school districts in order to accomplish their goals in meeting local, state, and federal requirements for elevating student achievement.

According the Phase 2 RTTT application, “instructional improvement systems are technology-based tools and other strategies that provide teachers, principals, and administrators with meaningful support and actionable data to systemically manage continuous instructional improvement, including such activities as: instructional planning; gathering information through formative assessments, interim assessments, summative assessments, and looking at student work and other student data; analyzing information with the support of rapid-time reporting, using this information to inform decisions on appropriate next instructional steps, and evaluating the effectiveness of the actions taken. Such systems promote collaborative problem-solving and action planning; they may also integrate instructional data with student level data such as attendance, discipline, grades, credit accumulation, and student survey results to provide early warning indicators of a student’s risk of educational failure.”

As part of our efforts to support states and districts in addressing the challenges and opportunities inherent in the selection and implementation of an instructional improvement system, we have prepared a resource document. The resource document is located at http://www.ati-online.com/pdfs/researchK12/Meeting_IIS_Requirements.pdf. The material within the document is intended to assist local education agencies (LEAs) and State Departments of Education (SDEs) currently using or seeking to use an instructional improvement system to clearly define for themselves and in grant writing the attributes of the system and the contributions the system can make to LEA instructional improvement efforts.

We encourage you to take a look at the resource document; see if the information contained within it is addressed by your current system; and use the document as a guide in your ongoing efforts to improve the impact of your education initiatives on student learning. If you have questions or ideas that you would like to share please do so in this blog and/or contact me at Assessment Technology Incorporated.

Jason K. Feld, Ph.D.
1-800-367-4762 (Ext 121)
Jason@ati-online.com

Finding Balance: Designing a Balanced (and Effective) Assessment System

Any follower of recent education publications intended either for educators or the general public will have frequently come across mention of the notion that it is important for an assessment system used in K-12 education to be balanced. The concept of a “Balanced” Assessment System isn’t new. A quick Google search will show writings dating back to the early 90’s on the first page. While the notion isn’t something that has its genesis in this modern era of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race To the Top (RTT), these initiatives have certainly contributed to the rise in prominence of this idea. My purpose with this post is to discuss what makes an assessment system balanced and, critically, what is needed to make a balanced assessment system effective.

Starting a discussion of a balanced assessment system begs the question about what exactly must be balanced with what. In short, the balanced assessment notion argues that assessment systems have many different purposes and that those purposes must be balanced without one overwhelming the other. The need for an administrator to evaluate the efficacy of a school within the district must be balanced with the teacher’s need to plan based on information about his/her student’s mastery of standards which must be balanced with a student’s need for feedback on his/her work. NCLB and RTT also emphasize the need for state and federal government oversight of schools to be added to the mix.

Balancing all of these different components naturally requires a system that contains different types of assessments. One type of assessment cannot really adequately serve all the different needs. An assessment designed to provide an overview of progress during the entire year must necessarily cover a wide range of topics. The number of items that would be required for that type of coverage would be, to say the least, a bit unwieldy as a tool to provide data for classroom planning. In contrast, informing decision making for the teacher requires an instrument that is targeted to the specific topics that are the focus of instruction at that moment.

When an assessment system involves multiple different types of assessments, each instrument must be specifically designed for its function within the bigger picture. Using an instrument for a purpose other than what it has been designed, while at times being tempting, is a sure route towards making decisions based on data that is invalid. While different instruments are required, they must play well together in order to provide the balance that is sought. This part of the design of an assessment system can be the trickiest as there are many potential pitfalls. One of the most common sources of difficulty is the lack of a common underlying framework dictating the kinds of assessments to be used and the purposes served by each type of assessment. Put another way, it would make little sense for the formative component to be aligned to a different instructional plan that the quarterly benchmark assessments. An administrator who is following student progress by observing results on formative assessment could be in for quite a surprise when state tests are administered. In order for the different measures of student proficiency that are part of a balanced assessment system to present a complete and sensible picture, they have to be aligned to the standards targeted for instruction. It is also important that all components of the assessment system provide valid and reliable results. If classroom formatives aren’t producing reliable results then they don’t contribute to the overall picture in a dependable way and can produce a misleading impression. It should be noted that reliability of an assessment is something that must be evaluated on an ongoing basis. It has been well established in the literature that items that perform one way for a group of students can behave entirely differently for a different group of students.

ATI advocates and supports a balanced approach to the implementation of an assessment system. A complete and balanced picture of student achievement that meets the needs of administrators, teachers, students and parents is fundamental to increasing student achievement. Districts design benchmarks to be specifically aligned to the scope and sequence of their curriculum. A similar process is used to ensure that formatives are aligned to district instructional objectives. Benchmarks and formatives may be assembled together to form a complete picture of student learning that is well suited to determining if students are making progress overall in a school or particular class. Performance of items is also continually evaluated in order to determine how the instruments are performing with the students who are assessed.

How has the notion of a balanced assessment system impacted your district’s assessment practices?

Instructional Dialogs and Formative Items for Enrichment and Remediation

When working with students to teach and reinforce mastery of state standards, it is often the case where some students quickly pick up the concept. Other students need a little more instruction and guided practice, while still others may need to have more fundamental instruction to succeed.

How can the needs of all three groups be addressed? One option for teachers using Galileo Online Instructional Dialogs and formative assessments is to identify student proficiency on an Instructional Dialog or quiz drawing on their current grade level. Those students who struggle with the concept may then be assigned Instructional Dialogs and quizzes drawing on materials from earlier grades, while the students who have demonstrated proficiency appropriate to their current grade, can be given opportunities to enrich and expand their understanding with work from similar objectives at the next grade level.

As an example, a third grade standard asking students to know multiplication and division facts through 10 could be complimented by remediation in the second grade standard of multiplication by 1, 2, 5, 10,and expanded, for those students who are ready, with fourth grade work in the multiplication of two-digit numbers by two-digit, and multiple-digit by one-digit. No new materials, licenses or texts are needed. The standards for all grades for each state are assigned across the district. Teachers have access allowing them to reach forward or back within the state standards to access the Instructional Dialogs and quizzes that can help reinforce core knowledge or introduce concepts and challenges appropriate to students' current development and knowledge.

This opportunity is not limited to math. In English language arts, the recurring standards are engaged by providing grade appropriate reading content. Students may be instructed and assessed in similar standards of theme, characterization, and vocabulary from context, but a teacher may enhance learning by assigning to each student texts and questions on these common elements with readings that are best suited to the current proficiency in vocabulary and reading fluency of the individual student. By exploring the opportunities afforded by using common standards across multiple grade levels, teachers are able to increase the variety and developmental appropriateness of instructional content and assessment in the effort to foster student successes.

To get more information on how to utilize multi-grade resources for instruction and assessment, please contact the Educational Management Services Department at Assessment Technology, Incorporated.