This chapter focused more on establishing what a PLC should be. Common assessments are just a part of the process. We have used many of the techniques suggested in this Chapter. Establishing Norms, SMART goals, common assessments, gathering data, examine results, and providing additional support for students who need it.
The author defined common assessments as "assessments given by teams who teach the same content or grade level". Since I taught SPED last year I used the same common assessments as each reading grade level but modified them to the needs of my students by eliminating one answer choice. The author states that there is a question... "since assessments are given during the learning process, should they be graded? No." We used almost every assessment as a grade. This is how we differed.
I agree with Lanette's comment of Chapter 1 discussing more of the function/role of the PLC. The term "Common Assessment" is defined until Chapter 2 (pg. 16). My opinion is that the SS Dept did an excellent job setting the foundation for our PLC meetings. The concept is still new, but we are continuing to improve our PLCs.
I agree with Tiffany and Lannette's response to Chapter 1. The SS department established our norms and SMART goals, worked on Common assessments and gathered data. Our team set a weekly schedule when we met as a grade level or a department. The grade level meetings were beneficial to the dept. because we had four teachers teaching a new subject. Also, we collaborated as a dept. to find common TEKS to help the eighth grade teachers have a foundation for the STAAR test. SS laid the groundwork for our PLC but it is a work in progress.
I suspect every common assessment would suggest the same rigor test was administered to all students and all having the same advantages; a fuzzy line for us special educators.
As common assessments are successful, it is due to the ground work accomplished while establishing PLC norms. Norms for the group are a foundation, enabling it to flesh-out the goals of PLCs, common assessments being one part.
I was not in a PLC last year, but a lot more than the common assessments are involved here. Analysis of data to determine the greatest area of need & development of a smart goal (short or long term) must be established, development of a plan of action to address identified needs and outlining how to improve learning, determine specific steps to take & help with how to gather formative and summative data, examine the data, and continue working with those students who need additional support, as well as provide the learning tools for them.
I think our PLC used common assessment in an extent to the way the book says. The book says that “PLCs work with the end in mind”. I feel that this is what we did but is still obviously a work in progress. We created our assessment to look like the STAAR test as well as using Aware to look at our weaknesses based on the data. I think that we need to continue to reteach the SE’s that were low on the assessments. The chapter talked about all the norms in a PLC and I feel this truly applies to this concept. We have to look at the data and truly be able to look past the results and discuss what works and what doesn’t with our kids in the classroom and from teacher to teacher.
"How does the author's definition of common assessments differ from they way your PLC used common assessments?" Perhaps this question was meant to be about consensus?
Addressing common assessments: I do not believe the definition is any different from what we interpreted and used. We definitely used the same summative assessments. Where we differed most and shouldn't have was in formative assessment. These assessments were not always consistent nor analyzed correctly if at all.
One of our focuses this school year will be holistic scoring in all of our Writing classes. This will address the some of the inconsistency you are referring to.
I agree with Melinda. We created our assessments with the end goal kept in mind. Formative assessments is an area that I believe could have been improved upon.
As several other of my colleagues have stated previously, the term "common assessments" is not formally defined until chapter 2. I did not have a traditional PLC last year either; however, I will try to answer the questions as best I can based on my informal PLC. We did give common reading tests at several points throughout the year.The way we used them in the same manner defined as that we taught the same content, how we differed is that we were not a formal team.
For 6th grade reading, we spent a lot of time creating common assessments and evaluating the data, but our curriculum was so tight that we had little time to "respond systematically when students aren't learning concepts and skills". Additionally, I think it would be beneficial for us to have training in data analysis...sometimes it was overwhelming analyzing the common assessments.
I think this is a great example of less is more. It shouldn't be about how many assessments we give, it is about disaggregating the patterns, trends and other important information uncovered in the assessments we take the time to give. Data analysis training is something we can and will do. Thanks Jeannie!
In the Social Studies department, we really couldn't spend time with our entire PLC creating common assessments. Each grade level has a completely different focus, so each grade level worked on common assessments. However, we spent time as a whole group creating norms and determining what TEKS we could spend time on in 6th and 7th grade to that would best help the 8th grade teachers, since it is a STAAR tested subject.
It seems that Ch. 2 addresses common assessments in more detail. This chapter focuses on PLCs. Considering it was our first year at this, I think our PLC meetings were not structured enough. There was an adjustment period in learning a new way of doing things. PDSA was somewhat foreign. You mean we have to create our common assessment first, then teach based on that? It makes sense, however, and I came to recognize this as an effective means to an end. We didn't have previous data to analyze as part of the planning process when we started PLCs, but this school year we will. I'm looking forward to being able to implement this part of the process properly. I believe we will be much more focused in creating an instruction and assessment plan.
This school year, PDSA will be a part of your everyday vocabulary. We will be digging deeper using the backward process for designing quality instructional units that embeds common formative assessments.
As a generic special education teacher, I chose to be a part of the Social Studies PLC since I was part of their group the year before and they were kind enough to let me come back. The meetings I was able to attend in which we built common assessments were well-run and productive. I spent most of my time with the 6th grade teachers during those times we created tests. In those instances, there was great consistency in the whole process of test-creation, testing, and grading.
For the most part, our PLC was right on board with all grade levels giving the same assessments per grade. The unity definitely made it easy for all grade levels to collaborate and then dissect the data together. It was wonderful working with Shaft this past year. (Single tear) I'm gonna miss you!!! :)
This chapter talks mostly about PLC norms and processes. Our team was right on track with the definition by the end of the year. Each grade level created at least 2 common assessments each six weeks and then reviewed the results for remediation on the next assessment.
Our PLC's do well aligning with the PLC definition. We have been practicing for a couple of years and we are in the process of improving and being efficient in our PLC's.
I think we (Science group) did really well in creating assessments collaboratively as a whole team and per grade level. I feel as though our PLC matched the author's definition and we worked well as a team.
1. Through the norms created our PLC established goals that were addressed through our common assessments. It was a process but by the end of the year we had adjusted well to fulfilling the definition of the PLC and common assessments.
I think that the difference in our assessments were mainly length and frequency. We probably tried to assess too much at a time. We need to focus on a smaller number of learning targets on a more frequent basis.
I agree with your comments Dallas. Shorter assessments based on fewer TEKS. I also think that we need to cover the particular standard more than once in the assessment to get a true measure of their mastery.
The authors don't see common assessment writing as just writing common assessments; there is a whole set up, action, and tear down process. (PDSA) This past year, we spent most of our time making tests and then planning lessons around them (PD). This year we can be more focused on tweaking what was done last year as well as data analysis (SA).
That's our hopes as well. We would like to take the common assessments we built last year to the next level and spend time analyzing the data to improve learning this year.
I see in eduphoria (for math) that the scope and sequence has changed from last year...looks like new assessment's will be in order to accommodate the changes...yes?
This chapter focused more on establishing what a PLC should be. Common assessments are just a part of the process. We have used many of the techniques suggested in this Chapter. Establishing Norms, SMART goals, common assessments, gathering data, examine results, and providing additional support for students who need it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe author defined common assessments as "assessments given by teams who teach the same content or grade level". Since I taught SPED last year I used the same common assessments as each reading grade level but modified them to the needs of my students by eliminating one answer choice. The author states that there is a question... "since assessments are given during the learning process, should they be graded? No." We used almost every assessment as a grade. This is how we differed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lanette's comment of Chapter 1 discussing more of the function/role of the PLC. The term "Common Assessment" is defined until Chapter 2 (pg. 16). My opinion is that the SS Dept did an excellent job setting the foundation for our PLC meetings. The concept is still new, but we are continuing to improve our PLCs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tiffany and Lannette's response to Chapter 1. The SS department established our norms and SMART goals, worked on Common assessments and gathered data. Our team set a weekly schedule when we met as a grade level or a department. The grade level meetings were beneficial to the dept. because we had four teachers teaching a new subject. Also, we collaborated as a dept. to find common TEKS to help the eighth grade teachers have a foundation for the STAAR test. SS laid the groundwork for our PLC but it is a work in progress.
ReplyDeleteI suspect every common assessment would suggest the same rigor test was administered to all students and all having the same advantages; a fuzzy line for us special educators.
ReplyDeleteMy PLC was right on!
I like Spillman's answer.
As common assessments are successful, it is due to the ground work accomplished while establishing PLC norms. Norms for the group are a foundation, enabling it to flesh-out the goals of PLCs, common assessments being one part.
ReplyDeleteI was not in a PLC last year, but a lot more than the common assessments are involved here. Analysis of data to determine the greatest area of need & development of a smart goal (short or long term) must be established, development of a plan of action to address identified needs and outlining how to improve learning,
ReplyDeletedetermine specific steps to take & help with how to gather formative and summative data, examine the data, and continue working with those students who need additional support, as well as provide the learning tools for them.
I think our PLC used common assessment in an extent to the way the book says. The book says that “PLCs work with the end in mind”. I feel that this is what we did but is still obviously a work in progress. We created our assessment to look like the STAAR test as well as using Aware to look at our weaknesses based on the data. I think that we need to continue to reteach the SE’s that were low on the assessments. The chapter talked about all the norms in a PLC and I feel this truly applies to this concept. We have to look at the data and truly be able to look past the results and discuss what works and what doesn’t with our kids in the classroom and from teacher to teacher.
ReplyDelete"How does the author's definition of common assessments differ from they way your PLC used common assessments?" Perhaps this question was meant to be about consensus?
ReplyDeleteAddressing common assessments: I do not believe the definition is any different from what we interpreted and used. We definitely used the same summative assessments. Where we differed most and shouldn't have was in formative assessment. These assessments were not always consistent nor analyzed correctly if at all.
One of our focuses this school year will be holistic scoring in all of our Writing classes. This will address the some of the inconsistency you are referring to.
DeleteI agree with Melinda. We created our assessments with the end goal kept in mind. Formative assessments is an area that I believe could have been improved upon.
DeleteAs several other of my colleagues have stated previously, the term "common assessments" is not formally defined until chapter 2. I did not have a traditional PLC last year either; however, I will try to answer the questions as best I can based on my informal PLC. We did give common reading tests at several points throughout the year.The way we used them in the same manner defined as that we taught the same content, how we differed is that we were not a formal team.
ReplyDeleteFor 6th grade reading, we spent a lot of time creating common assessments and evaluating the data, but our curriculum was so tight that we had little time to "respond systematically when students aren't learning concepts and skills". Additionally, I think it would be beneficial for us to have training in data analysis...sometimes it was overwhelming analyzing the common assessments.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great example of less is more. It shouldn't be about how many assessments we give, it is about disaggregating the patterns, trends and other important information uncovered in the assessments we take the time to give. Data analysis training is something we can and will do. Thanks Jeannie!
DeleteIn the Social Studies department, we really couldn't spend time with our entire PLC creating common assessments. Each grade level has a completely different focus, so each grade level worked on common assessments. However, we spent time as a whole group creating norms and determining what TEKS we could spend time on in 6th and 7th grade to that would best help the 8th grade teachers, since it is a STAAR tested subject.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Ch. 2 addresses common assessments in more detail. This chapter focuses on PLCs. Considering it was our first year at this, I think our PLC meetings were not structured enough. There was an adjustment period in learning a new way of doing things. PDSA was somewhat foreign. You mean we have to create our common assessment first, then teach based on that? It makes sense, however, and I came to recognize this as an effective means to an end. We didn't have previous data to analyze as part of the planning process when we started PLCs, but this school year we will. I'm looking forward to being able to implement this part of the process properly. I believe we will be much more focused in creating an instruction and assessment plan.
ReplyDeleteThis school year, PDSA will be a part of your everyday vocabulary. We will be digging deeper using the backward process for designing quality instructional units that embeds common formative assessments.
DeleteAs a generic special education teacher, I chose to be a part of the Social Studies PLC since I was part of their group the year before and they were kind enough to let me come back. The meetings I was able to attend in which we built common assessments were well-run and productive. I spent most of my time with the 6th grade teachers during those times we created tests. In those instances, there was great consistency in the whole process of test-creation, testing, and grading.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing "generic" about you Mr. Holland.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, our PLC was right on board with all grade levels giving the same assessments per grade. The unity definitely made it easy for all grade levels to collaborate and then dissect the data together. It was wonderful working with Shaft this past year. (Single tear) I'm gonna miss you!!! :)
ReplyDeleteThis chapter talks mostly about PLC norms and processes. Our team was right on track with the definition by the end of the year. Each grade level created at least 2 common assessments each six weeks and then reviewed the results for remediation on the next assessment.
ReplyDeleteOur PLC's do well aligning with the PLC definition. We have been practicing for a couple of years and we are in the process of improving and being efficient in our PLC's.
ReplyDeleteI think we (Science group) did really well in creating assessments collaboratively as a whole team and per grade level. I feel as though our PLC matched the author's definition and we worked well as a team.
ReplyDelete1. Through the norms created our PLC established goals that were addressed through our common assessments. It was a process but by the end of the year we had adjusted well to fulfilling the definition of the PLC and common assessments.
ReplyDeleteI think that the difference in our assessments were mainly length and frequency. We probably tried to assess too much at a time. We need to focus on a smaller number of learning targets on a more frequent basis.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comments Dallas. Shorter assessments based on fewer TEKS. I also think that we need to cover the particular standard more than once in the assessment to get a true measure of their mastery.
DeleteThe authors don't see common assessment writing as just writing common assessments; there is a whole set up, action, and tear down process. (PDSA) This past year, we spent most of our time making tests and then planning lessons around them (PD). This year we can be more focused on tweaking what was done last year as well as data analysis (SA).
ReplyDeleteThat's our hopes as well. We would like to take the common assessments we built last year to the next level and spend time analyzing the data to improve learning this year.
DeleteI see in eduphoria (for math) that the scope and sequence has changed from last year...looks like new assessment's will be in order to accommodate the changes...yes?
Delete