The New Title I Assessment.

When the Improving America's Schools Act went into effect in July 1995, it signaled a marked shift in the way public school performance will be evaluated by the federal government. No area will experience more dramatic change in assessment than Title I.

Assessment under the IASA will mean a shift away from:

* a nationally standardized testing requirement based on individual student achievement,

* a mandated uniform evaluation and reporting system--a "one size fits all" approach; and

* comparisons of individual student performance to a national group.

In contrast to the current system, over the next four years states will develop new assessment systems that provide:

* multiple measures and program evaluation based on how schools and districts are helping all students meet high standards; and

* assessments based on student proficiency in meeting challenging content and performance standards within a specified time frame.

These significant changes will take time to implement. Fortunately, Congress realized this and allowed for an incremental approach. The challenging content and student performance standards must be adopted by 1997-98. The assessment system must be in place by 2000-2001, with an additional year allowed for field testing.

Who's Responsible?

The IASA law clearly places the responsibility for standards and assessments at the state level. States can use standards and assessments developed and adopted at the state and local levels under Goals 2000 or another process and modify them as necessary to conform to Title I. If IASA is to be successful, state education agencies and local district personnel must collaborate effectively.

Since Goals 2000 serves as the umbrella framework for the new Title I, local initiatives in developing standards and assessment are supported in the law.

States have several options for devising a system of content standards, performance standards, and assessments. For the Title I program, states may use (1) state-level standards and assessments applied uniformly throughout the state, (2) state-level standards and assessment supplemented by local districts' standards and assessments, or (3) locally developed standards and assessments. Local standards and assessments must meet clearly identified state criteria of rigor and quality.

Toward Standards

Grading on the curve is dead! Although many of us were thankful for grading on the curve in college, we cannot deny that it let us get by without doing our best. One could speculate on how and why education--especially public education in America--became so enamored with the normative approach when public education in most other countries focused on standards. Or why most other evaluations in our daily lives are categorical (three-star hotels, prime Grade A beef, etc.).

The point is that IASA doesn't want meaningless verbiage about standards. Rather, it requires setting specific levels of performance, then living with them in the most tangible way possible. If students are not making progress, this conclusion is unavoidable: programs are not working and must be improved.

Standards-based assessment has four basic aspects.

* No. 1: Putting the standards in standards-based assessment.

The legislation requires that assessment systems be based on content and performance standards. By now the definitions, albeit somewhat simplistic, are commonplace: content standards define what is to be taught and learned, whereas performance standards specify what is to be learned, describe what students must be able to do to show they have learned, and indicate how well students must know it and be able to do it.

The law requires states to define three levels of performance: advanced, proficient, and partially proficient. Most states and districts are making progress in defining their content standards, but developing performance standards will be even more challenging.

Nothing in the law or regulations prevents a state or school district from adding performance levels. One national project (New Standards) even uses a five-level scale, with three levels below proficient.

Schools with a large proportion of low-performing students may find it difficult to show progress, if progress is measured by the number of students who move from the partially proficient to proficient categories. Many students could make significant movement within the partially proficient category, but this progress would not count. Therefore the use of additional levels would register movement across the lowest categosries.

Mix of Instruments

* No. 2: Assessing students against high and specific standards.

Standards without assessments are empty. The assessments have two main functions: (1) direct improvement in instruction and (2) indirect improvement via accountability.

Assessment information must be available on an ongoing basis to help individual students and teachers throughout the school year. That's what is meant by immediate and direct instructional improvement. Accountability uses information about the effectiveness of the district, school, or particular program to make changes. That's indirect instructional improvement.

While both functions are important, here we focus on accountability as the primary focus for the assessments required under the new Title I.

Title I comprehensive assessments are to be of high quality and to focus on complex skills and challenging subject matter. Although the statutes do not mention performance assessment, it is hard to imagine assessments that reflect high standards without using performance assessment as part of the solution.

The law does call for multiple measures, a phrase with several meanings. Our focus is on the need to use information from different assessments--norm-referenced tests, performance assessments, and portfolios of student work, to name a few--to make judgments about the performance levels of individual students.

Combining Information

How should the pieces be combined to obtain the most valid judgments about a student's work? Some suggested approaches are available in a report by the Council of Chief State School Officers, Adequate Yearly Progress in the New Title I: Issues and Strategies. The document was developed by a task force of state and local district representatives.

Many states have annual uniform assessments, but perhaps only Kentucky collects and uses information from students' daily work for accountability purposes. This is one reason why the best systems will integrate state and local components. Many states administer a statewide writing assessment, for example. Districts in these states could blend a student's results on the state assessment with district- or school-level assessment information.

Target Setting

* No. 3: Determining adequate yearly progress.

The most innovative and perhaps most far-reaching feature of the new law may be the adequate yearly progress requirement. States are required to establish procedures whereby districts will evaluate the progress of their schools--as measured by an increase in the proportion of students reaching the proficient and advanced levels of performance. If the school fails to make adequate progress for two consecutive years, the IASA law prescribes steps, giving responsibility at all levels--the state, the local education agency, and the school--for carrying them out.

Adequate yearly progress--as it pertains to schools, not students--reflects a key philosophical principle enunciated in the law. States have considerable flexibility in defining progress, but it is assumed they will:

* set a goal or target, such as "all students will reach the proficient level;"

* determine how long it will take them to reach it, perhaps 10 years; and

* determine adequate yearly progress, such as "each year five percent more fourth grade students will reach the proficient performance level in mathematics"

Many other issues arise when defining a procedure for determining adequate yearly progress, but most are variations on this three-step procedure. These issues include:

* What is the best way to combine the results across grade levels and content areas to make a decision about a school's progress?

* What other data should be included in the procedure or formula--dropouts, attendance, or something else?

* Should the expected progress be limited, or should it be greater during the first few years, or should it be less during the first few years?

* How can this be done in small districts, where the results are so variable?

* How can a system be developed that reflects the progress of schools with a large number of low-achieving students?

Some suggested answers are described in CCSSO's Adequate Yearly Progress in the New Title I: Issues and Strategies.

* No. 4: Reporting and using the assessment results.

The new law calls for an accountability system, in addition to a high quality assessment system. Getting the results and reporting them is not enough. The law requires the states and districts to implement a system of rewards and sanctions.

The focus is on making programs effective. Low-performing schools must change their programs, and high-performing schools can help others implement effective practices.

Next Steps

But simply knowing the requirements of the new Title I won't make it happen.

As they implement these provisions, school district leaders will need to consider the following questions:

* Have you communicated throughout your district the new requirements for Title I in the areas of standards and assessments?

* Have you convened a cross-functional team of staff representing Title I, bilingual education, special education, curriculum, professional development, assessment, and accountability to plan and implement the Title I program?

* What standards will you use to guide achievement for all students, including Title I students, in your district?

* Have representatives of your district been involved in the statewide development process for standards and assessment or have you received from the state education agency criteria or procedures to ensure alignment and coordination of state and local standards?

* Do you know how transitional and final assessments for Title I will be handled in your state? (Each state could have its own distinctive system.)

* Will a local assessment component be used to evaluate whether your district or schools are making adequate yearly progress during the transitional and final assessment period?

* What criteria or procedures are being applied to substantiate continuous and substantial academic progress for your district and each school serving Title I students?

* How is your state planning to reach a final definition for adequate yearly progress?

* If you are planning to institute new assessment procedures, have you considered the readiness of your community for comprehensive or incremental reform?

* If your district is working on developing a local assessment component as part of the state final assessment system for Title I, is a planning process in place that involves a cross section of your staff and the community?

* Have you articulated clearly defined purposes for the assessment components?

* Have you established a timetable and benchmarks for developing the assessment, including what languages other than English are needed?

* Do you have a broad-based communication strategy to inform stakeholders about your assessment for Title I and the entire district?

* How will the specified assessment measures provide results not only for the purposes of Title I program accountability, but also to support continuous improvement of all students served by the program?

Dale Carlson is the senior adviser on accountability with the California Department of Education. Adrienne Bailey is senior consultant for the Council of Great City Schools, Washington, D.C.

Basic Assessment Elements of Title I

Under Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act, these requirements apply to assessment.

* An assessment must be conducted at least once in each of the three grade spans: grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12;

* The assessments must be aligned with the challenging content and student performance standards, which must be adopted by 1997-98. The assessment system must be implemented by 2000-2001;

* Assessments must include at least reading/language arts and mathematics;

* All students must be assessed, including students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities--using accommodations and adaptations as appropriate;

* The results are to be disaggregated and reported within each state, local district, and school by gender, racial and ethnic group, English proficiency status, migrant status, as well as for students with disabilities and the economically disadvantaged;

* The assessment system must use up-to-date multiple approaches and measures; and

* Results must be reported for individual students in an "interpretive and descriptive" manner

Dale Carlson and Adrienne Bailey