suchas probing discussions. unobtrusive assessment, andl student- generated assessments Translating Scale Scores to Traditional Grades Proficiency scales represent a dramatic shift in the metric used. toeval te students Instead of students reeiving scores fram o to100 on tests, students eveve seale scores that range from 0 to 40. As demonstrated in igure 62 on page 1, the 1o0-point scale does not provide very accurate or usfil information about student performance, particulaely when assessments are multidimensional in nature. However, most grading policies currently in use, pat= Uiculrl a the middle sehool and high school levels, are based on the 100-point scale. Consequently, teachers might have to trans- late the proficiency seal sores into a100-polnt metre. There are ‘many schemes for doing this fr adiscussion see Marzano, 20108), -Apopullae one used by secondary teachers appears in figure 6.6, ‘Scale Score “Translation to 35 30 30 25. 80 20 70 10 50 os: 25 20) 3 Figure 6.6: Conversion scheme for translating proficiency. seale into 100-point se While there are certainly other translation schemes teachers could use, the scale in figure 66 seems to have an intuitive appeal to teachers and preserves the integrity ofthe scale at east to some extent Understand, however, that any translation fromone sale to Ongoing Menitoring of Student Lesrning another usually ntroduces error in measurement and interpreta tion. We ofer the scheme in figure 6 as a tool that allows teach ers touse proficiency scales even though thelr school or district requires theuse ofthe conventional 00-point seal, Ofcourse, this isnot an optimal situation. _-ANew Report Card While the ereation of proficiency scales does not require a new type of report card, can be used asa catalyst for designing new report cards. Infact, new report cards become a very loglel alter native when &distset or school has articulated profciony sales forall the content ina course o ata grade level. Report cards ike the one in figure 67 on pages 136-138 are a viable alternative to traditional report cards when proficiency scales aren place. Figure 67 shows a sample report card for fourth grade, but the sae format canbe easily used in grades K-12 For the purposes of this discussion, we will assume thatthe schools departmentalized {or each subject, so different teachers are responsible for diferent subject areas. For thie grading period, ve subject areas have been addressed: language arts, mathemati, cence, social studies, and art. The student represented in figure 67 has received wscore of25, for word reeognition and voeabulary, 1.5 for main idea, an so on ‘within the subject oflanguage ats. Itis important to recognize that each bar graph in figure 67 thas a dark base and alight top. The darkened part atthe base of ‘each bar represents the student’ scale score atthe beginning of the grading period. For example, while the student in gure 67 received final score of 2.5 fr the tope of word recognition and ‘vocabulary, he hegan the grading period with a score of x0. In other words the grey part atthe top of each bar graph reports the knowledge gain fora student on each topic. The student in figure 627 gained 15 proficiency seale points forthe topic of word reco: nition and vocabulary, 1.0 proficiency-seale points for reading for main dea, endo onZL eZ ‘ongoing Manito Figure 6.7: Sample report card for fourth grad ng of Student Learning Continued on next page >open Sara a ihrer Also note that in each subject area reported in figure 6, he tt dent has received proficieney-scale scores forthe life-skill opis of participation, work completion, behavior, and working in groups Collaborative teams can develop proficency seals for these skills just as they can for academic objectives (ora discussion, see ‘While proficiency scale scores for -kil topes are reported foreach subject, those scores are ‘otcounted when computing the letter grade for the subjee as Staten aia are calculated by directly translating profeieney scales scores into traditional grades using conversion scheme like the one in figure 68 ‘As shown in figure 68, Ifa student receives an average score across topes of3 51 to 4.00; the student would receive an A. An average sore of 3.00 to 350 translates toa grade ofA and so on. ‘The scheme in figure 6 isnot the only valid translation seheme, but it does represent the general pattern used by a number of schools that have adopted the proficiency scale system, these Ongoing Monitoring of Student Learning ‘Average Scale | Traditional | Average Seale | Traltion ‘rade ‘Seore A 217-235 300-350 ae 200-216 © [2es290 [ee 184-199 zezes |e | tras 250-266 = 150-66 [asa ce 0-149 Soe Aid ro rae Gh pt) Figure 6.8: Conversion scheme for translating proficiency scale Into traditional grade: ‘Ongoing monitoringof student learnings one ofthe most pow- erful tools available to PLC collaborative teams for enhancing student achievament. This monitoring requires collective analysis ‘of results and thelr implications for chang her practice (atti, 2005: Timperley & Alkon-Lee, 2008) Theprofieieneyscales Conclusion ‘The longstanding practice in American education has been for individual teachers to use assessment to providea student with the opportunity to demonstrate his or her learning atthe appointed time The standarl pattern has ben, “Teach, test hope for the best, sssign a grade and move onto the next unit” Assessment has been used as too fo sorting students into “our A students, our B stu dents and so on. ‘The ereation of team-based common assessments isan abso- Iutely vita step in the PLC journey. If, however, teams continue to ‘ase common assessments merely to assign grades before moving to ‘thenext unit little progress wil be madeThe assessment processIna PLCIs not used simply, tot to prove tha learning prove what a student has earned, \ CHAPTER 7 non assessments to entity an Ensuring Effective Instruction What clstinguienes professonaleaming commuritios from support grouns where teachers mainy share ideas and after encouragement is thal ential stance ‘and.commirant to inquiry... Teachers ask probing fuestions. ute colleagues to observe andrevew their teaching and thoi students learning, and hold ‘ut ideas for discussion and debate, Jonathon Saphier Erfectve classroom astessmentas described in chapter 6 sa pow: ‘erful tol for enhancing student achievement. With clear abjectves ‘embedded in scales that frm aguaranteod and viable curriculum, ‘and with specific details regarding what constitutes the differ- ent levels of performance fr an objective students wil have the benefit of knowing what they ae expeeted toloarn and what they ‘must do to demonstrate thei earning, When effective instruction is added to this mix, the effect on student achievement increases ‘even more, In this chapter, we consider how to design and deliver lessons that maximize the probabil tha al students will acquire the intended knowledge and sills. fective instruction is explieit in the frst big ken of « PLC: ensuring that all students learn at high levels. fllows then that ‘one ofthe maja responsibilities ofteams in aPLCisthe planning ‘and delivery oflessons that lead tohigh eels oflearning, ional It Even strategies that have sold research base supporting ther efectiveness are likely to be found