NWEA webinar 1.pptx (Read-Only)info.nwea.org/rs/nwea/images/NWEA webinar 1.pdf• The next event in...
29
Why forma*ve assessment needs to be a priority for every school Dylan Wiliam www.dylanwiliam.net
Transcript of NWEA webinar 1.pptx (Read-Only)info.nwea.org/rs/nwea/images/NWEA webinar 1.pdf• The next event in...
Why forma*ve assessment needs to be a priority for every school
Dylan Wiliam
www.dylanwiliam.net!
!
Outline 2!
¨ Why we need to improve educa*onal achievement ¨ What’s been tried and why it hasn’t worked ¨ The importance of teacher quality ¨ How to improve teacher quality
!
Economic benefits of educa*on 3!
¨ For individuals: ¤ Increased life*me salary
¨ For society: ¤ Lower criminal jus*ce costs ¤ Lower healthcare costs ¤ Increased economic growth:
n Net present value to the U.S. of a 25-‐point increase on PISA: $40 trillion (U.S. na*onal debt: $13 trillion)
n Net present value to the U.S. of geWng all students to 400 on PISA: $70 trillion
!
Non-‐economic benefits of educa*on 4!
¨ More educated individuals ¤ live longer ¤ are healthier ¤ have less disability towards the end of their lives ¤ are happier ¤ are less likely to
n be unemployed n be teenage parents n be incarcerated n commit suicide
!
A daun*ng target
¨ Programme for Interna*onal Student Assessment (PISA) ¤ United States 496 ¤ Canada 527 ¤ Finland 544 ¤ Shanghai 579
5!
!
Changes in skills needed in the workplace
Skill category Percentage change 1969-‐1999
Complex communica*on +14% Expert thinking/problem solving +8% Rou*ne manual –3% Non-‐rou*ne manual –5% Rou*ne cogni*ve –8%
Autor, Levy & Murnane (2003)
6!
!
Real-‐terms changes in salary: 1978 to 2005
Educa8on level Change in salary Postgraduate qualifica*on +28% BA/BSc +19% Some college 0% High school diploma 0% High school dropout -‐16%
Economic Policy Ins*tute (2010)
7!
!
Raising achievement magers for society too 8!
¨ Increased economic growth: ¤ Net present value to the U.S. of a 25-‐point increase on PISA: $40 trillion (U.S. na*onal debt: $13 trillion)
¤ Net present value to the U.S. of geWng all students to 400 on PISA: $70 trillion
!
Off-shoring and automation
Off-‐shoreable Not off-‐shoreable
Skilled Radiographer Security analyst Tax accountant
Surgeon (?) Bricklayer Hairdresser
Unskilled Food packager Data entry clerk Call centre operator
Grocery store clerk Recep*onist Retail salesperson
9!
!
How flat is the world? 10!
Percentage crossing na8onal boundaries
Physical mail:
Telephone minutes:
Internet traffic:
First genera*on immigrants:
University students:
People, ever in their lives:
Goods and services:
Ghemawat (2011)
!
Mostly round; some flat bits 11!
Percentage crossing na8onal boundaries
Physical mail: 1
Telephone minutes: 2
Internet traffic: 17
First genera*on immigrants: 3
University students: 2
People, ever in their lives: 10
Goods and services: 10
Ghemawat (2011)
!
There is only one 21st century skill
So the model that says learn while you’re at school, while you’re young, the skills that you will apply during your life*me is no longer tenable. The skills that you can learn when you’re at school will not be applicable. They will be obsolete by the *me you get into the workplace and need them, except for one skill. The one really compe**ve skill is the skill of being able to learn. It is the skill of being able not to give the right answer to ques*ons about what you were taught in school, but to make the right response to situa*ons that are outside the scope of what you were taught in school. We need to produce people who know how to act when they’re faced with situa*ons for which they were not specifically prepared. (Papert, 1998)
12!
!
What kinds of schools do we need?
School model Ethos Key process Talent refineries
School must provide opportuni*es for students to show what they can do
Ensuring good teaching and syllabus coverage
Talent incubators
All students students can learn, but not all students can achieve at high levels
Drawing out what is within the student
Talent factories
All students can achieve at high levels
Whatever it takes
!
Where’s the solu*on?
¨ Structure: ¤ Smaller high schools ¤ K–8 schools
¨ Alignment: ¤ Curriculum reform ¤ Textbook replacement
¨ Governance: ¤ Charter schools ¤ Vouchers
¨ Technology: ¤ Computers ¤ Interac*ve whiteboards
¨ Workforce reforms
14!
!
Are private schools the answer? 15!
¨ In PISA, U.S. students in private schools out-‐perform public school students by 25 points
¨ But, aoer controlling for social class, public school students in the U.S. out-‐perform private school students by 10 points.
School effec*veness
Three genera*ons of school effec*veness research: ¨ Raw results approaches:
¤ Different schools get different results. ¤ Conclusion: Schools make a difference.
¨ Demographic-‐based approaches: ¤ Demographic factors account for most of the varia*on. ¤ Conclusion: Schools don’t make a difference.
¨ Value-‐added approaches: ¤ School-‐level differences in value-‐added are rela*vely small. ¤ Classroom-‐level differences in value-‐added are large. ¤ Conclusion: An effec*ve school is a school full of effec*ve classrooms.
16!
!
Tu
rke
y .
Hu
ng
ary
.
Ja
pa
n .
Be
lgiu
m .
Ita
ly .
Ge
rma
ny .
Au
str
ia .
Ne
the
rla
nd
s .
Cze
ch
Re
pu
blic .
Ko
rea
.
Slo
va
k R
ep
ub
lic .
Gre
ece
.
Sw
itze
rla
nd
.
Lu
xe
mb
ou
rg .
Po
rtu
ga
l .
Me
xic
o .
Un
ite
d S
tate
s .
Au
str
alia
.
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d .
Sp
ain
.
Ca
na
da
.
Ire
lan
d .
De
nm
ark
.
Po
lan
d .
Sw
ed
en
.
No
rwa
y .
Fin
lan
d .
Ice
lan
d .
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Within schoolsBetween schools explained by social background of schoolsBetween schools explained by social background of studentsBetween schools not explained by social background
Within schools
Between schools
McGaw (2008)
USA
!
We need to focus on classrooms, not schools 18!
¨ In the USA, variability at the classroom level is at least four *mes that at school level. ¤ As long as you go to school, it doesn’t mager very much which school you go to.
¤ But it magers very much which classrooms you are in.
¨ It’s not class size. ¨ It’s not the between-‐class grouping strategy. ¨ It’s not the within-‐class grouping strategy.
And most of all, on teachers 19!
¨ Take a group of 50 teachers: ¤ Students taught by the most effec*ve teacher in that group of 50 teachers learn in six months what those taught by the average teacher learn in a year.
¤ Students taught by the least effec*ve teacher in that group of 50 teachers will take two years to achieve the same learning
(Hanushek & Rivkin, 2006) ¨ And furthermore:
¤ In the classrooms of the most effec*ve teachers, students from disadvantaged backgrounds learn at the same rate as those from advantaged backgrounds
(Hamre & Pianta, 2005).
!
The value of teachers 20!
¨ According to Chegy et al. (2011) being taught by a good teacher for just one year increases life*me earnings by $50,000 (NPV: $9,000)
¨ A good teacher contributes around $450,000 to the US economy every single year (Hanushek, 2011)
!
Improving teacher quality takes *me
¨ A classic labor force issue with two (non-‐exclusive) solu*ons: ¤ Replace exis*ng teachers with beger ones. ¤ Help exis*ng teachers become even more effec*ve.
21!
!
Replace exis*ng teachers with beger ones? 22!
¨ De-‐select (i.e., fire) ineffec*ve teachers? ¤ Replace least effec*ve 10% with average teachers
n 2 points on PISA (right away, if it can be done)
¨ Raising the bar for entry into the profession? ¤ Require teachers to have masters degrees
n 0 points on PISA (ever)
¤ Exclude the lowest performing 30% from geWng in n 5 points on PISA (in 30 years *me)
¨ So we have to help the teachers we have improve ¤ The “love the one you’re with” strategy
Leo on their own, teachers improve, but slowly
Leigh (2007, 2010)
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Extr
a m
onth
s pe
r ye
ar o
f le
arn
ing
Years in service
LiteracyNumeracy
23!
!
How do we speed up teacher improvement? 24!
¨ Merit pay for effec*ve teachers? ¤ Can’t be done fairly, and doesn’t work
¨ Improve the effec*veness of exis*ng teachers: ¤ The “love the one you’re with” strategy ¤ It can be done:
n Provided we focus rigorously on the things that mager n Even when they’re hard to do
¨ Create a culture of con*nuous improvement ¤ But what should we help teachers improve?
The evidence base for forma*ve assessment
¨ Fuchs & Fuchs (1986) ¨ Natriello (1987) ¨ Crooks (1988) ¨ Bangert-‐Drowns, et al. (1991) ¨ Dempster (1991, 1992) ¨ Elshout-‐Mohr (1994) ¨ Kluger & DeNisi (1996) ¨ Black & Wiliam (1998)
¨ Nyquist (2003) ¨ Brookhart (2004) ¨ Allal & Lopez (2005) ¨ Köller (2005) ¨ Brookhart (2007) ¨ Wiliam (2007) ¨ HaWe & Timperley (2007) ¨ Shute (2008)
25!
!
And what does the research show we need to do?
Interven8on Extra months of learning per year
Cost/classroom/year
Class-‐size reduc*on (by 30%) 4 $30k
Increase teacher content knowledge from weak to strong.
2 ?
Forma*ve assessment/ Assessment for learning 8 $3k
26!
!
The forma*ve assessment hijack
¨ Long-‐cycle: ¤ Span: across units, terms ¤ Length: four weeks to one year ¤ Impact: Student monitoring; curriculum alignment
¨ Medium-‐cycle: ¤ Span: within and between teaching units ¤ Length: one to four weeks ¤ Impact: Improved, student-‐involved assessment; teacher cogni*on about learning
¨ Short-‐cycle: ¤ Span: within and between lessons ¤ Length:
n day-‐by-‐day: 24 to 48 hours n minute-‐by-‐minute: five seconds to two hours
¤ Impact: classroom prac*ce; student engagement
27!
!
Main approaches to forma*ve assessment
¨ Improve team-‐work and systems ¤ Professional learning communi*es
n Regular mee*ngs focused on data n 16 points on PISA (in two to three years)
¨ Improve classroom prac*ce ¤ Teacher learning communi*es
n Inves*ng in high-‐quality PD for teachers n 30 points on PISA (in two to three years)
28!
Thank you for attending!
• The next event in our Formative Assessment webinar series: Practical Techniques for Implementing Formative Assessment March 14
• Bring Formative Assessment to Your Classrooms with Keeping Learning on Track from NWEA
KeepingLearningOnTrack.nwea.org
