“Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all factors that contribute
to what students learn in school.”

1. demonstrates an in-depth knowledge of curriculum and pedagogy
2. implements strategies for addressing standards of student achievement
3. develops school-wide principles, goals, and strategies for fair and balanced student assessment and evaluation practices
4. provides effective supervision and evaluation to ensure that all teachers consistently meet the Alberta Teaching Quality Standard

Sherry Bennett
Excerpt from an article published in the CASS Connection, Spring 2008: 26-29

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004).
How leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation.
Retrieved November 8, 2007, from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/Education
Leadership/HowLeadershipInfluencesStudentLearning.htm

The consortium receives inquiries about many assessment-related topics. A recent one asked about the number of points that should be included on a report card scale.

The following perspectives are provided with the permission of respected authorities on sound assessment and evaluation practices. Jay McTighe, author, consultant and presenter leads out followed by 'piggybacked comments' from Thomas R. Guskey, Distinguished Service Professor and Co-Director of the Center for Advanced Study Assessment at Georgetown College and Ken O'Connor, author, consultant and presenter respectively.

Jay McTighe
In large-scale assessments involving judgment (e.g., a provincial writing assessment), most systems use an even-numbered rubric scale to help guard against "gravitation to the mean." However, this principle may or may not be appropriate for a reporting system, which is most concerned with accurately communicating achievement, and perhaps other things such as progress and work habits.

More generally a scale should be of sufficient breadth to capture qualitative differences (e.g., in degrees of proficiency, understanding, achievement of learning targets, etc.). Thus, the first question in performance evaluation is -- what is the range of qualitative differences in the domain (skill, knowledge, etc.) being assessed and what scale most clearly and appropriately categorizes those differences. In a reporting system, the key questions include -- What are we trying to communicate? ... for whom? What is the best means for communicating this? If a rubric form is chosen, what scale best captures the range of the targeted areas?

Tom Guskey
I agree with Jay completely. And to be honest, many educators around the world find our tendency to include so many different levels rather quizzical. In New Zealand, for example, they score students' performance on their national assessment program as "Not Pass," "Pass," or "Exemplary" (see Guskey, T. R., Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., Crooks, T., & Flockton, L. (2006). Literacy assessment, New Zealand style. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 74-79.) When they asked me what we do, I responded that throughout North America, we tend to have a few more categories; for example: 0 Not started, 1 Just beginning, 2 Making progress, 3 Almost there, 4 Proficient, and 5 Exemplary. They looked at me oddly and asked, "Why do you find it necessary to have four levels of "Not Pass"?

I know of no evidence that verifies the superiority of 4 or 5 levels, although 4 is clearly the most prevalent in assessment programs and reporting systems. It all depends, as Jay notes, on the specification of clear and recognizable steps in a well-defined learning progression based on a particular standard for student learning.

But I also do not think that an odd number (say 3 instead of 4) would necessarily lead people to "gravitate toward the mean." To gravitate to (or tend to or regress to) a central mean implies a normal curve distribution of performance and normative comparisons. That is unacceptable in a standards-based or criterion-based system. In such a system, the "mean" (or perhaps "mode") should be proficiency. And in that case, gravitation toward the mean would be a very good thing!

Ken O'Connor
It will not surprise you to know that I agree with all that Tom and Jay said. Ultimately our concern is whether students are competent or not. To have more than two levels, we must have a compelling rationale and descriptions of each level that are clear enough that teachers will be able to use them to make consistent decisions and worded so that they are understood by students and parents.

| back to 'newsletters' |