SJR 2 Assessment Inventory Committee Meeting #4

February 25, 2016

Townsend Building, Cabinet Room
MINUTES
Member Attendees:
Senator Ernesto Lopez
Senator Nicole Poore
Representative Sean Matthews
Representative Timothy Dukes
Vicki Gehrt
Tanner Polce for Senator David Sokola
Kristin Dwyer for Frederika Jenner
Members Not In Attendance:
Representative Earl Jaques
Equetta Jones
Beatrice Coker
Non-Member Attendees:
Steven Godowsky
Tina Shockley
Susan Haberstroh
Liz Farley Ripple
Michael Watson
Representative Kim Williams
Neil Kirschlry
Natalie Ganc
Terri Hodges, DE PTA
Laura Howard
Mike Matthews
Kevin Ohlandt
The fourth meeting of the Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 2 Assessment Inventory Committee Meeting was held
on February 25, 2016 at the Townsend Building, Cabinet Room in Dover. Facilitator Liz Farley Ripple called
the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m., at which time everyone introduced themselves.
Representative Dukes motioned to approve the minutes of Meeting #3, and Senator Lopez seconded the
motion. Everyone was in favor and the motion carried. The minutes of Meeting #3 were approved.
Use of summative assessments in DOE Decision Making
The group turned to the agenda and Sec. Godowsky provided some background on assessments and how they
have been done since 1997. Ultimately, he noted how the use of summative assessments in DOE Decision
Making occur. He touched on achievement gaps, best practices, etc.
Liz then turned to the PowerPoint presentation (Attachment #1) which gave a quick review of the material
covered to date, including grain sizes, comprehensive framework review, types of assessments (diagnostic,
formative, interim and summative), statewide assessment inventory, score reports, etc. She noted that each of
these has value in teaching and learning.

Liz noted that we did some listening to others to learn how testing is currently being done and how some
districts are decreasing testing time. We discussed, listened and learned about student growth measures, as part
of district assessments.
At our last meeting we ended with the question, How are we using assessments to improve teaching and
learning? Dr. Haberstroh gave an overview of how DOE is currently using assessments. She noted that
summative assessments drive the system and policy changes. Examples of this are schools for improvement,
reward and recognition. We were ahead of the game with our accountability system, and we easily identified
these schools when No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law came along and required this. There was funding and
supports tied to this.
One member noted that we need to take this opportunity to look across state and see that schools are doing a
good job, that students are learning the standards. We need to determine how we can utilize those best
practices.
Michael Watson noted that the state assessment is used for technical assistance to help districts improve. More
than just dollars, its being able to identify and work with district to build a cohesive system.
Kristen Dwyer of DSEA noted that Fredericka had sent DOE some emails requesting more discussion occur
about Smarter Balance and Measure Bs. Kristin thanked us for revisiting this. The Smarter Balance (SBAC)
has been deemed high accountability for teachers and everyone is stressed about doing well on this test. DSEA
feels that while its informative, there is concern that this is utilizing valuable resources in the classroom for
teachers and schools. DSEA doesnt think schools/teachers are getting the information they need.
Steve noted that: (1) the Smarter Balance student report is being updated for 2016 to provide additional
information for families. Michael noted that the new report will provide more robust information, but that it is
still a work in progress. Steve then noted that the score report will be coming sooner this year (June or prior,
not July as in 2015). It was noted that teachers will have access to the information by end of April/May/June
depending on when test is given. There is also a significant shift in what teachers have access to, what they can
see, which will allow for a deeper analysis of the information.
Kristen noted some parents were challenged that many resources were online and some parents didnt have
access to online platform. There were also concerns about teachers not being given the information until after
that school year had ended, so teachers were not able to help those students they tested.
Representative Matthews asked if this is system wide test, then why are we testing all students every year?
Michael answered because we are federally required to do so. He notes that in his school, such testing limits
the availability of library computers for three months. There are no other nations that are testing students like
we do. Michael disagreed. Representative Matthews believes the test is for the system, not the child. He just
doesnt believe the current assessment is working. It doesnt give us any diagnostic data. He does agree the
new report is looking better, but doesnt think the time investment works out.
Representative Dukes questioned if the federal government has ever withheld funding because the state has not
done an assessment. The answer was no, however the federal government has taken a 1% reduction in Title I
funds in the past. Representative Dukes gave the example of too much testing at Sussex Tech. He suggested
we may need to cut some of the state, federal and local testing.
Steve Godowsky noted that we hope to make reduction in district assessments, so those issues will not be as
pronounced going forward. He also noted that, while not vetted yet, there is a state social studies test that is not
federally required that the state could look at eliminating. We know we are going to look at this test, as it is not
2

aligned to our state standards, and is time consuming. We will also be asking teachers in the field there
thoughts on it. We are not sure what the recommendation on this will be yet, but it is on the list.
Kristen asked how conversations about state assessments will continue going forward. How can policy makers
continue to be part of this issue? We are hoping this will not be one and done. DOE responded that we dont
believe it is a one and done. DOE truly does want to hear from stakeholders.
Representative Matthews questioned if testing every kid every year the best way to go? Michael noted that
every kid counts and we need to know where every kid is. Representative. Matthews noted that the
achievement gap has widened, and if we are to compete worldwide, what we are doing is not working. People
are upset about Smarter Balance. His school uses Star instead and it is less time consuming.
Steve reminded everyone that this committee is looking for balance. We will learn the new ESEA law,
regulations and guidelines, and we have to take it step by step. Smarter Balance does yield info that could be
helpful. Those reports, in detail, are pretty powerful. Yes, we need to fix the resources (lack of computers use,
etc.). Yes, there are improvements that could be made, but we will have to take a look at that. For now, we need
to make recommendations. The conversation will continue.
Liz moved the group to look at the whole assessment framework, not just state assessments, though we will be
revisiting that portion of the pie.
LEA Assessment Inventory Review (District and School Inventory)
A draft District Assessment Inventory document (Attachment #2) was prepared and handed out at the meeting.
It provides an analytical overview of the district assessments collected as of December 31, 2015. As in the
document, Liz noted questions the group needs to answer (bolded below) and allowed time for the group to
review the Draft District Assessment Inventory. The group had the following discussion as they worked to
answer the questions:
What assessments are schools and districts using?
Senator Poore noted no one can find out their own identity. Students struggle with too many assessments and
dont know where they stand. Districts are now creating more tests to prove the state test is where the child
should be. This is a concern. She also voiced concerns with assessments being used for teacher evaluation.
Who is assessed, when, and how?
See Attachment #2
What do districts and schools value about assessments? (Whats working?)
See Attachment #2
What kinds of concerns about assessments were raised? (Whats not working?)
Representative Dukes noted that testing data is not useful for instruction and there is a lack of alignment.
While DOE believes teachers do their best to use all the data that is given to them, that is not what he is
hearing.
Representative Dukes also noted that we should do away with testing that is not beneficial.
Senator Lopez noted that the SAT tells students and educators exactly what they need to know, but students get
their Smarter Balance scores and it doesnt tell the student anything. We need parent buy in.
Representative Matthews noted that kids who are struggling with interim assessments just get reminded how far
behind they are with each additional test. Testing reinforces a sense of failure for them. There is a student
impact with assessments.
3

What kinds of actions are schools and districts taking with respect to assessment?
See Attachment #2
While reviewing this document, Liz added comments to the wall under the Heres What (the assessments), So
What? (why are these important) and Now What? (moving into recommendations) Categories.
One legislative member noted that it would be helpful to hear from superintendents before legislation is written
on this matter.
Colonial School District 2015 Assessment Inventory Presentation by Dusty Blakey, Superintendent
(Attachment #3)
With that the meeting turned to Dusty Blakey, Superintendent of Colonial School District who gave an
overview of how his school district did their district assessment inventory. While not in physical form at the
meeting, Dusty did provide Attachment #3 after the meeting.
He noted that the key aspects of the assessment inventory process were:
Engagement of as many stakeholders as possible / Communication
They had an Educator Group and a Parent Group, as well as received feedback from building level coaches,
district level coaches/subject specific educators and even supervisors/subject specific educators. They used
every level of teachers from teachers, specialists, administrators, etc.
Kristin noted that parents/teachers may not have had a voice what did Colonial do with their stakeholders?
They did focus groups, the Academic Team each brought someone
Inventory was presented to Colonial School Board. Kristen thinks this is critical.
Likewise, parent feedback was taken and they informed parents what the test looked at, and this helped parents
help their kids. Additionally kids are to take an active role in their own testing.
Blakey said it was important that everyone was speaking the same language the questions and were educated.
Likewise it was important to provide a timetable to the workgroup/stakeholders for this review.
With this knowledge, the group identified some miscommunication/missteps that were glaring, and the group
educated itself to find what information was meaningful.
This group found that comprehensive assessments covered some similar things, and thus could be reduced.
Evaluated different types of test using specific criteria to determine value, which were: used for specific goals
and purposes, aligns to teaching standards, yields valuable reports on student progress and performance, not
duplicative of other assessments, administered using best practices, such as accommodations and test security
measures.
Keeping everyone tasked and focused, and specifically honing in on those criteria
Whether a benchmark, screener vs. formative test, summative/end of unit test or PSAT/SAT test, they found
that some assessments didnt meet their criteria.
Determined qualities of what makes a good assessment.
The group looked at the value of each assessment in the light of benchmarks that were needed, and then they
worked backward, mapping it from there. After applying the criteria above to each assessment, they came up
with recommendations of which assessments to eliminate, modify or keep.
Cautioned that there is value in having a global test to see where all students are academically.

It was important to ensure each person knew what the different types of assessment were and what each was
used for. Then, it was important to stay focused on criteria in order to determine value of each assessment.
Make Recommendation to Eliminate, Modify or Keep Assessments
The group was able to eliminate about one day (8+ hours) of testing for all grades on average. So the final
product is a clear indication of what we value as a district.
Representative Dukes asked Dusty the timeframe for this process. Dusty noted it started in October and took a
few months, with results done by April.
Kristin asked if we can we ask districts to re-review their assessments. Liz noted that we should think more
globally about recommendations that we can share with school districts, not specific changes. Keep it regularly
so that we dont end up with additional assessments, rather we take a look at this annually.
Further Discussion Following Dusty Blakeys Presentation
Representative Matthews asked how Smarter Balance would turn out if we put it through the Colonial School
District model.
Representative Kim Williams asked Dusty if his group looked at Smarter Balance. He answered no, because
they were asked to look at their district assessments only.
Members of the public at the meeting asked about the district inventories, and Liz noted they were posted
online at the DOE website at end of January as required by SJR 2.
Vicki Gehrt noted that different districts have different assessments. The biggest issue is state testing, noting
that the time and value of state test to both the state and local school districts. She proposes the group should
look at some of the other states best practices, and look at waivers. We must look at best practices before we do
something ourselves. We are not the only ones looking at this.
Kristin gave some additional information on the other seven states that are looking at this.
Liz asked if this a recommendation or something we need to do before we make recommendation? Susan noted
that ESSA, Innovative Lab Network, and other things that are influencing this. Susan reiterated the charge of
the committee per SJR 2 is to convene to have an in-depth discussion about the assessment inventory
results and provide detailed recommendations about those assessments that could be consolidated or
eliminated.
Representative Matthews doesnt like that we dont push back on federal requirements. He wants us to be on
the Innovative Lab Network (which Tanner noted has been going on for several years, and the process itself
requires a substantial amount of money. Federal dollars are allocated to those states to create framework. It is
costly.
Senator Poore asked for a vote on how many of us wanted to look at best practices. Five persons (majority of
those present) on the committee raised their hand.
Recommendation Process
Liz reviewed with the group the Moving to Recommendations page of the Powerpoint, which again states the
goal of the group is to provide recommendations to help schools, districts and the state make decisions about
assessments that are consistent with principles of best practice.
Kristin thinks we should test the feds to see how they react. Susan noted the federal framework is important,
but it shouldnt be the only thing we consider. She also noted that we may not be able to implement all
recommendation within next 12 months. We should look at more generally considering there is federal law.
Likewise, we cannot make recommendations against federal policy.

Liz noted that based on where we are now, that the group is to draft potential recommendations to bring before
the next committee meeting. The issues are still open for discussion, but she asked everyone to think about it on
their own as well.
Again, she reminded the group that recommendations should be based on the charge of the committee as noted
in the bill.
Public Comment
Laura Howard Comments were concerning over testing, and testing being out of control. Teachers once felt
at fault for poor performance, but later found that poor standards were the reasons for the results. Read
statement that lead to issue of poverty in children doing worse on testing.
Natalie Ganc Told story to highlight that the concept of testing is so big and overpowering that it is useless.
She doesnt believe you can legislate it. She noted that Smarter Balance tests yield no good information. She
believes district assessments are just assessments for used to cover districts. She provided the Attachment #43
Educators to the Rescue handout. It voices the opinion that we need to rescue students from state testing, and
also hold schools, teachers and administrators accountable for their job duties and end high stakes standardize
testing.
Mike Matthews - Wants the task force to focus on Smarter Balance. He believes Red Clay School District
didnt do enough to eliminate Smarter Balance. He contacted the school board, to encourage them to eliminate
Smarter Balance assessment. He believes the majority of teachers have found that Smarter Balance is of no
value. He left Attachment #5, a Resolution on the Smarter Balance Assessment as part of his public comment.
Kevin Ohlandt Spoke about various topics, specifically standardizing public education, and using a test to
standardize it. He talked about the Pathways to Prosperity events that are occurring, and that everything is
contingent upon data. He also noted his belief that Achieve.org created the Common Core and that is why we
are utilizing Achieve.org for assessment data. He also discussed the Student Data Privacy Task Force, and his
belief that the federal government is going to weasel in to this too.
Terri Hodges She noted that she is still concerned that there is little to no parent representation on the
committee. She did thank DOE for handing out PTAs Position Statement (Attachment #6) on assessments. She
asked the group to consider the bullets on Smarter Balance that are in that statement. She noted the legislators
tonight make good points. She believes we need to know what assessments there are before making
recommendations. She noted the information is very complicated, which may require another look at district
assessment inventory. She notes that districts spent time on state mandated inventories, not their district
assessment inventory.
Representative Kim Williams She agreed with Terri Hodges, and wants to know why Smarter Balance is not
on districts list of assessments. She too wants to consider further conversation around Smarter Balance. She
too noted that parent representation is lacking. She asked if the data around a smaller size school, say 300 kids
vs. 900 kids, would kids in smaller school benefit from more instructional time?
There was brief discussion of next meeting date, but no decision made.
The meeting adjourned at 6:48 p.m.
tms - drafted 03.01.16