theme / ASSESSMENT

Wake-up call
B R I N G S A J O LT O F A L I G N M E N T T O T H E C U R R I C U L U M

Teacher leaders hear the

warning and develop
common assessments to
improve student achievement

BY ROBERT A. MARTIN

S
ometimes, bad news can
be exactly what organiza-
tions or individuals need
to point them in a healthi-
er direction.
That was the case at Thompson
Middle School (Southfield, Mich.) in
2002, when the staff learned that the
state had temporarily identified the
school as needing “corrective action”
after students failed to make
Adequate Yearly Progress. About this
time, the state of Michigan also
began grading each individual school
through its Education YES! Program.
Thompson received a low C, a grade
too low for the
Staff embarked on a
staff ’s comfort.
journey to align curriculum.
The double
dose of bad news was a jolt to the
school’s culture and climate and had
some faculty complaining of stress-
related headaches and stomach ail-
ments. Although the state removed
the corrective action label after the
school appealed, the spotlight of that
status brightly illuminated a need to
focus on raising student achievement
and undergirded the moral impera-

NATIONAL STAFF DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (800) 727-7288 VOL. 27, NO. 1 WINTER 2006 JSD 53
theme / ASSESSMENT
tive to impact, touch, and save the
lives of students.
Staff embarked on a journey to
align curriculum — an effort that,
three years later, resulted in signifi-
cant improvement in students’
achievement scores. The improve-
ment process included designing and
implementing common assessments
and deepening teacher collaboration
and professional conversation around
interpreting data and allowing data to
inform teachers’ practices.
A CLEAR PURPOSE
To successfully use common
assessments, teachers must be clear
about what the state, district, and
school want students to learn.
Ensuring that teachers were clear
about what students should learn was
essential: What’s the point, after all,
of cooperating to measure something
if you’re measuring the wrong thing?
Teachers at Thompson said:
• “Common assessments took get-
ting used to — but I found that I enjoy
graphing data and understanding prob-
lems in learning. Sometimes they are
simple, and sometimes it takes major
adjustment.”
• “(Developing
Staff devoted most of the
common assess-
school’s professional ments) forces you to
development time over two work with staff
years to creating the members and ask,
curriculum pathway. ‘What did you do
well?’ This is hard
for some teachers, but it brings out the
best in the kids and adults.”
• “(Common assessment) allows
more organization of what we are
teaching and shifts the focus to the areas
we need to improve.”
The first step in the school’s jour-
ney to develop common assessments
was to ensure that the curriculum was
aligned both within and across grade
levels with the state’s curriculum stan-
dards. The school first had to ensure
that what was taught was what was
intended, or developing common
54 JSD WINTER 2006 VOL. 27, NO. 1
Thompson Middle School
Southfield, Mich.
Grades: 6-8
Enrollment: 630
Staff: 47 teachers
Racial/ethnic mix:
White: 5%
Black: 89%
Hispanic: 2%
Asian/Pacific Islander: 0%
Native American: 2%
Other: 2%
Limited English proficient: 5%
Languages spoken: 2
Free/reduced lunch: 40%
Special education: 13%
Contact: Robert A. Martin, consultant
Oakland Schools
2100 Pontiac Lake Road
Waterford, MI 48328
Phone: (248) 209-2558
Fax: (248) 209-2024
E-mail: Robert.Martin
@oakland.k12.mi.us
assessments would be a frustrating
exercise and probably have little
impact on improving student learn-
ing.
Each department began with the
state benchmarks and standards and
the district’s grade-level expectation.
The Michigan Educational
Assessment Program, the state’s high-
stakes test, is aligned with the
Michigan Curriculum Framework, so
it was vital for staff to understand,
interpret, and implement aligned cur-
riculum in the classroom.
Staff devoted most of the school’s
professional development time over
two years to creating the curriculum
pathway. Teachers had released time
for professional learning, took part in
after-school work sessions, and spent
portions of district-mandated profes-
sional development time working on
developing and aligning the curricu-
ROBERT A. MARTIN is a consultant with the
Oakland Schools. You can contact him at
2100 Pontiac Lake Road, Waterford, MI
48328, (248) 209-2558, fax (248) 209-2024,
e-mail: Robert.Martin@oakland.k12.mi.us.
WWW.NSDC.ORG
lum. Thompson’s leadership team —
department chairs, counselors, grade-
level curriculum coordinators and
administrators — led the faculty
through this curriculum realignment.
Teachers first collaboratively
agreed on essential outcomes (power
standards) as the core knowledge that
each student would master. These
essential outcomes established a core
curriculum that would ensure that
every student would learn the same
content, regardless of which teacher
they were assigned.
Same-subject teams created and
submitted common lesson plans.
Teachers were not expected to teach
in a mechanical or lockstep manner,
but to creatively craft their lessons
moving in the same direction and
toward the same destination. One
teacher said she grew “to appreciate
the essential outcomes for the direc-
tion and clarity they provide in the
midst of time demands, etc.”
Concurrently, teachers developed
a pyramid of student support strate-
gies — interventions and tutoring to
provide just-in-time assistance so
every student could move toward
higher achievement.
Teachers next developed units of
scope and sequence, along with com-
mon assessments. In the first year,
teachers implemented two common
or identical assessments. In the subse-
quent two years, staff administered
quarterly assessments and began
strategically analyzing the data and
planning corrective actions.
Teams of same-subject teachers
met to pinpoint areas where student
learning lagged and developed a plan
to address the shortcomings through
corrective teaching strategies —
immediate reteaching in the short
term and future modifications and
tweaking if a long-term or systemic
solution was needed.
Teachers at Thompson said:
• “Teaching your favorite way does-
n’t always work so well. Sometimes you
NATIONAL STAFF DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Student achievement
at Thompson
Chart shows the increase in the per-
centage of students at Thompson
Middle School scoring at the
“meets” or “exceeds expectations”
levels on the state’s Michigan
Educational Assessment Program
standardized test.
Math ELA Science
2003 34% 42% 50%
2004 44% 49% 63%
2005 53% 65% 69%
have this wonderful lesson that you
love, but they aren’t learning. You have
to change.”
• “Common assessments allow
teachers to focus on what is good for
Thompson. We address local learning
issues and then move to state and
national.”
• “Teachers need to understand
(common assessments) do not grade the
teacher. It doesn’t mean you have failed
— it means you must change.”
When Thompson had completed
this process, staff were ready to begin
developing common assessments.
This step-by-step process was accom-
plished by devoting one week to each
step during each quarter. That
enabled teachers to complete two
common assessment periods during
each semester. The focus also shifted
from class averages to individual stu-
dent data analysis.
Step 1. Refine common lesson
plans. Teachers design smaller and
more frequent assessments looking at
the student level and provide reteach-
ing or interventions to meet students’
individual needs.
Step 2. Develop/refine rubrics.
Discuss and share rubric with same-
subject team for feedback. Each team
is charged with developing its own
rubric to guide teachers’ evaluation of
student responses on the assessment.
NATIONAL STAFF DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
English teachers, in particular, may
want to use alternative forms of
assessments, such as book reports,
rather than just pencil-and-paper
tests. That is fine as long as teachers
create a common rubric to guide
their evaluation.
Step 3. Share assignments in
teaching in mastery. Practice concepts
with students to be assessed. Agree on
assessment and on the final draft of
the rubric.
Step 4. Administer the assess-
ment. Involve same-subject partner in
external scoring by using the com-
mon rubric. This is a goal and not
mandatory. Complete a data analysis
for classes by calculating percentages
of students who master and do not
yet master the concept. Complete
data analysis for individual students.
Step 5. Compare student work.
Collaborate and agree on corrective
teaching strategies. Implement cor-
rective teaching strategies. Teach tar-
geted interventions for individual stu-
dents. Team members work together
to identify the strategies teachers
believe will be most effective in assist-
ing students who do not master the
concept.
To prepare for the second cycle of
common assessments, teachers con-
tinue the pattern with some revisions.
Step 6. Revisit and refine lesson
plans. Design assessments. Design
and refine rubrics.
Step 7. Practice rubrics with a
same-subject partner. Discuss and
share the rubric with the interdiscipli-
nary team for feedback.
Step 8. Share assignments in
teaching to mastery. Practice concepts
with those students to be assessed.
Refine common assessment #2 in
January and #4 in May.
Step 9. Administer the common
assessment. Complete a data analysis
for classes by calculating the percent-
age of students mastering and not
mastering the concept. Complete a
data analysis for individual students.
(800) 727-7288
theme / ASSESSMENT
Step 10. Collaborate and agree
on corrective teaching strategies.
Implement corrective teaching strate-
gies. Teach targeted interventions to
individual students.
Each step represents one week in
the 10-week marking period. Weeks
six through 10 basically repeat steps
one through five.
Throughout the process, teachers
experienced anxiety, challenges, and
victories. Teachers were stressed but
found satisfaction in their new depths
of collaboration and improved stu-
dent achievement. In 2005,
Resources
These books are resources for schools
beginning to implement common assessments:
• From the Inside Out: Learning From the
Positive Deviance in Your Organization, by
Joan Richardson. Oxford, OH: NSDC, 2004.
• Getting Started: Reculturing Schools to
Become Professional Learning Communities,
by Robert Eaker, Richard DuFour, and
Rebecca DuFour. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service, 2002.
• Power Standards: Identifying the Standards
That Matter the Most, by Larry Ainsworth.
Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press,
2003.
• Results: The Key to Continuous School
Improvement, by Michael J. Schmoker.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 1999.
• The Results Fieldbook: Practical Strategies
From Dramatically Improved Schools, by
Michael J. Schmoker. Alexandria, VA: ASCD,
2001.
Thompson received a solid B on the
state’s report card. Thompson’s
achievement scores have improved
and are a testimony to the results of
teacher focus, collaboration, and col-
lective wisdom. n
VOL. 27, NO. 1 WINTER 2006 JSD 55