I am just wondering as parent, an admin, or next year's teacher which
types of assessment you would find most useful. I find the first example the best.
Not Yet Meeting: Child A does not yet understand that text has meaning, nor do they have enough letter sounds to be able to decode simple words. (depending on the observation this may include not understanding that text is read from left to right.)
Minimally meeting: Child B can read texts presented in class, but has yet to recognize (read) the same words in other settings over multiple days.
Meeting: Child C can read texts worked on in class and apply this knowledge when they read other songs, poems, or beginning readers in class.
-OR-
Child A knows 3/30 sight words taught
Child B knows 10/30 sight words taught
Child C knows 35/30 sight words
-OR-
Child A is at PM 0
Child is B is at PM 1
Child C is at PM 1
To me, the first option is humane - I am not pulling students away from peers to fill in bubble charts or read books they have no interest in. Instead I am listening to all children reading (or helping them) during a lesson based on a song sung or story read. As I am assessing, I can talk about how print has meaning, how words match pictures, etc. We can count words, match words, extend the worksheet for students who need more challenge... and then I can go on to the next lesson. The biggest problem I see is that remediation component isn't easily visible. If students haven't mastered these words, then I need to make another sheet for them, find another book, and build 'memory hooks'. As a parent, I can see what my child needs to practice.
As a teacher, the last two options make me grumpy as I feel like the kids are failing, I am failing, and the only option is to play more (boring) games to drill words in isolation (deficit perspective data collection).
The first one lends itself to trauma mitigating practices. When I teach to the first assessment, I use stories, poems, and songs, and the choral nature of these activities leads attunement, or connection with others which is "our greatest connection against threat" (Van Der Kolk, 2014, p. 212). It also teaches through context, as I can bring in texts that support our inquiries and build schemas.
While PMs can also tell me what reading strategies a student is or is not using, if I teach to the last two assessments, I need gamified and mechanistic teaching practices. That is not, however, my biggest issues with PMs. My largest beef is if you don't teach PMs all the time and the sight words in the exact order the students don't test well on PM levels. Not only that, I can't integrate PM stories into classroom inquiries or turn them into fun choral reads. Also, I have had students read Ginn 720 readers at a beginning grade 2 level that test out a PM 6, which is a low grade 1 level. This disconnect worries me.
I would love to hear about some good data collection...
References:
Stone, Jim. The Animated Alphabet http://www.animated-literacy.com/Order_Form_&_Samples_files/*Animated-Literacy%20Samples.pdf
Van Der Kolk, Bessel. The Body Keeps The score. Penguin Books, 2014
PM benchmarks https://education.nt.gov.au/will-test/diagnostic-assessment-selector/pm-benchmark-reading-assessment-resources-1-and-2-and-pm-benchmark-assessment-profiling-software#:~:text=The%20PM%20Benchmark%20Reading%20Assessment,and%20meaningful%20to%20young%20students.
MEDL competencies: reflecting on personal practice to engage with dissonance around report card data collection
types of assessment you would find most useful. I find the first example the best.
Not Yet Meeting: Child A does not yet understand that text has meaning, nor do they have enough letter sounds to be able to decode simple words. (depending on the observation this may include not understanding that text is read from left to right.)
Minimally meeting: Child B can read texts presented in class, but has yet to recognize (read) the same words in other settings over multiple days.
Meeting: Child C can read texts worked on in class and apply this knowledge when they read other songs, poems, or beginning readers in class.
-OR-
Child A knows 3/30 sight words taught
Child B knows 10/30 sight words taught
Child C knows 35/30 sight words
-OR-
Child A is at PM 0
Child is B is at PM 1
Child C is at PM 1
To me, the first option is humane - I am not pulling students away from peers to fill in bubble charts or read books they have no interest in. Instead I am listening to all children reading (or helping them) during a lesson based on a song sung or story read. As I am assessing, I can talk about how print has meaning, how words match pictures, etc. We can count words, match words, extend the worksheet for students who need more challenge... and then I can go on to the next lesson. The biggest problem I see is that remediation component isn't easily visible. If students haven't mastered these words, then I need to make another sheet for them, find another book, and build 'memory hooks'. As a parent, I can see what my child needs to practice.
As a teacher, the last two options make me grumpy as I feel like the kids are failing, I am failing, and the only option is to play more (boring) games to drill words in isolation (deficit perspective data collection).
The first one lends itself to trauma mitigating practices. When I teach to the first assessment, I use stories, poems, and songs, and the choral nature of these activities leads attunement, or connection with others which is "our greatest connection against threat" (Van Der Kolk, 2014, p. 212). It also teaches through context, as I can bring in texts that support our inquiries and build schemas.
While PMs can also tell me what reading strategies a student is or is not using, if I teach to the last two assessments, I need gamified and mechanistic teaching practices. That is not, however, my biggest issues with PMs. My largest beef is if you don't teach PMs all the time and the sight words in the exact order the students don't test well on PM levels. Not only that, I can't integrate PM stories into classroom inquiries or turn them into fun choral reads. Also, I have had students read Ginn 720 readers at a beginning grade 2 level that test out a PM 6, which is a low grade 1 level. This disconnect worries me.
I would love to hear about some good data collection...
References:
Stone, Jim. The Animated Alphabet http://www.animated-literacy.com/Order_Form_&_Samples_files/*Animated-Literacy%20Samples.pdf
Van Der Kolk, Bessel. The Body Keeps The score. Penguin Books, 2014
PM benchmarks https://education.nt.gov.au/will-test/diagnostic-assessment-selector/pm-benchmark-reading-assessment-resources-1-and-2-and-pm-benchmark-assessment-profiling-software#:~:text=The%20PM%20Benchmark%20Reading%20Assessment,and%20meaningful%20to%20young%20students.
MEDL competencies: reflecting on personal practice to engage with dissonance around report card data collection