What is a formative assessment?
Developing formative assessments addresses another key premise described in Learning by Doing.  The question is, “How will we know if each student has learned it?  The book emphasizes formative assessments as “assessments for learning that measure a few things frequently.” 

TerraNova, TCAP, Gateway, and End-of-Course assessments provide summative information.  Doug Reeves (2001) used a medical analogy as he contended that formative assessments are like a physical examination while summative assessments are comparable to an autopsy.  There is a need to assess student progress throughout the school year while there is still time to implement interventions that increase student learning. 

Most of us individually or collaboratively, have been giving formative assessments or benchmark tests to see how students are progressing.  Some schools use ThinkLink; RCS middle schools collaboratively developed common math assessments; U.S. History teachers developed common tests; and some high schools departments have created their own test.  All of these are examples of formative assessments. 

Formative Assessments and Grades
One of the questions that arose at Mr. Gill’s TAC meeting was whether PLC formative assessments should be used for student grades.  The short answer is that they should not be used to assign grades to students.  By definition a formative assessment is used to (1) Identify students needing additional time and support and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of instructional strategies.  In contrast, a summative assessment is used to assess how well the student learned the material at the end of a unit or period of study and is commonly used for grading.    

In Learning by Doing (page 158) we read:“When feedback to students takes the form of grades, they are likely to see assessment as a competition or a way to compare their achievement with others.  Students with a track record as losers see little point in trying; however, when they are clear on intended learning outcomes and are provided with feedback as part of a formative process for improving their work, and are then given support in clarifying how they can close the gap, they are more likely to continue working until they achieve the targets ….”

Again in Learning by Doing (page 214) we read about the purposes of the common formative assessment: “…Common formative assessments are used frequently throughout the year to identify (1) individual students who need additional time and support for learning, (2) the teaching strategies most effective in helping students acquire the intended knowledge and skills, (3) program concerns – areas in which students generally are having difficulty achieving the intended standard- and (4) improvement goals for individual teachers and the team.”

In summary, experienced practitioners in the PLC movement recommend that (1) formative assessments not be used for acquiring student grades, and (2) results of a formative assessment should not be used as a formal teacher evaluation instrument.

What are other advantages of common formative assessments?  Learning by Doing lists these reasons and comments:

1. Common assessments are more efficient than assessments created by individual teachers.  It is ineffective and inefficient for teacher to operate as independent subcontractors who are stationed in proximity to others, yet work in isolation.
2. Common assessments are more equitable for students.  
3. Common assessments represent the most effective strategy for determining whether the guaranteed curriculum is being taught and, more importantly, learned.  Doug Reeves (2004) refers to common assessments as the “gold standard” because they promote consistency in expectations and provide timely, accurate, and specific feedback to both students and teachers.
4. Common assessments inform the practice of individual teachers.  With this information, a teacher can seek assistance from teammates on areas of concern and can share strategies and ideas on skills in which his or her students excelled.
5. Common assessments build a team’s capacity to improve its program.  Collective analysis can lead to new curriculum, pacing, materials, and instructional strategies designed to strengthen the academic program offered.
6. Common assessments facilitate a systematic, collective response to students who are experiencing difficulty.  Because the students are identified at the same time and because they need help with the same specific skills that have been addressed on the common assessment, the team and school are in a position to create a timely, systematic program of intervention.

As a team’s four to six formative assessments are developed to cover essential learning, it is also important that assessment questions be in a format consistent with state summative assessments as a practice for students.  RCS is fortunate to have access to software with test bank questions that may assist the team.  There should be at least two to three questions to assess each essential learning skill covered on the formative assessment.  It may also be necessary to reassess a skill that was widely deficient on a previous formative assessment to determine if interventions were effective.