Blog

In general terms, it can be easy to simply interpret the scores as all negative. In fact, I have had to remind myself, someone directly involved in the development of the test and invested in the outcomes of higher standards, that these scores don’t just carry weight as a matter of accountability, but also as a matter of instructional reflection. Instead of just looking at proficiency numbers, we need to ask ourselves, “How can I actually use this information to improve my instruction and yield better results in the future?”

To begin answering that question, let’s consider data. One benefit of the new PARCC assessment is that we’re getting a much richer data set to interpret. For example, in the past when I received my TCAP scores, I’d perform a skim and scan to see who was Advanced, Proficient, Partially Proficient and Unsatisfactory. Once I knew, and frankly it was quite easy to predict, I would set a goal to increase my proficiency scores by x-amount over the next year and that was it. No instructional reflection took place because I didn’t have the right kind of data to reflect on. Enter the PARCC Score Reports, which were largely designed with and by active classroom teachers.

Like the standards themselves, the score reports are clear and direct about student expectations. For example, if a 6th grade student earns a 44 on the Reading Assessment, alone the score means nothing. However, the report also provides context, including how that score compares to the school, district, and state averages and more importantly, how the score compares to the average of students just meeting expectations. If the “average of students just meeting expectations” is a 50, the score of 44 brings some relative clarity to how a student is performing.