Distributed blueprints with differing district pacing guides risk testing students on content they had no opportunity to learn¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? If districts follow conflicting pacing guides under a distributed blueprint, some students may be tested on content they did not have an opportunity to learn, violating Standards Standard 12.8. → Garron Gianopulos 2019

Evidence¶

Garron Gianopulos 2019¶

Garron Gianopulos. (2019). From Through-Course Summative to Adaptive Through-Year Models for Large-scale Assessment: A Literature Review. NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/from-through-course-summative-to-adaptive-through-year-models-for-large-scale-assessment-a-literature-review/

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review's challenge analysis (Section 3.2.1) argues that "some students may be tested on content they did not have an opportunity to learn," citing Standard 12.8's requirement that evidence of opportunity to learn be provided before high-stakes use. Potential solutions include physical control via custom blueprints or statistical control via removing or down-weighting untaught items.

"If a distributed blueprint is used in a TCSA, but districts follow different pacing guides that advocate conflicting instructional sequences, some students may be tested on content they did not have an opportunity to learn."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• An argument-based approach to test score effectiveness can be illustrated by contrasting effectiveness arguments for interim assessments based on a conventional test blueprint versus one augmented with learning progressions — related
• Teachers viewed district pacing calendars and standardized assessments as impediments when they pressured rushing through material regardless of mastery — related