Maine’s Portfolio: Collecting Evidence of Our Students' Learning

by Mona Baker and Pam Rolfe

The Maine Department of Education (MDOE) has been actively involved in supporting school systems throughout the State in developing Comprehensive Assessment Systems that measure student progress toward the achievement of Maine’s Learning Results. One strategy that has been utilized is the collection of student work through assessment portfolios. The Maine Department of Education, in partnership with the Maine Math and Science Alliance has been working on a local assessment model, the Maine Assessment Portfolio (MAP). A regional assessment model, the Personalized Alternate Assessment Portfolio (PAAP), is a second portfolio model on which the MDOE is currently working. This article highlights the similarities and differences between the two types of portfolios and articulates lessons learned based on using student work.

In order to understand the role portfolios can play in an assessment system, it is important to first understand the purposes and characteristics of the system.

Three Purposes of Maine’s Assessment System

1. To inform teaching and learning regarding student achievement of the Learning Results

   • Assessments must actually measure the standards

   • Assessments must provide the teacher and students with enough information to change how each student and all students are taught

   • Assessments produce timely results

   • Assessments coordinate with and compliment curriculum

2. To monitor and hold units accountable for student achievement of the standards

   • Assessments must actually measure the standards

   • Assessments must provide clear information about opportunity for all students to learn and to demonstrate in appropriate ways

   • Assessment must provide actionable information, rich and complex enough to allow districts to take steps to improve teaching and learning

3. To certify achievement of the standards

   • Assessments must actually measure the standards

   • Assessments must be designed to leave no question about the extent of student achievement of the standards

   • Assessments must be scrupulously fair to the learning needs and conditions of each and all students as well as providing multiple opportunities and multiple ways for students to demonstrate what they know and can do over time

Not all assessments meet all three purposes but it is important to determine how any assessment strategy is connected. The MAP is a model designed for local assessment and is to be accessed by all students. It is intended to build capacity to develop tasks, build portfolio collections and score student work using rubrics for local assessments. By design, it addresses two of the three purposes – to inform teaching and learning and to certify achievement.

The PAAP is a model for State assessment and is available to only those students who cannot participate in the Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) through standard administration or with accommodations. The PAAP is available for those students for whom accommodations to the MEA would be so significant that they would compromise the content validity of the assessment. It is intended to build the capacity to adopt, adapt or develop tasks, build portfolio collections, and score student work using rubrics for the state assessment. It too addresses two of the three purposes – to inform teaching and learning and to monitor and hold units accountable.

As both of these models were designed, the characteristics of an assessment system, as articulated by the Assessment Design Team, were used as core criteria. These characteristics are:

Maine’s Assessment System Should:

• Align with Maine’s Learning Results

• Utilize multiple measures of learning

• Ensure fair assessment for all students

• Utilize recognized, relevant technical standards for assessment

• Provide understandable information to educators, parents, students, media and the public

• Provide professional development opportunities for teachers, administrators and future educators

• Be practical and manageable

A comparison of the two models shows many similarities in their structure and development. At the basis of their structures are shared beliefs that have shaped the work.

The guiding beliefs are:

• Portfolios must build on the concept of identifying what students CAN do

• Portfolios must provide opportunity for ALL students to demonstrate what they know in relation to the same standards

• Integrating Curriculum-Instruction-Assessment leads to information that meets the purposes of the system

• Tasks within the portfolio are curriculum-embedded

• Portfolios are part of the Comprehensive Assessment System

• Portfolios must be technically sound

By measuring progress over time, the portfolio provides one tool for measuring student progress toward achievement of the Maine Learning Results. The portfolio contents and protocols both include the requirements for an Entry Slip, Table of Contents, scoring based on state level developed rubrics, articulation of how much evidence is required and a recommendation that tasks make use of the concepts of adopt, adapt and develop.

Training involves a commitment to piloting and field-testing the framework and processes using actual student work. It also is ongoing and delivered in the same regions of the state in order to build on each other’s assessment literacy.

Despite foundational similarities between MAP and PAAP, which address both the approach to the work and the contents of the portfolios themselves, a few differences do exist.

• All Students can access

• Content areas are English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies and Health

• Locally Scored (Regional Training)

• Amount of evidence required is based on meeting the purposes of guiding teaching and learning and certifying achievement.

• Students who meet the criteria can participate

• Required areas are English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies

• Regionally Scored

• Amount of evidence required is based on meeting the purposes of guiding teaching and learning and system accountability

With MAP efforts are now in their fourth year, the current year is on in-depth field-testing, while the first three were dedicated to development and piloting. PAAP has maximized and built on all that was learned through the MAP process and is in its first year of field-testing. Both models recognize the power and importance of using student work and have reflected on what has been learned through this approach.

Lessons Learned Based on Using Student Work

1. The gathering of evidence for a complete portfolio may take two years

2. The training in technical requirements is integral to the process to ensure content validity, fairness and reliability

3. Student work is pivotal to improving the tasks and the scoring rubrics

4. When tasks are not curriculum embedded; often student demonstration of knowledge and stills suffers due to lack of prior instruction

5. Looking at and using student work is a great energy source for teachers.

6. It is important to recognize that sharing actual student work is very risky for teachers – therefore a climate of safety and respect must be fostered

7. It can’t be assumed that everyone remembers and understands the need for confidentiality.

8. Well-written scoring guides for portfolio tasks clarify standards and allow access and entry for all students

There is a commitment to using the knowledge and skills of Maine educators to meet the unique needs of Maine students. There is also recognition by the MDOE of the value of having people from the field involved in and guiding the work. Several Distinguished Educators have joined the staff and are deeply engaged in the portfolio work

Both assessment efforts have also made a major commitment to clear and effective communication. Web pages have been posted and are kept current. MAP information can be found at http://www.maptasks.org and PAAP information can be found at http://www.maine.gov/education/lsalt/altassess.htm

As these efforts continue and more is learned about the models and their development, improvements will be made, training will continue, student work will improve, and both models will play a role in the Comprehensive Assessment System. If you would like further information on either of these efforts, please check out the web sites or contact Pam Rolfe, Local Assessment Coordinator, at pam.rolfe@state.me.us or Mona Baker, Alternate Assessment Coordinator, at mona.baker@state.me.us

This is an official publication of The University of Maine
A member of the University of Maine System

Updated: 01/11/2007