Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 9/30/2017 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 12/29/2017 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 1/12/2018 SPECIAL ISSUE Redesigning Assessment and Accountability education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 26 Number 14 January 29, 2018 ISSN 1068-2341 Integrating Performance Assessments Across a PK-20 Continuum: A Locally Developed Collaboration Kathryn McCurdy Emilie Mitescu Reagan University of New Hampshire Audrey Rogers Southern New Hampshire University & Thomas Schram University of New Hampshire United States Citation: McCurdy, K., Reagan, E. M., Schram, T., & Rogers, A. (2018). Integrating performance assessments across a PK-20 continuum: A locally developed collaboration. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(14). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3437 This article is part of the special issue, Redesigning Systems of Assessment and Accountability for Meaningful Student Learning, guest edited by Soung Bae, Jon Snyder, and Elizabeth Leisy Stosich. Abstract: A response to Stosich et al.’s (2018) article reviewing ways in which states have taken up performance assessments, this commentary seeks to extend the focus and use of performance assessments to preservice teacher education. As such, the authors describe http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3437 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 14 SPECIAL ISSUE 2 statewide initiatives in New Hampshire that are working to integrate performance assessments along a PK – 20 continuum by articulating how Stosich et al.’s key points of educator capacity, context, and assessments for and of learning are developing in one state. This commentary highlights key contextual factors for the lasting implementation of the performance assessments as well as raises critical new challenges and opportunities for understanding this tool as an assessment for and of learning. Keywords: teacher performance assessments; preservice teacher education; school- university partnership Integración de evaluaciones de rendimiento en un continuo PK-20: Una colaboración desarrollada localmente Resumen: Como una respuesta al artículo de Stosich et al. (2018) sobre las evaluaciones del desempeño del estado, este comentario amplía el enfoque y el uso de las evaluaciones del desempeño a la formación docente pre-servicio. Los autores describen iniciativas estatales en New Hampshire que están trabajando para integrar evaluaciones de desempeño a lo largo de un continuo PK-20 y articulan cómo se desarrollan los puntos clave de Stosich de capacidad educativa, contexto y evaluaciones para y de aprendizaje en un estado. Este comentario destaca los factores contextuales clave para la implementación duradera de las evaluaciones de desempeño, así como plantea nuevos desafíos y oportunidades para entender esta herramienta como una evaluación para el aprendizaje. Palabras clave: evaluaciones de desempeño docente; educación de profesor de pregrado; asociación escuela-universidad Integração das avaliações de desempenho em um PK-20 contínuo: Uma colaboração desenvolvida localmente Resumo: Como resposta ao artigo Stosich et al. (2018) em avaliações de desempenho do estado, este comentário se estende a abordagem eo uso de avaliações de desempenho de pré-formação contínua de professores. Os autores descrevem iniciativas estaduais em New Hampshire que estão trabalhando para integrar as avaliações de desempenho ao longo de um PK-20 contínua e articular pontos como principais Stosich de educacional capacidade, contexto e avaliações para a aprendizagem e desenvolver um estado. Este comentário destaca a chave para a implementação de avaliações de desempenho fatores contextuais, bem como novos desafios e oportunidades duradouras para entender isso como uma ferramenta de avaliação para a aprendizagem. Palavras-chave: avaliações de desempenho do professor; formação de professores de graduação; associação escola-universidade Integrating Performance Assessments Across a PK-20 Continuum: A Locally Developed Collaboration In the article, “How Do States Integrate Performance Assessment in Their Systems of Assessment,” Stosich, Snyder, and Wilczak (2018) contribute an important review of PK-12 state- level policies and practices at a time when performance assessments are entering a new stage of maturity within the national discourse on systems of educational accountability. Their focus on the actions of key stakeholders across multiple states to implement and/or support performance assessments in PK-12 schools, regardless of the catalysts that prompted such actions, reveal four “common but distinct” (p. 7) strategies for incorporating those assessments into systems of accountability ranging from classroom-specific purposes to federal testing requirements. We Integrating performance assessments across a PK -20 continuum 3 highlight three broadly applicable points that extend across this analysis of these four approaches, and then extend our commentary to invite consideration of how their analytical framework might be expanded. The first point, and of particular significance within a context of contested policies around use of performance assessments in the service of classroom purposes as well as for broader consequential aims (e.g., as part of statewide assessment systems), stems from Stosich et al.’s repeated finding pertaining to the need to build the capacity of educators to use performance assessments in practice. Second, amidst ongoing efforts to highlight potential educative benefits associated with using performance assessments, the authors direct attention to the challenging aim of designing tools that act as assessments of learning as well as assessments for learning. Third, reflecting the fundamental premise that context matters, Stosich and colleagues clearly describe how performance assessments can take shape in different ways and in response to varied prompts or pressures. This sets the stage for their articulation of a “multilayered system of assessment practices” that is “influenced by actors at all levels of the educational system” (2018, p. 19), including decision-makers at the school, district or network, state, and federal level. As we consider the compelling need identified by Stosich and colleagues (2018) to build educator capacity, we believe the findings underscore the need to promote a higher education voice within this ecosystem, operating with these other decision-makers through a lens of shared responsibility that incorporates a continuum of PK-20, and not simply a PK-12, perspectives. The inclusion of higher education teacher educators in the complex, multi-layered assessment system has the potential to promote mutual responsibility (Cochran-Smith, 2016; Sahlberg, 2010), characterized by collaboration across multiple policy-making levels, in which multiple stakeholders operate with a shared and co-created vision. A performance assessment at the PK-12 level, therefore, is enhanced when there are performance assessments as part of teacher preparation and vice versa. Creating a broad system of performance assessments across a PK-20 continuum can serve to raise questions, increase comfortability, and deepen respect around the nature and use of these assessments. Such an environment of mutual responsibility is also characterized by open dialogue that enhances trust across all stake holders and supports continuity in the development and implementation of performance assessments. Educator capacity to take up and ultimately realize the full, “beneficial use of performance assessments” (Stosich et al., 2018, p. 19) that such a system has to offer for student learning is attended to, augmented through, and embedded in a culture and context of inquiry. As an example, there have been multiple parallel efforts in New Hampshire to support the development and implementation of performance assessments along a PK-20 continuum. In their article, Stosich et al. (2018) highlight New Hampshire’s Performance Assessment of Competency Education (PACE) as a performance assessment that is locally developed by educators and used as part of federal accountability reporting requirements. Here we highlight other efforts across the state to build educator capacity including the adoption of a teacher candidate performance assessment in higher education, and joint efforts between PK-12 educators, university faculty, and state policy makers to support a PK-20 continuum. In 2013, a consortium of teacher educators across all institutions of higher education in New Hampshire adopted the New Hampshire Teacher Candidate Assessment of Performance (NH TCAP) as a performance assessment to support teacher candidate learning and assess readiness to teach. Both PACE and the NH TCAP are locally developed performance assessments, reflecting the culture of a state that values such local influence, and allows, as Stosich and colleagues discuss, the historical, political, and educational factors that are important to the New Hampshire contexts to be considered. The development of the NH TCAP was influenced by a shift in the national discourse of teacher preparation to include performance assessments. Members of the consortium adapted an Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 14 SPECIAL ISSUE 4 existing teacher candidate performance assessment (i.e., Performance Assessment for California Teachers, Pecheone & Chung, 2006) for the state context and came to agreement around key implementation issues such as facilitation of the Teacher Performance Assessment with teacher candidates; scorer training; instructor involvement and assistance; and the consequential nature of the assessment. Specifically, in this process, the consortium explicitly addressed key components of each of the institutions, the policy context of the state, and ways in which their joint efforts can cultivate the space for conversations around preservice teacher learning, assessment, and accountability. Drawing on and inspired by examples of other initiatives around teacher performance assessments taking place across the country, the NH TCAP aspires to strike a balance between assessment of and assessment for learning. As with assessments that Stosich et al. highlight exist at the PK-12 level, the NH TCAP seeks to provide opportunities for deep and meaningful learning within higher education. In contrast to other teacher candidate performance assessments across the country (Reagan, Schram, McCurdy, Chang & Evans, 2016), the NH TCAP is housed at the institutional level and is one of multiple measures that determine readiness to teach as determined by the institutions. As such, it has the capacity to continue evolving as teacher educators collect and analyze data about the efficacies and challenges faced by teacher candidates, cooperating teachers, and university faculty. In this way, it serves as a tool for learning at multiple levels. As Stosich et al. comment on similar efforts at the PK-12 level, this approach enabled teacher educators to develop a system of assessment that incorporates locally-developed assessments to “encourage more meaningful learning opportunities for [teacher candidates] by creating cohesion across curriculum, instruction, and assessment” (2018, p. 18). The NH TCAP serves as the vehicle by which teacher educators can engage in rich conversations around effective practice within and across institutions. Furthermore, as a performance assessment, the NH TCAP serves as a practical example for preservice teacher candidates to explore the potential of performance assessments through the process of responding to prompts and unpacking and understanding rubrics, as well as experiencing the process themselves. The NH TCAP represents one of multiple initiatives across the state to design and implement performance assessments and promote coherence across levels and layers of education in the state. Other state-level initiatives include strengthening of PK-20 partnerships through annual summits of state-level policy makers, district- and school-based practitioners, and teacher education faculty. These initiatives also fundamentally share the belief that “creating a multilayered system of assessment practices can provide more coherent or fragmented support for performance assessments” (Stosich et al., 2018, p. 19). A context of innovation is necessarily supported by the buy-in from all stakeholders. While there is work to be done, these initiatives are one step towards tighter integration of the implementation of performance assessments. Such a network of PK-20 partnerships and associated supporters could intimately contribute to a context that gives rise to reflection about the relationships among curriculum, instruction, and assessment across the full spectrum of student learning. These parallel initiatives of the NH TCAP and PK-20 partnerships are also creating a safe space for embracing a more critical look at not only the benefits but the factors (ie. educator capacity, financial resources) potentially limiting the full realization of performance assessments Over the past decade, New Hampshire policy makers, teacher educators, and school partners have worked deliberately and thoughtfully to conceptualize a learning and assessment system that developed from and encourages the shared values of this community: strong local control where the voices from multiple engaged stakeholders are encouraged and considered. The process for the development of such performance assessments was slow at times because it was recognized by all Integrating performance assessments across a PK -20 continuum 5 that careful attention needed to be paid to the needs and identities of all members in the ecosystem. These conversations included deep attention to respective histories, shared and different values, as well as shared and divergent trajectories. Ultimately the critical component and binding thread for the New Hampshire context was the recognition of and commitment to the belief that the learning of New Hampshire’s PK-12 students is deeply tied to the preparation of its teachers. New Hampshire’s example extends Stosich and colleagues’ review of emerging PK-12 practices around performance assessment to teacher preparation demonstrating a cohesive and sustaining statewide effort in order to realize fully learning opportunities of these assessments for students and teachers. References Cochran-Smith, M., Stern, R., Sanchez, J., Miller, A., Keefe, E., Fernandez, M., . . . Baker, M. (2016). Holding Teacher Preparation Accountable: A Review of Claims and Evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/holding- teacher-preparation-accountable-a-review-of-claims-and-evidence Pecheone, R. L., & Chung, R. R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The performance assessment for California teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105284045 Reagan, E., Schram, T., McCurdy, K., Chang, T., & Evans, C. (2016). Politics of policy: Assessing the implementation, impact, and evolution of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) and edTPA. Education Policy Analysis Archives. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2176 Sahlberg, P. (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 45 – 61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9098-2 Stosich, E. L., Snyder, J. & Wilczak, K. (2018). How do states integrate performance assessments in their systems of assessment? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(13). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2906 http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2906 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 14 SPECIAL ISSUE 6 About the Authors Kathryn McCurdy University of New Hampshire kathryn.mccurdy@unh.edu Dr. Kathryn McCurdy is an Assistant Clinical Professor at the University of New Hampshire where she also serves as the Director of Field Placement for its Manchester campus. Prior to her doctoral work, Kathryn taught middle school mathematics in Boston where she also worked for years supporting and mentoring preservice and beginning teachers. Her research interests are novice teacher learning, mentoring and induction support structures and activities, teacher performance assessments, and continuing professional learning of veteran teachers. Kathryn holds a bachelor’s degree in Philosophy from the University of Kansas, a master’s degree from University of Michigan in Curriculum Development, and a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of New Hampshire. Emilie Mitescu Reagan University of New Hampshire emilie.reagan@unh.ecu Emilie Mitescu Reagan is an Assistant Professor of Assessment and Policy in the University of New Hampshire Department of Education. Emilie began her career in education as a fifth grade teacher in Philadelphia, PA. Her current research focuses on assessme nt of and accountability in teacher education using quantitative and mixed methods research. She has co-authored publications in the Journal of Education for Teaching, Education Policy and Analysis Archives, Teaching and Teacher Education, International Journal of Educational Research, and Teacher Education and Practice. Emilie is currently the Principal Investigator on a Spencer Foundation Grant and Co -Principal Investigator on the U.S. Department of Education funded Teacher Residency for Rural Education. Emilie holds a bachelor’s degree in Foreign Service from Georgetown University, a master’s degree in Elementary Education from St. Joseph’s University, and a Ph.D. in Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation from Boston College. Audrey Rogers Southern New Hampshire University a.rogers@snhu.edu Audrey Rogers is an Associate Professor in the School of Education at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester, NH. She teaches courses in educational techn ology, literacy, secondary methods, and history. She is a local and national presenter and has authored several Jackdaw Primary Source Kits, Cooperative Learning Basics, and numerous articles. Certified in social studies and as a technology integrator, she taught social studies at Nashua High School from 1989-2001. She was a founding member of NH READS - Reading Excellence across Disciplines and lead Scholar for the development of a web -based curriculum at the Fort at No. 4/Living History Museum. She directed a grant from the Education Commission of States on increasing civic engagement in New Hampshire. She received her B.A in History from Tufts University. She holds a Master's in History from the University of NH/Durham and a Master's in Education from the University of Massachusetts/Lowell. She holds an Ed.D. in Leadership and Learning from Rivier University. Her current research focuses on technology and cultural competence in educators. mailto:kathryn.mccurdy@unh.edu mailto:emilie.reagan@unh.ecu mailto:a.rogers@snhu.edu Integrating performance assessments across a PK -20 continuum 7 Thomas Schram University of New Hampshire tom.schram@unh.edu Tom Schram is Associate Professor and Director of the Division of Educator Preparation at the University of New Hampshire, where he coordinates master’s-level credentialing programs in teacher education, special education, early childhood education, and counseling. He is a founding member and Vice President of the New Hampshire IHE Network, a nonprofit consortium comprised of all the higher education educator preparation programs in the state. He has authored books on qualitative research design, served as a research consultant for the Teachers for a New Era (TNE) evidence team at Boston College, and was the lead qualitative researcher of a nationwide study on reform in mathematics education and the NCTM Standards. About the Guest Editors Elizabeth Leisy Stosich Fordham University estosich@fordham.edu Elizabeth Leisy Stosich is an Assistant Professor in Educational Leadership, Administration, and Policy at Fordham University. Previously, she was a Research and Policy Fellow at the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Her research interests include education policy, assessment and accountability, school and district leadership, school improvement, and teachers’ professional learning. Soung Bae Stanford University soungb@stanford.edu Soung Bae is a Senior Learning Specialist and UDL Innovation Studio Manager at the Schwab Learning Center at Stanford University. Formerly, she was a Senior Research and Policy Analyst at the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Her research interests focus on school accountability, student engagement, and designing learning environments that appreciate and support learner variability. Jon Snyder Stanford University jdsnyder@stanford.edu Jon Snyder is the Executive Director of the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE). His research interests include teacher learning, conditions that support teacher learning, and the relationships between teacher and student learning. mailto:tom.schram@unh.edu mailto:estosich@fordham.edu mailto:soungb@stanford.edu mailto:jdsnyder@stanford.edu Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 14 SPECIAL ISSUE 8 SPECIAL ISSUE Redesigning Assessment and Accountability education policy analysis archives Volume 26 Number 14 January 29, 2018 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for non- commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at Audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. http://www.doaj.org/ mailto:Audrey.beardsley@asu.edu https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE Integrating performance assessments across a PK -20 continuum 9 education policy analysis archives editorial board Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Scott Marley, Iveta Silova, Maria Teresa Tatto (Arizona State University) Cristina Alfaro San Diego State University Gene V Glass Arizona State University Susan L. Robertson Bristol University, UK Gary Anderson New York University Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz Gloria M. Rodriguez University of California, Davis Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville R. Anthony Rolle University of Houston Jeff Bale OISE, University of Toronto, Canada Eric M. Haas WestEd A. G. Rud Washington State University Aaron Bevanot SUNY Albany Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento Patricia Sánchez University of University of Texas, San Antonio David C. Berliner Arizona State University Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University of North Carolina Greensboro Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley Henry Braun Boston College Aimee Howley Ohio University Jack Schneider College of the Holy Cross Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Steve Klees University of Maryland Noah Sobe Loyola University Arnold Danzig San Jose State University Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Nelly P. Stromquist University of Maryland Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Jessica Nina Lester Indiana University Benjamin Superfine University of Illinois, Chicago Elizabeth H. DeBray University of Georgia Amanda E. Lewis University of Illinois, Chicago Adai Tefera Virginia Commonwealth University Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana University Tina Trujillo University of California, Berkeley John Diamond University of Wisconsin, Madison Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Federico R. Waitoller University of Illinois, Chicago Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker Institute Sarah Lubienski Indiana University Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Sherman Dorn Arizona State University William J. Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Michael J. Dumas University of California, Berkeley Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Kathy Escamilla University of Colorado, Boulder Julianne Moss Deakin University, Australia Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio John Willinsky Stanford University Rachael Gabriel University of Connecticut Eric Parsons University of Missouri-Columbia Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of South Florida Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina, Wilmington Amanda U. Potterton University of Kentucky Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 14 SPECIAL ISSUE 10 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Asociados: Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Jason Beech (Universidad de San Andrés), Ezequiel Gomez Caride (Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina), Antonio Luzon (Universidad de Granada), Angelica Buendia (Metropolitan Autonomous University), José Luis Ramírez (Universidad de Sonora) Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Juan Carlos González Faraco Universidad de Huelva, España Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México María Clemente Linuesa Universidad de Salamanca, España José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé Universitat de València, España Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Antonio Bolívar Boitia Universidad de Granada, España María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad de la Coruña, España José Joaquín Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile Miguel Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Ernesto Treviño Ronzón Universidad Veracruzana, México Gabriela de la Cruz Flores Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico (IDEP) Ernesto Treviño Villarreal Universidad Diego Portales Santiago, Chile Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Paula Razquin Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina Antoni Verger Planells Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, México javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/819') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/820') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/4276') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1609') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/825') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/797') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/555') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/823') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/798') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/814') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/2703') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/816') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/826') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/802') Integrating performance assessments across a PK -20 continuum 11 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Associados: Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes (Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina), Marcia Pletsch, Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) Almerindo Afonso Universidade do Minho Portugal Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil José Augusto Pacheco Universidade do Minho, Portugal Rosanna Maria Barros Sá Universidade do Algarve Portugal Regina Célia Linhares Hostins Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brasil Jane Paiva Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Maria Helena Bonilla Universidade Federal da Bahia Brasil Alfredo Macedo Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Brasil Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Alice Casimiro Lopes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Jader Janer Moreira Lopes Universidade Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona Portugal Suzana Feldens Schwertner Centro Universitário Univates Brasil Debora Nunes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil Lílian do Valle Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Flávia Miller Naethe Motta Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Alda Junqueira Marin Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brasil Alfredo Veiga-Neto Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Dalila Andrade Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil