W ashington state has embarked on a three-year project to create an ongoing assessment system that encourages the use of performance-based assessment tasks and is aligned with the Equipped for the Future (EFF) initiative.

Well into the second year of our effort to create an ongoing assessment system, the challenges involved in creating and using a system at the same time are coming into focus. Washington state Basic Skills Programs Administrator, Brian Kanes, defines the issue in this way: "We're developing while we're doing and we're trying to use the medium of assessment to promote a totally different basic skills `culture.'" Among those issues are:

• How will teachers be convinced to convert their experience and knowledge to a system that better serves students, but relies heavily on the concept of teachers as partners in learning?
• How will the new system continue the alignment we want to have with EFF and at the same time retain its own integrity?
• How will it accommodate the alignment we need with the National Reporting System (NRS) in light of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and performance funding?
• How can the emerging system withstand the pressures of being created very quickly and very publicly with every potential flaw or inconsistency in each draft coming under scrutiny.
• How should feedback be incorporated or addressed and by whom?

The emerging assessment system will rely on the use of performance tasks scored by holistic rubrics to demonstrate progress, making it possible for instructors to more closely align assessment and instruction. Washington state's adoption of EFF as the primary framework for curriculum, instruc-tion, and assessment intends for instruction to be based "on the application of skills in real-life contexts which are meaningful to the learners." One hoped-for result would be the flexibility to allow for regional, programmatic, and indi-vidual differences by using the state competencies and assessment to guide instruction, and more closely align instruction and assessment with learner goals. The use of holistic rubrics to assess level pro-gression will not replace ongoing classroom assessment used to gauge effectiveness of instruction and learner mastery of individual competencies. Teachers will be encouraged to continue using the analytic rubrics to help guide planning and instruction.

Our clarity about the system and the process for developing it is greater now than when we began over a year ago. Like most states, Washington found itself scrambling to put an assessment system in place to comply with accountability aspects of WIA. In January 1999, a group of experienced basic skills practitioners met with state administrators to design a process by which to build a "toolbox" of assessment strategies that identi-fies level progression and meets WIA's requirements.

While the system now under construction in Washington was not the result of a "grassroots" movement, both the product and the process were inspired by that first group of practitioners, and refined by subsequent work groups. The initial attempt in April 1999 to create rubrics for ABE and ESL writing was complicated, then stalled, when members of the work group concluded that the competencies needed revision before they could begin creating rubrics. The process of creating rubrics had revealed that the competencies weren't leveled equally and would not provide a sound basis from which to create rubrics. This realization led to a more intentional and time-consuming process last year of revision and creation resulting in the foundation of our performance-based assessment system. The competencies were made more consistent in magnitude and aligned with the six levels defined by the US Department of Education. Then the corresponding holistic rubrics were created to assess level progress or completion.

During that first year of the "official" three-year process, 81 basic skills practitioners from 44 programs across the state met to revise the state's basic skills competencies and create content area rubrics that will be used to reflect level completion. Their mission was successful, but thorny issues are inevitable in a project of this scope and importance. Washington's adoption of EFF as a primary framework provokes the need for clarification about what EFF looks like in Washington.

Teacher work groups this year will define quality criteria by which performance tasks will be guided; they will identify the components of performance tasks and create samples to be used as models; they will act as ambassadors for the system by training their program colleagues; and they will try using the rubrics with scoring tasks. By June 30, 2001, Washington will have quality criteria by which to assess performance tasks, a set of sample tasks that meet the quality criteria, as well as rubrics and competencies that have been piloted in programs statewide. Training in effective use of performance tasks to inform instruction, and use of the rubrics to measure progress will continue as the system develops.

Very little of consequence happens in Washington without consensus-building, and that is certainly true of the ongoing assess-ment project. Clearly, the system benefits from broad participation in the implementation of its vision through "buy-in" from the field. Washington's adult basic skills teachers are pragmatic, visionary, hard-headed, and smart. Their willingness to share their experience and knowledge is crucial to the success of the project. Only practitioners are able to "contextualize" the system by sharing what they know about their students' lives, hopes, fears. The state can only build a base broad enough to support the emerging system by asking teacher to participate in ever-widening circles.

In return, the obvious value for teachers lies in a very real sense of ownership and professional rec-ognition. There are rich opportunities for both direct and indirect professional development opportunities. Considering that virtually all participants in the development of this system are being asked to volunteer their expertise, the state promises that teachers will use and develop tremendous creative thinking, problem-solving and negotiation skills. In addition, participants must use all their leadership skills to share the system vision and concepts with their colleagues. They become "insiders;" they are being asked to lead, facilitate, and negotiate as they seek collaboration in the research necessary to complete the project. It's a lot to ask.

When it seems like the state is asking "too much," it helps to remember that the vision driving the system puts learners where they belong-squarely at the center of both instruction and assessment.

Cynthia Gaede is a Training Coordinator for the Adult Basic Literacy Educators Network of Washington charged with coordinating Washington's adult basic skills ongoing assessment project. She can be reached by e-mail at cgaede@sccd.ctc.edu

The basic skills competencies and rubrics are available on the Web at www.sbctc.ctc.edu/Board/Educ/ABE/assess.htm